• 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

D

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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?
 
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
 

You are missing a lot... A lot more things that also represent reasonable doubt.
 
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...

How does that happen?

I mean, how does it happen that someone can have the same facts and information available to them as everyone else, and still manage to make such a misguided statement like you just did?
 
You made a gigantic leap from your original premise. Zimmerman is a liar so he's telling the truth? No, Zimmerman is a liar so he's lying...about everything except MOST of what we heard on the NEN call. He is lying about why he even exited his car so of course he's lying about what he did outside of it. This trial evidence says Trayvon's parents and anyone who cried out in protest had a legit concern.
 

It's becoming crystal clear that the original call not to arrest Zimmerman and put him on trial was the correct move... Can't you see that the state's case has been a big fat nothing? Even after I knew nearly all the evidence before the trial began and knew there wasn't anything there, the state still managed to do far, far worse than I ever expected.

Most murder trials have a pile of damning evidence and the object for the defense is to hopefully come up with a few things that will cause resonable doubt in some of the jurors... This case is exactly the opposite... Nearly every rock the prosecutors turned over, the defense either turned into a Zimmerman win, or at gaing a nice chunk of "resonable doubt" from it.

Do you really believe that there is a chance that any 1 of those 6 jurors won't see reasonable doubt, much less all 6 of them and actually convict him?
 
Clearly the decision not to arrest without having all the facts was stupid. But he's on trial now so further discussion about his arrest is also stupid.

Back to this topic, If Zimmerman didn't feel the knowledge he had about SYG was not damaging to him he wouldn't have lied about it.
 
Zimmerman's self defense claim was affirmative. IN other words he said he killed Martin for a particular reason. NO one put those words in his mouth, its his story. After reviewing the evidence the jury has no choice but conclude his affirmative defense is D.O.A. He did not shoot Martin because he feared for his life. Martin had done NOTHING that would cause any reasonable person to fear great bodyily harm. The person who appeared to fear great bodily harm was Martin who NO DOUBT screamed for his life otherwise Zimmerman's screams would have made Martin flee. He wasn't suffocating and beating the hell out of Zimmerman so if Martin could have escaped he would have.
 

We don't know that he did lie about it... But if he did, I have no idea why he would, because that is not something he would need to lie about in the first place.
 

We don't know that he did lie about it... But if he did, I have no idea why he would, because that is not something he would need to lie about in the first place.
 
Grim17 said:
You are missing a lot... A lot more things that also represent reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

You're right but I merely attempted to exhibit a couple, which is MORE than enough, for Z to be acquitted. The discussion I am hoping to stimulate is that based on EVIDENCE and omitting EVERYTHING Z said how does Z get convicted.
 

Ambiguous...where did the OP state that 'he's telling the truth'? You stated 'about everything except MOST'; I'd hoped to exclude 'everything' (as the premise is 'Z is a liar') and not accept 'except MOST' and anything cannot be believed. ie, how do we KNOW Z was out of the car?

This trial evidence says Trayvon's parents and anyone who cried out in protest had a legit concern.
Click to expand...

Ok, so how does Z get convicted from this 'legit concern'?
 

You're right and to the topic based on Z's knowledge about SYG he lied. Now what is precisely the point of law that he is guilty of that will convict him?...because he KNEW about something? I understand your premise is that he had knowledge that would make him more CAPABLE to spin a story (lie) but this does not make him guilty...if so how?
 
Every person in the world is a liar now and then.

Next point?
 
tashatexas77048 said:
Zimmerman's self defense claim was affirmative. IN other words he said he killed Martin for a particular reason. NO one put those words in his mouth, its his story.
Click to expand...

Again, in this exercise we are discounting EVERYTHING Z said. HIS story is irrelevant.



So when Goode stated 'M was on top' he was preventing Z from escaping. Is it your contention that Z was preventing M from escaping? If so how (remember quote evidence not speculation)?
 
joko104 said:
Every person in the world is a liar now and then.

Next point?
Click to expand...

On what evidence or scenario does Zimmerman get convicted of murder 2?
 
joko104 said:
Every person in the world is a liar now and then.

Next point?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grim17 said:
How does that happen?

I mean, how does it happen that someone can have the same facts and information available to them as everyone else, and still manage to make such a misguided statement like you just did?
Click to expand...

There is no misguided facts here. He saw Martin, radioed into the police where they told him to wait, he disobeyed them and went after Martin anyways, he confronted him and that's where it gets blurry. Even if Zimmerman confronted Martin as the aggressor, if Martin attacked back, Zimmerman had the ability to use deadly force because he felt his life was endangered. This was covered very thoroughly by a legal analyst on CNN last night.
 

Big fat nothing? Really? I guess it's true a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest?

I have not been 'following' the trial, but have seen parts of the trial on the evening TV news about 4 or 5 times now.

Looks to me like Zimmerman is very much a liar and the state has proved that.

He was a vigilante, following Martin perhaps with the subliminal vision of a beating reminiscent of Rodney King. Zimmerman saw himself as some kind of Dirty Harry type figure.

As Neighborhood Watch, he should NOT have been armed, and he disobeyed the order/advice given him by the dispatcher.

He was wrong from start to finish, he's a pathological liar in the same style as George W. Bush, and if the jury doesn't convict him I'll be very surprised.
 

I agree that he may not be convicted, but there is one little bit of doubt. They are all mothers or most are and Ts mother has yet to testify. It could maybe be a lesser sentence. I'm not totally convinced he will not be convicted.
 
Henry David said:
I guess it's true a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest?
Click to expand...

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" -Paul Simon, 'The Boxer'.
 

Ok, the premise of the thread is 'he IS a liar' and NOTHING he says can be trusted...none of what you state above is against the law nor will convict him unless you can explain it further...thx
 
MaggieD said:
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...


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.
 
Carleen said:
I agree that he may not be convicted, but there is one little bit of doubt. They are all mothers or most are and Ts mother has yet to testify. It could maybe be a lesser sentence. I'm not totally convinced he will not be convicted.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly he is ONLY charged with second degree murder. I don't see how he can be convicted of a 'lesser sentence' if not charged...?
 
Dickieboy said:
Ok, the premise of the thread is 'he IS a liar' and NOTHING he says can be trusted...none of what you state above is against the law nor will convict him unless you can explain it further...thx
Click to expand...

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.
 
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…