Skip to comments.Witness: Zimmerman 'Never ... Tried To Help' Trayvon Martin
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 ...
“It also takes a very big person to back down from public pronouncement.”
I’m backing down from one right now. It was my understanding that you could lose your right to claim self defense if you started the fight, no matter what. I believe the law is that way where I’m from.
The actual statute in Florida, quoted earlier in the thread, indicates that if you start a confrontation, then try to back out but the other party doesn’t stop, you can claim self defense.
I didn’t know that.
My entire life.
So, by your logic, the Dred Scott decision should be "settled law?"
The altercation started five minutes before the shooting, when the kids phone went dead. You are trying to say that what happened before the on the ground shooting has nothing to do with the shooting. If you do not mind me saying so, that is as silly as hell.
I agree - we don’t know yet if a crime was committed.
I wish the Spike Lees, the Sarptons, Jacksons, and Obamas of this country would shut their traps while this gets sorted out. Too much to ask... they only do that when the perceived victim is white.
I wonder if this will get Rush out of the rat hot seat?
This is the part that bothers me as well. Zimmerman is on the ground screaming for help getting his face bashed in and not one neighbor goes to help. Had they come to Zimmerman's aid Martin would still be alive in all likelihood.
You might as well save your breath. Whodat.org and Alice in Wonderland were all over these threads yesterday. They’ve done nothing but stir the pot. They won’t listen to any facts and have made up their minds that Zimmerman is guilty regardless what anything might show. They aren’t willing to wait for a more thorough investigation to be completed. They aren’t interesting in critical thinking, only emotion. It doesn’t matter what rights a person has under the law, or whether the right laws are being applied. I think they’d be happier at DU. There comes a point for me when I remember proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Will do, FRiend!
I think that this year will demand an ever more active FR than ever!
Time to reinvigorate.
No, I am not a lawyer.
But if I open my car door to talk to a strange person frequenting my crime-ridden neighborhood, and that person takes off in full flight, I will follow that person to see where he goes.
I would fully do that if it were my neighborhood, and it was Zimmerman’s neighborhood.
Did Zimmerman hit or assault Martin before Martin turned and ran?
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.
We lived on 34th road in Flushing until 1961.
” This is the part that bothers me as well. Zimmerman is on the ground screaming for help getting his face bashed in and not one neighbor goes to help. Had they come to Zimmerman’s aid Martin would still be alive in all likelihood. “
Yep....too bad nobody came to help.
I think that principle is universal. The law recognizes tables turning, and what amounts to "surrender," at least in the physical sense.
But, the person who starts a fight really is at a serious disadvantage, in that they commit a tort and/or crime in the first place; and the other person has a right to counter force with force.
Here the evidence has Zimmerman overwhelmed by superior force, and yelling for help for a good 10-20 seconds. He has no history of starting physical violence, and as others have pointed out, people who carry are generally the least likely to initiate use of physical violence.
Define a “non-deadly” attack.
Any physical attack must be considered potentially deadly. If someone is willing to physically harm you, they are able to kill you in that attack.
If the reports of the punk attacking the shooter first are accurate, the punk got what he deserved. End of story. You roll your dice, you take your chances. If the kid didn’t attack first and Mr. Zimmerman was not harmed before shooting, then he’s committed murder. The evidence however suggests that he was attacked.
If the prosecutor tries the non deadly attack angle, he’s going to have his @ss handed to him in the court room.
Sorry but that kid picked the wrong target to hit. He paid for his mistake with his life. Get over it and move on.
Silly me I thought typing on a droid was accepted here.
There is a previous call to the police, similiar situation..suspicious individual...
Zimmerman says he does not want to approach the individual.
6 previous calls were available here...
...but I can't seem to access them any longer.
Searching elsewhere but so far without luck.
The dispather said that they didn't need Zimmerman to follow the suspicious stranger and I've seen nothing other than speculation to suggest that he did anything other than to cease following him.
If you have a valid link, to something other than someone's biased opinion, I'll be glad to check it out and revise if necessary.
Ahhh, so it's a political court you'd place Zimmerman before, not a court of judge and jury, or of law. You'd have him face politicians to determine his fate.
I've read about these courts in the history books.
That's certainly true.
Do you have any particular situation in mind to which that assertion is relevant?
From what I heard it sounded as though Zimmerman was following him despite being advised not to. But of course I could be wrong. One side of the tape hardly tells the whole story. But I also got the idea that the whole thing probably was avoidable.
We shall see.
Santorum is pandering to the emotional female vote and it is a transparent ploy that is readily visible to anyone paying attention. It only underscores the pitiful choices we have been presented with this election cycle, IMO.
Because they know that disrupting a brother who is administering a beatdown is often "cause" to become a future target. The social contract is broken.
I’ve read about these courts in the history books.
The trials usually end with firing squads.
OK Dumbass. I’ve tried to be polite here.
Let me break out the Crayolas so even you will understand it.
Is every law passed by “public opinion” as the deciding factor lawful?
Case 1) Dred Scott decision.
Case 2) the Kelo decision.
Case 3) ObaMao care (individual insurance mandate decision).
Take your time in answering, make sure your answers are correct and don’t dare insult me like that again.
“Silly me I thought typing on a droid was accepted here.”
It certainly is and you’re within your right to make a post with the errors I cited. It’s within my right to call you out on all of them. Many of us prefer not to post blatant errors publicly that make us look uneducated, but it’s your right. Go for it. It does, however, make your arguments much weaker if you appear uneducated.
What are you talking about, do you know what a discussion forum is??, and the rules here prevent the personal BS. And your opinion of what is and what is not, is your opinion.
Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
Subdued? Who was subdued and when did the deadly force occur after that?
I guess only YOU could twist the fact that Martin had Zimmerman on his back and beating on him as being "subdued".........
Kinda like Custer saying "don't worry men, we have them right where we want them"........
Well, you've reached that uneasy position out of error. A couple of points - what the dispatcher said Zimmerman "need not do" was pursue Martin. Generally, this is to protect the peace, and BOTH parties. IOW, the advice is just as much intended to protect the good intentioned person, as it is to enable some sort of imagined "police monopoly" on the use of force.
That said, you, Zimmerman, and even Martin are free to follow, contact, and speak to strangers. What none of is allowed to do is initiate unwelcome contact, be it a kiss, hug, or blow. Once you start the use of unwelcome contact, you are on the wrong side of the civil law, for sure, and likely on the wrong side of criminal law too. And if the person you are touching reasonably perceives a threat, they can use force to get you to stop.
The statute is pretty clear. You picked out one section of it, but there is a whole chapter there. I blockquoted a chunk of your link back at you, to show that the law does, in fact, account against the person who started it.