Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Florida Teen murdered by


Copasetic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Felix... Please, please, please, please, please post a link/resource that says a Florida 911 operator is a Law Enforcement officer.

Felix.... Where do you show any of the variables linked to 2nd Degree Murder? Stalking is not murder. Aggrivated assault is not murder. Intent to follow someone is not intent to murder. There is zero chance of providing evidence that Z wanted to kill anyone. So Murder is simply not going to stick.

Are you really this dense?

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

There is your second degree murder.

He stalked an unknown person, while being armed, which ultimately lead to aggravated battery and the loss of life.

^

Why are you still arguing against this?

Z never tried to detain, arrest or frisk M.

show an evidence that he tried.

If he did not pursue in an attempt to detain, frisk, or arrest Martin... Why did he pursue Martin? There is no legitimate reason.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know exactly what casing a lick is.. in a more intimate way than i'd like to admit.

Your post is a far cry from following someone down the street, losing them and continuing on the hunt for them...

I also know that if i walk away from your property after casing it and you follow me, I can call the cops and press charges on your for harassment lol

No, you can't...I just decided to take a stroll through my own neighborhood or walk the dog. All I'm doing is admiring the gardens or work people have done on their houses...and ...they know me.

The police would be asking the other person who they are and where they live.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he did not pursue in an attempt to detain, frisk, or arrest Martin... Why did he pursue Martin? There is no legitimate reason.

he had a legitimate reason, he was watch capitan, spoted unknown person, suspisios, you have no clue what his intent was, not a single article says Z had intent to arrest' detain' or frisk, but feel free to make **** up, oh wait you already on it.

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really this dense?

Yes. Post why you believe a 911 operator is a law enforcement officer (LEO).

I went and googled this the other day and found several sites where it was stated by actual law enforcement personnel of Florida that 911 operators are Not LEOs. So I am curious where you got that belief. It was my original belief too, till I started to research it.

Maybe I am wrong... show me.

There is your second degree murder.

He stalked an unknown person, while being armed, which ultimately lead to aggravated battery and the loss of life.

^

Why are you still arguing against this?

I agree what Z did was probably under the description of Stalking. And that Zs following did lead to a confrontation. But, I don't see intent on his part to kill, or hurt. He fired only to save his life while being beaten on the concrete sidewalk. There is no proof he had his gun in hand or even visible when he followed and spoke with M. What you have here is a case for Manslaughter.

I'm only arguing because a Court Case should be based on Facts, not on emotional deductions.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you can't...I just decided to take a stroll through my own neighborhood or walk the dog. All I'm doing is admiring the gardens or work people have done on their houses...and ...they know me.

The police would be asking the other person who they are and where they live.

You understand that taking a stroll through your neighborhood does not entail following someone around?

If you follow someone around in a harassing fashion and they can prove that you are following them and you make the statement that you are not... You can be arrested for obstruction of justice. lol

This isn't about what You would do, this is about what WAS done.

He initiated the confrontation by stalking Martin, which then lead to aggravated battery which lead to loss of life. <-- These are the facts put on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Post why you believe a 911 operator is a law enforcement officer (LEO).

I went and googled this the other day and found several sites where it was stated by actual law enforcement personnel of Florida that 911 operators are Not LEOs. So I am curious where you got that belief. It was my original belief too, till I started to research it.

Maybe I am wrong... show me.

I agree what Z did was probably under the description of Stalking. And that Zs following did lead to a confrontation. But, I don't see intent on his part to kill, or hurt. He fired only to save his life while being beaten on the concrete sidewalk. There is no proof he had his gun in hand or even visible when he followed and spoke with M. What you have here is a case for Manslaughter.

I'm only arguing because a Court Case should be based on Facts, not on emotional deductions.

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

**Find where intent is relevant in the charge of second degree murder...

Was this an illegal confrontation? Yes, Zimmerman stalked Martin.

Was Martin's life in imminent danger? Yes, a firearm was used in the stalking, and battery.

Did it cause the death of a person? Yes, Martin lost his life due to the Aggravated Battery.

Was Zimmerman mentally impaired? Did not seem as such, he was calm and collective.

**Zimmerman cannot claim self-defense if he initiates confrontation.

Did he initiate the confrontation? Yes, Zimmerman stalked Martin, initiating confrontation a minimum of two times.

Two factors:

1)Did Zimmerman plea temporary insanity? No. (One of only two things that could have saved him.)

2)Did Zimmerman in fact stalk Martin, initiating the confrontation and surrendering his right to claim self-defense? YES. (The end)

Guilty of Murder in the 2nd degree.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You understand that taking a stroll through your neighborhood does not entail following someone around?

If you follow someone around in a harassing fashion and they can prove that you are following them and you make the statement that you are not... You can be arrested for obstruction of justice. lol

This isn't about what You would do, this is about what WAS done.

He initiated the confrontation by stalking Martin, which then lead to aggravated battery which lead to loss of life. <-- These are the facts put on the table.

The only difference in what I've done is that I'm a woman. If I'd been confronted, while following someone I thought was a thief, I would have had to defend myself even with my gun. I never got close enough for that to happen. We don't know what happened. It could easily have been either way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only difference in what I've done is that I'm a woman. If I'd been confronted, while following someone I thought was a thief, I would have had to defend myself even with my gun. I never got close enough for that to happen. We don't know what happened. It could easily have been either way.

TN laws and FL laws are different.

Woman or not has no bearing on the laws surrounding this case. If you followed someone in a way which caused emotional distress repetitively you are stalking them. Which means that you are initiating the confrontation, not them.

If they decided to stand their ground and you approached which lead to their shooting and death... You would have also surrendered your right to claim self-defense and also been guilty of murder in the 2nd degree.

This is not about color, gender, or age. This is Florida Law, and the law says you can't stalk people and then shoot them cause you were afraid of getting hurt. If you didn't want to be hurt, don't stalk them.

Standing your ground, is not the same as following them and then gunning them down when you're afraid.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TN laws and FL laws are different.

Woman or not has no bearing on the laws surrounding this case. If you followed someone in a way which caused emotional distress repetitively you are stalking them. Which means that you are initiating the confrontation, not them.

If they decided to stand their ground and you approached which lead to their shooting and death... You would have also surrendered your right to claim self-defense and also been guilty of murder in the 2nd degree.

This is not about color, gender, or age. This is Florida Law, and the law says you can't stalk people and then shoot them cause you were afraid of getting hurt. If you didn't want to be hurt, don't stalk them.

Standing your ground, is not the same as following them and then gunning them down when you're afraid.

Repetitive is the key word there. That has yet to be proven.

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repetitive is the key word there. That has yet to be proven.

Actually, there are 3 similar cases i cited earlier with similar circumstances which all lead to the conviction of the attacker.

He followed initially, lost Martin and continued to search until he found him again. That is twice that he initiated a confrontation by way of harassing. Twice, as in repetitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are 3 similar cases i cited earlier with similar circumstances which all lead to the conviction of the attacker.

He followed initially, lost Martin and continued to search until he found him again. That is twice that he initiated a confrontation by way of harassing. Twice, as in repetitive.

I thought Martin was staying with his Dad only a few houses away? Why didn't he just go home if he felt threatened? Twice in a few minutes does not a stalker make...even in Florida. It can take weeks to make a case against a stalker.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Martin was staying with his Dad only a few houses away? Why didn't he just go home if he felt threatened? Twice in a few minutes does not a stalker make...even in Florida. It can take weeks to make a case against a stalker.

He had no duty to go anywhere, he technically could have stood his ground when Zimmerman opened the door of his truck..

The law does not state that the it must take weeks for stalking to be committed, but it does state that repetitive harassment is stalking.. When you harass someone and they go away and then you harass them again, that's two separate incidents of harassment which mean repetitive which do legally mean stalking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had no duty to go anywhere, he technically could have stood his ground when Zimmerman opened the door of his truck..

Just FYI, but Zimmy had every right to go over and talk to the young man - no lay says you can't ask what someone is doing (also no law saying you have to answer either, but...).

Now we will never know 100% what happened in this case. Simple as that. That being said, the injuries on Zimmy do back up his version of events. That much we do know. We also know there had been break-ins in the area committed by a guy apparently looking similar to the young man. Thirdly, we know Zimmy was the neighbourhood watch captain. All these things seem to lead to a sad chain of events that led to the young man's death - could it have been avoided? Probably with some logical thinking by both parties. But is it murder? Nope. If Zimmy is charged with murder it will be an injustice imho.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI, but Zimmy had every right to go over and talk to the young man - no lay says you can't ask what someone is doing (also no law saying you have to answer either, but...).

Now we will never know 100% what happened in this case. Simple as that. That being said, the injuries on Zimmy do back up his version of events. That much we do know. We also know there had been break-ins in the area committed by a guy apparently looking similar to the young man. Thirdly, we know Zimmy was the neighbourhood watch captain. All these things seem to lead to a sad chain of events that led to the young man's death - could it have been avoided? Probably with some logical thinking by both parties. But is it murder? Nope. If Zimmy is charged with murder it will be an injustice imho.

Raven you don't seem to understand the circumstances let me explain:

- You can walk over to anyone and ask them something, but when they run from you... following them is harassment.

- When they get away and you continue to search for them so that you may follow them again.. is also harassment.

- Regardless of who's done what in the area, he was not a police officer to go around harassing people, even if they did fit the description.

- He was not a Captain of a Crime Watch in the area because there was no crime watch in the area. The group was an unregistered and uninformed group of people performing as vigilantes.

- Trayvon Martin did walk away, he did think logically.. He just wasn't given a chance to stay away because Zimmerman decided that Martin had no right to walk away from him.

-Zimmerman put himself in harms way when he refused to let Martin walk away, he pursued which lead to an illegal shooting that caused death.

-Zimmerman created that situation, therefore he cannot claim self-defense.

-Death caused by someone's illegal actions is murder in the second degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raven you don't seem to understand the circumstances let me explain:

- You can walk over to anyone and ask them something, but when they run from you... following them is harassment.

- When they get away and you continue to search for them so that you may follow them again.. is also harassment.

- Regardless of who's done what in the area, he was not a police officer to go around harassing people, even if they did fit the description.

- He was not a Captain of a Crime Watch in the area because there was no crime watch in the area. The group was an unregistered and uninformed group of people performing as vigilantes.

- Trayvon Martin did walk away, he did think logically.. He just wasn't given a chance to stay away because Zimmerman decided that Martin had no right to walk away from him.

-Zimmerman put himself in harms way when he refused to let Martin walk away, he pursued which lead to an illegal shooting that caused death.

-Zimmerman created that situation, therefore he cannot claim self-defense.

-Death caused by someone's illegal actions is murder in the second degree.

I don't think you understand the situation.

If i (or any reasonable person) saw someone poking around my house or a friends/trusted neighbours house. I would go talk to them. If they run I would call the police too - like Zimmy did. However, we don't know that Zimmy wouldn't let him get away. What seems most likely is, once the young man was "gone", Zimmy returned to the vehicle where he was then attacked. Attacked, knocked to the ground, head bashed into the concrete...shot fired and the attacker dead. From what we can gleam from the bias news articles, this seems like the most likely course of events.

~

All that being said, if I was a judge I would throw this case out of court. Zimmy cannot get a fair trail now that the media has distorted facts and tainted any potential jury pool. Especially after the media altered pictures of Zimmy to hide his head wounds, etc, when they first released them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Find where intent is relevant in the charge of second degree murder...

Ah... OK, I see how it is written now. But you still have not shown.... "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Was Martin's life in imminent danger? Yes, a firearm was used in the stalking, and battery.

That actually cannot be shown to be True. You are Assuming he used his pistol, but there is no evidence the pistol was a factor till Z was on the ground being beaten to death.

Did he initiate the confrontation? Yes, Zimmerman stalked Martin, initiating confrontation a minimum of two times.

I'm going to agree it is debatable, but the Evidence does not support that Z was aggressively/violently following M, only that he wanted to talk to him and had called the cops.

The best Witness here is the GF who said that M was not going to run away and implied that he was going to confront the guy following him. He turned and said, "'What are you following me for?'". Clearly Z was not charging after M, but following him. M decided to end the following and see what Z wanted.

The woman gave de la Rionda a very similar account during a sworn statement April 2, and when his office wrote up its probable-cause affidavit, charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder, it rehashed her account but did not include her allegation that she heard Zimmerman push Trayvon.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-caught-in-lie.html

So the GF even decided to NOT say Z pushed M, because she had no idea what happened, just that the phone turned off.

2)Did Zimmerman in fact stalk Martin, initiating the confrontation and surrendering his right to claim self-defense? YES. (The end)

Depends on if Stalking can be placed on a event like this where it all occured inside a 10 to 15 minute event.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Post why you believe a 911 operator is a law enforcement officer (LEO).

I went and googled this the other day and found several sites where it was stated by actual law enforcement personnel of Florida that 911 operators are Not LEOs. So I am curious where you got that belief. It was my original belief too, till I started to research it.

Maybe I am wrong... show me.

Come on Felix show me where I am wrong in this.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Felix... Is bringing up personnal histories OK or not? Or is it just OK to use to prove one sides case and not the other?

Coome on Felix, answer if dragging a person's history into a court trial and into this discussion is OK, or not?? If it is OK to drag up Z's history, is it OK to drag up M's. That was the gist of my post that started this Thread up again. Is it fair to try to remove M's past, without also removing Z's past history too?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand the situation.

If i (or any reasonable person) saw someone poking around my house or a friends/trusted neighbours house. I would go talk to them. If they run I would call the police too - like Zimmy did. However, we don't know that Zimmy wouldn't let him get away. What seems most likely is, once the young man was "gone", Zimmy returned to the vehicle where he was then attacked. Attacked, knocked to the ground, head bashed into the concrete...shot fired and the attacker dead. From what we can gleam from the bias news articles, this seems like the most likely course of events.

~

All that being said, if I was a judge I would throw this case out of court. Zimmy cannot get a fair trail now that the media has distorted facts and tainted any potential jury pool. Especially after the media altered pictures of Zimmy to hide his head wounds, etc, when they first released them.

I guess we will see what the official verdict is, but for now let's view what Zimmerman has to say!

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the requirements of the law - especially SYG - Z should walk. What troubles me most is that if he does there will be a Rodney King - LA type of uproar. People may well DIE in the aftermath of this. But if he is convicted improperly due to influence from above - maybe all the way to the DOJ - then that will be worse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we will see what the official verdict is, but for now let's view what Zimmerman has to say!

http://www.foxnews.c...silence-hannity

HANNITY: Well. Now, on -- it was very interesting, in the 911 call that everybody has heard, you said that all of a sudden you found somebody who looked suspicious, he may be on drugs. That was one of the earlier comments that you made in that 911 call. What made you think he was suspicious, and what made you think that he might be on drugs?

ZIMMERMAN: I felt he was suspicious because it was raining. He was in-between houses, cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather. I -- it didn't look like he was a resident that went to check their mail and got caught in the rain and was hurrying back home. He didn't look like a fitness fanatic that would train in the rain. He just seemed like --

ZIMMERMAN: The way he was coming back. And I was on the phone, but I was certain I could see him saying something to me. And his demeanor, his body language, was confrontational.

HANNITY: It was a controversy from early on, George, where there was some in the media that, quote, hired expert voice analysts, and I'm certain that works, and then they ended up having to recant and rescind their analysis, where they said these, quote, expletives, get away with this all the time. Do you remember what it was that you said specifically on the tape?

ZIMMERMAN: Punks.

HANNITY: Punks. It was not a racial epithet of any type?

ZIMMERMAN: No. And I can tell you that when the police played it for me in the station, it was clear as day.

HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?

ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.

HANNITY: So you never went further than how far approximately from your car?

ZIMMERMAN: I would estimate it to be approximately 100 feet.

HANNITY: So you never went further than that from the car?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: OK. And so at that point, Trayvon is -- all of a sudden you turned around and there he was?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: OK. So after that first hit, what happened next?

ZIMMERMAN: He started bashing my head into the concrete sidewalk. I was -- as soon as he broke my nose, I was -- I started yelling for help. So, I was disoriented. And he started slamming my head into the concrete.

HANNITY: Which is where the lacerations came from?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: You said it was like your head was going to explode was a comment that you had given to the police.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. He continued to punch me in the head.

HANNITY: How many times would you estimate that he punched you?

ZIMMERMAN: Several. More than a dozen.

HANNITY: And hitting you hard.

At what moment did you -- because you said you feared for your life. At what moment do you remember when you literally -- do you remember when you thought, "I may die"? Is that -- because you said that you felt -- you feared for your life. Do you remember the exact moment when you felt that?

ZIMMERMAN: In hindsight, I would say when he was slamming my head into the concrete, and I thought I would lose consciousness. I didn't know what would happen at that point.

It makes a good story, No? All the evidence fits into this story, and little of it into the story that has sprung up to counter Zs statements.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes a good story, No? All the evidence fits into this story, and little of it into the story that has sprung up to counter Zs statements.

Are you listening to the statement or reading the transcript?

Listening to the story is hilarious, if he isn't lying about everything he is at the least lying about his involvement in the crime watch.

He wasn't a member of the crime watch because there was no crime watch. lol

If he lied about that, what else was he lying about?

HANNITY: When you think back, there was one report or police report that actually said you didn't know after you fired, you didn't think -- you thought you missed?

ZIMMERMAN: I didn't think I hit him, yes.

HANNITY: Yes.

So what happened immediately after the shooting, then, George? I understand one guy came out and he said he had a flash light, that he spoke to you, and you said to call your wife, tell her what happened, "that I shot somebody." Do you remember that conversation?

ZIMMERMAN: The conversation I had with the gentleman or --

HANNITY: Yes.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: You do remember that conversation?

And he did talk about it, and his suggestion was -- that you were very matter of fact about it. Do you remember what you said to him? Do you think you were in a state of shock? Did you know that Trayvon -- when did you know that Trayvon had died?

ZIMMERMAN: When I -- probably about an hour after I got to the police station.

HANNITY: After the shooting did you -- and you saw that he was laying there, and obviously injured, there was a moment when you realized he was shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Like I said, he sat up and he said something to the effect of "you got it" or "you got me". I assumed he meant, OK, you got the gun, I didn't get it. I'm not going to fight anymore. At which point I got out from under him.

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...5#ixzz2TJzb5rqp

So he thought he missed, but he told someone to call his wife and tell her he shot somebody?

When asked "Do you regret getting out the car to follow Trayvon that night" He did not correct the statement according to his earlier statement where he claimed he was not following Trayvon, he was merely boxing him in.. Instead he said he DID NOT

Hmm... 2 different stories within 1 interview, from the same 1 person.. Not like he's lying or anything like that lol

So was he following or boxing in? He seems to not know which one he was doing..

Here's another:

HANNITY: Let me -- let me ask you this. I want to go back to one specific in the case if I can. And it's the issue of you following him and we heard -- I meant to ask you earlier about the dispatch call and you said you stopped, you didn't follow him. There's one moment that you were apparently, as you look at the grounds of where this took place, and there's the apartment and there's the overhangs, and then there's another street on the other side. And you had gone to the other street, correct?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: At some point. So how do you get to the other street if you were not following him? I mean where were you -- where were you going at that point?

ZIMMERMAN: I was walking from where I had parked my car towards my street. He went right down in between the houses. I walked straight across to --

HANNITY: You mean -- in that sense were you following him?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You weren't following him?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: And this is after the 911 call?

ZIMMERMAN: During.

HANNITY: During the 911 call?

ZIMMERMAN: When they stated we don't need you to do this.

HANNITY: So why were you walking back to your street and not back to the car --

ZIMMERMAN: I was --

HANNITY: At that point? If I'm -- I'm trying to get the chronology right.

ZIMMERMAN: Certainly. Where I parked my car was the back of townhouses. There was no way to know what the street number was. And I knew if I walked straight through, that's -- it's a circle, Retreat View Circle. I knew if I walked straight through there that would be Retreat View Circle, and then I could tell them exactly what -- one, two, three, four, Retreat View Circle, and not just a general area of where my car was like I had done previously.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...9#ixzz2TK5fSJaT

He initially states that he was walking from where his car was parked towards his street, then a few seconds later he says he was walking towards his car to tell the police where his car was.

You be the judge, Zimmerman's story changes constantly from one sentence to another.

Prosecution's story stays consistent in it's entirety.

http://hosted.ap.org...n-affidavit.pdf

PS-Zimmerman claims he was the one screaming for help, but the police affidavit says that Martin is the one screaming for help.

The affidavit also states this as fact, which means they do have evidence to support that the screams for help did come from Martin.

Who's lying?

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any lies at all. You are reading what you want to see based on your biased views.

So you don't see how he changes his story repeatedly? Maybe i'm so biased that my English comprehension skills are biased.

Walking towards your truck is the same as walking from your truck?

Stating that you were not following someone, but boxing someone in is the same as then saying you do not regret following them?

Stating you became a member of the crime watch on such date, when the crime watch you were a member of did not exist is not a lie?

National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization ofUSAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization.

Nope he did not lie at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you listening to the statement or reading the transcript?

Listening to the story is hilarious, if he isn't lying about everything he is at the least lying about his involvement in the crime watch.

He wasn't a member of the crime watch because there was no crime watch. lol

If he lied about that, what else was he lying about?

So he thought he missed, but he told someone to call his wife and tell her he shot somebody?

When asked "Do you regret getting out the car to follow Trayvon that night" He did not correct the statement according to his earlier statement where he claimed he was not following Trayvon, he was merely boxing him in.. Instead he said he DID NOT

Hmm... 2 different stories within 1 interview, from the same 1 person.. Not like he's lying or anything like that lol

So was he following or boxing in? He seems to not know which one he was doing..

Here's another:

He initially states that he was walking from where his car was parked towards his street, then a few seconds later he says he was walking towards his car to tell the police where his car was.

You be the judge, Zimmerman's story changes constantly from one sentence to another.

Prosecution's story stays consistent in it's entirety.

http://hosted.ap.org...n-affidavit.pdf

PS-Zimmerman claims he was the one screaming for help, but the police affidavit says that Martin is the one screaming for help.

The affidavit also states this as fact, which means they do have evidence to support that the screams for help did come from Martin.

Who's lying?

If he is lying, he's doing a good job of it. All the details seem to fit into his story.

I'd not read that the screaming had been IDed to Martin. I'll look it up.

I'm not sure that Z actually used the term Neighborhood Watch, or agreed that he was part of that organization.

HANNITY: Why were you a community watch person? How long were you involved in that and why did you become a community watch person?

ZIMMERMAN: In August of 2011, there was a home invasion. A young lady was home with her nine-month-old baby, and they broke into her sliding glass door. She barricaded herself in the upstairs bedroom. And my wife was home by herself, and she saw the people that burglarized her run through our backyard with their belongings. And even though my wife wasn't certain what happened, that was enough to scare her and shake her up. And I promised her I would do what I could to keep her safe.

He kind of dodged the question entirely with a story. And that is the only time Community/Neighborhood Watch is mentioned in that interview.

How can he be a Liar based on a lie that he did not say??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.