Is there no inconsistency in Zimmerman's story?

[Excon]

sure it is. your bias is simply effecting your vision.

:doh
Holy ****!
:doh



I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were really blind.

Who am I kidding?

I am sure everybody can see that your blindness is caused by your bias.

 

[Thunder]

...I am sure everybody can see that your blindness is caused by your bias.

you are confusing me....with you.

"the tenseness of the event is evidence that TM spoke to GZ in a hostile & threatening manner"

:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[Excon]

you are confusing me....with you.

No dear, that is what you are doing, and I am sure that the majority of the posters heer can see that.

 

[Thunder]

No dear....

I'm flattered by your advances, but you're not my type.

 

[Excon]

I'm flattered by your advances, but you're not my type.

Don't flatter yourself dear. That wasn't an advance.
And your type is obviously the one in your avatar.

 

[Thunder]

Don't flatter yourself dear. That wasn't an advance....

please, stop hitting on me with such terms of endearment.

it gives me the creeps.

 

[Excon]

please, stop hitting on me with such terms of endearment.

it gives me the creeps.

 

[Airborne375]

2 cuts, both could have been caused by the same impact.

Or not. The damage could have been caused by continual punches to the face while Z was down. Which means Z's story is inconsistent but the use of deadly force was certainly warranted.

 

[Thunder]

Or not. The damage could have been caused by continual punches to the face while Z was down. Which means Z's story is inconsistent but the use of deadly force was certainly warranted.

let's see if the jury agrees with your assessment.

 

[Excon]

Or not. The damage could have been caused by continual punches to the face while Z was down. Which means Z's story is inconsistent but the use of deadly force was certainly warranted.

Not necessarily.

It just means that it happened while being punched, not while getting his head slammed.

 

[Airborne375]

Z has talked far too much to the press and to the police. Didn't his original defense team abandon him for talking too much. Z should of told the police that he was unsure exactly how his head was injured except by multiple instances of contact with the cement, he can still say he thought T was intentionally pounding his head into the concrete but it could have been the blows to the face when he was on the ground. And that T was on top of him, punching him and he used deadly force because he feared for his own life. You have the right to remain silent for a very good reason. Then he should have listened to his lawyer in regards to what to say and what not to say.

 

[Thunder]

Z has talked far too much to the press and to the police. Didn't his original defense team abandon him for talking too much....

GZ has a big ****ing mouth, which will end up costing him his freedom.

 

[Airborne375]

Not necessarily.

It just means that it happened while being punched, not while getting his head slammed.

Agreed when I said inconstant I meant the statement that T intentionally grabbed his head and slammed it into the concrete.

 

[ric27]

GZ has a big ****ing mouth, which will end up costing him his freedom.

Please explain in what way, Zim has a big ****ing mouth, which will end up costing him his freedom.

 

[Airborne375]

GZ has a big ****ing mouth, which will end up costing him his freedom.

Maybe but what happened that night won't. What he said afterward may. The 'inconstant victim statement' is nothing new and can often be explained as just that.

 

[Gladiator]

Gladiator Post 287, Page 29:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...ere-no-inconsistency-zimmermans-story-29.html

Dee Dee says that the sounds she heard indicated that Zim must have pushed Trayvon first. So there is some evidence that
Zim may have been the first to use physical force.

Zim gives the statement on the re-enactment tape that he was putting his hands in his pockets lookin for his cell phone, which may have been interpreted by Trayvon as going for a gun or a knife, together with Zim speaking in an inimidating manner, Zim may have been the first to put Trayvon in fear of serious injury, which is Assault.


While on the ground, Zim kept his right arm near his pistol, rather than try to defend himself, in a fair fight.

Bs! Total bs.
It was Trayvon that spoke in an intimidating manner, and then attacked Zimmerman. That is the evidence.




There was no fight". It was an assault by Trayvon on Zimmerman.
That is what the evidence says.



That is not a conclusion that she can draw let alone come to.

The evidence is that Trayvon hit Zimmerman first. Therefore that is what she heard, if she is not lying and heard anything at all.

Dee Dee's version is backed up by Witness 11, March 2, 2012 inte4view, 11:20 AM, in which Witness 11 states that all male voices she heard, at the start of the altercation, were speking in a beligerant tone. This means Zim too.


In the interview, there is a second female voice, and that is an investigator.

"We" is used by witness 11, but apparently refers to her fiance and her.


So Witness 11 can be heard as the lower toned female voice in the March 2, 2012 interview.


Witness 11 does say the TV was loud, and she does not remember exact words, but she does say, at one point, that she heard something like, "What are you doing?"

Witness 11 also that all male voices she heard had a beligerant tone.

This supports Dee Dee's version of what Dee Dee remembers in those 2 key aspects.

In the re-enactment George says he was talking in a calm voice "I don't have any problem with you." which is a lie within a lie.

Home




Dee Dee's Statement



Discovery: DeeDee's (Trayvon's Girlfriend) Full Statement to the State Attorney - YouTube

 

[Excon]

Dee Dee says that the sounds she heard indicated that Zim must have pushed Trayvon first. So there is some evidence that Zim may have been the first to use physical force.

For continuity purposes.
That is not a conclusion that she can draw, let alone come to.

The evidence is that Trayvon hit Zimmerman first.
Therefore that is what she heard, if she is not lying and heard anything at all.

Zim gives the statement on the re-enactment tape that he was putting his hands in his pockets lookin for his cell phone, which may have been interpreted by Trayvon as going for a gun or a knife, together with Zim speaking in an inimidating manner, Zim may have been the first to put Trayvon in fear of serious injury, which is Assault.

Again: For continuity purposes.
Bs! Total bs.
It was Trayvon that spoke in an intimidating manner, and then attacked Zimmerman. That is the evidence.

While on the ground, Zim kept his right arm near his pistol, rather than try to defend himself, in a fair fight.

Again: For continuity purposes.
There was no "fight". It was an assault by Trayvon on Zimmerman.
That is what the evidence says.

---

Dee Dee's version is backed up by Witness 11, March 2, 2012 inte4view, 11:20 AM, in which Witness 11 states that all male voices she heard, at the start of the altercation, were speking in a beligerant tone. This means Zim too.


In the interview, there is a second female voice, and that is an investigator.

"We" is used by witness 11, but apparently refers to her fiance and her.


So Witness 11 can be heard as the lower toned female voice in the March 2, 2012 interview.


Witness 11 does say the TV was loud, and she does not remember exact words, but she does say, at one point, that she heard something like, "What are you doing?"

Witness 11 also that all male voices she heard had a beligerant tone.

This supports Dee Dee's version of what Dee Dee remembers in those 2 key aspects.

DD doesn't matter.
But these witnesses support Zimmerman's account.

As for DD. Her account is shady because of the way we come to it.
Then she lied in that interview. Zimmerman does not have a deep voice.

Additional, she told another lie and De La Ronda tried to rehabilitate her.


I started looking for a Transcript of it and came across what follows the vid. Apparently I am not the only one to catch her lying again.
You may want to read the whole thing as the comments made are not mine.

Starting at 15:50.
Listen you will here it. Clear as day.

That was a damn long pause, clearly she was attempting to lie again and actual did.
Clearly she had been coached by someone before hand.

BDLR: Did Trayvon ever say, ‘The guy’s coming at me…he’s going to hit me?”

Dee Dee: …yeah…you could say that.

I suspect that at this point, BDLR realizes he is in real trouble, and is suddenly rediscovering at least some legal ethics:

BDLR: Now I don’t want you to guess. Did he ever say that?

Dee Dee: How he said it? He did say… [sounds confused as though seeking guidance]…

BDLR: No, I want…do you understand? Did he say that or not? If he didn’t say it, that’s alright…I, I…

Is this another bit of confusion, or is Dee Dee getting her signals crossed, signals she earlier worked out with BDLR? Is she trying to figure out whether he really wants her to say what she thinks he wants her to say, or instead, actually tell the truth like he is currently suggesting? I only wish I could have been in the room, invisible, during this exchange.

Dee Dee: He got…the man got…

BDLR: Do you understand, I’m not trying to get you to say anything…

Dee Dee: He got problems…like he crazy.

BDLR: Trayvon told you that…
The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 11: The Dee Dee Interview–Kaboom! « Stately McDaniel Manor
​

In the re-enactment George says he was talking in a calm voice "I don't have any problem with you." which is a lie within a lie.

That truly does not matter one bit.
Do you think it would be wise that he tell him that he really didn't have a problem with him, but that he had called the police and was trying to keep him under observation so he could point him out to police?

 

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

In the re-enactment George says he was talking in a calm voice "I don't have any problem with you." which is a lie within a lie.

That truly does not matter one bit.
Do you think it would be wise that he tell him that he really didn't have a problem with him, but that he had called the police and was trying to keep him under observation so he could point him out to police?

The problem for Zim is that Witness 11 coroborates Dee Dee's account that Zim was speaking in a threatening manner to Trayvon. So in combination with all the other acts of intimidation by Zim, this comes close to assault.

Dee Dee recollects that she bvelieved that Trayvon was fearful of Zim. this is another part of Assault. Witness 11 corrobrates that there was a shouting then a scuffling. If Zim loses Stand Your Ground, beause of Assault on Trayvon, then Zim apparently had a chance to retreat, betweent the times of hte shouting and the time of the scuffling. Zim's failure to try to retreat, cancels a right to use deadly force, which is allowed by Stand Your Ground.


Dee Dee has two parts of her testimony. One is what she heard, and also, what she thinks what she heard means. Dee Dee is fairly clearly able to differentiate between what she heard, and what she believs it means. Because Dee Dee thinks that something happened by the sounds, does not mean she is lying.

Dee Dee is trouble for Zime because Dee Dee can give credible tetimony that she feele that Trayvon was frightened by the actions of Zimmerman. That is an Assault problem. Witness 11 coroborates Dee Dee, that Trayvon was probably scared, which is part of fisticuffs..

Zim's account of the words he and Trayvon traded is self-serving and contradicted by Dee Dee and Witness 11.

Have you called Zim about advice on buying your next car?

I agree that Dee Dee is not firm in her belief that Zim pushed Trayvon first. But the jury does not have to buy that part of Dee Dee's beliefs, that Zim pushed Trayvon first. There is fear and inimidation by Zim, Coroborated by Witness 11, for the jury to find fhe fist Assault by Zim.







//

 

[sharon]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

In the re-enactment George says he was talking in a calm voice "I don't have any problem with you." which is a lie within a lie.




The problem for Zim is that Witness 11 coroborates Dee Dee's account that Zim was speaking in a threatening manner to Trayvon. So in combination with all the other acts of intimidation by Zim, this comes close to assault.

Dee Dee recollects that she bvelieved that Trayvon was fearful of Zim. this is another part of Assault. Witness 11 corrobrates that there was a shouting then a scuffling. If Zim loses Stand Your Ground, beause of Assault on Trayvon, then Zim apparently had a chance to retreat, betweent the times of hte shouting and the time of the scuffling. Zim's failure to try to retreat, cancels a right to use deadly force, which is allowed by Stand Your Ground.


Dee Dee has two parts of her testimony. One is what she heard, and also, what she thinks what she heard means. Dee Dee is fairly clearly able to differentiate between what she heard, and what she believs it means. Because Dee Dee thinks that something happened by the sounds, does not mean she is lying.

Dee Dee is trouble for Zime because Dee Dee can give credible tetimony that she feele that Trayvon was frightened by the actions of Zimmerman. That is an Assault problem. Witness 11 coroborates Dee Dee, that Trayvon was probably scared, which is part of fisticuffs..

Zim's account of the words he and Trayvon traded is self-serving and contradicted by Dee Dee and Witness 11.

Have you called Zim about advice on buying your next car?



//

What sort of grown man with a gun can't take responsibility for being wrong in following and scaring an unarmed adolescent?

If I were GZ.. I would be in holy chit mode, not trying to claim the kid started it or had it coming.

 

[Airborne375]

What sort of grown man with a gun can't take responsibility for being wrong in following and scaring an unarmed adolescent?

If I were GZ.. I would be in holy chit mode, not trying to claim the kid started it or had it coming.

Is adolescent the right term for a 17 year old? Also Dee Dee never heard the entire exchange. A 'good' jury will take that into consideration. Guilty until proven otherwise and all that good stuff.

 

[Airborne375]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

In the re-enactment George says he was talking in a calm voice "I don't have any problem with you." which is a lie within a lie.





The problem for Zim is that Witness 11 coroborates Dee Dee's account that Zim was speaking in a threatening manner to Trayvon. So in combination with all the other acts of intimidation by Zim, this comes close to assault.

//

Witness 11 never heard anything spoken in a lower tone than the one he/she heard Zim threaten Trayvon. Zim could have been trying to Trayvon a favor by telling him not to grab him or whatever. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable at best, ear-witness testimony is worse yet.

 

[Gladiator]

Witness 11 never heard anything spoken in a lower tone than the one he/she heard Zim threaten Trayvon. Zim could have been trying to Trayvon a favor by telling him not to grab him or whatever. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable at best, ear-witness testimony is worse yet.

In the re-enactment tapes Zim recounts that just before Trayvon punched him in the face, that Zim was reaching into his jacket and pants pockets. Did Trayvon see that as a threatening move, to reach for a gun or a knife?


//

 

[Thunder]

In teh re-enactmetn tapes Zim recounts that just before Trayvon punched him in the face, that Zim was reaching into his jacket and pants pockets. Did Trayvon see that as a threatening move, to reach for a gun or a knife?

what was he reaching for? his gun?

a man pursued you in a car and on foot, and asks you "what are you doing here??", and reaches into his pocket?

THAT is a threatening move, which justifies my contention that he acted in self-defense.

 

[whysoserious]

What sort of grown man with a gun can't take responsibility for being wrong in following and scaring an unarmed adolescent?

If I were GZ.. I would be in holy chit mode, not trying to claim the kid started it or had it coming.

Honestly, I don't know how he didn't apologize ****ing immediately. I would be ****ing freaking out if I followed someone, confronted them, and then shot them (even in self-defense) if I found out they were unarmed and have every right to be there. ****ing freaking out.

 

[Thunder]

Honestly, I don't know how he didn't apologize ****ing immediately. I would be ****ing freaking out if I followed someone, confronted them, and then shot them (even in self-defense) if I found out they were unarmed and have every right to be there. ****ing freaking out.

the first thing I would have done once my injuries had become pain-free, would have been to ask to meet with the parents personally, and express how terribly sorry I was for taking their son's life.

i would have explained to them why i thought he was up to no good, how I had no intention of shooting him, how it just got out of hand really quick, and a terribly tragedy took place.

he didn't have to admit guilt, say he made a mistake, say he did something wrong.

all he had to do was express remorse for the terrible tragedy, and the loss of someone's dear son.