Z's First Court Appearance: He Lied Under Oath

You can`t be serious. Have you ever been in a tense situation? Have you in tense situations, always chosen your words with such perfect precision, that they can`t be fauted under future discetion & inspection?

 

The original prosecutor declined to bring charges at all with the same evidence. It was only after political pressure was applied, by race baiting slime, that any charges were brought. The same conclusion we have reached. You think you're going to convict a man defending his neighborhood so you people can declare open season against us. It ain't happening.
We will not comply.

 

White flag noted, the fact remains the investigator testified they have no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statement he was returning to his truck and no evidence to determine who threw the first punch. If they can't prove Zimmerman chased down Martin and confronted him and then threw the first punch they have nothing.

 

The prosecutor said to not charge Z even BEFORE SPD had concluded its investigation and we know for a fact SPD closed the investigation without all the evidence we are now aware of. It's like Z's supporters are in a secret contest to see who can make the most ignorant claims possible.....

 

We're not talking about precision. He stated a direct contradiction. So the question is, are YOU serious????

 

It is dishonest to say Zimmerman was following Martin when he had lost sight of him and was walking back towards his truck to meet up with the police who would at any minute come driving into the neighborhood.

 

He had been looking for a house number and was walking back towards his truck, in the direction the police would be coming from.

Where is your evidence otherwise and have you given it to the investigators seeing as they don't have any.

No YOU fail to understand, they have no evidence to contradict his statement. The burden is on them to prove it wrong.

 

Like I said, full of stupid. The investigator said they have evidence Z is a liar about what happened. And for the 5,000th time.....it doesn't matter who threw the first punch. If you guys ever took the risk of paying attention you wouldn't keep making such dumb remarks on a regular basis.......

 

Nope but I will wait for you to post it.

Yes it does.

Proving the point that the more one is losing their argument the snarkier they get.

Do you just want to trade insults?

 

He's on sabbatical from Haaaavard. He's writing a book titled: "How to know things no one else knows." Chapter one: First remove all your clothes then grab a jar of.............next stick up that full size poster of Sarah Palin you've got hidden under your bed............. (Better not get caught by Todd)

 

Okay....the stupid continues......ever heard of witnesses??????? I'm getting snarky because I can't tell if people are really so dumb to post evidence that proves their own claim wrong (in which case I could have sympathy) or if they are so arrogant they refuse to admit they backed the wrong horse.

There has been NO evidence that has come out to exonerate Z and there is a ton of evidence he lied, including his own recorded words.

You know what I am afraid of? That people are so blinded by their own arrogance that even after Z is convicted from either a plea or a trial, they will actually claim Z is innocent but a scapegoat.

 

If that's what it take to "inflate" your ego you sir have a serious issue you need to deal with. You are a waana-be.........anything but what you are now right? You aren't even capable of actually knowing how to "debate" people. Any 'debating society on the planet would boot your ass out the door after your first sentence. BTW, enjoy that McDonalds special tonight. Do you have to pay full price or do they give you a 'employee discount?

 

It's very convenient for Zimmerman that he was walking back to his truck. That way, they can argue that Zimmerman was retreating, and not standing his ground.

So!.....Zimmerman followed Martin, then the two exchanged words.....then he lost sight of Martin?.....then as Zimmerman walked back to his truck, Martin attacked?..............

Do I have that right?

 

Dishonesty

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...n-martin-timeline-florida-shooting/54129274/1

Now looking at this map of where the shooting took place, how could anyone with just a littel bit of logic come to the conclusion that Zimmerman was back on his way to his truck when you look at where his truck is parked and where he was at when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

I mean I would like for someone to explain that too me.

 

Wow. That really hurt my feelings.

 

I said it means he was saying he thought T was APPROXIMATELY 25 because a "little bit younger" sure as hell doesn't cover more than a decade for someone who is 28 which is why you pulled out that dumb ass 108 years of age crap.

On the phone he said T was in his late teens. On the stand he claims he did not know how old he was. You can ignore that direct contradiction but it doesn't make it disappear.

 

That map has the shooting site in the wrong location. They have it close to the road when it was between the row of buildings adjacent to the center sidewalk.

 

The map is dead wrong the shooting location is wrong and its not the first wrong map. Your mob has been creating false maps for awhile now to muddy the waters.

 

Aside from wagist, that was the first wrong map I have seen. What are the other maps you have seen that are wrong?

The USA Today map was wrong but it didn't negate the point it is hard to believe Z was headed back to his truck. Even the Chief of police and Z's own dad contradicts that claim.

 

Good catch you are correct, my bad. Here is the correct map

http://bcclist.com/2012/03/27/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map/

 

Who says he meant "about 25 years old"? Make up much bullcrap?

 

The locations look right but not the assumed paths of Z and T. Dee Dee said that after T told her he thought he lost Z that suddenly Z was behind him again. The assumed paths on that map have them facing each other which doesn't match what Dee Dee was told or what the witness who saw the chasing shadows. (for that it will be interesting to see which direction because I'm betting the two shadows were moving away from the direction of Z's truck helping prove Z was not heading back towards his truck.)

From Dee Dee we know T ran and then hid and the assumption is because he didn't want to lead the stranger to where he was staying, which makes sense. He was stationary for about 60 seconds, then starts walking again telling Dee Dee he thought he lost him but then Z was suddenly behind him. This timeline fits perfectly with the phone records and time of shooting.

People have often asked why didn't T just run straight home? If some dude was following me in a car, then on foot, I would not want to lead the person to the place I was sleeping.

 

Z is 28 and said he thought T was a "little bit younger." Approximately 25 makes sense to the honest world.

People can whine about that all day. What they cannot whine about is Z claiming on the stand he didn't know how old T was. He is on a recorded call saying T is in his late teens.

Some have actually admitted the contradiction but tried to justify it by saying Z changed his mind. Now THAT is mind reading.

 

Actually, it is Zimmerman who made up bullcrap re: the age of the kid!

He guessed the correct age on the night of the shooting, and testified to a much older age on the stand.

THAT is bullcrap!

 

You should bother to scroll down to see your sources own updated map