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 ...
Go read the opinion carefully, which I did. You cannot use deadly force against a FLEEING felon. How on earth can you show danger to your life from someone who is unarmed and running away from you.
'Reasonable' in the eyes of the jury. Not "reasonable" in the mind of the posters here, George Zimmerman, Bacrock Obama, or Jesse Jackson.
whodat.org is a true believer, first and foremost. And what he believes is that Zimmerman deserves to be seriously punished. That's the end of the story with him. All he cares about beyond that is looking good.
Plus he was going to school.
Ted Bundy was a very nice looking guy and I bet he was a precious kid.
Didn’t make him less of a psychotic killer though.
I meant post #406 of course, Post Toasties. I hope you understood that. NOT your post.
He went looking for trouble...
Actually, I can (against an unarmed felon), in certain circumstances; but your contention was that the police could not. The case you cited does not say that. It gives the conditions when the police MAY use deadly force against an unarmed fleeing felon. The conditions are NOT limited to situations where the police feel they are in imminent risk.
Anyway, none of that is relevant to the situation being discussed in the case. I was just remarking about your credibility, in light of your false assertions (and now, moving goalposts, etc.)
You're quoting MARTIN'S GIRLFRIEND? LOL, and how exactly have you determined that she isn't lying? And what about Zimmerman merely hanging up and walking back to his car while Martin stalked him and beat him until his phone went dead along with HIM for attacking Zimmerman? You make things up out of the whole cloth!
Zimmerman wasn't protected under any law but pure-self defense, because he was being beaten to death. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up irrelevent quotes about inapplicable laws, as you try to confuse the issue.
And as for claiming to be a Marine, try YOUR post #75 in THIS THREAD, LIAR, where YOU wrote:
Ever play football, I have knock down many people much bigger than me, and one minute I would be on top and the next I would be on the bottom. But then as an exmarine, I know you were joking.
75 posted on March 25, 2012 1:31:38 PM PDT by org.whodat
'Reasonable' in the eyes of the jury. Not "reasonable" in the mind of...George Zimmerman...
I can't get that corroborating witness out of my mind. You?
I think the whole thing is reprehensible. Both sides were in the wrong to some extent, no doubt. But throwing gasoline on the situation after the fact (as some want to do to gain personal advantage, not anybody here at FR) is only going to create new wounds and more damage.
I started out thinking like you, but when I heard more, I suspended many of my judgments.
Fool, the guy I was replying to is the former marine. Damn you cannot read.
Zimmerman noticed potential trouble and called it into the police.
Then he was attacked by Martin, who tried to beat him to death.
And you know it.
I suggest everyone hold judgement til the facts are in and a trial is commenced.
Tragic, just tragic.
FLORIDA STATUTE 709.113 - Looking for Trouble -
(1) Whoever looks for trouble in this state shall be guilty of a capitol offense, and shall be summarily convicted by dmzTahoe and the MSM (as codified in the MSNBC Operating Manual).
Wow. I guess you're on to something.
I suggest everyone hold judgement til the facts are in and a trial is commenced.
Your hypocrisy is tawdry in it's obviousness.
Your protection of a thug who was killed trying to beat an innocent person to death is revolting.
Your attempts to start a race war based on hateful lies is evil.
After he got out of his car and followed the kid, against the response from the 911 dispatcher. He went looking for trouble, and he found it.
I do not reply to idiots,
If he was returning to his car and was jumped by the deceased, then there is no doubt Mr. Zimmerman was well within his rights to defend himself the way he did. Period.
If no proof can be obtained that Mr. Zimmerman instigated the attack upon himself, he should have nothing to worry about aside from a vindictive government bent upon incarcerating him to appease those squealing for “justice”.
Believe me, I understand what you're saying, but no indications have been presented, at this point, that Mr. Zimmerman actually instigated the attack upon himself.
How about I speculate some like so many have on this board.
Perhaps his girlfriend goaded him into attacking Mr. Zimmerman whilst they were talking on the phone... It certainly wouldn't be any more implausible than the scenarios I've seen from many on this forum already convicting Mr. Zimmerman of Murder or Manslaughter.
Again: What stuff am I making up? Be specific.
And Martin's estate, if it was able to sue under FL law, would not get to self-define "reasonable" for Martin's actions (punching Zimmerman) either.
Didn’t say he was guilty, sport. Just said he was looking for trouble.
“What was he the cleaning boy, he had liens against him from Capitol one in 2008, when he was fired and /or walked off his job at karmax. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017819414.html “
It doesn’t make what you posted not a lie. Nice try at deflection.
He got out of his car to keep an eye on a 6'3" football-player muscular young man, while specifically NOT being a hero or wannabe-cop by calling in his situation to he police, and then following their suggestion (NOT any command) that further visual observation was unnecessary and walking back to his car.
Martin, however, ran away and then, on his own and unprovoked, circled back around and jumped Zimmerman and tried to beat him into severe injury or death, and was shot dead for his efforts.
So it is clear that it is Martin who, in fact, went looking for trouble and found it.
What is happening now to Zimmerman is due to people like you and Obama, who are inciting race war and judgement against all the known facts and the police report, without trial, in obvious racial prejudice against Zimmerman, as complete hypocrites, thereby endangering Zimmerman's life.
In other words, you're a liberal, and like all liberals, you believe anyone who disagrees with your agenda has "chosen death."
You don't reply at all - you read scripts, and then go home at the end of your shift.
No one’s moving goalposts here. Before you go running around questioning people’s credibility, you need to be informed or better yet spend some serious time reading relevant case law or have someone explain it to you. The whole point of my post was that unless one believes he is in danger of life or limb, the use of deadly force is unconstitutional when used by police, and subjects private individuals to wrongful death action. The Garner case illustrates this very well. When someone is FLEEING from you its an oxymoron to say that you are in danger of life or limb. This is not only elementary law, it is axiomatic fact.
Then what's it got to do with anything?
No deflection, it was the report I read and the one I still believe.
How close was he 'following someone?' You can speak from a distance. If you - a stranger - are following me after I try to avoid you and get you up to close contact distance (ie reach) with clear notice that you are not to do that, I'm assuming you have bad intentions and will act accordingly. I'm not waiting for you to hit me.
And I thought last you said Zimmerman callled from IN his car. (And of course, it was nothing like the other 40+ plus calls he made to 911 ranging from barking dogs to open garage doors).
Now you say he was already out and following him.
And, you must have inside knowledge... tell us, Monk, what route did he take to circle around and jump him... surely you can draw a map.
And beat him to severe injury or death??? Well, if Martin was the big, strong brute you claim, Zimmerman would have been beaten senseless in 4-5 punches. Zimmerman would not have been able to scream as loud or long as a witness stated.
For all we know, Zimmerman had his gun drawn well searching for Martin
So why not cool down and wait?
And, when all else fails, call someone a liberal.
Well, which, between "the police may not kill an unarmed fleeing felon," and "you may not kill a fleeing felon," and "the police may only kill a fleeing felon if the fleeing felon poses a risk to the police" do you want to discuss?
-- you need to be informed or better yet spend some serious time reading relevant case law or have someone explain it to you. --
I've accused you of being careless. Here is what the Garner case says:
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
Notice too, this is a reference to a suspect, not necessarily a known felon, and the threshold is probable cause.
-- When someone is FLEEING from you its an oxymoron to say that you are in danger of life or limb. This is not only elementary law, it is axiomatic fact. --
You are misrepresenting the Garner case. Others can read it and judge your credibility for themselves, but I think you've hosed your credibility with your own words.
I can't believe the people HERE that are displaying the lynch-mob mentality of condemning a man of MURDER before they know any damning facts or before the man has been able to SPEAK for himself.
It's a sorry, backwards-thinking society that we live in today...and it's SCARY.
I see zombies....
This guy was a loose cannon. You gotta know your limits. He didn’t, refused to wait and went looking for trouble. Doesn’t mean he did or didn’t shoot in self defense. just means he could have/should have avoided the outcome.
Cereal, baby, lemme tell ya from experience in a big city. A young man being followed by someone who is of male persuasion is likely to be followed by a queer, as I have been multiple times (my mother made a pretty boy, not my fault) in my distant youth and even in middle age. I punched one out, but others, following old advice, I didn’t lead to my house, which is what I suspect Martin was trying to do. One fag did find a way to my apartment once, and then spent months scowling under the window, I kid you not. I never called 911.
My theory is that Martin thought he was being followed by a fag, and decided to teach him a lesson, which would earn him street cred points. Young black males are particularly sensitive and prejudiced against homosexuals, which we on this forum and elsewhere kindly and stupidly refer to as being ‘gay’.
I also don't give a rat's butt what Doctor what's his face thinks.
And trouble found him and he took care of it. Fair enough?
In all instances it was a reference to a FLEEING felon. First read the whole case and then you’d understand my point instead of plucking quotes and breezily accusing people of carelessness and hosing their credibility. This kind of rhetoric is something that can be easily tossed around just as one can empty that credibility pail on your self after throwing out a statutory provision that was not in point. The touchstone for the use of deadly force is (and this from your own quote): “there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.” Emphatically, that was not the scenario I was referring to. But having dug a hole, you are now trying to twist things around and shoehorn scenarios to accommodate a FLEEING felon or suspect and one who actually has threatened serious imminent harm or someone who is armed and dangerous as a means of justifying credibility for your assertions.
Yeah, walking down the sidewalk at 6:30PM carrying a bag of Skittles and a soda can is big trouble. Zimmerman went looking for trouble... and was eager to find it (manufacture it).
From the very article you cited:
“It’s unclear how Zimmerman was employed when he encountered Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26.”
That’s quite a bit different from the lie you posted that he was unemployed. It was unclear to the reporter. That doesn’t mean he was unemployed. I’d really love to see you get the zot for the twists, lies, diflections, etc. you done on this thread. Is the pay good?
Hot off the press.
Looks like the angel baby was suspended for assaulting a bus driver.
I’ve been followed by a couple fags in my younger college days. All I wanted to do was get away from them. Never thought of ‘punishing’ them for their sexual orientation. Thanks for the input. I think the whole thing is very unfortunate.
“Zimmerman went looking for trouble... and was eager to find it (manufacture it).”
If Zimmerman was looking for trouble why call the police? Why not just pull up alongside Martin, and confront him?
I have a hard time imagining somebody who could take me down except by surprise, but if he did and I had a gun, I’d probably use it, especially if my nose was broken. And so would you. Do you deny that?
All part of playing "cop"... calling in a "crime" to dispatch... just like his other 40 plus times.
The question is whether or not Zimmerman acted as a reasonable man would act. If the state has probable cause that he did not, they will charge him, and a jury will make the ultimate decision.
If Martin knew the cops were coming and he was continuing to whale on Zimmerman anyway, wouldn’t that sort of show he was temporarily insane?
I'd just do the right and human and fun thing and...just eat and share my yummy snacks.