What if Zimmermann Walks?

The ex chief of police and his dad both admitted Z kept looking for him after he got off the phone with dispatch. That info is only about 2 1/2 months old so it's understandable you have not learned of it before now.

 

Link? You have a tendency to invent your own facts. I'd like to see it for myself.

 

This is one of the inconsistencies in his statements. SPD said Z claimed he was returning to his truck after losing sight of Z. The problem is Z lost sight of T while on the phone with dispatch which means Z should have been walking towards his truck when he hung up with dispatch but we know he didn't because he shot T at a distance farther from his truck versus when he got off the phone with dispatch.

 

Again, are you talking about the 911 call?

 

So you have no link? Is this more of your theories?

 

I haven't invented any facts. Show me what facts I have invented? No I will not give you a link. You can accept or deny it or do a really crazy thing and learn the basic facts on your own.

 

So you are saying there is a recording of Zimmerman saying he followed Trayvon up until the confrontation.Is this correct? I mean other than on the 911 call?

 

SPD put a statement on the city website saying Z's story was that after he lost sight of T he was returning to his truck and that is when T attacked him. They removed all info from the city website when they learned Corey was going to charge him with M2. Z's dad and the ex chief both stated on more than one occasion Z kept looking for T after the dispatch call ended. In fact, during the very first press conference Chief Lee held a reporter asked him if Z broke the law when he continued to look for T after dispatch told Z to stop looking for him and Lee said it was advice from dispatch and it was not legally binding to Z. If Z had stopped looking for T then the Chief would have said it was a moot question because Z followed the advice.



To save you some time, I will not post any links when you request it. Considering how much you have ignored the presently linked facts, it would be sill of me to think giving you links would be helpful in the debate.

The reason is this: you like to dissect an item when it looks like that item helps Z's claim of self defense. When the evidence and facts show that item is either inaccurate or not beneficial to Z's story, it suddenly becomes completely meaningless.

 

Show me what facts I have invented. Either do it or retract the allegation.

 

Here is an interview where Z's dad said his son stopped looking for T after the 911 call and was returning to his truck. This was done on April 4. Now, unless you can show otherwise, via link, you have invented facts.

 

Bueller? Bueller?

Well, I Googled if it was known whether or not GZ continued to follow TM after the 911 call and this is what I got:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/new...stions-loom-over-the-trayvon-martin-case.html


Here is a quote listing some of the things unkown:

That indicates to me no one knows for sure he was still looking for Martin. You guys might want to call the Chicago Tribune and let them in on what you know.

Again, and this is a big question that should be looked at:

So, yes facts have been assumed here.

 

Z's dad straight up lied the first time he sent a letter to the media. Do you think he should still be seen as credible?

Did you miss:

In fact, during the very first press conference Chief Lee held a reporter asked him if Z broke the law when he continued to look for T after dispatch told Z to stop looking for him and Lee said it was advice from dispatch and it was not legally binding to Z. If Z had stopped looking for T then the Chief would have said it was a moot question because Z followed the advice.

Or how about:

"But Robert Zimmerman said his son lost sight of Trayvon and went looking for an address to give police."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...immermans-father-says-son-was-threatened.html

and

" Even though a dispatcher told George Zimmerman not to follow Martin, his father said his son continued his pursuit to locate an address to give to police.
“He lost sight of the individual, he continued to walk down the same sidewalk to the next street, so he could get an address for the police,” he said.
http://bonjupatten.com/2012/03/30/f...-his-face-just-like-his-murderous-son-george/

I'm guessing you are also unaware in the affidavit charging Z with M2 it is stated he ignored the advice of dispatch to stop following T.

 

Well, you still think there is a witness saying she saw to figures running and chasing each other but she changed her story. With all this story changing it is possible Z's Dad and the ex-police chief's story has changed. Getting difficult to keep up. Even the Chicago Tribune posted a story about 9 hours ago; see my former post, so even they can't keep up.

 

Good grief man. I stopped reading in the early part of the post where it claimed there was a three minute gap between the end of Z's call and the beginning of the fight.

The lead detective laid out the timeline in his report that is in the discovery evidence file that says Z's call ended at 7:15 pm and the first 911 call was made at 7:16 pm.

Who do you think would know better? The lead detective who took the time stamps from the Seminole County computer logs or the Tribune blog?????

 

Listen to the 911 call and tell me where he ignores the operator.

 

No I don't still think she saw two people running. You already highlighted her changed testimony and do you know what? She didn't change the direction the person was heading so her change has little impact because it is still evidence T was heading towards his dad's house. You can't claim it was Z without admitting it means Z was following him because Z's truck was in the opposite direction and he didn't think T was staying there so ho would he know the direction of where T was sleeping?

 

You still think a witness saw people running when she changed her story.

 

If you read what she says she claims all she can say is that she someone. It could have been one of the other witnesses.

 

This is why I will never post a link for you again. Ever. Don't even think about asking me for one. I gave you the proof Z's dad said Z was looking for an address even after dispatch gave the advice to stop following it and you completely freaking ignored the facts the links supplied.

Now you demand to know when Z ignored the operator according to his call with the operator? You ask that after ignoring the fact I proved his dad said Z kept looking for T after Z lost sight of him.

Guess what. It is a fact Z also ignored the operator by the recorded call because before Z hung up he refused to set a fixed meeting location with the cops. the operator advised he not follow T and he ignored that advice as stated by the ex chief, his dad, and the State attorney. the operator also tried to set a fixed meeting location and at first Z agreed to meet at the mailboxes but before he hung up he cancelled that meeting location and asked the operator to have the cops call his cell when they got there so he could tell them where he was. He couldn't give a fixed meeting location because he knew he was going to keep looking for T, thus he needed the cops to call him for his location.

I'm really disgusted with you at this point for so obviously ignoring the facts that were presented at your request. Your credibility has bombed. Completely.

 

Really? Look at the post above yours where I clearly state I know she changed her story to say one person. Or look on the PDF file thread where I said thank for the updated info a couple of hours ago. It was bad enough you ignore the facts but now you are actually being outright dishonest about what I believe.

 

Credibility? I think your credibility has been shot. You claim some witness saw these figures chasing each other when it isn't true. You claim Z followed T right up until the met again and now you try to back pedal. Oh well.

In reference to Zimmerman leaving the truck, listen to his 911 tape again, beginning at 2:00 minutes. Zimmerman says, “He’s running.” He then opens his door, and there is the ding dong ding dong sound the truck makes when a driver’s door is opened with the key still in. The sound stops, you hear the door close, and rushing outside noises. The dispatcher asks, “Are you following him?” and he says, “Yes.” The dispatcher says only, “Ok, we don’t need you to do that” and he says, “Ok.” Then it is quieter, because Zimmerman stops moving, but he never gets back in the truck. There is no sound of a door opening again or closing.

According to Zimmerman, at the end of the phone call, he walks to read the street sign he was asked about, and that is how he meets Trayvon. This is why people say Zimmerman didn't follow the 911 operator's request because he didn't go back to his truck immediately.

So, Z may have not followed the operator's advice but it is not known whether he "hunted" T after the call. That is what you want people to assume isn't it?

 

I didn't know you actually acknowledged you were wrong.

 

It could have been Furious Styles. Or Mickey Mouse. Or Alice in Wonderland.

No it couldn't have been one of the other witnesses. Do you know how we know? Nobody actually saw the encounter between Z and T. If the person she saw was a witness it would have been someone who saw Z and T meet. You really will say anything to block out the evidence that proves Z lied, no matter how stoopid.

 

Considering you posted in the exact thread just after I thanked you for the updated info, I'm sure you understand my hesitation of believing you.

 

I stopped reading right at the first part of your post because it is outright dishonest. I did claim the witness saw two people because the witness said she saw two people. When you posted the info she changed her story I immediately thank you for providing the update.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/249891-z-discovery-evidence-pdf-continuation.html

So according to you, my credibility is shot for citing what a witness claimed, then immediately acknowledged the fact she changed her story.

Yeah, your credibility on this is gone. I have not read the rest of your post but I have absolutely no doubt that even I proved Z's dad and the dam Chief of Police both said Z kept following T after the dispatcher said to stop following, you will still try to squirm sleeze dance in some way to say nothing is proven in any way at all.

You're all done.