• 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.

Zimmerman is a LIAR

Henry David said:
Please understand that I am speaking from the perspective of a juror. That is, IF I were a juror in this case, it would be obvious that he IS a liar.

In my philosophy of life, if a person has demonstrated his mendacity already, then I do not believe a word he says, UNLESS he can demonstrate that he is actually telling the truth in any particular case.

I'm from the old school--fool me once, fool me twice, old story.

All the evidence shows he initiated the confrontation, against advice of those he was representing, and in violation of stalking ordinances.

He IS a liar, so until he can prove that he is not lying, I assume that his pattern of behavior is holding true.
Click to expand...

What have they proved he lied about? Please, no long narrative -- just briefly list your claims.
 
Crosscheck said:
Do you really believe Martin was going to kill him there without even a weapon on him?

This whole mess developed soley because of Zimmerman's alter ego of being the neighborhood cop. You could almost equate Zimmerman with the mountain hiker who wanders too high or off the path and gets in trouble and now others have to come in to rescue him. This isn't murder one but Zimmerman is freaking responsible for this whole mess.
Click to expand...

Still following the path blazed by the media...that has repeatedly misstated the evidence

The one and only one responsible is M. The unsupervised M who came back *lying in wait* to confront *verbally and physically* a guy he originally ran away from.
 
MaggieD said:
What have they proved he lied about? Please, no long narrative -- just briefly list your claims.
Click to expand...

He lied about the severity of his wounds. He lied about his knowledge of SYG statutes. He and his wife were recorded making up a story regarding finances, and lied to the court in the process. Probably more, but that's all I can remember right now.

He's guilty as sin.
 
Henry David said:
He lied about the severity of his wounds. He lied about his knowledge of SYG statutes. He and his wife were recorded making up a story regarding finances, and lied to the court in the process. Probably more, but that's all I can remember right now.

He's guilty as sin.
Click to expand...

I disagree that he lied about the severity of his wounds. I'm not sure he knew about SYG statutes. I didn't hear the instructors' complete testimony yesterday, but I did hear that SYG is a slang term and appears nowhere in the statutes. You'll get no argument from me about their finances, though. I agree with you there.

Still, re the guts of the case? From the time he first called the cops and later shot Trayvon Martin? The state hasn't come anywhere close to proving any lies. And that's what they must do in order to find him guilty of Murder 2.
 
Henry David said:
Please understand that I am speaking from the perspective of a juror. That is, IF I were a juror in this case, it would be obvious that he IS a liar.

In my philosophy of life, if a person has demonstrated his mendacity already, then I do not believe a word he says, UNLESS he can demonstrate that he is actually telling the truth in any particular case.

I'm from the old school--fool me once, fool me twice, old story.

All the evidence shows he initiated the confrontation, against advice of those he was representing, and in violation of stalking ordinances.

He IS a liar, so until he can prove that he is not lying, I assume that his pattern of behavior is holding true.
Click to expand...

You're old school then you should stay in *old ****ing school* and stop making **** up...and learn, the evidence

Z is not charged with stalking, it's not a word used in the criminal charge. The prosecution said Z profiled M as a criminal and followed him.

No mention of stalking
 
MaggieD said:
I disagree that he lied about the severity of his wounds. I'm not sure he knew about SYG statutes. I didn't hear the instructors' complete testimony yesterday, but I did hear that SYG is a slang term and appears nowhere in the statutes. You'll get no argument from me about their finances, though. I agree with you there.

Still, re the guts of the case? From the time he first called the cops and later shot Trayvon Martin? The state hasn't come anywhere close to proving any lies. And that's what they must do in order to find him guilty of Murder 2.
Click to expand...

The blurb I caught on the TV news made it pretty clear that he knew about SYG. It seems maybe he even was a star student in the class or somehow taught about it? The camera went to his face as it was being discussed by the witness, and the body language was most insightful.

With his conversation with the dispatcher using the term "punk" and so forth, it seems that the state HAS met the burden of murder2.

But I'm no lawyer and juries can be fickle, so only time will tell.
 
ric27 said:
You're old school then you should stay in *old ****ing school* and stop making **** up...and learn, the evidence

Z is not charged with stalking, it's not a word used in the criminal charge. The prosecution said Z profiled M as a criminal and followed him.

No mention of stalking
Click to expand...

No **** Sherlock, but as I've already mentioned, I'm sitting and posting as a pretend juror, and the jury MAY follow its conscience, MUST follow its conscience, and must examine all the evidence available, despite the tampering of judges.

If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, had not initiated the contact, if he had followed the advice of the 911 dispatcher, Martin would still be alive and we would not be having this conversation.
 
Henry David said:
Please understand that I am speaking from the perspective of a juror.
Click to expand...
Is that what you think you are doing?
Apparently you are a stealth juror.

Henry David said:
That is, IF I were a juror in this case, it would be obvious that he IS a liar.
Click to expand...
Thankfully you are not, as you are allowing a bias to blind you.
There have been no lies shown.


Henry David said:
All the evidence shows he initiated the confrontation,
Click to expand...
Wrong.


Henry David said:
against advice of those he was representing,
Click to expand...
Wrong.


Henry David said:
and in violation of stalking ordinances.
Click to expand...
Doubly wrong!


Henry David said:
He IS a liar, so until he can prove that he is not lying, I assume that his pattern of behavior is holding true.
Click to expand...
Wrong! Except for DeeDee who is not believable, everything thus far has supported his account.
 
Excon said:
Is that what you think you are doing?
Apparently you are a stealth juror.


Thankfully you are not, as you are allowing a bias to blind you.
There have been no lies shown.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Doubly wrong!


Wrong! Except for DeeDee who is not believable, everything thus far has supported his account.
Click to expand...

Well Excon, that's just a matter of opinion, ain't it?

If you and I were sitting on the jury, it would be hung.
 
Henry David said:
He lied about the severity of his wounds.
Click to expand...
No he didn't.


Henry David said:
He lied about his knowledge of SYG statutes.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
The text book used didn't even address SYG. They discussed "castle doctrine".
And it was years ago. And for some reason you want to call him a liar because he could not recall something from a few years ago possible being mentioned a few of times.
You are being ridiculous calling it a lie.
A jury will be more level headed. They will understand a person may not remember things. They will also know that it doesn't matter one bit to ™ approaching, confronting and attacking Zimmerman.



Henry David said:
He and his wife were recorded making up a story regarding finances, and lied to the court in the process.
Click to expand...
Wrong again!
They were not recorded making up a story.
Nor has it been proven that they, let alone "he", lied to the court.
 
Last edited:
Henry David said:
Well Excon, that's just a matter of opinion, ain't it?

If you and I were sitting on the jury, it would be hung.
Click to expand...
That is because you are ignoring the evidence and even being untruthful to us.
 
Henry David said:
No **** Sherlock, but as I've already mentioned, I'm sitting and posting as a pretend juror, and the jury MAY follow its conscience, MUST follow its conscience, and must examine all the evidence available, despite the tampering of judges.

If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, had not initiated the contact, if he had followed the advice of the 911 dispatcher, Martin would still be alive and we would not be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Z was trying to help the cops, at their request, in trying to keep an eye on M's whereabouts...

Just where is the unlawfulness of Z's conduct?

Where is the statute or case making unlawful Z''s particularized suspicion of M?
 
Excon said:
Is that what you think you are doing?
Apparently you are a stealth juror.


Thankfully you are not, as you are allowing a bias to blind you.
There have been no lies shown.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Doubly wrong!


Wrong! Except for DeeDee who is not believable, everything thus far has supported his account.
Click to expand...

George told Serino that he was enrolled at UCF when in fact he had flunked out of Seminole again.
 
ric27 said:
Still following the path blazed by the media...that has repeatedly misstated the evidence

The one and only one responsible is M. The unsupervised M who came back *lying in wait* to confront *verbally and physically* a guy he originally ran away from.
Click to expand...

You finally got something right have being wrong in almost every posting. He was running away because Zimmerman was chasing him for no reason. So he turned to confront him and asked him why are you following me.

Zimmerman was a third rate moron stalking him and the kid stood up for himself .
 
sharon said:
George told Serino that he was enrolled at UCF when in fact he had flunked out of Seminole again.
Click to expand...

Somehow, you think this makes Z guilty of Second Degree Murder *16 years minimum up to life in prison*
 
ric27 said:
Somehow, you think this makes Z guilty of Second Degree Murder *16 years minimum up to life in prison*
Click to expand...

George studied Castle Doctrine, SYG and elements of self defense.. Why are you giving him a pass on lying?

George lies about everything all the time.. Listen to his jailhouse calls. He expects people like you to never challenge his crap.
 
MaggieD said:
I completely agree. It is extremely difficult not to filter the truth a bit when something extremely important is involved -- to slant the truth to make ourselves look better. That's human nature.

I think, if Zimmerman had consulted an attorney before he gave statements, his attorney would have given him a couple of days to cool down -- and, after hearing his story and believing him, would admonish him to tell "the absolute God's honest truth" in any statements he gave...perhaps even giving them via his own written narrative ahead of time. And to try his damnedest NOT to embellish a single thing.

My only concern is that, this is such a tragedy, that the jury may be wont to find him guilty of SOMETHING. And if that something is manslaughter, he'll get thirty years anyway. Personally, I hope they find him straight-up not guilty. As tragic as this incident was, as perfect a storm as blew in, I don't think George Zimmerman intentionally shot anyone. And I think he only shot because he was in fear for his life.
Click to expand...

Such a good post. I can't remember which thread, but several days ago you used the phrase "perfect storm," and this has really stuck with me. Thanks, Maggie.
 
Crosscheck said:
You finally got something right have being wrong in almost every posting. He was running away because Zimmerman was chasing him for no reason. So he turned to confront him and asked him why are you following me.

Zimmerman was a third rate moron stalking him and the kid stood up for himself .
Click to expand...

Learn, the evidence

Where is your evidence of Z chasing M?
 
Henry David said:
Well Excon, that's just a matter of opinion, ain't it?

If you and I were sitting on the jury, it would be hung.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure excon would believe Z lied if Z admitted it.
 
Dickieboy said:
Based on those who believe it the premise of this thread is that Zimmerman’s word is TOTALLY useless, a liar. Considering this disregard EVERYTHING he has said as one cannot believe one statement and then discount another.

On what evidence or scenario does Zimmerman get convicted of murder 2?

Remember the NEN calls cannot be used as Zimmerman's words (which are lies) are the stimuli to their responses. Goode’s testimony reveals M on top. The wounds on the back of Z’s head support this and further self-defense. Witnesses that state Z was on top do not explain the wounds on the back Z’s head. This at a minimum would promote reasonable doubt.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I don't think you are missing anything. It would appear he is guilty of manslaughter and nothing more.
 
Dickieboy said:
Based on those who believe it the premise of this thread is that Zimmerman’s word is TOTALLY useless, a liar. Considering this disregard EVERYTHING he has said as one cannot believe one statement and then discount another.

On what evidence or scenario does Zimmerman get convicted of murder 2?

Remember the NEN calls cannot be used as Zimmerman's words (which are lies) are the stimuli to their responses. Goode’s testimony reveals M on top. The wounds on the back of Z’s head support this and further self-defense. Witnesses that state Z was on top do not explain the wounds on the back Z’s head. This at a minimum would promote reasonable doubt.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Z gets convicted (of something) if the jury doesn't believe his story. If they do, he walks.

It's that simple.

Personally, I think Z has been lying off and on since the NEN call.
 
What if...? said:
I'm not sure excon would believe Z lied if Z admitted it.
Click to expand...

There have been many times when I found Z supporters making statements and arguments in direct contradiction to Z's own statements...heheh.
 
spanky said:
Z gets convicted (of something) if the jury doesn't believe his story. If they do, he walks.

It's that simple.

Personally, I think Z has been lying off and on since the NEN call.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think Z has been lying at all.
 
ABC10 said:
Personally, I don't think Z has been lying at all.
Click to expand...

He didn't lie about his finances and passport to the judge?
 
ABC10 said:
Personally, I don't think Z has been lying at all.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the superficial wounds on the back of Zimmermans head were caused by Trayvon repeatedly slamming his head against concrete?

This should be a yes or no question.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom