Anybody wanna peanut sandwich?
Posted on 04/01/2012 5:18:58 PM PDT by marktwain
Robert Zimmerman Jr. is steadfast in his defense of his brother George, insisting that he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin to death in self-defense only because the teenager attacked him and attempted to take his gun, putting Zimmerman in mortal danger. “That’s called ‘saving your life,’” Robert Zimmerman Jr. said.
He appeared Thursday on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight denying that Zimmerman pulled a gun from its holster and fired, instead saying that “he stopped someone from disarming him and shooting him, he didn’t pull out a gun and shoot him. George showed tremendous restraint.”
(MORE: George Zimmerman’s Gun: A Popular Choice for Concealed Carry)
But according to an initial police report, Zimmerman told officers arriving at the scene of the Sanford, Fla., incident that he shot Trayvon Martin. Police reported that they found Trayvon lying face down on the ground and could not revive him. Zimmerman’s father, Robert Sr., told Orlando’s WOFL-TV in a silhouetted interview that the teen attacked his son, threatening to kill him. “At some point,” Robert Sr. said, “George pulled his pistol and did what he did.” His information was based on his own conversations with his son and others, he said.
Zimmerman has claimed that Trayvon pummeled him, broke his nose and smashed his head against the ground, causing severe injuries. But a police surveillance video obtained Wednesday by ABC News, showed Zimmerman handcuffed in police custody and apparently without any of the injuries that would be consistent with a life-or-death struggle. But his brother insists that he actually was hurt and was treated at the scene.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsfeed.time.com ...
You still haven’t cleared up when the police saw the video. That night, later on Youtube or a month later on TV?
Bah! I was going to use the “ham sandwich” line! Delete your post, at once!
Suppose the gun had been pointed the other way when it went off, so that we would have had a dead neighborhood watch captain and a live, legitimate guest of a resident of the complex. Of course, the visitor would have told the police that an ogre pursued him, jumped him, they struggled, the ogre tried to pull his gun, but the visitor wrestled it, and it went off pointed at the ogre. No witnesses to the start of the violence. Who's telling the truth?
As a juror, my bet would be the neighborhood watch guy got shot doing his job. But not beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I'd have to vote to let the guest go ... but I wouldn't be pleased!
It comes down to whether the person pursued reacted to the pursuit reasonably. I think, in this case not. I believe Martin was enraged at being profiled for walking while black wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pockets on a dark and rainy night. That's entirely reasonable. He had every right to be walking while black wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pockets on a dark and rainy night. However, I also believe he lost it and attacked Zimmerman, not knowing Zimmerman was packing, in a fit of pique. Now he's dead. That's really sad. But Zimmerman committed no crime!
Anybody wanna peanut sandwich?
A toxicology report might explain that. I think it's something important to know in this case.
And it's been said Martin had stolen the candy rather than pay for it...that too I suspect will be revealed if their was video playing....or even the clerks testimony should this go to trial.
There remains much we still do not know.
The police department didn't fire the chief; the city council did. And only after their hand was forced by bad publicity. If the police can only be trusted to do their job when the public is breathing down their neck, that would seem to indicate a problem.
You still haven’t cleared up when the police saw the video. That night, later on Youtube or a month later on TV?
That bit came from another article Google listed when I searched for "Justin Collison."
And now, you're as informed as I am on the topic.
Oh, gee!, the wrong people fired him! Guilty!!! Who usually fires police chiefs? The filing clerk?
So you say but you haven't shown any proof of that. You can't even say for sure when the police first saw the video.
Sgt. Anthony Raimondo was one of the officers under investigation for the way the sucker punch case was handled.
He was also initially in charge of the scene on the night Trayvon Martin was killed.
I think so too. There is plenty of evidence. The witnesses who appear to be giving testimony that is Pro-Martin's version have been inconsistent or have no basis for their conclusions.
A good course of action is to bring out the evidence in a nice package, redact information to protect the witnesses against retribution, and let the media deal with the bed it made for itself.
She can express sympathy with the Martin family, and lay blame at Trayvon's feet without making him into an all-out hoodlum. Sometimes teenagers start fights. Trayvon didn't have the good sense to limit his attack, not to justify starting it in the first place, but the consequences would have been less than death had he taken a few punches and run off.
Police spokesman Sgt. Dave Morgenstern on Thursday issued a statement disputing Cutcher's version of events, calling her statements to WFTV "inconsistent with her sworn testimony to police." ..."She did write a statement, for her roommate, and that was only after several attempts by officers who were asking for her information," Morgenstern said, adding that "the information she provided in her sworn statements... [was] consistent with the information Zimmerman provided."
The other night a newish freeper, who turned out to be a homeschooled kid working on a civics assignment, posted something about the Chief of Police and the State Attorney showing up in person at the police station the night Zimmerman was questioned there.
The ‘blame the victim’ crowd lit into him unmercifully ... even calling the Viking Kitties to the thread. I sent him a private note telling him to hang in there and to not be intimidated and bullied by them. He replied: “I showed my parents these messages tonight and they don’t like them. They said that this used to be a really good site but they think they don’t like black people here any more”.
Anyway, I started researching the kid’s claim. Lo and behold, he was right! Both the Chief of Police and the State Attorney were at the police station that night. That is more than unusual!
Both of them are gone now but the red flag had been raised. So I began looking into the history of the Sanford PD. So far I’ve been able to verify the two incidents I posted about earlier on this thead. Some people get kid-glove treatment, some don’t.
If the investigation is complete, and Police are issuing statements that witnesses, which support guilt, are inconsistent, it doesn't look like formal charges may be pending. At least that's how I read it.
That's how I read the tea leaves. A new investigation, an independent one, is also being undertaken. Some conclusion ought to come within the next couple weeks - should be sooner, but the authorities may be waiting to see if tension just ebbs of its own weight, first.
Here's something for the Nancy Grace's and others who took Crump's bait that "the video shows no injuries."
Race, Tragedy and Outrage Collide After a Shot in Florida - NYT - April 1, 2012 (on page 6 of the long article)
Mr. Zimmerman, meanwhile, was taken to Sanford police headquarters, where, he told his father, the police took many photographs of his injuries. His father said that he had a broken nose, a swollen and cut lower lip, and two cuts on the back of his head.
The article is quite biased (against Zimmerman) in its presentation, but has plenty to allow a "absence of probable cause it was NOT self defense" conclusion by the press, at some future date. And they'll claim that was the position they'd held all along.
I hope that’s how the state attorney deals with it. That would be reasonable and professional.
That’s a matter of opinion. The other side of the story is that Zimmerman, by pursuing Martin, initiated the confrontation. Martin could’ve been standing his ground with physical force. This case is not as cut-and-dry as either side seems to believe it is.
“The other side of the story is that Zimmerman, by pursuing Martin, initiated the confrontation.”
That is quite a story considering Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin, and didn’t know where he was in order to confront him.
The other night a newish freeper, who turned out to be a homeschooled kid working on a civics assignment, posted something about the Chief of Police and the State Attorney showing up in person at the police station the night Zimmerman was questioned there. The ‘blame the victim’ crowd lit into him unmercifully ... even calling the Viking Kitties to the thread. I sent him a private note telling him to hang in there and to not be intimidated and bullied by them. He replied: “I showed my parents these messages tonight and they don’t like them. They said that this used to be a really good site but they think they don’t like black people here any more”.
Was that the same thread where you were caught misrepresenting what witnesses had said? I don’t remember anyone summoning the Viking Kitties.
No it's not. It's a matter of rational assessment of the scenario I was talking about.
The other side of the story is that Zimmerman, by pursuing Martin, initiated the confrontation. Martin could’ve been standing his ground with physical force.
That is a different possible scenario and a different assessment would be in order for it. Comparing apples and oranges doesn't work.
This case is not as cut-and-dry as either side seems to believe it is.
I have never said in any post that any of this case was cut and dried. Your straw man is a non-sequitur directed towards my comments.
I was just about to post the following in my last comment, until I saw your post. Yes, I had exactly the same thought, but with a slightly different conclusion:
If Martin had been licensed to carry, and he'd shot Zimmerman, instead of the other way around, the defense probably would've argued that Martin believed the man following him was a threat, that he'd tried to run away from him, but the man continued to pursue him. So Martin stopped and stood his ground. Based on Zimmerman's police calls indicating that he was following Martin, Martin might've been released himself. Then everyone would be talking about the poor neighborhood watch captain, and what a shame about what happened.
But, suppose Martin had been the one who'd called the police and was following Zimmerman. And then he'd shot him. I don't know about anyone else, but that would make me suspicious. I would think a further investigation would be in order, at the very least.
Your point about a person reacting reasonably to someone following him is a good one. IMHO, it depends on the situation and what was going through the person's head.
I myself was in a similar situation a few years ago. I was lectured by the police for exiting my vehicle during a confrontation. I had to admit they were right - I'd escalated the situation. As per the police, because I'd exited my vehicle, if the other person had hurt me, he could've claimed self-defense, and it all would've come down to my word against his.
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.