Your asking why would zimmerman, the defendant who is on trial for killing this kid, would possibly have to lie?
This is an alleged lie he told before confronting Martin, before the shooting, and obviously before the trial.
Why would he tell that specific lie at that specific time? Can he see the future? Was this actually a pre-meditated murder and Zimmerman is a genius fool who cooks up a cover story for why he’s out of his vehicle before he knows he’d need a cover story for events that haven’t happened yet, but also answers the question “Are you following him?” with “Yeah”?
human action
conversely, what leads you to think zimmerman would not lie?
btw, he would not need to be a ‘genius’ to lie about not knowing the address in front of his beady eyeballs
How about you answer my question, then I’ll answer yours.
scared to go first? he is afterall, the defendant, on trial for murder, he conveniently is the sole person since he snuffed out Trayvon, who can speak for what happened. Would a murder defendant have any reason to lie? Also, I know you will yell irrelevant, but i also see his (gzs) history, the type of things hes capable of
No, but since you seem determined to duck my question, why should I bother with yours? I’m not getting paid for this.
Yeah, no shit. That’s not an answer. I didn’t ask you anything about Trayvon or his conduct.
Why would Zimmerman lie to the dispatcher about knowing the address where his truck was parked?
Why would a murder defendant possibly lie? sometimes, when a person has malice towards another and is up to cause them harm, sometimes a person in that position might want to conceal some of the shit hes doing…just like how he was instructed NOT to continue to follow tm, and we hear him tell the dispatcher " okay"…this was a lie as well, he continued to pursue him after letting the dispatcher know he would comply and not do so…
So, Zimmerman had already decided to kill Martin, leaving no witness to countermand any tale he might tell, and decided to concoct a story beforehand: he’d tell the police, after the murder, that he’d left his truck to locate an address to give to the police when they called him, at which point he was attacked by Martin. This required telling the dispatcher that he didn’t know the address where he’d parked.
Zimmerman telling the dispatcher that he was following Martin was just a fuckup in his otherwise brilliant plan.
Then, all Zimmerman had to do was locate Martin, who’d run off, provoke him into punching him 4-6 times and getting atop Zimmerman, while not striking him in return, then pull out his pistol while underneath Martin, shoot him, ascertain that his one shot was a lethal one even though Martin lived for several minutes, and leave no witnesses or video evidence or anything of the kind.
Is that about right?
And your inability to now admit that you were wrong about the actual fact?
See, it’s not just that you can’t recall the TV show. It’s that you refuse to admit that (despite the Dr Phil show information I provided) that you were wrong. That calls into question the existence of this TV show.
It would be one thing if you said, “Huh. OK, looks like that TV show I saw had some wrong information.” But you won’t do that. That suggests to me that this TV show runs in your mind, not on any channel controlled by the FCC.
Because he had nothing to lie about. He hadn’t laid a hand on Martin, let alone killed him. Nothing about the crime suggests pre-meditation; if Zimmerman decided in his car to kill Martin, he’d hardly keep his pistol holstered and sustain a beating first, and trust in his ability to draw and fire while Martin was atop him, and trust a single shot to do the job.
He’d need to be a genius to concoct a plan on the fly to cover up a murder that he hadn’t committed yet, and commit it in such a way that it looked just like self defense and wasn’t contradicted by anything else, such as a passerby or a surveillance camera.
Well, except for the part where he admitted to following Martin. That wasn’t genius. But the rest must have been.
Or, the shooting wasn’t premeditated, even if it was second-degree murder.
Did yew no that “stranger danger” or “child abdcuctions” did not mostly get committed by “strangers” and “stranger danger” hadsn’t really been taught in a couple decades? I dont know how old yew r or if you ever went to skool, but in todays society anyone whos even vaglee informed on the topick knows that the vast majoritee of child abductions is from someone the child knows and that’s whats taut in sckools.
Your attempt to mock this makes it clear you just really really dont want the whole picture to be considered, because thats not helpful to your cause
PS–Love your invented spelling, haphazard grammar and shotgun punctuation. Really helps you present your oh-so-cogent argument.
Mmhmmm, he cant be lying, because that would mean he was lying…(not a good look for our guy)
Google Samantha Runnion, and then call her mom Erin to tell her that her daughter who was abducted and killed by a strange man in a car not long ago, tell her mom Erin that child abduction is something I am making a big deal about or that it is some type of myth…also google chelsea king 17 yr old murder victim from a few yrs ago, by a strange man, go head I dare you to call those parents to tell them stranger danger is some type of bs…get back to us after you let them know
Also tell Erin Runnion who has an organization that goes into schools to teach about the very real danger of this very topic, tell her her organization is not necessary, bc stranger abductions are a bunch of bs that doesnt really occur or matter…let us know how that goes
Yeah, except no one has argued that. It’s CR’s strawman, one of several.
Ah, my little kumquat–I hadn’t realized you were as innocent about the concempt of “numbers” and “percentages” as you are to the concept of spelling, grammar and punctuation.
That makes a lot of the things you’ve been saying clearer. Let me try to explain. Of the small percent of children who are abducted in the USA (and it is a small percent), the cite I gave shows that there’s about a 75% chance they’ll be abducted by someone they know and a 25% chance they’ll be abducted by a stranger.
These mysterious “percentages” of which I spoke show us that even though there’s a three-times greater chance of being abducted by someone you know, there’s still a chance you’ll be abducted by a stranger. So…pointing out one specific case (or 10 cases, or 100 cases) of stranger-abduction really doesn’t prove anything.
You mean when he was parked at the clubhouse?
Or are you talking about the imaginary conversation which GZ recounts later?
Your argument is that he cant be lying, because that would mean he had to lie, (in order to lie) I can see how that doesnt make the murder defendant look very good.
Maybe Tollhouse imagined a TV show where GZ pointed a pistol at TM and forced TM to beat/punch him until just before the police showed up. At that point GZ shot TM to prevent him from telling the police what had just happened. Or not. It’s just speculation on my part.
Neither, the conversation that occured after he’d exited the vehicle and run to the east: