• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is there no inconsistency in Zimmerman's story?

It means a lot. This is just the inconsistencies in his accounts and reenactment. There are many inconsistencies also in the physical evidence. The prosecutor can certainly do it beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that in Florida, such as in Casey Anthony case, some jurors expect the prosecutors to prove beyond absolute doubt. If Zimmerman's defense attorney is able to sit all the jurors from those so-called "conservative" people such as you, then no doubt Zimmerman will walk free even if there is a video at the scene from the house nearby that showed Zimmerman fired at Trayvon's chest while he was kneeling on the ground begging for his life.



There is more than enough to disprove Zimmerman's account based on forensic evidence alone. Forensic evidence isn't speculative.



of course you don;t have to support anything. But, you don;t get to tell fancy fairy tales to make Zimmerman looks like a fairy god mother either.

They aren't "fancy fairy tales". In this case, Zimmerman is the defendant. Therefore, because the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense was not applicable to Zimmerman's case, Zimmerman is granted "presumed innocence".

Meaning, if the prosecution cannot PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, he is presumed innocent of murder in the 2nd degree. The argument isn't over the "shooting", the case is about "murder 2", and if there is EVIDENCE to PROVE murder 2. Based on what we've seen publicly, there is nowhere near enough evidence to support murder 2. Manslaughter perhaps, but definately not murder 2.

I know this pains some people, but it's the facts of the case that determine a man's guilt, not public opinion or hypothetical situations. The jury will be thuroughly instructed about the presumption of innocence before the trial ever starts. Zimmerman is "presumed" innocent of "murder 2", all the way up until the prosecution can PROVE otherwise. All Zimmerman has a burden of is the burden of evidentiary finding, not the burden of proof.

Ric27 is 100% correct.
 
They aren't "fancy fairy tales". In this case, Zimmerman is the defendant. Therefore, because the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense was not applicable to Zimmerman's case, Zimmerman is granted "presumed innocence".
The bolded part doesn't make sense. Isn't he claiming self-defense?

Meaning, if the prosecution cannot PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, he is presumed innocent of murder in the 2nd degree. The argument isn't over the "shooting", the case is about "murder 2", and if there is EVIDENCE to PROVE murder 2. Based on what we've seen publicly, there is nowhere near enough evidence to support murder 2. Manslaughter perhaps, but definately not murder 2.

I know this pains some people, but it's the facts of the case that determine a man's guilt, not public opinion or hypothetical situations. The jury will be thuroughly instructed about the presumption of innocence before the trial ever starts. Zimmerman is "presumed" innocent of "murder 2", all the way up until the prosecution can PROVE otherwise. All Zimmerman has a burden of is the burden of evidentiary finding, not the burden of proof.

Ric27 is 100% correct.
You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not arguing about Murder 2. That's for the special prosecutor to heck it out. She has all the evidence in her hand, I don't. All I am focusing is manslaughter and criminal recklessness.

So, no, Ric is completely wrong.
 
The bolded part doesn't make sense. Isn't he claiming self-defense?


You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not arguing about Murder 2. That's for the special prosecutor to heck it out. She has all the evidence in her hand, I don't. All I am focusing is manslaughter and criminal recklessness.

So, no, Ric is completely wrong.

I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.

George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2.

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense is not applicable. Let me make this make sense to you.....lol

In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's defense is not valid. That self-defense is not applicable. Understand?

He's claiming self-defense. His burden is "burden of evidentiary finding", which he has in his possession already. The prosecution's burden, is the "burden of proof". Meaning, they must PROVE that it wasn't self-defense. Do you understand what this means? It means Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" he acted in self-defense. He just has to offer up a "reasonable and clear" reason he shot Martin. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Therefore, Ric, as I said before, is 100% right. He understands the law. Perhaps you should study up on "affirmative defense", and "presumed innocence", and "burden of proof" before you argue about it further?
 
I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.

George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2.

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense is not applicable. Let me make this make sense to you.....lol

In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's defense is not valid. That self-defense is not applicable. Understand?

He's claiming self-defense. His burden is "burden of evidentiary finding", which he has in his possession already. The prosecution's burden, is the "burden of proof". Meaning, they must PROVE that it wasn't self-defense. Do you understand what this means? It means Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" he acted in self-defense. He just has to offer up a "reasonable and clear" reason he shot Martin. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Therefore, Ric, as I said before, is 100% right. He understands the law. Perhaps you should study up on "affirmative defense", and "presumed innocence", and "burden of proof" before you argue about it further?

Believe Florida law is such that the defendent can be found guilty of lesser charges than the one they specifically being prosecuted for. In this case Zimmerman is being charged with 2nd murder. But the jury could determine the evidence did not support that charge and come back with a conviction for manslaughter/reckless endangerment/etc.

That topic/question has come up before....
 
I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.

George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2.

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense is not applicable. Let me make this make sense to you.....lol

In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's defense is not valid. That self-defense is not applicable. Understand?

He's claiming self-defense. His burden is "burden of evidentiary finding", which he has in his possession already. The prosecution's burden, is the "burden of proof". Meaning, they must PROVE that it wasn't self-defense. Do you understand what this means? It means Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" he acted in self-defense. He just has to offer up a "reasonable and clear" reason he shot Martin. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Therefore, Ric, as I said before, is 100% right. He understands the law. Perhaps you should study up on "affirmative defense", and "presumed innocence", and "burden of proof" before you argue about it further?
Why are you locked in the La La Land and yet accused people of being in the Never Never Land?

Wake up! We are not in the court. We are in a debate forum. I am just trying to shoot down those so-called "conservatives'" obnoxious efforts to attack the character of the slain victim and paint the killer as the gentle and meek victim. I don;t care what you said the prosecution must prove, go take up with her. I am simply dealing with common sense and logic pertaining to the facts and evidence we have so far. That's it.
 
Last edited:
I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.

George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2....

in FL, the jury can choose to convict him of Manslaughter rather than Murder 2, because he was charged with Murder 2.

this is a fact.
 
and please keep in mind that Z is innocent till proven guilty.
Got to ask, what difference would it make if his head was slammed 12 times or 50 times?

Not in this case. He he is claiming self-defense. By doing this the burden of proof shifts to him. This in affect makes him guilty until proven innocent.
self-defense is what's known as an "affirmative defense", which basically means that you're admitting you did it, but you're claiming you're not responsible for some reason (in this case, because he was defending himself; insanity is another affirmative defense). My understanding is that raising an affirmative defense switches the burden of proof to the defendant.

Now I do understand that Florida law is not always like the rest of the country. I am not expert on Florida law so it is possible I am wrong on this. Please correct me if that is the case.
 
Last edited:
Don't retire and move to Florida as you are on your own.
 
I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.

George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2.

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense is not applicable. Let me make this make sense to you.....lol

In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's defense is not valid. That self-defense is not applicable. Understand?

He's claiming self-defense. His burden is "burden of evidentiary finding", which he has in his possession already. The prosecution's burden, is the "burden of proof". Meaning, they must PROVE that it wasn't self-defense. Do you understand what this means? It means Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" he acted in self-defense. He just has to offer up a "reasonable and clear" reason he shot Martin. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Therefore, Ric, as I said before, is 100% right. He understands the law. Perhaps you should study up on "affirmative defense", and "presumed innocence", and "burden of proof" before you argue about it further?

For self defense to apply, Trayvon had to assault Zim. Did Trayvon assault Zim? Part of assault is that Zim must have been in actuial fear of serious bocily injury. What evidence is there that Zim was afraid of Trayvon.

Zim had a hollow point bullet in the chamber of a semi-automatic pistol, with no safety, other than pulling the trigger firmly. Zim was not afraid of Trayvon. Zim yelled for help so that he could get wtinesses, so that when he shot Trayvon, that he could CLAIM self defense. In fact, that is why the detective wanted to charge Zim with manslaughter, because there was not assualt by Trayvon, because Zim had no fear of Trayvon, at any time.

Trayvon punched Zim in self defense, because Zim was going into his jacket apparently to get a knife or a gun, after threateningly asking Trayvon, "What are YOU doing here!"


Zim could have run back to his truck, if he was afraid. Zim had no fear of Trayvon at any point in the exchange. Zim was ready to pull the trigger from at least the time he got out of his truck, and the 911 Disp[atcher told him not to follow Trayvon, as Trayvon ran away from Zim, and Zim tried to follow.

Zim did not tell his wife that he got beaten up. Zim told his wife that he had shot someone. Zim set up Trayvon, to aggrate and threaten Trayvon, till Trayvon acted in self-defense. Trayvon was being intimmidated about 100 feet from the house where he was staying. Trayvon is the one who had a right to stand his ground.



//
 
Last edited:
For self defense to apply, Trayvon had to assault Zim. Did Trayvon assault Zim? Part of assault is that Zim must have been in actuial fear of serious bocily injury. What evidence is there that Zim was afraid of Trayvon.

Zim had a hollow point bullet in the chamber of a semi-automatic pistol, with no safety, other than pulling the trigger firmly. Zim was not afraid of Trayvon. Zim yelled for help so that he could get wtinesses, so that when he shot Zim, that he could CLAIM self defense. In fact, that is why the detective wanted to charge Zim with manslaughter, because there was not assualt by Trayvon, because Zim had no fear of Trayvon, at any time.

Trayvon punched Zim in self defense, because Zim was going into his jacket apparently to get a knife or a gun, after threateningly asking Trayvon, "What are YOU doing here!"


Zim could have run back to his truck, if he was afraid. Zim had no fear of Trayvon at any point in the exchange. Zim was ready to pull the trigger from at least the time he got out of his truck, and the 911 Disp[atcher told him not to follow Trayvon, as Trayvon ran away from Zim, and Zim tried to follow.

Zim did not tell his wife that he got beaten up. Zim told his wife that he had shot someone. Zim set up Trayvon, to aggrate and threaten Trayvon, till Trayvon acted in self-defense. Trayvon was being intimmidated about 100 feet from the house where he was staying. Trayvon is the one who had a right to stand his ground.



//

it really is a nice tale. Now you have to prove it and find 6 jurors to agree. Good luck with that. It's highly unlikely that will ever occur.
 
Not in this case. He he is claiming self-defense. By doing this the burden of proof shifts to him. This in affect makes him guilty until proven innocent.
self-defense is what's known as an "affirmative defense", which basically means that you're admitting you did it, but you're claiming you're not responsible for some reason (in this case, because he was defending himself; insanity is another affirmative defense). My understanding is that raising an affirmative defense switches the burden of proof to the defendant.

Now I do understand that Florida law is not always like the rest of the country. I am not expert on Florida law so it is possible I am wrong on this. Please correct me if that is the case.


Once a claim of self-defense is made in Florida, the burden shifts to the prosecution, to prove it was not self-defense.


Zimmerman's Low Burden of Proof on the Issue of Self Defense


Search Self-Defense burden florida
 
Last edited:
it really is a nice tale. Now you have to prove it and find 6 jurors to agree. Good luck with that. It's highly unlikely that will ever occur.

Debate me. Give any glimpses of any fear displayed by Zim, of Trayvon.
 
in FL, the jury can choose to convict him of Manslaughter rather than Murder 2, because he was charged with Murder 2.

this is a fact.

or simple assault
 
For self defense to apply, Trayvon had to assault Zim. Did Trayvon assault Zim? Part of assault is that Zim must have been in actuial fear of serious bocily injury. What evidence is there that Zim was afraid of Trayvon.

Zim had a hollow point bullet in the chamber of a semi-automatic pistol, with no safety, other than pulling the trigger firmly. Zim was not afraid of Trayvon. Zim yelled for help so that he could get wtinesses, so that when he shot Trayvon, that he could CLAIM self defense. In fact, that is why the detective wanted to charge Zim with manslaughter, because there was not assualt by Trayvon, because Zim had no fear of Trayvon, at any time.

Trayvon punched Zim in self defense, because Zim was going into his jacket apparently to get a knife or a gun, after threateningly asking Trayvon, "What are YOU doing here!"


Zim could have run back to his truck, if he was afraid. Zim had no fear of Trayvon at any point in the exchange. Zim was ready to pull the trigger from at least the time he got out of his truck, and the 911 Disp[atcher told him not to follow Trayvon, as Trayvon ran away from Zim, and Zim tried to follow.

Zim did not tell his wife that he got beaten up. Zim told his wife that he had shot someone. Zim set up Trayvon, to aggrate and threaten Trayvon, till Trayvon acted in self-defense. Trayvon was being intimmidated about 100 feet from the house where he was staying. Trayvon is the one who had a right to stand his ground.



//

Wow. Just wow...
 
Debate me. Give any glimpses of any fear displayed by Zim, of Trayvon.


I don't have to. Most reasonable individuals would find the circumstances described by Zimm as justification for self defense. You had to concoct some fanciful story that few will believe,. Screaming for help not to bring help but just to bring witnesses so Zimm could shot him? Really? You suspect 6 jurors are really going to beleive that? Not a chance,
 
Wow. Just wow...
Agreed. Sadly that is what the anti-Zim side has been reduced to. He's not the first. Probably won't be the last. It is possible they may find a juror or two to believe that. But all 6? Not a chance.
 
Agreed. Sadly that is what the anti-Zim side has been reduced to. He's not the first. Probably won't be the last. It is possible they may find a juror or two to believe that. But all 6? Not a chance.

Believe what? That Zimmerman went looking for trouble, found it, and then shot an unarmed kid? Yeah, I think they can find 6 people who agree - it's called people with reason.
 
Believe what?

Well, one of the guy's claims that Zimm was calling for help not to get people to help him, but just so he could have witnesses to watch the shootin... Don't believe they will ever find 6 jurors to believe that. That Zimm really had no fear after having his nose broken and Trayvon jumping on him. 6 jurors, unlikely.

Another individual's claims that Zimm tripped broke his own nose then rubbed rocks into his head - not going to find 6 to believe that. Assuming, there isn't some bombshell evidence we just are not aware of yet.

It is possible that a jury may find that Zimm could have avoided the situation by not leaving his truck or identifying himself. However, I am not convinced that negates Zimm's right to self defense after Trayvon continues with his actions.
 
Well, one of the guy's claims that Zimm was calling for help not to get people to help him, but just so he could have witnesses to watch the shootin... Don't believe they will ever find 6 jurors to believe that. That Zimm really had no fear after having his nose broken and Trayvon jumping on him. 6 jurors, unlikely.

Another individual's claims that Zimm tripped broke his own nose then rubbed rocks into his head - not going to find 6 to believe that. Assuming, there isn't some bombshell evidence we just are not aware of yet.

It is possible that a jury may find that Zimm could have avoided the situation by not leaving his truck or identifying himself. However, I am not convinced that negates Zimm's right to self defense after Trayvon continues with his actions.

"Serino's statement made note of the fact that Zimmerman had called police to report the "suspicious" presence of a black male on at least four prior occasions. Just a few weeks before the killing, one of the black men had broken into a neighbor's home.

"Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood," Serino wrote.

He said Zimmerman spotted Martin twice, but didn't use the opportunity to introduce himself. Zimmerman said he was afraid, but Serino was skeptical.

"His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject," Serino added. "Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding the encounter. On at least two occasions, George Michael Zimmerman failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin."

Read more here: Sanford detective doubted Zimmerman's story, police records show - KansasCity.com


Sanford detective doubted Zimmerman's story, police records show - KansasCity.com

One of the investigative detectives, Chris Serino, found Zim's statements inconsistent with being a fearful victim of a raging attacker.

Zim may have had a right to self-defense against Trayvon, but not with deadly force.




//
 
Last edited:
"Serino's statement made note of the fact that Zimmerman had called police to report the "suspicious" presence of a black male on at least four prior occasions. Just a few weeks before the killing, one of the black men had broken into a neighbor's home.

"Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood," Serino wrote.

He said Zimmerman spotted Martin twice, but didn't use the opportunity to introduce himself. Zimmerman said he was afraid, but Serino was skeptical.

"His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject," Serino added. "Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding the encounter. On at least two occasions, George Michael Zimmerman failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin."

None of that has to do with whether Zimm was yelling for help not to actually obtain help, but just to make sure that Zimm had witnesses. Which is silly for a bunch of reasons. It also doesn't address wether Zimm may have been afraid for his life or bodily harm at the time of the physical confrontation, broken nose, etc. Serino was only talking about wether Zimm was afraid at the time he decided to leave his truck and follow - or obtain an address. He is not, in what you copied, discussing wether Zimm may have been afraid at the time of the actual encounter.
 
Last edited:
You can look at the info that was released by the prosecutors office, either the video itself or the list of 8 questions that were asked. There were two control questions (C) that Zimm was instructed to lie about (the green wall and the speeding ticket) so they can find the reaction when he lies. There were irrelevant questions (IR) and there were relevant question (R).

Because it is the easiest to find right now, you can click on the link and follwo the hyperlinked "questons". That will take you to the list of questions - the C = cntrol and are the two he was instructed to lie about. If you don't trust me, find the entire video. The officer specifically told him to lie on those two questions.

George Zimmerman Passed Police Lie Detector Test Day After Trayvon Martin Killing | The Smoking Gun
I didn't trust you which is why I looked for, and found, the video you speak of ... and you are indeed correct. He does tell Zimmerman to lie to those questions. I retract my statement and apologize.
 
All these glaring inconsistencies of Zimmerman means nothing? (Not including other inconsistencies in other physical evidence).
The only inconsistencies that mean anything are in your thoughts.

If it's true that Zimmerman was instructed to lie about it, then it invalidates the test, i.e. the test is no good.
No, it doesn't
 
The only inconsistencies that mean anything are in your thoughts.

No, it doesn't
Look at the video again. Are you still going to discount those inconsistencies as meaningless or are just in my head?
 
Look at the video again. Are you still going to discount those inconsistencies as meaningless or are just in my head?
There is no inconsistencies. Therefore they are in the eye of the beholder.
 
That is about the opposite of every state in the union
 
Back
Top Bottom