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 ...
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 Zimmerman’s facial wounds).
“...Cutcher’s “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."
You may read the entire chapter here.
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.
Thank you!
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?
Due Process:
“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.
I’m 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.
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.