Posted on 05/25/2012 6:12:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Things have spun out of control in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case in Sanford, Fla. (“Zimmerman’s account of killing corroborated,” Web, Thursday).
The police were instantly and unfairly blasted for failing to arrest Mr. Zimmerman, the Sanford police chief stepped down when he shouldn’t have, Mr. Zimmerman was already fingered as the guilty party before a thorough and fair investigation was completed, civil rights leaders descended upon the town pointing accusatory fingers, and a bounty was placed on Mr. Zimmerman’s head. In addition, media outlets and talking heads put their own spin on the story.
The case has now devolved into a turf battle of tense race relations. Parties are jumping to conclusions that are not based on facts or evidence but instead on the preponderance of divergent public opinion.
Undoubtedly it is a tragedy that this episode occurred at all and resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin. However, in light of new facts based on an autopsy of the deceased, photos of Mr. Zimmerman coupled with a paramedic’s report, additional witness reports and other information, the determination of who the bona fide victim was may, in time, demonstrate that Trayvon Martin was not the completely innocent party some might have hoped.
Certainly Mr. Zimmerman made a tremendous mistake in not obeying the dispatcher’s orders to remain in his vehicle until police arrived. What followed that instruction, however, is where the case presently stands.
Like everyone else in this country and under the tenets of the Constitution and the laws of the land, Mr. Zimmerman remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I'd expect better from the Washington Times.
I believe it was a suggestion and not orders in any case.
My information was that dispatcher said something like “you don’t have to do that”. Regardless of my recollection, I read the transcript and have not been able to find these so-called orders.
I don’t have the exact words in front of me, but from memory I recall the dispatcher saying ‘you don’t need to do that’ when Zimmerman affirmed he was following Martin. There was no order. The idea that he was ordered to stay in his car by the dispatcher is as far as I know a media trope. After the dispatcher told him he did not have to follow Martin, Zimmerman replied ‘ok’.. that can be clearly heard by my memory. Or should I revisit the transcript because this drumbeat about being ‘ordered by a dispatcher’ to remain in his vehicle is repeated over and over again in the press and I just didn’t see that in the transcript.
That's the problem.
Why? That is the big question.
We have been saturated with traitors as far as 'truth in news' goes. They want to give their 'expert' opinions and to hell with the lawful procedures. They want to convict someone and they think their 'news' will make them #1. What a laugh. Sickos!
IIRC, he wasn’t in his truck when he called, he was on his way to his trunk when the thug came from behind and sucker-punched him and he fell and then the thug jumped on him beating his head into the ground telling him he is going to die tonight.
Also there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that Zimmerman followed Martin after the dispatcher request. It is all supposition, because there are no witnesses of who approached who.
I don’t think the dispatcher ever told him to remain in his vehicle. When he was told he didn’t need to follow him, Zimmerman was already out of the vehicle. At that point he said “OK” and was headed back to his vehicle.
” um, we don’t need you to do that” I think were the exact words.
I’m glad a faithful representation of the two has finally been posted.
LOL
Exactly! A pix is worth.... and you said 2000!
Actually he had already been following Martin who he had reported had disappeared between the buildings. After he replied ‘ok’ is when he started back to his vehicle. Those seconds afterward (about 80 of them) aren’t taped.
If he is convicted, I pray there is civil unrest. Likely, either way it goes, there will be problems.
You would hope she would know better than to repeat the great lie the press has formulated. When the disp[atcher suggested that the police didn’t need George ‘to do that’ —follow Treytable— he was already in the act of doing that, not sitting in his ‘car’. We’ve had dolts trying to make that same spin right here on FR threads.
Certainly Mr. Zimmerman made a tremendous mistake in not obeying the dispatcher’s orders to remain in his vehicle until police arrived. What followed that instruction, however, is where the case presently stands.
Is the above true as stated or is the truth somewhere else? I wish the writer of this article would verify what actually happened and was said during the above so called orders before making a statement of fact.
I think Zimmerman was already out of the vehicle and following Martin when he was asked if he was following. He replied in the affirmative and was told that they preferred him not to follow or something to that effect. At which time he stopped following and began his return to the vehicle. The attack then occurred.
If this is what happened then the assertion he disobeyed is a falsehood that needs to be correct. I’m sure at trial we’ll hear testimony of the occurrence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.