• 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?

Do you even realize your response has nothing to do with what I said? Or are you too disconnected to notice?



You mean that you made deletions from the transcript to present an accusation against GZ that was totally false?
You claimed GZ said he knew where TM went to - leaving out GZ specifically saying that he didn't.
 
You mean that you made deletions from the transcript to present an accusation against GZ that was totally false?
You claimed GZ said he knew where TM went to - leaving out GZ specifically saying that he didn't.

It is a false accusation? lol.....how can people post so much on this topic and not have the most basic of facts? How is that possible?

In his written statement he lied and said he told dispatch he didn't know the direction TM ran but on the recorded call he said the exact direction TM ran not once, but twice.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn what GZ said if you are going to try and defend him?
 
You'll get your chance....Sean Hannity George Zimmerman Interview: Fox News Host Gets First Sitdown With Trayvon Martin Shooter

Sean Hannity George Zimmerman Interview: Fox News Host Gets First Sitdown With Trayvon Martin Shooter

He'll just claim everything he says is a lie. I mean, after all, he told the dispatcher that T went towards the back gate, but then wrote that he didn't know where he ran. It's all so obvious. Don't you see it?

BTW, I don't expect he would talk too much about what occured and will instead be more focused on what has happened since (threats, etc).
 
In typical GZ supporter fashion you edit out the facts showing how GZ lied.

You are getting obnoxious.....you truly are.

Again....What EVIDENCE do you have that would legally justify M's physical attack on Z?


Repeat...legally justify M's physical attack on Z?.
 
You are getting obnoxious.....you truly are.

Again....What EVIDENCE do you have that would legally justify M's physical attack on Z?


Repeat...legally justify M's physical attack on Z?.

In typical GZ supporter fashion you edit out the facts showing how GZ lied.
 
In typical GZ supporter fashion you edit out the facts showing how GZ lied.

Lol...As a GZ supporter, I don't have to do nothing/nada/zilch. The burden is on, the state or YOU to prove its case (murder 2), not on the defendant to prove he is innocent.

Yes, it's, the state or YOU that must introduce the evidence to establish each element of the charged crime of M2 or manslaughter NOT GZ supporters
 
Do you even realize your response has nothing to do with what I said? Or are you too disconnected to notice?
Apparently you are to disconnected to realize it does.




You are confusing the context of the discussion. We are discussing GZ claiming he got out because dispatch asked for his location after TM ran. He got out well before dispatch asked proving he did not get out for that reason and it is obvious he got out to chase TM.
You are confused because you do not see how it applies.


It is a false accusation? lol.....how can people post so much on this topic and not have the most basic of facts? How is that possible?
I would suggest you ask yourself.


In his written statement he lied and said he told dispatch he didn't know the direction TM ran but on the recorded call he said the exact direction TM ran not once, but twice.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn what GZ said if you are going to try and defend him?
There was no lie.
First of all, you need to learn what a lie is, and the difference between an untruth and a lie. Then you need to learn how the brain recalls things, especially after a traumatic experience.
These are not lies.
 
Sad isn't it?

So eager to jump on how minor unimportant details of a retelling of a what... 7 minute period of time can be a little inconsistent, yet irrelevant.

Ask me what I did in a 7 minute period of time three hours later, I'll probably remember many facts, including minor ones, if there was a level of importance on that time period (like in this case).

Ask me the next day... and I just might not get the exact minor facts in the right order, or forget this reason, or remember that reason for what I was doing.

If I went back to the scene..... I might remember the incident better being physically there to have it assist me in recalling what happened and what I was thinking.

The fact is..... I have yet to see one minor OMFG HE LIED! statement comparison that had any level of importance to criminal element in this case.

Correction. Far more contradictions versus consistency in comparison to what you THINK his recorded call is. You have already proven that you ASSUMED certain things should have been addressed/mentioned by him during his call, and his lack of having mentioned or said them out loud and on the phone means that they did not happen, and his thought did not occur. In addition to this, you then critique him over minor unimportant inconsistencies that are going to occur at any level of interrogation about a very short period of time, especially considering at the time he was on the phone, he had no reason to commit every movement he made to memory in the detail oriented way that you are expecting him to.

No. Im not entirely ignoring contradictions. I am saying they are minor and irrelevant and not even noteworthy. I am laughing at those who find it important to bring it up as if it means something, it doesn't mean anything. It is not important, contrary to what you seem to believe.

I didn't back the wrong horse. I am backing the "Innocent until proven guilty" horse. Not the "Innocent until suggested that he possibly, might be, not based on evidence but "what ifs", guilty.

I am also backing the horse of "self defense" with a lack of anyone who witnessed the incident.

I can't possibly imagine a scenario in that our courts should convict a man of 2nd degree murder without being able to prove with EVIDENCE that he killed another person with malice.
I can't possibly imagine a scenario that I would be okay with convicting a man of killing another person, with malice, when they are claiming that they defended their own life, and there was nobody there to testify to the crucial moments of the confrontation but themselves. I can't imagine a legal system that was assume someone was guilty because "well of course they are going to say that, we "know" he is lying, even though we have no basis to prove he was lying other than suggestion".

It is my opinion as a police officer, that the state be required to not only explain that this person committed a crime, but explain how that crime occurred via witness or expert testimony. NOT via "he has to be guilty because a kid is dead and of course he would lie!! doh!!"
These deserve repeating.
Although I know those it is intended for will ignore it, and I seriously doubt they would be able to understand it if they even read it.
 
I swear we are dealing with those who would like this toy.




I'll rename it for them.
From the Swing Wing to the Spin Wing.
 
Apparently you are to disconnected to realize it does.
How sad for you ... I know you try, but you continuously come up short.

When asked which direction Trayvon ran off, he told the dispatcher which direction he saw the teen run.

When he gave his written statement, in response to that same question by the dispatcher, he changed his story, saying he answered by saying he did not know.

That's what I had in my post.

Joko's disconnect (and now yours) comes from him adding in when Zimmerman said he didn't know where Trayvon was ... but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about as it was:

a) in response to a different question, "what's your apartment number," not in response to the question Zimmerman cited, ""Which way is he running?"; and

b) came a minute and a half later than when he was asked, "Which way is he running?"; and

c) after Zimmerman says he lost sight of Trayvon; and

d) after Zimmerman says he left the area between the houses and walked to Reteat View Circle; and

e) most importantly one speaks to the question he changed the answer to -- that being which direction he observed Trayvon heading; and the other speaks to him not knowing where Trayvon went after he observed Trayvon heading in the direction he told the 911 dispatcher he saw the teen heading.

f) only someone whose synapses can't quite make that leap thinks saying "I did not know" which direction Trayvon went is the same as saying,
1½ minute later and after he lost sight of Trayvon, "I don't know where the kid is" in response to "What’s your apartment number?"

g) the two events have nothing to do with each other. That's why I said joko's response was disconnected.

... but keep trying. This is fun.
:cool:


You are confused because you do not see how it applies.
The confusion is all yours as it doesn't apply. The two are unrelated. One is which direction did he see Trayvon run off to and the other is that he didn't know where Trayvon was after he lost sight of him.

Zimmerman actually did see which way Trayvon ran and told the 911 dispatcher which way he saw him run. Later, he lost sight of Trayvon and then headed to Retreat View Circle. By then, he didn't know where Trayvon was and told that to the 911 dispatcher.

Those two answers ... "down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood" and "I don't know where this kid is," ... have absolutely nothing to do with each other and only the former was in response to, "He's running? Which way is he running?"


But when Zimmerman wrote down his statement, he claimed he told the dispatcher he didn't know which direction Trayvon went.

... as usual, your desperation is noted.
 
How sad for you ... I know you try, but you continuously come up short.

When asked which direction Trayvon ran off, he told the dispatcher which direction he saw the teen run.

When he gave his written statement, in response to that same question by the dispatcher, he changed his story, saying he answered by saying he did not know.

That's what I had in my post.

Joko's disconnect (and now yours) comes from him adding in when Zimmerman said he didn't know where Trayvon was ... but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about as it was:

a) in response to a different question, "what's your apartment number," not in response to the question Zimmerman cited, ""Which way is he running?"; and

b) came a minute and a half later than when he was asked, "Which way is he running?"; and

c) after Zimmerman says he lost sight of Trayvon; and

d) after Zimmerman says he left the area between the houses and walked to Reteat View Circle; and

e) most importantly one speaks to the question he changed the answer to -- that being which direction he observed Trayvon heading; and the other speaks to him not knowing where Trayvon went after he observed Trayvon heading in the direction he told the 911 dispatcher he saw the teen heading.

f) only someone whose synapses can't quite make that leap thinks saying "I did not know" which direction Trayvon went is the same as saying,
1½ minute later and after he lost sight of Trayvon, "I don't know where the kid is" in response to "What’s your apartment number?"

g) the two events have nothing to do with each other. That's why I said joko's response was disconnected.

... but keep trying. This is fun.
:cool:



The confusion is all yours as it doesn't apply. The two are unrelated. One is which direction did he see Trayvon run off to and the other is that he didn't know where Trayvon was after he lost sight of him.

Zimmerman actually did see which way Trayvon ran and told the 911 dispatcher which way he saw him run. Later, he lost sight of Trayvon and then headed to Retreat View Circle. By then, he didn't know where Trayvon was and told that to the 911 dispatcher.

Those two answers ... "down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood" and "I don't know where this kid is," ... have absolutely nothing to do with each other and only the former was in response to, "He's running? Which way is he running?"


But when Zimmerman wrote down his statement, he claimed he told the dispatcher he didn't know which direction Trayvon went.

... as usual, your desperation is noted.
lol
:doh

All that to say nothing.



The disconnect is all yours.
You do not seem to understand that we all get what you are saying.
You do not seem to get that it doesn't matter.

And that is because you do not seem to understand how the brain works, or how memory works.
How things get mixed up and transposed on to other memories.
Especially immediately following a traumatic event when you are trying to recall the things before it.

That is your discontent as well as the dolt in the ocean's disconnect.



You really need to read and understand what Caine previously said.


Sad isn't it?

So eager to jump on how minor unimportant details of a retelling of a what... 7 minute period of time can be a little inconsistent, yet irrelevant.

Ask me what I did in a 7 minute period of time three hours later, I'll probably remember many facts, including minor ones, if there was a level of importance on that time period (like in this case).

Ask me the next day... and I just might not get the exact minor facts in the right order, or forget this reason, or remember that reason for what I was doing.

If I went back to the scene..... I might remember the incident better being physically there to have it assist me in recalling what happened and what I was thinking.

The fact is..... I have yet to see one minor OMFG HE LIED! statement comparison that had any level of importance to criminal element in this case.

Correction. Far more contradictions versus consistency in comparison to what you THINK his recorded call is. You have already proven that you ASSUMED certain things should have been addressed/mentioned by him during his call, and his lack of having mentioned or said them out loud and on the phone means that they did not happen, and his thought did not occur. In addition to this, you then critique him over minor unimportant inconsistencies that are going to occur at any level of interrogation about a very short period of time, especially considering at the time he was on the phone, he had no reason to commit every movement he made to memory in the detail oriented way that you are expecting him to.

No. Im not entirely ignoring contradictions. I am saying they are minor and irrelevant and not even noteworthy. I am laughing at those who find it important to bring it up as if it means something, it doesn't mean anything. It is not important, contrary to what you seem to believe.

I didn't back the wrong horse. I am backing the "Innocent until proven guilty" horse. Not the "Innocent until suggested that he possibly, might be, not based on evidence but "what ifs", guilty.

I am also backing the horse of "self defense" with a lack of anyone who witnessed the incident.

I can't possibly imagine a scenario in that our courts should convict a man of 2nd degree murder without being able to prove with EVIDENCE that he killed another person with malice.
I can't possibly imagine a scenario that I would be okay with convicting a man of killing another person, with malice, when they are claiming that they defended their own life, and there was nobody there to testify to the crucial moments of the confrontation but themselves. I can't imagine a legal system that was assume someone was guilty because "well of course they are going to say that, we "know" he is lying, even though we have no basis to prove he was lying other than suggestion".

It is my opinion as a police officer, that the state be required to not only explain that this person committed a crime, but explain how that crime occurred via witness or expert testimony. NOT via "he has to be guilty because a kid is dead and of course he would lie!! doh!!"
 
lol
:doh

All that to say nothing.



The disconnect is all yours.
You do not seem to understand that we all get what you are saying.
You do not seem to get that it doesn't matter.

And that is because you do not seem to understand how the brain works, or how memory works.
How things get mixed up and transposed on to other memories.
Especially immediately following a traumatic event when you are trying to recall the things before it.

That is your discontent as well as the dolt in the ocean's disconnect.



You really need to read and understand what Caine previously said.
That is complete and utter nonsense. The man is on trial for murder and because he shot and killed the only other witness to the entire event, his defense rests heavily on his word and here you are, pretending like his word doesn't matter.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Still, his answer to the question, "which direction did he run," changed and still, it has nothing to do with after he lost sight of Trayvon.
 
I sure did. He went into a lot of the case, no? I really expected the lawyer to stop him from answering some questions. That seems to give the sense that Omara is fairly confident.


Yes, OMara keeping totally silence so long suggests that he was very pleased with GZ's conduct and statements.

The only problems OMara faces is that Florida only has 6 jurors even on cases with potential life sentence, it is extremely easy for the judge and prosecutor to stack the jury in the prosecution's favor AND of course the judge is co-prosecutor for how he is conducting himself, meaning the prosecution may have the ability to do anything and the defense blocked, plus the judge constantly signaling the jury in facial expressions, body language and continuing to chastize the defendant and his attorney during the trial.

The need to move the case out of Judge Lester's court and put it into an American court.
 
That is complete and utter nonsense. The man is on trial for murder and because he shot and killed the only other witness to the entire event, his defense rests heavily on his word and here you are, pretending like his word doesn't matter.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Still, his answer to the question, "which direction did he run," changed and still, it has nothing to do with after he lost sight of Trayvon.

That's like one of the dumbest attack points. Why do you post it over and over and over and over again?
 
How sad for you ... I know you try, but you continuously come up short.

When asked which direction Trayvon ran off, he told the dispatcher which direction he saw the teen run.

When he gave his written statement, in response to that same question by the dispatcher, he changed his story, saying he answered by saying he did not know.

That's what I had in my post.

Joko's disconnect (and now yours) comes from him adding in when Zimmerman said he didn't know where Trayvon was ... but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about as it was:

a) in response to a different question, "what's your apartment number," not in response to the question Zimmerman cited, ""Which way is he running?"; and

b) came a minute and a half later than when he was asked, "Which way is he running?"; and

c) after Zimmerman says he lost sight of Trayvon; and

d) after Zimmerman says he left the area between the houses and walked to Reteat View Circle; and

e) most importantly one speaks to the question he changed the answer to -- that being which direction he observed Trayvon heading; and the other speaks to him not knowing where Trayvon went after he observed Trayvon heading in the direction he told the 911 dispatcher he saw the teen heading.

f) only someone whose synapses can't quite make that leap thinks saying "I did not know" which direction Trayvon went is the same as saying,
1½ minute later and after he lost sight of Trayvon, "I don't know where the kid is" in response to "What’s your apartment number?"

g) the two events have nothing to do with each other. That's why I said joko's response was disconnected.

... but keep trying. This is fun.
:cool:



The confusion is all yours as it doesn't apply. The two are unrelated. One is which direction did he see Trayvon run off to and the other is that he didn't know where Trayvon was after he lost sight of him.

Zimmerman actually did see which way Trayvon ran and told the 911 dispatcher which way he saw him run. Later, he lost sight of Trayvon and then headed to Retreat View Circle. By then, he didn't know where Trayvon was and told that to the 911 dispatcher.

Those two answers ... "down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood" and "I don't know where this kid is," ... have absolutely nothing to do with each other and only the former was in response to, "He's running? Which way is he running?"


But when Zimmerman wrote down his statement, he claimed he told the dispatcher he didn't know which direction Trayvon went.

... as usual, your desperation is noted.


Everything you wrote all adds up to nothing. Which way TM ran to and what GZ said about it has nothing to do with nothing about nothing about whether or not GZ committed murder/manslaughter when he shot TM. Or are you claiming TM was trying to outrun the bullet???
 
That's like one of the dumbest attack points. Why do you post it over and over and over and over again?

Make sure you bookmark this post because it will be one of the items the prosecution uses to help show GZ lied about what happened in the moments before the fight.

Also, the prosecutor filed a motion to have GZ's bond revoked because he tried to rent a vehicle and specifically requested a Ford Escape!!
 
Back
Top Bottom