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 ...
You have absolutely NO proof that Zimmerman started the fight!
You THINK he started the fight, but neither you, and apparently the police, have any PROOF!
That is the major problem with this situation -and TOO MUCH SPECULATION! We know he followed Martin and we know he said he lost site of Martin. If the MSM is to be believed, then a 140 pound kid somehow knocked down and got on top of a 200+ pound MAN who was actively stalking him. Can you explain THAT?
Heck, I don't even care what the truth is anymore. I really don't.
This isn't about Zimmerman.
It isn't about Trayvon Martin.
It isn't about Stand Your Ground.
It isn't about the Sanford, Florida police dept.
This has become how White People are bad, and Black People are victims, and we have an evil, racist society, and we must re-elect Barack Obama, so that he can raise our taxes and take away our freedoms and finish his destruction of what the Founders gave to us.
I won't play that game anymore.
Blacks are shot by blacks every damn day, and precious few people care about that. Why should the death of Trayvon Martin be national news for weeks and weeks? It's not about him. It's about taking a stick and beatin' de white folks in de head wi' it.
I say no more. I'm done with racial politics.
Not if the deadly attack was interrupted by, say, a gunshot.
Try being on the receiving end of someone sitting you and pummeling you face before you decide if was non-deadly.
Here is the Latest OFFICIAL report of the shooting.
Here is a News Report from a MONTH ago interviewing eye witnesses:
Here is more information from neighbors:
Please educate yourself before your ignorance gets innocent people killed.
Fixed your post for you.
Fixed your post for you.
The young boys girl friend said, she heard the altercation zimmerman started with the boy, and then his phone went dead, there is five minutes unaccounted for from the time the phone went dead and zimmerman murdered the kid. Once again, the man who authored the law says you are not permitted under his law to start an altercation and then claim stand your ground. And so says the governor. So all you have is your weak opinion.
First off, don’t get your panties in a wad, I’m NOT getting personal, and if you have an issue with what I’ve posted, go cry to the mods.
Self Defense is Self Defense. You do NOT know all of the facts, and neither do I. They will eventually be known to all, at least those that can be extracted from all witnesses and surviving participants.
It doesn’t matter how any of us interpret the currently known facts, but to make the asinine assertions you are posting does no justice to either the deceased nor the survivor.
From what we know, it does NOT matter how the “altercation” began, the deceased had NO right to simply start pummeling the survivor, and at that point, he was well within his rights to defend himself with any means at his disposal, IMO. To assert otherwise is insane, IMO.
Would you tell a woman who was being raped that she shouldn’t have been wearing such provocative clothing and that she should just lie there and take what she deserves?
Consider that absurdity of your declaration.
But if it’s interrupted by a gunshot it can’t be considered deadly because it didn’t result in death :)
Zimmerman started the fight when he approached the kid and chased him.
Stop making stuff up, the girls statement is in the police report.
Is there a requirement, a constitutional obligation that says he has to help? And what did this late-blooming witness do to help? Anything?
How much are the race baiters paying her for her testimony?
This situation is already confusing enough, with fact, fiction, opinion and deliberate misinformation all rolled into one.
The Internet is great. But those of us who depend upon it for our news of the world have to surrender the simplicity of allowing the MSM to frame issues and debates for us.
We have to do the validation ourselves, and it is often difficult or impossible to do so. But it is the burden we accept, those of us who take it seriously must do our due diligence, which means not blindly accepting a source of info, even if (or especially if) that source is CBS news or the like.
I am not an LEO. There are good cops, and there are bad ones. Clean ones and corrupt ones. Competent ones, and incompetent ones. Emotional angry ones, and calm professional ones.
I think they have a tough job, though I admit I don’t feel that way when I see them being paid double-pay on a detail watching a team of four guys working one shovel in a hole.
Bottom line, the cops had no reason to cover this up. They arrived on the scene, questioned people, and I would guess Zimmerman’s account meshed with that of several of the people they interviewed, and they determined that it was self-defense and didn’t arrest Zimmerman.
I think an investigation is fine, but the problem is, there are going to be people who are going to have an account or opinion to suit their predispositions. I personally think this blonde woman they interviewed is an example of that.
The waters are so muddied and the situation is so charged (deliberately, and I think, maliciously for racial and political purposes) that the truth will not be known.
What part of the Constitution makes the Due Process Clauses of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments applicable to individuals?
“So, if Trayvon Martin feared for his life because he was being followed by a suspicious man, does he have the right to fight back?”
The eyewitness didn’t see it your way. Had he, the cops would have arrested Zimmerman on the spot.
I agree with you. The cops know what happened and that’s why Zimmerman wasn’t detained. Now they are under tremendous pressure by the black community, MSM, and Sharpton and Co to change the facts.
Apparently the Black Panthers have a 10K bounty on Zimmerman’s head.
I find this whole thing disgusting.
“Try being on the receiving end of someone sitting you and pummeling you face before you decide if was non-deadly.”
Thank you, TAS!!!!
Why is Zimmerman going to jail? The eyewitness said that Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle when he was attached and beaten by the kid.
And you have the account of a “girl friend”, the contents of the conversation known only to her. Do you dispute that?
If there is someone unknown in my neighborhood, I reserve the right and have the right to question people. They may not like it and refuse to answer, but as far as I know, this is still America and there is no law that prohibits me from questioning anyone about anything.
Asking an unknown person what they are doing walking through your neighborhood (a neighborhood with a known crime problem) is not “starting an altercation”. The key here is the initialization of a physical altercation, and all official accounts point to Martin being the aggressor in that respect.
“Once you have the victim subdued, you cannot use deadly force.”
I’m assuming you’re not trying to intimate that Zimmerman subdued Martin and THEN shot him?
Now, that doesn't preclude the possibility that the authorities will bend to the faux outrage coming from the black community over this incident and eventually indict him, but that remains to be seen. Also, I would point out that more facts may come to light and Zimmerman may be in trouble for something none of us even know at this point that has yet to surface.
In any case, once again, your assertions are absurd and I hope you can understand that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed from several angles.
Read about Cutcher’s “changed” 911 tape: she was “hiding upstairs”.. have you heard/read it (Cutcher’s 911 tape)? I can’t find it...
Of what crime will he be convicted? Please post the Florida statute.
How many more thugs do you want walking down your street in your neighborhood before you decide to do something?
Be careful in your answer. I live in that situation now.
My understanding (which is consistent with the use of the word body) is that the situation being described by Cutcher took place AFTER the shooting. A witness (John) described Martin being on top of Zimmerman punching him in the face prior to the shooting (consistent with Zimmermans facial wounds).
“...Cutchers changed 911 tape: she was hiding upstairs...”
Err, make that changed testimony vs original 911 tape. My error.
Also, I/we should take these FB comments w/ a grain of salt until we all hear/read that 911 call of hers. If it’s as they say, she’s got some *perjury* charges to answer for. Again, I haven’t heard/seen/read anything about her before today’s clip interview w/ AC-DC.
I stated what the man who wrote the law said, and what the current governor said, and what the governor that signed the law said. And you say their statements are flawed. And you have never been elected to anything. Have you elected yourself as commander of your own watch group as well?
Org.whodat, you are wrong there. Unless there is a restraining order, anyone in this country can approach and speak with anyone without breaking a law, particularly a private citizen.
I know violence from the nursing side of things.
After a head injury you aren’t thinking too clearly.
His head was bloody in the back and bloody in the front.
Likely he was dazed and in a bit of emotional shock as well.
But racial politics isn't done with you.
Just ask Joel Pollak about how Soledad O'Brien treated him.
I repeat, who cares what any of the above said?
Self Defense is Self Defense.
Do you comprehend that concept?
They would have helped everyone out, then, if they had written that into the law. But they didn't.
Let's just make certain everybody has read the Florida law and it talking about the same thing. The Florida "Stand Your Ground Law" was enacted in 2005 and is codified at Florida Statutes Chapter 776, "Justifiable Use of Force."
The chapter says, in pertinent part:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.[A} person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself[.]
That's all it says. It doesn't say anything at all about starting fights and how it affects the right to claim the chapter. It may be in the legislative history (such as debate on the floor of the Florida state house and senate, or state legislative committee meeting minutes or reports), and a court could consider that in interpreting the law. However, there's an entire area of the law devoted to statutory interpretation. Unless the words of the statute are vague and ambiguous, you don't go back to the legislative history. You go with the clear meaning of the statute. Here, I don't see any ambiguity, and I don't see anything about not being able to claim the law if you start a fight. Do you?
You may consider the law ill-advised, but that's to change in a future legislative session, not to change ex-post facto by public opinion of those who talk the loudest.
As I said, in the established standards of statutory interpretation, courts wouldn't consider the author's intent except in the case of vagueness or uncertainty of the words of the statute. I don't mean vague as in "did you mean to add this to the statute?" I mean vague as in "nobody can understand what this part means because it's so vague" way. We still enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, but we don't try to dig up the late Senator John Sherman of Ohio to find out what he was thinking when he wrote it.
Sorry, it ain't gonna happen, what little bit of life I have left will be defended.
All year we have been watching the video’s of the flash mobs in stores, the flash beatings of random strangers on the street,
Reading about the “one punch” game and hunting polar bears.
An oriental man was killed by one of the “one punch” thugs.
People have been killing each other with their fists a lot longer than they have with guns.
I’m sick of the double standard.
Proves what the author, and the two governors and several of the people that voted for the bill said. I am sure if they think anyone has trouble understanding it that they will change it shortly. Will that make you happy.
No, I was not joking. The news is reporting a deranged, hulking man stalking a little, church-choirboy like a wild animal and GUNNED him down in cold blood!
The police says that so far, there is NO evidence of their version and yet you want to believe it without question. You are suggesting that a kid can easily take down a man who is out to stalk him and kill him? That is more asinine than the rest of your assumptions.
Let the investigation find the facts, don’t project!
Are you retarded?
“A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.”
In fact - as of now - the facts of this case and the insanity surrounding it - are pointing in the direction OPPOSITE due process. Using race to DENY Zimmerman his due process.
You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt.
” People have been killing each other with their fists a lot longer than they have with guns.
Im sick of the double standard. “
So am I.
Do you understand, you cannot start a fight and then claim self defense, if anyone in this case had the right to claim self defense it is the dead kid, he was the one not doing anything wrong. And that was basically, what the laws author and the two governors said. Now claim they are wrong all you wish, but understand yours is not the majority opinion and in the end all you are going to achieve is that all stand your ground laws will be rewritten. If that is your goal have at it.
What is this - retard day?
I know. I was just trying to get some clarification to Steelfish’s strange posting which seemed so “out of context”.
It sounded to me as though Zimmerman could have avoided the altercation. At this point he probably wishes he had.
Of course the facts will come out - but do we know the guy was a thug? He had candy and pop and apparently was unarmed. Although with the hoodie he probably looked like a thug. Also sounds as though maybe the “kid” didn’t react well either.
Time will tell.