Posted on 03/25/2012 12:30:48 PM PDT by Steelfish
Witness: Zimmerman 'Never ... Tried To Help' Trayvon Martin
By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and news services
A woman who says she and her roommate witnessed the final moments of Trayvon Martin's life told Dateline NBC that George Zimmerman had "his hands pressed on his back" and "never turned him over or tried to help him."
Zimmerman's lawyer, when shown part of the interview being aired Sunday night on Dateline, emphasized that his client would be claiming self-defense.
"I think there were efforts made to render aid to Trayvon," Craig Sonner told NBC's TODAY show.
Mary Cutcher told Dateline that she and her roommate both saw Zimmerman "straddling the body, basically a foot on both sides of Trayvon's body, and his hands pressed on his back."
Cutcher added that Zimmerman told her and her roommate to call the police. "Zimmerman never turned him over or tried to help him or CPR or anything," Cutcher said.
Sonner also reiterated what he had said in recent days, that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and a gash to the back of his head.
A friend of Zimmerman's who appeared on TODAY with Sonner added that Zimmerman, 28, was distraught over the teen's death.
"Right after the shooting he couldn't stop crying," said Joe Oliver, who is African American and a former TV reporetr and anchor in Orlando.
Zimmerman has not been charged in the Feb. 26 shooting that has ignited racial tensions and raised questions about the Sanford police's handling of the case. Martin was black, and Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Hispanic.
In a separate interview Sunday, Oliver said that "I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of color.''
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.msnbc.msn.com ...
There is no evidence that he ever “chased”. On the police provided 911 tape which continued for a couple of minutes after the “we don’t need you to do that” statement, he said “OK” and gave his cell phone number to the dispatcher so that the police could call him when they got there and he could tell them where he would be in his truck.
I must be really off my game today. I quoted the law above. What language in that law proves what those individuals said?
I am sure if they think anyone has trouble understanding it that they will change it shortly.
And they should, if they've found that the law doesn't address something it should address. But Constitutionally, you can't prosecute somebody ex post facto under a criminal law. In other words, you can't make something illegal after somebody does it, and then prosecute them. It's unconstitutional. If they messed up by not making the statute clear when they wrote it, and they left a hole in it that Zimmerman walks through, they it's the fault of the legislators. But they're not allowed to change the law now and apply it to Zimmerman back then. Not on a criminal prosecution.
Will that make you happy.
My happiness doesn't have anything to do with it. But if you ask, the killing of Travon Martin doesn't make me happy. The rewriting of Florida law after the fact to prosecute Zimmerman doesn't make me happy. When bad things happen and they can't be prosecuted because legislators messed up, doesn't make me happy. This is the first time I've had to focus on Stand Your Ground laws. It makes me a little queasy to think you can kill somebody just because you think they're going to seriously injure you, particularly if you may have precipitated the incident after the police told you not to do so. But the law's the law. The Florida statute clearly says that Zimmerman had the right to do so under Florida law. If you're going to change it, you change it prospectively, not retrospectively. It may not sound good to you, but I like the idea that in principle the government can't make what I've done illegal after the fact.
No friend, you ask when does public opinion have anything to do with the law, I answered your question.
You might want to look up what due process IS before making a statement like that. Time to buy a clue.
Reminds me of Kitty Genovese.
We don’t have all the facts, and probably never will have them. Based upon what scant evidence we DO have, I believe that someone pounding another man in the face, while the victim is on the ground, makes it hard to prosecute the bloodied victim.
Here is something else.....the cops were not blind to the fact that the dead guy was black. They must have been pretty sure about the evidence, or Zimmerman would have been arrested.
I know, and my post #155 spells out my “feelings” on this subject.
Yep. I’d hit it, but she’s definitely got that rattish look.
Why would anyone wear a hot hoodie on a hot night in mid-Florida?
Me either, the law in CT has no such aggressor clause that I'm aware of. But I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that defense in front of a jury. I know I would be looking askance at that one if I were on the jury. Of course I've never been selected for jury duty, always being summarily dismissed by the defense for some odd reason. I think I fit the profile of the white male clinging to his guns and religion. What they don't seem to understand is that I also cling to the odd notion that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The man who wrote the law, and two governors and many elected representative say you are wrong. Take it up with them.
What a peculiar bunch these lynch mobbers are.
Good for you. Most people these days will continue to defend a mistake instead of just admitting they were wrong. I always think more of people who are willing to admit a mistake than those who just get angry. And of course I don’t think much of those who dance around and jeer at those who admit they were wrong and try to belittle them. That’s pointless and immature.
In fairness I see some Santorum supporters are looking at the evidence, and concluding that Zimmerman was simply defending himself.
What is "public opinion" and what is "the law?"
Right. The water has been sufficiently muddied now, and will allow people to make all kinds of assertions without proof, including assertions that are deliberately intended to confuse things.. It is a disgrace.
“Man, he admits he is chasing the kid on the 911 call and the kids girl friend hear him before the kids phone went dead. Maybe you can tell me what law gave him, zimmerman, authorization to chase the kid. Other than that take it up with the man that wrote the stand your ground law. You may have went to a better law school than he.”
Punctuation, grammar, capitalization, conjugation, and logic seem to be in short supply. We see through you. Move along, troll.
She is attractive, but it was her demeanor that gave me misgivings.
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.