• 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

spanky said:
He didn't lie about his finances and passport to the judge?
Click to expand...

No and learn, the evidence

You're again....making and mixing up ****

No jury is going to convict Z of murder in the second because of a lack of communication with defense counsel to disclose available funds at a bond hearing.

The jury will convict if the state has credible evidence to counter Z's self-defense claim and it doesn't appear so

There's enough evidence to support Z, and flaws/half truths in the state's evidence to render a not guilty verdict
 
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...


Regardless of how a person got in that situation, once your head is being shoved or slammed into concrete you are in a fight for you life.

We can argue about how Zimmerman got into that situation. But unless a person has totally frozen in terror and is so brain rattled from the impacts as to be incapable of action, anyone in that situation would shoot if they had a gun.
 
ric27 said:
No and learn, the evidence

You're again....making and mixing up ****

No jury is going to convict Z of murder in the second because of a lack of communication with defense counsel to disclose available funds at a bond hearing.

The jury will convict if the state has credible evidence to counter Z's self-defense claim and it doesn't appear so

There's enough evidence to support Z, and flaws/half truths in the state's evidence to render a not guilty verdict
Click to expand...

The question, is Z a liar.
 
joko104 said:
Regardless of how a person got in that situation, once your head is being shoved or slammed into concrete you are in a fight for you life.

We can argue about how Zimmerman got into that situation. But unless a person has totally frozen in terror and is so brain rattled from the impacts as to be incapable of action, anyone in that situation would shoot if they had a gun.
Click to expand...

But you're assuming Z's head was actually repeatedly shoved into the concrete...the only evidence of that is Z's own statements, even the witnesses do not back that up.
 
joko104 said:
No. Nor is that relevant anyway.
Click to expand...

It's relevant to the question of whether Z is a liar.

Do I actually have to point this out?

I mean the title of the thread IS "Zimmerman a LIAR?"
 
spanky said:
The question, is Z a liar.
Click to expand...

No, the question is....Do you have, the needed evidence to refute Z's version?

Do you have what it takes to put Z behind bars?
 
ric27 said:
No, the question is....Do you have, the needed evidence to refute Z's version?

Do you have what it takes to put Z behind bars?
Click to expand...

You mean like DNA evidence?
 
spanky said:
You mean like DNA evidence?
Click to expand...

Nope...too much rain

You need to get a *credible* witness that's really close to Z to come forward and reveal that Z admitted killing M when M was pleading/begging for his life
 
iacardsfan said:
The fact that the system is broken and somebody can go after another person and then when they retaliate it is legal to use lethal force. Other then that, noting ;)
Click to expand...


A most excellent observation. Very very true.

Il think this guy is walking and one reason will be the absolutely horrid performance on the stand by the girl friend. I cannot get over how utterly terrible she was and how much damage she did.
 
ric27 said:
Nope...too much rain

You need to get a *credible* witness that's really close to Z to come forward and reveal that Z admitted killing M when M was pleading/begging for his life
Click to expand...

You consider Z to be a "credible" witness?

The problem is Z is pretty much the only witness...he killed all the others.
 
haymarket said:
A most excellent observation. Very very true.

Il think this guy is walking and one reason will be the absolutely horrid performance on the stand by the girl friend. I cannot get over how utterly terrible she was and how much damage she did.
Click to expand...

Why did she do damage? Because she was "too black"? The fact is DD provided the state with most of the evidence they have to try to convince the jury Z might be guilty of something.

That people can't see this, on both sides, mystifies me.
 
spanky said:
You consider Z to be a "credible" witness?

The problem is Z is pretty much the only witness...he killed all the others.
Click to expand...

What happens when you don't or can't get any evidence to disprove Z's version ?

What's your next step?
 
ric27 said:
What happens when you don't or can't get any evidence to disprove Z's version ?

What's your next step?
Click to expand...

Prove the perp is a liar.
 
ric27 said:
No...You go for motive
Click to expand...

I believe Zimmerman confronted Martin with the intention to force him back to the mailboxes so he could present a burglary suspect to the police. I believe Zimmerman tried to abduct Martin and, when Martin fought back, Zimmerman shot him then fabricated a story about being jumped by a suspicious black kid. In regards to the OP, you cannot omit Zimmerman's statements; both the threads of truth and lies are evidence.
 
Last edited:
spanky said:
The question, is Z a liar.
Click to expand...

No...again, the premise of this thread is that Z IS a liar. The 'challenge' is to present evidence EXCLUDING EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO SOMETHING Z SAID that has been revealed in trial that would FIND HIM GUILTY OF MURDER 2 with certainty.
 
Dickieboy said:
No...again, the premise of this thread is that Z IS a liar. The 'challenge' is to present evidence EXCLUDING EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO SOMETHING Z SAID that has been revealed in trial that would FIND HIM GUILTY OF MURDER 2 with certainty.
Click to expand...

Why? A conviction doesn't require absolute certainty. The doubt isn't reasonable IMO for a manslaughter guilty verdict at the very least. Murderers and rapists go free because people misinterpret reasonable doubt as any doubt.
 
sharon said:
George told Serino that he was enrolled at UCF when in fact he had flunked out of Seminole again.
Click to expand...
You are confused again sharon.
 
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...
Wrong. He was not running away.
Dingbat was continuing on his way home.
Coming back and circling Zimmerman's vehicle is an act of intimidation. Showing he wasn't afraid. Then he ran off in a skipping like fashion on his way home.

Then he ran back down to confront and attack Zimmerman. That is not running away.
And irt was Zimmerman who had to turn to see who was confronting him. Not the other way around.
 
Napoleon said:
...In regards to the OP, you cannot omit Zimmerman's statements; both the threads of truth and lies are evidence.
Click to expand...

Of course you can...it is merely speculative. Some in this Z/M forum have asserted/implied that Z is such a liar that nothing he says should be believed. It was my desire to attempt to gain supposition that would support a conviction WITHOUT Z's statements

Napoleon said:
Why? A conviction doesn't require absolute certainty. The doubt isn't reasonable IMO for a manslaughter guilty verdict at the very least. Murderers and rapists go free because people misinterpret reasonable doubt as any doubt.
Click to expand...

But as I understand it Z has been charged with second degree murder ONLY. How can the jury change the charge?

Further, you fail to provide any evidence as initially requested to convict him WITHOUT Z's statements.
 
sharon said:
George studied Castle Doctrine, SYG and elements of self defense.. Why are you giving him a pass on lying?
Click to expand...
Why are you calling something a lie when it may not be?

If we called you a liar every time you forgot something that was brought up before, you would be doing a life sentence.

What is funny here is that most folks who have been educated understand that a person may not remember something they were taught a few months ago let alone a couple of years. Yet her are the ™ supporters pretending not to understand that.
Especially since it really doesn't matter as he has the injuries consistent with his account and eye witness testimony supporting his account.


sharon said:
George lies about everything all the time..
Click to expand...
No sharon, he is not like you.
 
DaveFagan said:
I don't think you are missing anything. It would appear he is guilty of manslaughter and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Dickieboy doesn't know the evidence, and apparently you don't either.

That fact is that Zimmerman's account is backed up by eyewitness testimony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom