4 Witnesses Have Changed Their Stories in the Zimmerman Case.

Your inability to understand that there is no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story as has been stated by both the police and the prosecution, whether truthful or not.

 

Meh, semantics. But either way there is no proof of either one.

 

She is using several conditions and that is only one of them. At this stage it is important because it presents evidence that betrays his SYG claim and most assuredly guarantees the judge will not grant SYG immunity and dismiss the case.

We haven't seen all the evidence yet, but I doubt there is a single smoking gun. The prosecution is going to prove their case by a consistent string of facts and actions taken by both T and Z.

I'm very curious to see Z's five statements because the prosecution wants them sealed on the basis a confession is not covered by transparency laws for ongoing cases. That tells me somewhere in Z's statements he inadvertently admitted shooting T when it was not necessary, like he did at the bail hearing.

 

It isn't semantics at all and it is proven by Z's own words he created the confrontation. This is why ultimately it doesn't matter who touched whom first. There is no doubt Z confronted T and this legally put T in the SYG law which means even if he hit Z first he was defending himself and we have no idea if or when T saw the gun.

 

The investigator stated very clearly at the bail hearing they have evidence Z lied.

 

Show what facts I have not addressed. Please. If there are any I am unaware of I would love to know them.

 

He saw the gun when he had his hands on it and was fighting for possession. There was Evidence on his hands which indicate he had his hands on the gun at the time the gun was fired.

 

There is plenty of doubt as to who did the confronting.

 

What is the evidence T had his hands on the gun?

Do you realize if T saw the gun it means Z is in even more trouble??????

 

No there isn't. There isn't any doubt at all for those informed of the facts. Do you understand the difference between assault and battery?

 

You mean there isn't any doubt for the emotionally involved. There are no facts available on who started anything.

 

It seems you are talking about something completely different here. I'm talking about any proof that shows beyond a reasonable doubt who started the conflict. Is there evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin?

 

Good grief man. At least try to make one post worth reading. Z's own words prove he started the confrontation. Like doom, you are confusing who started the confrontation with who touched whom first.

 

No doubt you are making up things again. There is no evidence who started anything as the police already determined, that is, unless you redefine both the law and common sense.

 

I don't think Martin ever saw the gun. This is just my guess but I'm basing it on how dark the witnesses say it was and that Martin was punching and attacking Zimmerman in the head. If I see a gun I'm going for the gun. I don't think any of Martin's prints were on the gun. I haven't seen any evidence brought out anyway.

 

Z started the conflict and that is an indisputable fact. What nobody knows for 100% is who touched whom first. This is also a losing argument for Z supporters because even if you say T hit Z first he was acting out of self defense against a stranger with a gun who followed him in his vehicle then continued to chase him on foot. This is one major point you guys are misunderstanding the most. Due to Z's own words and actions, it doesn't matter who hit who first. It does not acquit Z in any way and it does not justify the shooting.

 

You mean where Z's words say T started it? LOL

 

You are entitled to your opinion but what words of Zimmerman's are you basing this on?

 

You are making up your own indisputable facts

 

I am interested in your opinion on this. Can you explain further? Z's own words and actions? What do you mean?

 

Do you realize there are no witnesses saying it is a fact T was punching on Z?

I think it's possible the screaming we heard on the tape was from T after Z pulled his gun and aimed it at him. I don't think that is highly probable but it is a possibility.

Misled claimed there was evidence T had his hands on the gun but I recently saw a report stating there wasn't any indication he ever touched it. That to me says he had his hands up when the gun was fired. If T's prints were on the gun that would definitely be a plus for Z's defense until prosecution argues T was trying to disarm the stranger who was following him.

 

As far as T punching on Z there doesn't need to be a witness. The physical evidence proves it.

Now that is a possibility and now I kind of get where you are coming from. My problem is that witness 6 claimed he told Z and T he was going to call 911 and right after he went in the house to call he heard the shot. He did change his story as to not being sure of who was yelling for help but he claimed he thought it was the one on the bottom. I would think the witness would have noticed if Martin had his hands in the air. No one saw that and there is no proof so far to support it. Interesting theory though.

 

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Trayvon, while on top of Zimmerman, is yelling help, help, while Zimmerman points a gun at him from the ground and this goes on for quite some time until the gun goes off? So now Zimmerman is lying about yelling for help while on the ground all the time waiting until Trayvon yelled enough before he shot him? LOL

 

Then first item to keep in mind is we know a lot more about Z than T did the night of the shooting and it is imperative to view the events through T's eyes. He was in a strange neighborhood being followed by a stranger. We have not seen any definitive evidence when Z started following T but based on Z's location when he called the cops, it looks like Z was following T even before T entered Twin Lakes. The clubhouse is very close to the main entrance and we know T knew he was being followed when Z called the non-emergency number.

Not knowing what was going on, T ran away. He tried to get away from the stranger following him and it was obviously due to being afraid. Z saw his running away as being guilty of a crime even though T had not done anything to suggest he was a criminal. Z started the confrontation by making his presence so obvious that T felt he had to run away. Z calling T a butt hole and lumping him in with burglaries even before T ran away proves Z condemned him as a criminal. T did not know this like you and I do. We know that when they did come face to face Z did not identify himself to T or offer any explanation as to why Z was following him.

Z had built up tension between the two creating the conflict even before they were within arm's reach of one another. By the time they did physically meet Z was angry and T was scared. If T did hit him first I could not blame him because he obviously felt afraid because this strange guy who was following him in his vehicle got out of his vehicle to continue following. Would you feel comfortable turning your back on someone like that?

 

Then the question is what is Zimmerman thinking? If Martin is still on top of him Zimmerman is still pinned with no way out.