Megyn Kelly Interviews Alan Dershowitz & Bernie Goldberg. Is There Such A Thing As The “But-If” Clause? – (Video)

This morning, Megyn Kelly conducted an excellent interview with both Alan Dershowitz and Bernie Goldberg regarding George Zimmerman and the issues that will define a successful claim of self-defense.  Kelly did a marvelous job of handling the give and take between her guests,  leading to specifics like a “perfect” and “imperfect” self-defense being explained by Dershowitz…who then went on to claim that it doesn’t make any difference WHO started the initial encounter.

In Florida, the defendant is accorded “perfect” self-defense even if he started the confrontation.  Many states have “imperfect” self-defense that would consider the fact that your actions may have led up to the confrontation, and thus you would not be safe from criminal prosecution. Kelly said she believes the prosecution’s case will in all probability  come down to the written testimony of the police officer who wrote that the incident could have been avoided had Zimmerman not confronted Martin.  Dershowitz’s response?  “There is no such thing as a “But-If” clause.  Really, an excellent interview.

Treeper Jello333 provides this to the tip line: It looks like Crump and the media are about to start a new tactic: “If only Zimmerman hadn’t left his vehicle none of this would have happened. So it’s all ultimately his fault no matter what happened later.” So here’s my answer to that:

George did NOT “disobey” or “ignore” orders or suggestions from the dispatcher to stay in the truck and not follow. In fact, he may have thought the dispatcher WANTED him to follow.

Less than a minute before getting out of the truck, the dispatcher tells George “Alright, just tell me if this guy does anything else.” George says OK. Then right after George says “He’s running”, the dispatcher says “He’s running? Which way is he running?” And it is THEN that George exits the truck and starts following Trayvon. Within a few seconds the dispatcher realizes this, asks if he’s following, and then says “Ok, we don’t need you to do that.” Whereupon, within a few seconds, George STOPS.

So, if someone in a position of some authority/importance asks you to let them know if a suspicious person “does anything else”, and later asks you “which way is he running?”, could you possibly believe that person is, in effect, saying to you… “Try to keep an eye on this person if you can.” ??? And if that’s what you’re thinking, but you’re in a vehicle as this suspicious person starts to run out of view, what might you do? YES! You just might leave the vehicle in order to follow (at a distance) that person so you can continue to give the dispatcher the info he has asked for!

In my opinion, George was only doing what he believed the dispatcher was ASKING him to do. Which of course also includes STOPPING when asked to do so. This could be important to this case if they try to push the “He shouldn’t have gotten out of his truck” argument.

Advertisements

About Ad rem

Millions of little gray cells wrapped in fur.
This entry was posted in Dem Hypocrisy, media bias, Racism, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to Megyn Kelly Interviews Alan Dershowitz & Bernie Goldberg. Is There Such A Thing As The “But-If” Clause? – (Video)

  1. tara says:

    Thank you Alan Dershowitz! And thank you FOX News for interviewing him!

    Like

    • Ad rem says:

      Wasn’t he terrific! I believe his statements are going to have a tremendous effect in shaping the narrative of this story…along with influencing many others in positions of authority in the media. Right on!

      Like

  2. Bill says:

    Great interview I just wish that these violations of truth would also place the blame to the media firm hired julison and crump and his gang of fabricators.

    Like

    • John Gault says:

      Yes! Why doesn’t AD go after scheme team?

      Like

      • Raoul says:

        Ryan’s site is still “Under Construction.” Must be under Going a major reno.

        http://julisoncom.com/index.html

        Like

      • minpin says:

        Because AD has no nexus to the case. If anyone could go after the scheme team, or even the complicit prosecution, I think we could get a pretty good group of class action suers right here at the Treehouse. Now, if O’Mara hired AD to be a part of his team, that would be a possibility, but not right now.

        Like

      • heathersbeware says:

        It’shis contention that it’s the prosecution misconduct that needs going after

        A defense team is not held to as high a standard

        Like

        • Bill says:

          I’m in for a class action all these guys only to be held responsible for all the upcoming rioting and all the violence when Zimmerman this gets acquitted. Outside of this site fox has actually been very fair in this. The other networks just a web of lies.

          Like

  3. John Gault says:

    What about Crump?

    Like

    • Bill says:

      Crump is at fault for this ever becoming anything and should be held accountable

      Like

    • Ad rem says:

      I get the feeling, just a gut instinct, that AD thinks so little of Crump as to not even dignify his existence with comment. I notice he has specifically directed his criticisms to Corey in almost every interview.

      Like

    • DiwataMan says:

      Here he is

      Like

      • laura says:

        funny.

        hey in answer to one of your outstanding questions. I read on talkleft defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt explain that the defendant statements to police are not subject to public records sunshine laws, apparently they are considered confessions and protected.

        Like

        • DiwataMan says:

          Thanks and thanks. That is upsetting to hear. Without his statement the timeline will remain a mystery as to when and where he first spotted Trayvon, where he was parked, all kinds of stuff. What I really want to know is did he actually loose sight of Trayvon before he got out of his truck? It seems to me he did given the fact that from the time he states Trayvon is running to the time the door shuts eight seconds have past in which Trayvon, depending on where he started running from, could have easily made it out of sight of George, down the NS sidewalk between the townhouses, before he got out. If that is the case when did George ever even follow Trayvon?

          Like

      • Donnie B. says:

        Like

    • heathersbeware says:

      He’s a piece of garbage. Thats not illegal yet

      Like

  4. laura says:

    I would like to know the circumstances and timing in which one of the investigators added the irrelevant conclusion of “but what for clause” iinto the report.

    It is likely that prosecutors and local officials pushed for the inclusion.

    Like

    • minpin says:

      A law enforcement officer, or anyone else for that matter is only “speculating” when they talk about what could have, or should have been. The inclusion of that statement in the police report, was as good as the medical examiner statement syaing pretty much the same thing, is as good ad Ryan Julison or Benjamin Crump saying the same thing. It’s a case of trying any which way you can to warrant a second degree murder charge. Why would there be two statements in the police reports saying that GZ had a habit of reporting only “black males” when he was calling in suspicious people. He reported black males only 4 times out of the reported 30 phone calls to 911.

      There was an article put out by someone, I think on American Thinker, where they speculated that the SPD had it in for GZ because of his work on the beating of the black homeless man, by a son of a police officer. It seems that that is looking more and more possible.

      Like

      • minpin says:

        Does anyone have any information as to how long Chris Serino was with the SPD in any capacity. I have tried to search to see if he was a part of the department when the homeless man beating took place, but I can’t find any info on him.

        Like

  5. Sharon says:

    That’s good.

    Like

  6. doug1111 says:

    Yeah Megan Kelly did do a good job there.

    If at the immunity hearing the judge believes that a preponderance of the evidence such as it is suggests that Zimmerman started the physical fight then Zimmerman loses two things, not just the stand your ground, no duty to do everything you can to leave the fight and flee. (Which he couldn’t do since there’s strong evidence that Trayvon was on top of him pinning him to the ground while continuing to punch him until he was shot.) GZ also loses the right to immunity from a jury trial and to a civil lawsuit.

    However I think the evidence we have so far, which is thin and mostly circumstantial, with some forensic evidence is that Trayvon started the fight. There’s no evidence of any bruising or abrasions on Zimmerman’s knuckles. There’s no evidence that he landed even one punch or one that did any damage anyway, much less the first one. We know Trayvon landed lots of punches and perhaps the first one. Yes he could have pushed Trayvon. But he was much shorter than Trayvon, 4 inches shorter it now seems. Also he’d never pushed or trying to detain much less punched any of the other people he’d called in as suspicious previously according to the Reuter’s articles. Instead he’d tried to keep them in sight, which he said or implied he was trying to do this time on his call to police. He knew the police were coming while Trayvon did not and would want to get into trouble for assault and battery when he could be identified. He’d called them to question Trayvon and if appropriate detain him, why would he want to do that? He’d take a firearms class and self defense class to get his concealed carry permit and would have been taught that getting into a physical fight when armed is a very dangerous thing to so, since what did happen could, or the other man might see your gun in the course of the conflict and use it on you. For all these reasons I thing the weight of the mostly circumstantial evidence is definitely on the side of Trayvon having started the physical fight.

    Like

    • justice099 says:

      Also, if Zimmerman even just tried to restrain him, there would be bruising. However, Zimmerman would have had zero reason to try to restrain Trayvon. He had no proof that he was committing a crime and don’t see any indication from his actions (so far) that he was likely to restrain Trayvon without at least witnessing a crime in progress.

      Like

    • No question.
      This is why I’ve been leaning to JZ’s side from the beginning — NOBODY who legally concealed-carries goes looking for any sort of fight!
      NOBODY!
      NO FRIGGING wAY!!

      Like

  7. Bill Palmer says:

    crum·pet [kruhm-pit]

    1) A small flat round of bread, baked on a griddle and usually served toasted.

    2) A verbal barrage emanating from Benjamin Crump’s piehole, either factual, fictitious or a hybrid conglameration of fact and fiction.
    e.g. “At the press conference, the lamestream media eagerly swallowed Benny’s crumpets and washed them down with a splash of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Drink Cocktail”.

    Like

  8. Raoul says:

    Good video of O’Mara and Crump on Today show. Two snips from O’Mara:

    well, at the outset i need to say, and i know it’s somewhat frustrating to your listeners, that the ethical rules that we have as lawyers connected with the case, and quite honestly my opinion that all lawyers have, prohibits us from talking about the evidence of an active criminal case .

    but quite honestly in every life event or experience, we can go back to one of the premises, had it nod happened — had he not been going to the target store, had trayvon martin not been in the neighborhood, had he not got out of his car. we have to deal with what did happen and try to explain that away properly and in courtroom.

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47476961/

    Like

    • tara says:

      Trademark had plenty of opportunities that night to avoid the situation, including not punching GZ in the face. I’m shocked that people would criticize GZ for getting out of his car and not criticize Trademark for punching GZ in the face.

      Like

  9. Mike says:

    So it’s going to be portrayed as Zimmerman’s fault but he’ll be ruled not guilty. That’s going to get a lot of people very upest…

    Like

  10. kinthenorthwest says:

    With all that had been happening in that complex, As a neighborhood watch person, or even just as just a good neighbor Zimmerma was doing the right thing.
    If my neighbor/s did nothing if they saw stranger walking around my complex with the number break-ins that were going on in that complex I think I would be a bit upset…
    I lived in a condo complex similar to that one several yearss ago. If I saw a stranger just walking aimlessly around i did one of two things…If a female I would ask if they needed help or ???, if a male there were a couple of men us ladies would call so they could do the say…

    This what if is so screwy and crazy….Hey we can start way back with this incident would not have hapened if Trayvon had never been born.
    What Zimmerman did was totally legal and understandable….keeping tabs on who was in and walking around the complex.

    Like

  11. Rum says:

    Zimmermans problem is that he assumed TM was only interested in getting away. That was a natural assumption to make because TM seemed determined to run away. However, by getting out of his SUV, he put all his chips down on that bet. Because a central part of concealed carry teaching/law is that one should NEVER even appear to be confrontational. IOWs if you get into any kind of fight you will be viewed with great suspicion because you are supposed to actively avoid such things. That is stated very bluntly.
    GZ should not have “profiled” TM in the way that he did. He should not have assumed he was not going to face a charge instead of a guy continuing to run away. By getting out of his SUV, he was expressing more trust in TMs reasonableness than was warranted.

    Like

    • barnslayer says:

      TM was “determined to get away”. Is that why he circled GZ’s vehicle… to get away?
      GZ didn’t bet anything. he was selflessly being a good watchdog. Profiling seems to be come a dirty word. It is in actuality “learning from experience” (something the TSA refuses to do). All reputable law enforcement agencies profile. Refusing to profile is to deny the past. (The 9-11 attacks were committed by male moslems. That is fact and a sound basis for profiling. You can expand from there and apply as appropriate). GZ was not thinking about charges or trust, he was trying to help the police prevent a possible criminal. He succeeded.

      Like

    • minpin says:

      So Rum, you drank the Crump Kool-Aid. It’s getting a little desperate out there with the Travonites isn’t it? I’ll take 3 dozen George Zimmerman’s to protect my back than one squishy Travonite. I’d take GZ into my home right now, and his entire on the run family, and I would sleep well at night.

      Like

      • Splat! says:

        I think you are misreading Rem.

        :”GZ should not have “profiled” TM in the way that he did. He should not have assumed he was not going to face a charge [By Trayvon] instead of a guy continuing to run away. By getting out of his SUV, he was expressing more trust in TMs reasonableness than was warranted.”

        Or, GZ thinking that the guy was just running away to escape observation, and had no other motive. His “profiling” was in error, in that respect.

        Like

        • Splat! says:

          eh, that should be “Rum”, not “Rem”

          Like

          • minpin says:

            Splat- You are going to have to explain that to me in second grade language. I have no idea what you are trying to get at. All I know is that GZ had every right to exist his vehicle. To say that anyone who has a gun should not leave their vehicle, because they might just get a beating from the person they are watching is ludicrous, at best. Come at me again please with a better explanation.

            Like

    • doug1111 says:

      I think Zimmerman’s profiling of Trayvon was sensible and entirely appropriate.

      I don’t think he intended to confront Trayvon but only know where he was so as to be able to tell police when they arrived. He didn’t figure on being ambushed by Trayvon no. Probably should have been more careful about that.

      But legally on present evidence he should be declared immune by the judge from criminal jury trial or civil lawsuit under Florida law.

      Like

      • minpin says:

        doug- What would you have suggested that GZ do to be more careful? What different path would you have suggested that GZ take?

        Like

    • Aussie says:

      where is the evidence that GZ was confrontational? There is none at all… but there is starting to be lots of evidence that Thug Traydemark was in fact confrontational. After all he decked GZ…. and them pummeled him. Wanna explain that?

      Like

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      The police admitted that they have no evidence that Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon.

      Like

  12. Scott says:

    Bernie: “There was a storyline established from the beginning”
    That says it all

    Like

  13. cookbook says:

    I have been out of the loop with my daughter’s college graduation. Had to drive five hours to get there, then stand in line an hour and a half to get into a gym to see my baby girl get her cum laude
    BA. This is the third and last to put through college.

    Although this has probably already been cited, Jerrit at TalkLeft sums it up nicely and sees the same things we have mostly. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/17/221353/149 comment 26
    “The problem in this case, the way I see it, is the Martins’ lawyers got impatient and were afraid no one would really investigate, so they started their media blitz. There was no just cause for arresting Zimmerman that night. Investigations like this can take a year or more.” “I’m not sure there is a problem other than that the media, at the behest of a public relations firm hired by lawyers for the Martin family, created one.”

    Then comment 39: “It looks like the Sanford police couldn’t make use of Trayvon’s phone because Tracy Martin refused to share the pin number with them. See page 17 of the evidence document.
    If this is true, the Martins arranged to find Dee Dee before the Sanford PD, then used their failure to find Dee Dee to accuse them of foot-dragging.
    Granting the Martins may have had privacy concerns about sharing the pin, there could be no justification for attacking the Sanford PD while withholding the fact of their own non-cooperation.”

    The Martins behavior directed by their attorney has been fraudulent and Zimmerman should have a cause of action against them.

    Like

  14. Rum says:

    Barnslayer

    I think you mistook my post. I was trying to point out that if you are legally carrying a concealed handgun and move towards someone and then things turn physical you will be seen by law enforcement as being seriously in the wrong until proven otherwise. Showing poor judgment about such things is one way of being in the wrong even if your intentions are good.
    GZ did not take into consideration that TM might attack him. If he had, he would not have left his vehicle.
    Or do you disagree?

    Like

    • minpin says:

      You have absolutely no basis to your argument. None. You are participating in bullllllllllllllllllllllsheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet that is being portrayed in the MSM. Good Lord, if I have a gun on me, I should never leave my vehicle? because I have a gun in my posesion? What the heck are guns for? Jeazus that’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. George. Zimmerman, Was. The. Appointed. Neighborhood. Captain. But you expect him to be a little hot house pansy when he sees something/someone suspicious in his neighborhood? If he was my neighborhood watch captain, and he remained in his vehicle, I’d fire his ass faster than anything. He would not be worth his mettle.

      Like

    • barnslayer says:

      I understand the closer legal scrutiny. But really, what choices did GZ have… do what’s right or cover his butt? If it was the latter he wouldn’t have been himself. He had to choose his own safety (physical and legal) or the safety of those in his community. His pistol was not an issue to TM until it went off. I agree it’s wise to be mild-mannered (as the Bible says “slow to anger”) when carrying concealed but not to the point of becoming indifferent to crime. Zimmerman was being a good citizen and neighbor by trying to keep eyes on Martin for the police. He lost sight and walked away. Martin wrote his own death warrant.

      Like

    • minpin says:

      Rum- You just argued yourself into a hole. GZ used bad judgement because he didn’t consider that TM might attack him. Wasn’t that exactly why GZ was the Neighborhood Watch Captain? What if one of the other residents asked TM who he was, or what he was doing there, and TM tried to punch their lights out? Should they have just died because TM was a bully that was obviously out of control. What if TM slammed another resident’s head into the ground because they looked at him, or asked who he was? What if another resident had their head slammed into the concrete, and died from those injuries, because they didn’t have a gun to protect them? Shoot, we could go on and on with this argument until the cows jump over the moon.

      Like

      • Splat! says:

        See my comment above, I posted it before I finished reading the page. (The term “profiling” not meant to be used in a racist way. )

        Have you heard “Conspiratorial men see conspiracy everywhere.”? Honest men see honesty in others. Thieves see others as people trying to steal from them. Thugs see others as people who are going to beat them up if they don’t keep them from doing that first.

        GZ saw TM running away, and probably because GZ would think “If I was trying to case a joint for burglary, and somebody saw me doing that, I would run away and get out of the area as fast as possible.” He probably didn’t think “This guy is going to wait around for me, to hurt me for watching him.” Because GZ probably would not think of doing that to someone else. There had not been any personal attacks in the neighborhood, had there? Only thefts,

        Like

        • minpin says:

          Well there was a lady in the complex with a baby that had to run upstairs to her bathroom to hide, when some thugs were trying to break in through the patio doors, wasn’t there? Would that have been confrontational if they got in her home, and she was accosted in some way? They did that in the broad daylight, having no knowledge if anyone was in the condo, right?

          What the heck are you supporting? that if a break-in, robbery, is done with no confrontation, it’s all good?

          Like

          • Splat! says:

            Of course not, min! And not saying that GZ was wrong in exiting his vehicle, either. Simply projecting what was probably NOT in his mind at the time, and that was being surprise attacked by TM! and I admit, pure speculation, at that. You want to argue, go find someone on the Trayvon side. I’m on GZ’s.

            Like

      • Aussie says:

        here is a real question: Did Zimmerman in fact ask that question? There is absolutely no proof that such a question was asked.

        We do know that TM asked “Do you have a problem” and then said “you have now” when he then punched GZ in the face.

        All of the aggression was by TM.

        Like

    • James Crawford says:

      I think the proper phrase to use is that GZ used poor TACTICS not poor JUDGEMENT by existing his vehicle. He put himself in a position here he was more vulnerable to attack. However; given the propensity that young black males have for gun violence, GZ was not safe in his car.

      Like

  15. Sentenza says:

    I wish someone would challenge these Crumpets to a little game of if-then. I.E:

    If Trayvon Martin had not beaten George Zimmerman, what then?

    Like

    • Jasper says:

      how about if trayvon would have called 911 what would they have told HIM to do? go home or try to beat the shit out of someone?

      Like

  16. Rum says:

    Uniform wearing LE are indeed supposed to go into harms way to check out dangerous appearing people.
    Un-uniformed civilians, whether N. Watch affiliated or not… not so much.
    The best advice I ever heard about this subject went something like this: Regardless of what the law says you can do in an abstract sense, one should always focus on what your actions will look like to cynical, suspicious, used-to-being-lied-to LE, prosecutors, and the dead perps family. And dead perps ALWAYS have families. IOWs, get as much good facts on your side as possible. The more you try to retreat, evade, negotiate, etc. is good for your case regardless of the letter of the law. Not only does it help minimize the odds that will you end up needing to kill another human being, which you do not want to do, it helps immensely with escaping the legal shite-storm that routinely swirls up afterwards.
    It is not going to be about what you intended, or even what you did. It will be about what you can convince others that you did and/or intended.

    Like

    • Lulu says:

      Probably best to just stay indoors, Rum. Lock all the doors, bar the windows, fill the moat, pull up the drawbridge, and put the dragon in the moat. Hide from the reality of life.

      Zimmerman had been living with the reality of life in this condo complex. The change in the demographic from owners to renters, the emergence of more “strangers”, and the rash of burglaries in a period of slightly more than a year. He had stopped one burglary in progress.

      We cannot live a decent life with lawyerly scripts running through our brains. He was driving to Target on a rainy night. He spooted someone acting strangely. (Look at the 7-11 video – this kid looked like everyone’s worst fear, and I don’t mean his blackness.) So he decided to call the police (not the 911 line) and keep an eye on him until the police arrived.

      We’ll here the rest soo n enough, but slamming Zimmerman for not chickening out is just not right. And I am one who believes Trayvon decided to cut a notch in his young belt. He needed something to make himself feel good about Trayvon.

      Like

    • Sharon says:

      I don’t think Rum is “slamming Zimmerman for not chickening out….” I have several family members (past and present) in law enforcement. What Rum describes is pretty much exactly the dry facts of the risks. During the years our son was in LE, he talked about the fact that he always carried, even when off duty, but that he really, really, really didn’t want to ever have to take action in that circumstance, exactly because of what Rum refers to “the legal shite-storm that routinely swirls up afterwards.” I think Rum is deliberately being very reality-based.

      Like

    • Aussie says:

      you are making a lot of false arguments and assumptions based upon the BS written and stated by the Chump and his chief Chimpette

      Like

    • tara says:

      Rum, you criticize GZ for getting out of his vehicle. How about criticizing TM for punching GZ in the face. A visitor to the community decided to punch a resident.

      Like

  17. Rum says:

    Lulu
    It is none of my business … but, do you have a concealed carry license?

    Like

  18. tara says:

    I thought it was already analyzed and decided … merely following someone is not considered sufficient provocation.

    Like

  19. Rum says:

    Tara
    Merely following someone is not considered sufficient provocation but doing so with a concealed weapon will ensure that LE will turn on you if violence happens.
    Your call.

    Like

    • Lulu says:

      It isn’t your business, but no.

      Makes no difference.

      If good, decent people begin to run scared of law enforcement instead of the bad elements in our society, we are lost.

      Now you sound as though you might have some history to share with us?

      Like

    • Aussie says:

      if it is concealed then it is not seen by anyone. Your argument is defeated because of the lack of logic that you display.

      Better go tell the Chump and Chimpette you made an ass out of yourself.

      Like

  20. Rum says:

    I have a lot of history. But I am NOT going to share it.
    It is never anything like the movies…
    Blood has a certain smell that is impossibly to forget. By and by you realize that you have pissed all over yourself. The day after it all feels like you dreamed it. But that is no help at all. There are video-graphs.
    What do they they show?? ??

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      “I have a lot of history…”…and you don’t have to share it. Welcome to the Tree–hope you find a branch that works for you.

      Like

  21. Disgusted With Julison says:

    Can anyone opine as to why Alan Dershowitz is only giving his opinions on Fox News? He is a well loved liberal…..why wouldn’t he be on the Ed Show, Lawrence McD’s show, Maddow’s show….??? Instead, it seems like he only is showing up on Fox News? Is the liberal media banning him because he isn’t following the playbook? The liberal media would normally fawn all over this guy and have him on for his insight. Not seeing it here.

    Like

  22. John Hunt says:

    It doesn’t seem like law enforcement was the real problem. It was politics. Everything was head to no charges being filed when a lot of activists came to Sanford. One cop may have had an opinion on what might have been but the states attorney acting based on law wasn’t gong to press charges. The argument that Rum makes is the argument for looking the other was when crime happens. The fact that I personally don’t carry a gun and would have likely stayed in the car is exactly why I am supporting George Zimmerman. Well at least in part.

    Like

  23. Jello333 says:

    Hey, thanks Ad Rem for putting my “tip” up at the top there…. and right under Dershowitz, no less. Cool. 😉 And I even get a deputy badge? And I’m a “treeper” now? You know… I have NO idea how I’m gonna explain this to all my lefty friends!

    Like

  24. Jello333 says:

    Yeah, that was a very good interview. All three of them did a good job (and I’m not ordinarily a Bernie Goldberg fan). But one thing Dershowitz said bugs me: “… but for him getting out of his car, had he listened to police…. ” Yes he went on to say it didn’t matter in a legal sense. But just the fact that he repeated the LIE that we’ve been fed: That George ignored, disobeyed, didn’t listen to, blah, blah, blah about “not getting out of the car” or “not to follow”. THAT NEVER HAPPENED! How is it that even Alan Dershowitz doesn’t seem to realize that. Has he not listened to that tape? Is EVERYONE (except apparently people on this site) INSANE when it comes to that point?

    Like

    • minpin says:

      That bothered me also jello. He says all kinds of things we agree with, but then throws in a monkey wrench. The other thing he said that was bothersome, when referring to the GZ medical report, he said if it was true. Is he saying that the doctor may have been lying? We have the pictures to prove the injuries don’t we.

      All in all though, he is doing a great job of slamming Angela Corey’s reputation into the cement. Hopefully it will cause more than just a few cuts or scratches.

      Like

  25. knowthyenemy says:

    Its because they can’t find absolute guilt in just the facts so they have to back the narrative up to the crime beginning with Zimmerman exiting the vehicle…”if only” he did this or that. That same narrative can be applied to why that young man is not alive today. If only his parents would have raised him differently, if only he chose a path besides drug use and idolizing gang affiliation. If only he was taught not to punch authority in the face… even in death they refuse to be honest and accept they played a hand in what lead to Trayvon’s demise. Blaming Zimmerman, or racism will not make the outcome any different. If he continued to go down that wayward path he was on…unfortunately tragedy and death was inevitable.

    Like

  26. labrat says:

    The defense needs to counter this with a simple “if only” of their own. If only Trayvon Martin had just ran home – all of this could have been avoided. He had plenty of time.

    Like

    • minpin says:

      Didn’t O’Mara already do that type of “what if” in a TV interview, opposite Crumpy.

      Like

    • doug1111 says:

      Actually according to DeeDee’s 20 minute recorded interview with the prosecutor de la Rionda Trayvon was very close to his house. She’s confusing about what happened next before she says Trayvon asked “what are you following me for?” (previously coached by crump I think.) I think she’d covering up or glossing over Trayvon having hidden somewhere to ambush him, and then when Zimmerman began walking in the other direction back to his car, following him at a fast walk and then verbally confronting him, which is Zimmerman’s story.

      Like

      • doug1111 says:

        Followed by Trayvon’s physically confronting him by punching him knocking him to the ground, and then all the rest.

        Like

  27. trey122375 says:

    The reality is that this was the exact reason you have concealed carry. It does suck that a young man lost his life, but the reality he made the wrong choice in assaulting someone. Should the further facts show that, because right now they do.

    I’ll say it again. The notion that someone getting of their car is the sole reason for this is the equivalent to blaming the raped girls short skirt. Blaming the victim is more then ridiculous.

    Maybe we need more proactive people.

    Like

  28. Jasper says:

    now the Crumpits are using the term “stand down”- nobody ever told Z to stand down in fact he was told to “let me know if this guy does anything else”

    Like

    • Jello333 says:

      Yes. It is so important that it’s right there on that tape. Other than the after-the-fact “Ok, we don’t need you to do that”, there is NO even suggestion, let alone an “order” to “not follow” or “not get out of the car”. In fact, as you say, the dispatcher is (unknowingly) ASKING him to follow…. “let me know if this guy does anything else” and “which way is he running?”

      Keep hammering this!! THE TAPE ITSELF PROVES THE LIE OF WHAT CRUMP AND OTHERS ARE SAYING!

      Like

      • TripleBlackBeauty says:

        We – I and the rest of a group that includes me : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural — compare i, our, ours, us

        “WE don’t need you to do that”, when dispactch uses the pronoun, indicates that the dispactcher is a Sanford Police Department representative / Proxy… and when he spoke with was with the authority and in conjuction with the Sanford Police.

        Like

        • doug1111 says:

          That statement by the police dispatcher had no legal effect. It did not make GZ’s following TM illegal. The dispatcher doesn’t have that authority. There is absolutely no legal doubt about that, just blacks grasping at straws about it.

          That is assuming the GZ did follow TM after that advice from the police dispatcher, which there’s no good evidence he did, and which he denies. He did want to be able to tell the police when they arrived where he was if he could, at a distance, and also was trying to get a street name and address for the back (sidewalk) entrance to the the community.

          Like

          • doug1111 says:

            Forgot. Notify.

            Like

          • TripleBlackBeauty says:

            Straws you say… I get that a lot, anything not in George Zimmerman favor is labeled as insignificant, irrelevant, not admissible or as you say doug111 straws. And we all know there comes a point and time when one straw will break the camel’s back. And Zimmerman being the pathetic loser he is, will continue to supply straws.

            Like

            • doug1111 says:

              Retarded, illogical, emotionalist argument, like about all of that of Crump and the black professional race baiters such as Sharpton agitating about this.

              It’s clear as day that George Zimmerman acted legally in self defense, in reasonable fear of soon sustaining great bodily injury (such as a concussion or even death) from having his head repeatedly bashed against the cement sidewalk by Trayvon Martin (who was feeling dissed for being racially profiled, suspected and followed).

              End of story.

              The Sanford police and prosecutor were right not to charge Zimmerman.

              Like

            • howie says:

              You too appear to be a slave on the Crump Plantation. You must realize that Blacks also had Black Slaves back in the day. Or would you rather not know it? You are pathetic and a sad case.

              Like

  29. NOTE: The “if he’d only waited in the car” MEME is NOT new … but rather IN THE FIRST PR-BS Reuters piece. (The one you told us about.) http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82709M20120308?irpc=932

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s