• 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.

Key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting changed story

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,983
Reaction score
9,129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent


This does not bode well for Zimmerman.

Down to expert analysis?

This was also news from like Twelve hours ago.
I am surprised I am the one who first noticed it.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
This does not bode well for Zimmerman.

Down to expert analysis?
Click to expand...


Hard to say. Changing your story is a good way to discredit your entire testimony.
 
Excon said:
This does not bode well for Zimmerman.

Down to expert analysis?
Click to expand...

I didn't see where witness6 changed his statement of who was on top. ie Z was still on the bottom?

If I was on the jury, it just adds doubt to the relability of this witness. Neither good or bad for Z.
 
Goshin said:
Hard to say. Changing your story is a good way to discredit your entire testimony.
Click to expand...
Yes.
I would also say that his assumption about it being the guy on the bottom who would be calling for help is spot-on.
But, just another example of why eye-witness testimony is often unreliable.
Thankfully he was of mind to notice his error and correct it.
I wouldn't want to see Zimmerman walk based on false testimony.
 
mike2810 said:
I didn't see where witness6 changed his statement of who was on top. ie Z was still on the bottom?

If I was on the jury, it just adds doubt to the relability of this witness. Neither good or bad for Z.
Click to expand...

You didn't see the change? Or do you just not care because nothing will change your opinion?

It doesn't matter because no matter what the outcome of the trial, the public has already made up their minds and any verdict that doesn't agree with that will be a "travesty of justice." Mark it now. Once the trial is over, there will be a thread here complaining about the verdict one way or the other.
 
rocket88 said:
You didn't see the change? Or do you just not care because nothing will change your opinion?
Click to expand...
His testimony will still put Zimmerman on the bottom. Why would that change his opinion?
Being on the bottom getting pummeled like it was MMA, is a clear indicator that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
Or do you not think so?


rocket88 said:
Once the trial is over, there will be a thread here complaining about the verdict one way or the other.
Click to expand...
And I guarantee I wont be starting it.
 
Last edited:
I don't even consider that changing the story honestly. He went from "it was Zimmerman" to "I'm not really sure who it was." The most damning part of his story he didn't change, and that is who was on top.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
I don't even consider that changing the story honestly. He went from "it was Zimmerman" to "I'm not really sure who it was." The most damning part of his story he didn't change, and that is who was on top.
Click to expand...

What color was Trayvon's hoodie?

I thought that it was light gray or dark gray, but in the 7-11 video it appears to be dark red.

Mine are pink and yellow..
 

There won't be a trial, when it's all laid out there is no solid evidence to convict Z of anything. What evidence there is supports Z not M.
 
Man Travon had some big feet huh? Look at those things.
 

I was mearly pointing out like others. a witness changing their statement diminished the reliability of what they know. The change was on if Z yelled for help or not. I did not see a change on who was on top and who was pinned down. Did you?
I never made a statement of Z innocents or guilt.

I will agree that once the this is over it will be like the OJ verdict. Some will agree, some will disagree with the verdict.

I personally think it better to not to judge a person via news media. I also believe innocent till proven guilty.
 
Last edited:
All I got from the story and video report, was that the witness now isn't sure who is screaming, but does know it was Martin on top beating him up... So It might be that the guy who is beating the crap out of the other guy, is the one screaming for help... That makes sense... lol

There was one other thing though... Martins father said that it wasn't his son screaming... That was the first time I ever saw that bit of evidence.
 
Questions are:
1)Who initiated the fight?
2)Why did Zimmerman continue to follow him (isnt that stalking someone a "confrontation)?
3)Why did Zimmerman not allow the police handle this?
4)What made Trayvonn "suspicious"?
 
The misinformation and baseless assumption just keep on rolling don't they? lmmfao


TheDemSocialist said:
Questions are:
1)Who initiated the fight?
2)Why did Zimmerman continue to follow him (isnt that stalking someone a "confrontation)?
3)Why did Zimmerman not allow the police handle this?
4)What made Trayvonn "suspicious"?
Click to expand...

1) There are no witnesses to this, and it will be the prosecutions job to prove that it was Zimmerman who initiated the fight.
2) Who said he did? And even if he did, it is not stalking and it is not illegal.
3) Who said that he didn't?
4) Who gives a rats-ass? That is 100% irrelevant.
 
Grim17 said:
The misinformation and baseless assumption just keep on rolling don't they? lmmfao
Click to expand...
Asking questions is misinformation?




1) There are no witnesses to this, and it will be the prosecutions job to prove that it was Zimmerman who initiated the fight.
Click to expand...
Thats why its a question

2) Who said he did? And even if he did, it is not stalking and it is not illegal.
Click to expand...
Uhhh he continued to follow him after the police told him to stop. This is already proven

3) Who said that he didn't?
Click to expand...
He continued to follow him...

4) Who gives a rats-ass? That is 100% irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Actually it is. Zimmerman claimed a suspicious man was in the neighborhood. This is what set off the whole ordeal..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Questions are:
1)Who initiated the fight?
2)Why did Zimmerman continue to follow him (isnt that stalking someone a "confrontation)?
3)Why did Zimmerman not allow the police handle this?
4)What made Trayvonn "suspicious"?
Click to expand...

and this is why we should wait to see what is brought out in court. Incomplete information released and/or reported by news media only leads to speculation by the public.

imo, the more important question is can Zimmerman get a fair trial with all of the media coverage and release of partial information? Whatever the outcome some are not going to like the vedict. Can we all say OJ, OJ, OJ.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Asking questions is misinformation?
Click to expand...

No, but we'll get to that in just a second.


Uhhh he continued to follow him after the police told him to stop. This is already proven
Click to expand...

It is? You mean when the dispatcher said that he didn't need to follow him, and he responded by saying "ok" and said he was going back to his truck?


He continued to follow him...
Click to expand...

Really? Where is that evidence? And lets just say he did, how is that "not letting police handle it?"

Actually it is. Zimmerman claimed a suspicious man was in the neighborhood. This is what set off the whole ordeal..
Click to expand...

So if you as a citizen call police about a suspicious person, you better be ready to prove that in a court of law, or you will be in trouble for calling tha police?

Are you saying that people need to mind there own damn business, just like they do in communist countries?

Again, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
 
Goshin said:
Hard to say. Changing your story is a good way to discredit your entire testimony.
Click to expand...

It's a given.....eyewitness statements are notorious for being incorrect.
 

Are you really bringing up communism into this argument? I thought people minding their own business was what America was about? Jesus Christ.

The evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin is present both in the conversation Martin was having with his girlfriend right before the time of the fight were he mentioned being followed and in Zimmerman's own testimony. In fact Zmmerman's own defense lawyers have stated that following him was not a crime, therefore its a matter of public record that Zimmerman followed Martin, because

The Associated Press: Amid evidence cache in Martin case, questions nag

This kind of action can be deemed "hostile" ask yourself if you would find it hostile or unnerving to be followed by someone in the night? However that in itself does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if he did in fact attack first, we know there was a struggle and we know that someone may have seen Martin on top of Zimmerman, apparently with the upper hand, however that does not mean Martin started the fight. But of course at the same time one doesn't lose their right to self defense by placing themselves in danger, so even if its found that Zimmerman was some kind of "glory seeker" or was otherwise acting stupidly by following this kid, it may not mean anything.

You don't know the case as well as you think dude. And here's the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call where he flat out tells the dispatcher he's following Martin.

George Zimmerman Police Call
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
There won't be a trial, when it's all laid out there is no solid evidence to convict Z of anything. What evidence there is supports Z not M.
Click to expand...

Self-defense cases put the burden of proof on the defendant. Are we in ****ing bizzarro world here?
 
whysoserious said:
Self-defense cases put the burden of proof on the defendant. Are we in ****ing bizzarro world here?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you're wrong, as was pointed out 4 or 5 thousand posts ago. I'm not digging up that crap again, because I have learned that the left doesn't really give a damn about facts anyway, so digging it up will not change one damned thing.
 

His following matters. At a minimum, it places moral responsibility. At a maximum, it places a legal responsibility for what followed. He is the catelyst for what happened. Is that murder 2? I wouldn't think so, but that is something for the courts to decide.

And if we do find Zimmerman started the confrontation, that provides an entirely different animal.
 
whysoserious said:
Self-defense cases put the burden of proof on the defendant. Are we in ****ing bizzarro world here?
Click to expand...

SYG is slightly different then typical SD claims. There is a lot of information posted here to prove that. I posted different articles from experts, AdamT posted actual court rulings, Grim posted some stuff, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…