• 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.

Question for Z supporters . . .

Stardog

Stardog

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
787
Reaction score
149
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why do you believe the word of a proven liar over the facts?

Z has changed his story multiple times and shown that, not only his he lied to his own attorney, he has also lied to a court of law.

Why have you fallen for his lies hook line and sinker over the actual facts of the case?
 
The facts that have been made public speak for themselves. It is clear not everyone looks at the facts the same way.
Example:
I have seen post speculating from "facts' that GZ head injuries came from striking concrete, and from the TM side from striking a tree or GZ flashlight caused the head wounds. The jury will decide the outcome after reviewing all the evidence.

Your question of "Why have you fallen for his lies hook line and sinker over the actual facts of the case?" is a loaded question.
It is making an assumption that the TM side of looking at the facts is 100% correct. To make a final conclusion in the case without all the facts is premature. I thought someone was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

For me I will give GZ the benefit of doubt till he has his day in court. If found guilty of M2 or manslaughter, so be it. Same if the jury finds him not guilty.
 
Last edited:
Stardog said:
Why do you believe the word of a proven liar over the facts?

Z has changed his story multiple times and shown that, not only his he lied to his own attorney, he has also lied to a court of law.

Why have you fallen for his lies hook line and sinker over the actual facts of the case?
Click to expand...

I was really wrapped up in this weeks ago and have since let it go seeing as the trial isn't happening until next year. So I'm not aware of inconsistencies in his story. Perhaps someone could post them up?

I do think minor inconsistencies from one telling to the next aren't uncommon. Actually, I think he should have asked for an attorney when the police brought him to the station for questioning. I think an attorney might have suggested he be questioned the next day -- which would have been his right unless they were going to arrest him.

Given a clearer head (adrenalin is a powerful drug), any inconsistencies might have been so minor as to make no difference. As it is? I don't know what those inconsistencies are -- and apparently you don't want to list them.
 
Well the first point of order is to resolve when and where Zimmer molested his underage cousin.
 
Excon said:
Wrong!

You stated the following:
​

And I pointed out the following:

​


So if you need more clarification, we do not believe you.
Is that clear enough?
Click to expand...

Failure.

The entire group is aware of a court order showing that Zimmerman lied.
 
Stardog said:
Failure.

The entire group is aware of a court order showing that Zimmerman lied.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Well if the court order said he lied, then by all means please quote it and put to rest this assertion as being true.

But since I already know you can not, you are wrong.
 
Stardog said:
Why do you believe the word of a proven liar over the facts?

Z has changed his story multiple times and shown that, not only his he lied to his own attorney, he has also lied to a court of law.

Why have you fallen for his lies hook line and sinker over the actual facts of the case?
Click to expand...

:naughty
Another noob wanting center stage without reviewing the many, many threads on this exact topic - starting a thread wanting to start it all from scratch for that reason. I think it would be foolish to agree to go along with this. I think we should not respond on this thread and instead continue that topic on existing threads on that topic.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
Well if the court order said he lied, then by all means please quote it and put to rest this assertion as being true.

But since I already know you can not, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

if you had any proof you would have posted it. Thread is just getting started and so am I.
 
Stardog said:
if you had any proof you would have posted it. Thread is just getting started and so am I.
Click to expand...
iLOL
It doesn't work that way. Duh!

You make the claim, you support it.
 
Stardog said:
I have a court order. what have you got?
Click to expand...
As I said.
Provide the exact quote or you are blowing smoke.
Did you not understand that?

But since I know you can not provide a quote saying he actually lied, you ain't got jack and are blowing smoke.

So why don't you go and peddle your untruths elsewhere?
 
Excon said:
As I said.
Provide the exact quote or you are blowing smoke.
Did you not understand that?

But since I know you can not provide a quote saying he actually lied, you ain't got jack and are blowing smoke.

So why don't you go and peddle your untruths elsewhere?
Click to expand...

translation. I got nothing.
 
Stardog said:
I got nothing.
Click to expand...
Of course you got nothing. We all can see that.
If you had, you would provide an exact quote.


But we already know you can't. lol
 
Stardog:
It is a fact GZ shot TM. GZ admitted he fired the gun. Since you are pushing the lying stance, was he lying when he stated he shot TM?:mrgreen:

What needs to be determined by a trial is was the shooting justified, murder 2, or manslaughter. Either way, a person should be considered innocent till proven guilty in a court of law.

Not all evidence is yet available to the public. Keep in mind while some witness statements, medical reports have been made public, none of the witnesses, experts, LE officers have been questioned by the prosecution or defense in court. Details may come out that people are now just speculating on.

(ex: in other threads TM supporters have speculated based on "facts" GZ head injuries may have been caused by his head hitting a tree or his flashlight. What they failed to mention is how would that have happended. If TM didn't inflict the head injuries, then did GZ do it to himself?

Since not all the evidence is available, no cross examination of witnesess have taken place, why are you so sure GZ is guilty?
 
Last edited:
This was nothing more than a bait thread from the start.
 
Last edited:
When a dispatcher asks you, "where are you located?" or
tells you not to pursue the alleged suspect because the police are on
their way and your response is, "call me back and I'll let you know
where I am at"....shows there was more than just someone trying to
protect his or her property.

But, then I am surprised that George could con anyone.
 
Stardog:

Which story do you think George wll tell as his SYG hearing?

"I was following him"..."I was looking for an address"..."I was frustrated because I didn't give them a good enough description of where I would be.. "Then there is the..."****, he's running"..."did I say running? No, I meant, like, skipping away, but not in any fear".
 
MaggieD said:
I was really wrapped up in this weeks ago and have since let it go seeing as the trial isn't happening until next year. So I'm not aware of inconsistencies in his story. Perhaps someone could post them up?

I do think minor inconsistencies from one telling to the next aren't uncommon. Actually, I think he should have asked for an attorney when the police brought him to the station for questioning. I think an attorney might have suggested he be questioned the next day -- which would have been his right unless they were going to arrest him.

Given a clearer head (adrenalin is a powerful drug), any inconsistencies might have been so minor as to make no difference. As it is? I don't know what those inconsistencies are -- and apparently you don't want to list them.
Click to expand...


I should kick myself in the ass for getting involved in another Zimmerman thread.....

With that said....

A. What constitutes an "inconsistency"? I have seen some of these claims of an inconsistent circumstance around a particular person's EXEPECTATION of what Zimmerman should be saying on the 911 call compared to what his STATEMENT was to police. I have also seen claims of "inconsistency" when a detail is added in a repeat telling of a story which the added detail was a response to a question that was not previously asked. Often when someone is giving a statement, if it is open ended, they will tell what they feel is important. If they are later asked a particular question, it will either Bring in a "new" detail left out from an open ended statement due to the lack of importance assigned it by the statement giver) or B. Remind the statement giver of a detail that they left out because it was suppressed in their mind.

B. Minor inconsistencies can actually be a very good thing. If someone tells a story, or certain parts of a story, using nearly the exact same words every time they retell it (at the beginning of an investigation) this is a sign that the statement is a made up and mentally rehearsed lie.
 
Stardog said:
Well the first point of order is to resolve when and where Zimmer molested his underage cousin.
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus ****ing Christ I knew I shouldn't have started into this thread........

This is about as ****ing pathetic as birthers.
 
sharon said:
When a dispatcher asks you, "where are you located?" or
tells you not to pursue the alleged suspect because the police are on
their way and your response is, "call me back and I'll let you know
where I am at"....shows there was more than just someone trying to
protect his or her property.

But, then I am surprised that George could con anyone.
Click to expand...

Worst translation of the 911 call.........EVER.

When are you going to admit that the Dispatcher said, "Sir we don't need you to do that."

If I tell my wife I don't need her to go to the store...... is that the same as telling her NOT to go to the store?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom