Your Opinion Of Zimerman Now?

[grbeck]

First, you can't prove much about whether he's lying if he doesn't testify. Kinda hard without any witnesses to the START of the encounter.

 

So that's a wash. He doesn't have to testify so whether he lied or not will never be known. That's just how it is.

 

 

The police took his statement after the shooting, and the prosecution was never able to discredit it.

 

 

 

First, you can't prove much about whether he's lying if he doesn't testify. Kinda hard without any witnesses to the START of the encounter.

Again, the case didn't hinge on his testimony. We've been through this numerous times on this very thread. There was plenty of physical evidence to support his version of the events. Plus, the prosecution's main witnesses either discredited themselves on the stand, or ended up helping the defense. By the end of the case, the prosecution's best hope was the jurors were a bunch of complete dunces who couldn't interpret evidence and were ready to give in to their emotions. Didn't happen.

 

 

You follow someone around enough acting like a creeper and get close enough there's going to be an encounter. You realize this but you can't seem to process it. Why? What is holding you back?

 

Because I have a basic understand how to interpret evidence in a criminal trial. The simple fact is that the evidence shows that Zimmerman stopped pursuing Martin. You have no proof to support your version of the events. You've offered it, and we've discredited it. Case closed. That is the way criminal trials work.

 

Also, please educate yourself on how Neighborhood Watch groups work. Tracking someone does not make someone a "creeper."

 

 

 

Why are you so protective of the angry gun toting man who initiates the whole encounter versus the young man going about his business?

 

Because the evidence proved that part of the young man's "business" that night involved jumping and beating the other man. Who, in this case, had a gun to defend himself. I realize that the successful use of a firearm to defend oneself drives the "guns are evil" hysterics around the bend (which is part of what was really driving Zimmerman's critics), but that's too bad.

[cal50]

Some people are incapable of objectivity, enter stupidity.

Edited December 18, 2013 by cal50

[Langston Hughes]

 

Don't really see where there's irony there. Just continues to show that Z-man is a bit of a dumbass, which I don't think anyone has argued against.

 

Not my fault you can't see it. He hits a cop and doesn't get shot but arrested. He plays wannabe cop and shoots someone who hits him.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

The police took his statement after the shooting, and the prosecution was never able to discredit it.

 

 

 

Again, the case didn't hinge on his testimony. We've been through this numerous times on this very thread. There was plenty of physical evidence to support his version of the events. Plus, the prosecution's main witnesses either discredited themselves on the stand, or ended up helping the defense. By the end of the case, the prosecution's best hope was the jurors were a bunch of complete dunces who couldn't interpret evidence and were ready to give in to their emotions. Didn't happen.

 

 

 

Because I have a basic understand how to interpret evidence in a criminal trial. The simple fact is that the evidence shows that Zimmerman stopped pursuing Martin. You have no proof to support your version of the events. You've offered it, and we've discredited it. Case closed. That is the way criminal trials work.

 

Also, please educate yourself on how Neighborhood Watch groups work. Tracking someone does not make someone a "creeper."

 

 

 

Because the evidence proved that part of the young man's "business" that night involved jumping and beating the other man. Who, in this case, had a gun to defend himself. I realize that the successful use of a firearm to defend oneself drives the "guns are evil" hysterics around the bend (which is part of what was really driving Zimmerman's critics), but that's too bad.

 

Let's start with neighborhood watch comment.. You follow me around in the dark and the rain while I walk home and do not announce yourself as neighborhood watch, then your a creeper and a potential criminal who my want to do me harm. No way to know what Zimmerman what he was doing and the cops mention that in their questioning.

 

The evidence doesn't point to him returning to his vehicle when told not to follow Martin. His own statements to police are contrary to your own belief. If you understand evidence so well, why are you continually missing that?

[grbeck]

 

Let's start with neighborhood watch comment.. You follow me around in the dark and the rain while I walk home and do not announce yourself as neighborhood watch, then your a creeper and a potential criminal who my want to do me harm. No way to know what Zimmerman what he was doing and the cops mention that in their questioning.

 

The evidence doesn't point to him returning to his vehicle when told not to follow Martin. His own statements to police are contrary to your own belief. If you understand evidence so well, why are you continually missing that?

Langston...it's over. The case is done. The evidence supported Zimmerman's version of the events that night, and the jury believed that the defense laid out a plausible scenario.

 

Nothing we post here will result in the verdict being changed, or even the law governing the right to use deadly force to protect one's life. (And please note that bringing up Zimmerman's alleged actions in other instances opens up the possibility of bringing in Martin's behavior in other instances, too. You don't want to go there.)

 

This case will not result in changes to the law. A high-profile case that results in a verdict unpopular with a segment of society does not necessarily change the law. I don't believe that the O.J. Simpson case, which was probably the most widely publicized criminal case of the last 25 years, resulted in a single change to California's statutes covering murder. The Zimmerman-Martin case isn't going to change the law, either.

Edited December 20, 2013 by grbeck

[Langston Hughes]

Well, Zim Zim's girly friend has recanted her statements to police saying that she was..."intimidated" by police.

 

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2013-12/135899100-09141404.pdf

 

However in the video it seem less intimidating...

 

 

http://youtu.be/medJs2MD-5w

[FiredMotorCompany]

Well, Zim Zim's girly friend has recanted her statements to police saying that she was..."intimidated" by police.

 

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2013-12/135899100-09141404.pdf

 

However in the video it seem less intimidating...

 

 

http://youtu.be/medJs2MD-5w

You're undermining her credibility.........the same credibility that was used to file charges against a controversial person who is vulnerable to easily manipulated public opinion by persons who can extort things/ monies/gifts/who knows what, from him, for fear they could claim he threatened him with a weapon and "you know, he kinda had a wild look in his eyes".

[Langston Hughes]

You're undermining her credibility.........the same credibility that was used to file charges against a controversial person who is vulnerable to easily manipulated public opinion by persons who can extort things/ monies/gifts/who knows what, from him, for fear they could claim he threatened him with a weapon and "you know, he kinda had a wild look in his eyes".

 

What? She's doing what to him?

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

What? She's doing what to him?

 

I'll bring it down to your level.

You are undermining her credibility when you point out that she doesn't seem to be intimidated by the police, contrary to her later claims when dropping charges against Zimmerman.

[Langston Hughes]

the same credibility that was used to file charges against a controversial person who is vulnerable to easily manipulated public opinion by persons who can extort things/ monies/gifts/who knows what, from him, for fear they could claim he threatened him with a weapon and "you know, he kinda had a wild look in his eyes".

 

So what was this?

 

And i'm not undermining her credibility, her affidavit withdrawing charges is not credible and it shows that she's lying trying to get back with George. Love is blind it seems, and is okay with getting threatened and choked. Battered woman syndrome happens more often than all of us would like, even if you think she's just trying to get stuff from a dude who's millions in debt.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

So what was this?

 

And i'm not undermining her credibility, her affidavit withdrawing charges is not credible and it shows that she's lying trying to get back with George. Love is blind it seems, and is okay with getting threatened and choked. Battered woman syndrome happens more often than all of us would like, even if you think she's just trying to get stuff from a dude who's millions in debt.

Credibility.......that fleeting quality of faith extended upon others when one wishes to accept the stated word of those others. Particularly critical when criminal investigations are involved. Easily abused and squandered by some who may be trying to exploit others, often lovers.

[Langston Hughes]

Credibility.......that fleeting quality of faith extended upon others when one wishes to accept the stated word of those others. Particularly critical when criminal investigations are involved. Easily abused and squandered by some who may be trying to exploit others, often lovers.

 

Still blaming her for the incident and accusing her of trying to extort him i see. Damn, your a nasty motherf'er sometimes, acting all like women are out to get guys.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Still blaming her for the incident and accusing her of trying to extort him i see. Damn, your a nasty motherf'er sometimes, acting all like women are out to get guys.

No. Possibly one in particular. But, you were the one posting her change of heart. Wonder what brought that on?

She made a mistake? Not likely.

She was intimidated? possibly when faced with the risk of filing a false report she was compelled to follow through with the charges.

She had a change of heart? Possibly. When she was faced with losing her 15 minutes of fame, or infamy as it were.

 

And I am not so much as accusing her of any of these as I am establishing the possibility they are true. I don't know what she and Zimmerman said/did, other than what's in the news and published reports.

 

I just find it hard to believe she accidentally dialed 911 then remembered she loved him and didn't mean to get him in trouble.

 

Credibility? I think she knows that's long gone. And remember the little boy that cried wolf.

[Langston Hughes]

No. Possibly one in particular. But, you were the one posting her change of heart. Wonder what brought that on?

She made a mistake? Not likely.

She was intimidated? possibly when faced with the risk of filing a false report she was compelled to follow through with the charges.

She had a change of heart? Possibly. When she was faced with losing her 15 minutes of fame, or infamy as it were.

 

And I am not so much as accusing her of any of these as I am establishing the possibility they are true. I don't know what she and Zimmerman said/did, other than what's in the news and published reports.

 

I just find it hard to believe she accidentally dialed 911 then remembered she loved him and didn't mean to get him in trouble.

 

Credibility? I think she knows that's long gone. And remember the little boy that cried wolf.

 

Credibility? You seem to support Zim Zim about being attacked despite the fact that he has made those accusations against 5 people in his life. Talk about the little boy who cried wolf.

 

I posted her change of heart because i believe her police report and that she lied on her affidavit given the video.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Credibility? You seem to support Zim Zim about being attacked despite the fact that he has made those accusations against 5 people in his life. Talk about the little boy who cried wolf.

 

I posted her change of heart because i believe her police report and that she lied on her affidavit given the video.

And how credible is she if she has demonstrably lied? On video..........as you provided?

 

And since her credibility is obviously in question, which "lie" do you believe? If you choose the second, what makes you so certain the first was the lie?

Do you trust all liars so easily? Oh, sorry, I forgot about Obama.

Never mind. Answered my own question, again.

[Langston Hughes]

And how credible is she if she has demonstrably lied? On video..........as you provided?

 

And since her credibility is obviously in question, which "lie" do you believe? If you choose the second, what makes you so certain the first was the lie?

Do you trust all liars so easily? Oh, sorry, I forgot about Obama.

Never mind. Answered my own question, again.

 

Your distorting what I said.

 

I said she lied on her affidavit dropping the charges. She changed her mind about the charges after she decided she wanted to get back with George, it's as simple as that. She says that in her Dec 6th affidavit.

 

Scheibe's new affidavit taken Dec. 6 stated, "When I was being questioned by police I felt very intimidated...I believe that the police misinterpreted me and that I may have misspoken about certain facts in my statement to police."

Scheibe wrote that Zimmerman "never pointed a gun at or toward my face in a threatening manner" and that "I want to be with George."

 

 

Well, the video shows the police did not intimidate her or misinterpret her, so I'm going with she's lying because she still loves him.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Your distorting what I said.

 

I said she lied on her affidavit dropping the charges. She changed her mind about the charges after she decided she wanted to get back with George, it's as simple as that. She says that in her Dec 6th affidavit.

 

 

Well, the video shows the police did not intimidate her or misinterpret her, so I'm going with she's lying because she still loves him.

So, the lie you believe was the lie she told about her affidavit. So, she has shown that her credibility is questionable by her "OFFICIAL" sworn statements that she recants.

But, you "assume" her credibility is without a flaw when she filed the charges originally.

 

That's fine. You believe whatever you want to. If you can reconcile that in your mind, I can see how you can manipulate your world view to fit the round peg in the square hole and defend it.

 

As a rule, I tend to accept someone's statements as truth until given reason to question their honor. I held a bit of concern that Zimmerman had actually committed some/any of what she charged him of doing, based on the baseline trust I gave her from the fact that I didn't know that much about her character........until she proved otherwise to me with her lies. And even you admit she lied.

Edited January 5, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

So, the lie you believe was the lie she told about her affidavit. So, she has shown that her credibility is questionable by her "OFFICIAL" sworn statements that she recants.

But, you "assume" her credibility is without a flaw when she filed the charges originally.

 

That's fine. You believe whatever you want to. If you can reconcile that in your mind, I can see how you can manipulate your world view to fit the round peg in the square hole and defend it.

 

As a rule, I tend to accept someone's statements as truth until given reason to question their honor. I held a bit of concern that Zimmerman had actually committed some/any of what she charged him of doing, based on the baseline trust I gave her from the fact that I didn't know that much about her character........until she proved otherwise to me with her lies. And even you admit she lied.

 

No, the lie she told is in her affidavit she wrote to recant her official statement. Why do I believe this, because it doesn't match what the video shows us.

 

You continue to believe that Zimmerman is the victim of multiple people (5 counting Trayvon, 3 ex's and a cop) and that he doesn't have anger issues despite having 3 restraining orders against him, an arrest for battery against a cop. How do you reconcile that he pleads down a felony (and we are aware of how you feel about felons voting) and not only is allowed to vote but to own firearms and get a concealed carry permit.

 

If there is anyone who is manipulating their worldview it's you. Look you own this guy, you've defended him against everything he's done the past two years and he's going to have another incident. We can quit arguing about i now but you and I both know that it's likely he'll regress again. Good luck with that.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

No, the lie she told is in her affidavit she wrote to recant her official statement. Why do I believe this, because it doesn't match what the video shows us.

 

You continue to believe that Zimmerman is the victim of multiple people (5 counting Trayvon, 3 ex's and a cop) and that he doesn't have anger issues despite having 3 restraining orders against him, an arrest for battery against a cop. How do you reconcile that he pleads down a felony (and we are aware of how you feel about felons voting) and not only is allowed to vote but to own firearms and get a concealed carry permit.

 

If there is anyone who is manipulating their worldview it's you. Look you own this guy, you've defended him against everything he's done the past two years and he's going to have another incident. We can quit arguing about i now but you and I both know that it's likely he'll regress again. Good luck with that.

I am not defending Zimmerman as much as holding out the possibility that she could have taken the opportunity to leverage his public reputation against him. And I have the jury's finding to support my position regarding Martin. All you have is your prejudice.

And what does it say that she is willing to "lie" in an affidavit, a sworn statement? It says she is willing to lie. The point we are concerned with is that she HAS lied, why would we automatically ASSUME she had not lied before?

 

If she had stood her ground and stuck to her statement, yet still stated regret, and not lied so she could be with him, I'd be more open to accepting her credibility at face value.

[grbeck]

_{Again, the case is over...it's time to move on.}

Edited January 6, 2014 by grbeck