Posted on 07/11/2013 8:53:01 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Unbelievable flip-flop. Benjamin Crump, the lawyer for the Martin family, was on CNN's Piers Morgan Live last night.
When asked about the state's concession today that Trayvon Martin was probably on top of George Zimmerman during the struggle that ended in Martin's death, and how that impacts his and his clients' insistence that Martin was the one who was crying out for help, Crump said who screamed doesn't matter.
"The cries for help, all of that is inconsequential when you think about who started this."
Inconsequential? (Start at the 3 minute mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f9RnHIe0i2g
Then, in explaining his aggressor theory, he makes a claim that is wholly unsupported by the state's evidence at trial: "Zimmerman gets out of the car and chases Martin." Not a single witness testified Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin. Not a single witness identified anyone chasing Martin, let alone Zimmerman chasing him.
Piers Morgan then brought out a female CNN reporter (I didn't catch her name.) She said she was in the courtroom today. Maybe she's new to covering this case, and I don't expect show anchors like Piers Morgan to know the facts of any one case they report on, but they both seemed to me to be completely off-base in their comments about defense witness Olivia Bertalan. The reporter actually claimed Mark O'Mara may have taken too big a risk by calling the witness because the witness introduced the race issue by volunteering in her answers to his questions that the two suspects who robbed her home on August 3, 2011 were African American males. She thought O'Mara wasn't anticipating her answer, and it was a move that may backfire on O'Mara.
Obviously, neither of them attended or watched the trial on June 25 or June 26. Here is the video of the June 25 trial segment where the state argued it should be allowed to introduce 5 of Zimmerman's prior calls to non-emergency because they were evidence of his state of mind. To make its position clearer to the court, the argued the calls were evidence of Zimmerman playing cop, profiling young males because he found them suspicious and for "other reasons" and reporting them to police, saying they got away.
Two of the calls pertained to the August 3 burglary at Olivia Bertalan's house. The calls were then played for the Judge, outside the presence of the jury. The judge sided with the state. Here is the video of the calls being played for the jury on June 26 during the testimony of Ramona Rumph, the records custodian for the Seminole County Emergency Communications Department.......
It doesn’t matter now because the evidence shows it was Zimmerman. Right, Crumpette?
I hear a lot from libs about “who started it?” When I was a kid, my parents said: “I don’t care who started it. Just end it.” Is there a law that says someone who “starts” a fight needs to allow himself to be killed? Color me confused!
Well, Benny, your statement screams that it was Georgie screaming then. And yes, that matters.
This: Zimmerman is a white Latino. Martin is an innocent black juvenile. Zero needs community unrest.
“What difference does it make!?”
Where have we heard that before....
Dear Lord, please, guide and strengthen us.
Tatt
Where’s the obligatory picture of Hillary Clinton saying it doesn’t matter?
Who screamed doesn’t matter - well, there goes the testimony of St. Skittles’ mom and dad - their lawyer is being foolish and in an act of desperation, goes on a lib talking head show and screws the pooch.
They are desperate. Including the Judge who is so deep in the tank for the prosecution it isn’t funny. She essentially ruled this morning that the Jury could consider any charge including Child Abuse against Zimmerman. They are so desperate at this point they are just throwing everything against the wall with the desperate hope that something...anything!...sticks.
Benjamin Chump is the KKK with government help. You can’t argue with a fool who has his mind made up. They see and hear only what they want. The left case starting with the Racist Angle falsely pushed by the MSM and has gone down hill from there.
Since when is legally walking behind someone “starting it”? If you feel harassed or threatened, call the cops, go home, call the guy an a-hole, etc. Starting it is when you break his nose, pin him down and beat him while preventing his retreat as he calls for help.
I’d like to think this whole evil farce would cause the Latino to cease voting for Democrats.
Well,I can wish,can’t I?
Of course it does.He knows it.He ain’t stupid....but he is utterly amoral.
It seems that we are being lead down the Yellow Brick Road, getting closer the the man behind the curtain is a naked liar..
Mr. Crumby is admitting that Saint Martin’s parents are lying under oath.. Color me shocked.. NOT.. :)
To quote another beloved prog: “What difference at this point does it matter?”
And at that point, George was not following Martin...George didn't know which way Martin went...In fact, Martin turned right and George went to towards the light at the end of the path to see if he could see a street name or house number...
And then George was walking back to his truck when he got attacked...
Yes there is. In most states the law is that one cannot claim self defense if they initiated the combat.
OK. Thanks.
Geez, Crump you were proved wrong.
“And at that point, George was not following Martin...George didn’t know which way Martin went...In fact, Martin turned right and George went to towards the light at the end of the path to see if he could see a street name or house number...”
Yes, however the initial “following” is considered provocation for the attack. The fact that he was attacked after he supposedly stopped following Martin reinforces that Martin ws the aggressor.
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.