• 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.

FBI Files: More Zimmerman Lies? (1 Viewer)

Holy ****!
Talk about more dishonesty.

You most definitely were providing definitions.
Each and every one of the following are the words used in its definition.
All but the one where you deceitfully chose to add more to it.


I was not providing definitions for definitions sake. I used them to help clarify the meaning of what I wrote.

I did not "deceitfully add to it" as you claim. I was providing information on what I meant. I had everything in the open for everyone to see. I misused a term and clarified myself. That is not being deceitful.

But please continue to harass me for a simple mistake. It is quite amusing:lol:
 
Very easy to accused someone of lying but without rock solid evidence to back it up...

You have squat/zero

The state doesn't have to prove Z a liar, they just have to get the jury to think so. It's not a slam dunk but it will be easier then you think
 
The state doesn't have to prove Z a liar, they just have to get the jury to think so. It's not a slam dunk but it will be easier then you think
The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z committed second degree murder. Proving that he lied abut the events of that night is the barest start.
 
From the horse's mouth.....

See how many lies you can detect.....form the Affidavit

AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE - SECOND DEGREE MURDER

Before me, personally appeared T.C. O'Steen and K.D. Gilbreath, who after being duly sworn, desposes and says:

Your affiants, Investigators T.C. O'Steen, and Dale Gilbreath are members of the State Attorney Office - Fourth Judicial Circuit, appointed in this case by State Attorney Angela B. Corey, who assigned this case under Executive Order of the Governor 12-72.

Investigator O'Steen was previously employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and has 35 years of law enforcement experience, including 20 years handling homicide investigations. Investigator Gilbreath was previously employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, and has 36 years of lae enforcement experience, including 24 years handling homicide investigations.

Your affiants, along with other law enforcement officials have taken sworn statements from witnesses, spoken with law enforcement who have provided sworn testimony in reports, reviewed other reports, recorded statements, phone records, recorded calls to police, photographs, video, and other documents in detailing the following:

On Sunday2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 store where he purchased a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not commiting a crime.

Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martin was acting suspicious. The dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.

During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these assholes, they always get away" and also said " these ****ing punks".

During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's voice.

Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. When police arrived Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin. Officers recovered a gun from the holster inside Zimmerman's waistband. A fired casing was recovered at the scene was determined to have been fired from the firearm. Assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Bao performed an autopsy and determined that Martin died from the gunshot wound.

The facts mentioned in this Affidavit are not a complete recitation of all the pertinent facts and evidence in this case but only are presented for a determination of Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder.

"Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal."

Facts not in evidence. Z thought TM was "up to no good"...a far cry from being a criminal.

"The witness advised Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived."

A poorly worded and confusing statement as it suggests TM had knowledge of Z's actions and motives. Very unprofessional for an affidavit that may send someone to jail for a long time.

"When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

All the evidence we have indicates Z started back to his truck when the 911 op said this.

"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

There is no evidence Z confronted TM, in fact the other way around, even by DD's statements.

"Officers recovered a gun from the holster inside Zimmerman's waistband."

Other evidence and statements place the gun on the grass.
 
The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z committed second degree murder. Proving that he lied abut the events of that night is the barest start.

It's never been a Murder 2 case, that was overcharging by the state. And again, the state doesn't have to prove Z was lying, they just have to cast doubt on his veracity. If Z's version of how and when the altercation started and how it got 40 feet down that path is not believed by the jury, they may vote for a manslaughter charge.
 
I was not providing definitions for definitions sake. I used them to help clarify the meaning of what I wrote.

I did not "deceitfully add to it" as you claim. I was providing information on what I meant. I had everything in the open for everyone to see. I misused a term and clarified myself. That is not being deceitful.
Yes you did, and yes you were.
It is there for all to see.
Coming in after the fact of getting caught and trying to cover for your dishonesty doesn't count .
 
You two need to get a room.
 
It's never been a Murder 2 case, that was overcharging by the state. And again, the state doesn't have to prove Z was lying, they just have to cast doubt on his veracity. If Z's version of how and when the altercation started and how it got 40 feet down that path is not believed by the jury, they may vote for a manslaughter charge.
I have not seen an attorney assess the case that way.
:shrug:

My understanding is that to be convicted of anything, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the act(s) in question in the manner described. I know at least one attorney who has specifically stated that showing Z has lied is insufficient to convict Z-the state must also show beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime are also true.

Maybe you're right.
 
I don't know which way the jury will go. They may feel that even though Z initially confronted TM, that he fibbed about the altercation, that he had several opportunities to pull his weapon and shoot, but didn't, until TM was on top of and pounding him and making him believe his life was in danger.
 
I have not seen an attorney assess the case that way.
:shrug:

My understanding is that to be convicted of anything, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the act(s) in question in the manner described. I know at least one attorney who has specifically stated that showing Z has lied is insufficient to convict Z-the state must also show beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime are also true.

Maybe you're right.

Ya, convict on Murder 2, I agree. But all the elements of a manslaughter conviction are already there, all the jury has to decide is who started it. And if the believe Z is lying, his version goes out the window and THE TIMELINE WILL BACK THAT UP.

Z's walk through the next day makes it seem like there is about 10-15 seconds between when he ends his 911 call and walks to the T where TM confronts and decks him.

But there is a full 2 minutes and 20 seconds between those events AND 3 minutes and 24 seconds between the end of the call and the gunshot...as shown by the VERIFIABLE TIMELINE based on all the phone calls which have time stamps.


7:13:41 — Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends.[12]

7:16:00 - 7:16:59 — Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[12][13] (based on the first witness 911 call, probably close to 7:16)


7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[14]

7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.[15]


Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zimmerman my go down on these discrepancies alone.

So what was going on during those missing two minutes?
 
"Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal."

Facts not in evidence. Z thought TM was "up to no good"...a far cry from being a criminal.

"The witness advised Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived."

A poorly worded and confusing statement as it suggests TM had knowledge of Z's actions and motives. Very unprofessional for an affidavit that may send someone to jail for a long time.

"When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

All the evidence we have indicates Z started back to his truck when the 911 op said this.

"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

There is no evidence Z confronted TM, in fact the other way around, even by DD's statements.

"Officers recovered a gun from the holster inside Zimmerman's waistband."

Other evidence and statements place the gun on the grass.

There is a considerable amount of time from Zs "OK" and the shooting.

He didn't walk straight back to his truck. It took well under a minute to get where he was from his truck by the reenactment.

He was probably down the path between the buildings when they met.
 
There is a considerable amount of time from Zs "OK" and the shooting.

He didn't walk straight back to his truck. It took well under a minute to get where he was from his truck by the reenactment.

He was probably down the path between the buildings when they met.

I used to think that but Z's keys and flashlight were found on the grass at the top of the T. and I have to assume that is where the altercation started...where he dropped them.

But I won't rule out the Z did go down the path, saw nothing and then went back up.

There is one more curious thing, several times Z talks about how TM appeared out of no where behind and to his left. But in one statement, I don't remember which, he says TM jumped out from behind bushes.

The only bushes back there are on peoples patios. It's possible this is where TM was hiding and after Z went down the N-S path and was on his way back he decided to approach and confront Z and just get it over with.
 
Last edited:
Ya, convict on Murder 2, I agree. But all the elements of a manslaughter conviction are already there, all the jury has to decide is who started it. And if the believe Z is lying, his version goes out the window and THE TIMELINE WILL BACK THAT UP.
Destroying z story is not enough.
The prosecution must still show beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred.

I am well aware of the time line discrepancy.
 
Ok...still nothing.

That figures....

First, the blatant lie on part of the prosecution stating that Z disregarded the *instruction* not to follow M
 
I don't think Z will win his self defense hearing. It will be interesting since both the def and pross have to present their evidence but IMO the only thing the def will present is Z's statements and the medical and forensic results. They will use it as a fishing expedition and hope the pross tips their hand on how they are going to frame their arguments in the trial.

But the judge will deny if only because all the evidence they have is Z's stuff and the pross will show he has been inconsistent and this necessity of a full blown trial to get at the truth.

What argument does the state have to disprove Z' self defense?

What?
 
"Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal."

Facts not in evidence. Z thought TM was "up to no good"...a far cry from being a criminal.

"The witness advised Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived."

A poorly worded and confusing statement as it suggests TM had knowledge of Z's actions and motives. Very unprofessional for an affidavit that may send someone to jail for a long time.

"When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

All the evidence we have indicates Z started back to his truck when the 911 op said this.

"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

There is no evidence Z confronted TM, in fact the other way around, even by DD's statements.

"Officers recovered a gun from the holster inside Zimmerman's waistband."

Other evidence and statements place the gun on the grass.

Re-read it again
 
There's something I don't understand in some of the arguments here. Z has already admitted to shooting and killing TM, the state doesn't have to prove anything, the homicide is done and the perp has taken credit. It's Z who has claimed an affirmative self defense and it is Z who has to prove it in court and consequently all the state has to do is erode those claims as well as showing it was primarily the actions of Z that catalyzed the results of that day.
 
There's something I don't understand in some of the arguments here. Z has already admitted to shooting and killing TM, the state doesn't have to prove anything, the homicide is done and the perp has taken credit. It's Z who has claimed an affirmative self defense and it is Z who has to prove it in court and consequently all the state has to do is erode those claims as well as showing it was primarily the actions of Z that catalyzed the results of that day.
Killing Trayvon as it is claimed is not a crime.
The prosecution has to prove the elements of the crime. If they can not prove those elements a directed verdict is most likely assured.

Under the law, even if they somehow convince a jury that Zimmerman is responsible for initiating the conflict, they still have to show that he did not avail himself of every possible attempt to remove himself from Trayvon's attack. Which they can't as he was on the ground on his back and could not get away all the while screaming for help.

The defense could request, and would receive, a directed verdict under such circumstances.
 
There's something I don't understand in some of the arguments here. Z has already admitted to shooting and killing TM, the state doesn't have to prove anything, the homicide is done and the perp has taken credit. It's Z who has claimed an affirmative self defense and it is Z who has to prove it in court and consequently all the state has to do is erode those claims as well as showing it was primarily the actions of Z that catalyzed the results of that day.

Florida has funny laws in this area.

A guy could follow a little.woman around in the dark fondling his genitals and mumbling profanities, getting clkser and closer until.she pepper sprays him and starts whoopin his ass and he could legally shoot her.

Another interesting tidbit is it's illegal to "brandish" a firearm. Lifting yoir shirt to show your gun or pulling it out and only threatening can get you a stretch in Fl.

I still wonder if this is what caused Z to guild this lily.

I think M saw the gun when Z "went for his phone" (watch the reenactment for this moment) lifting his long shirt and pushing back the tails of his jacket on the side where the gun lives. Sure would explain why M chose THAT moment to attack a stranger.
 
I still wonder if this is what caused Z to guild this lily.

I think M saw the gun when Z "went for his phone" (watch the reenactment for this moment) lifting his long shirt and pushing back the tails of his jacket on the side where the gun lives. Sure would explain why M chose THAT moment to attack a stranger.
There was no gilding.
And as already pointed out to you when you said this before, the gun was on the opposite side of the one Trayvon approached from, he would not have seen it.
 
There was no gilding.
And as already pointed out to you when you said this before, the gun was on the opposite side of the one Trayvon approached from, he would not have seen it.

Who the hell stands sidelong to someone they are speaking to?

Nonsense.

Explain his pantomime in the reenactment.

The "story" has been that it was in a holster on the back right side.

Where a chubby lefty couldn't reach it and it would dig into ones back in the car.

More nonsense.
 
Killing Trayvon as it is claimed is not a crime.
The prosecution has to prove the elements of the crime. If they can not prove those elements a directed verdict is most likely assured.

Under the law, even if they somehow convince a jury that Zimmerman is responsible for initiating the conflict, they still have to show that he did not avail himself of every possible attempt to remove himself from Trayvon's attack. Which they can't as he was on the ground on his back and could not get away all the while screaming for help.

The defense could request, and would receive, a directed verdict under such circumstances.


The elements of the crime are that Z shot and killed TM with his gun. Z has admitted this, ballistics confirm it. What the state now has to respond to is Z's claim he did so in self defense.

The elements of the crime are not in dispute, the elements of self defense are.

Now one could argue that no crime has been committed until a guilty verdict is reached but if you want to play those kind of word games I'll let someone else jump in because I don't have the time.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom