Hannity/ Zimmerman interview

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by zerodahero

I am worried about Syria right now.

Don't blame me, I have been trying my best to convince Hanoi COG to commit to a 10 year tour of Beautiful Downtown Damascus.

I've even offered to pay his way!

[Yssup Rider]

He says he wants cash but turns down free world travel?

He doesn't want it both ways!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CJ7

yeah credibility is an issue isn't it?


In an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity played yesterday for jurors, Zimmerman stated he had no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

Prosecutors called one of Zimmerman's professors, who described the defendant of one of his best students, to the stand.

During cross examination, the defense explored what was taught about self-defense laws

What you said is NOT inconsistent ...

"no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law"

does NOT = "self-defense laws"!

One may call things a "trendy" title, but they are not taught as such or identified as such.

Example .. many threads ago ... Speedo referenced a "Stand Your Ground" law in Texas.

I questioned him about that ... by the title. I was not familiar with Texas law by that title.

Does that mean I don't know anything about self-defense? Does that mean I am lying?

No. No.

But when there is nothing there ... folks tend to grab at straws.

Because essentially the statute (amendment) to which Speedo referred was not "new" law, but was the same as case law interpretations from the past regarding "self-defense" .. of which I was familiar.

And I wrote that to him in a reply.

One can accuse of lying all they want, ....

.... but the physical evidence generally supports Zimmerman's statements given the circumstances. What the physical evidence may not support is what someone said he said, who want's him convicted.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What you said is NOT inconsistent ...

"no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law"

does NOT = "self-defense laws"!

One may call things a "trendy" title, but they are not taught as such or identified as such.

Example .. many threads ago ... Speedo referenced a "Stand Your Ground" law in Texas.

I questioned him about that ... by the title. I was not familiar with Texas law by that title.

Does that mean I don't know anything about self-defense? Does that mean I am lying?

No. No.

But when there is nothing there ... folks tend to grab at straws.

Because essentially the statute (amendment) to which Speedo referred was not "new" law, but was the same as case law interpretations from the past regarding "self-defense" .. of which I was familiar.

And I wrote that to him in a reply.

One can accuse of lying all they want, ....

.... but the physical evidence generally supports Zimmerman's statements given the circumstances. What the physical evidence may not support is what someone said he said, who want's him convicted.

generally ... but to the point that doesnt raise questions his credibility

[i'va biggen]

Zimmerman was a wannabe cop took the training applied for a job wanted to ride along. On the night he spotted Martin he was going to make a name for himself and grab a bad guy then it all went to shit on him. Should have stayed in the car and let the real guys do their job. ...

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It's your thread; you don't care to provide them, then i certainly don't care enough to search them out.

Based on your track record, how are we to believe that you could possibly interpret the interview correctly ?

We could start by noting that you are questioning the accuracy of it....which almost certainly means it is accurate. You fucking mook.

[Yssup Rider]

which of these RWWs have the LEAST amount of CRED?

which of these bozos actually try to be credible?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Zimmerman was a wannabe cop took the training applied for a job wanted to ride along. On the night he spotted Martin he was going to make a name for himself and grab a bad guy then it all went to shit on him. Should have stayed in the car and let the real guys do their job. ...

Martin was a wannabe gangsta. On the night he decided he wanted some Skittles he Should have stayed in the apartment and out of the rain and get some the next day.

How many times after a session have you thought: Should have stayed at home and kept my money.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

He called the cops. They ONLY responded to a report of a fight and shots fired.

That's why neighborhoods, subdivisions, malls, shopping centers, department stores, and businesses have "private" security ... some armed, some not. Just like the airports. Many didn't qualify as police officers, many are former police officers, and many are waiting to get qualified as police officers or jail or prison guards. Many are former military police as well.

They serve a function particularly during a time when city's and counties are strapped for cash. .. and the businesses benefitting from the extra security can pay for it.

They are hired to WATCH little turds like Martin who think they are bad asses and should not be followed, identified, and/or otherwise questioned about their activities and behavior.

Malls are full of them. They hang out there to "play."

We have had thread after thread of postings by people CLAIMING to have a CHL ... and boasting how they would shoot someone if they saw them doing this or that ... Zimmerman had a CHL.

What's the difference?

[CJOHN]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He says he wants cash but turns down free world travel?

He doesn't want it both ways!

+

WTM?

+

WHERE MY SPERM?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Martin was a wannabe gangsta. On the night he decided he wanted some Skittles he Should have stayed in the apartment and out of the rain and get some the next day.

How many times after a session have you thought: Should have stayed at home and kept my money.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

He called the cops. They ONLY responded to a report of a fight and shots fired.

That's why neighborhoods, subdivisions, malls, shopping centers, department stores, and businesses have "private" security ... some armed, some not. Just like the airports. Many didn't qualify as police officers, many are former police officers, and many are waiting to get qualified as police officers or jail or prison guards. Many are former military police as well.

They serve a function particularly during a time when city's and counties are strapped for cash. .. and the businesses benefitting from the extra security can pay for it.

They are hired to WATCH little turds like Martin who think they are bad asses and should not be followed, identified, and/or otherwise questioned about their activities and behavior.

Malls are full of them. They hang out there to "play."

We have had thread after thread of postings by people CLAIMING to have a CHL ... and boasting how they would shoot someone if they saw them doing this or that ... Zimmerman had a CHL.

What's the difference?

Two wanabes and one chicken shit can't fight. Where was Z on his way too when he decided to be the caped avenger? He wasn't hired just a wannabe if you can't handle a teen age kid stay in your vehicle.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What you said is NOT inconsistent ...

"no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law"

does NOT = "self-defense laws"!

One may call things a "trendy" title, but they are not taught as such or identified as such.

Example .. many threads ago ... Speedo referenced a "Stand Your Ground" law in Texas.

I questioned him about that ... by the title. I was not familiar with Texas law by that title.

Does that mean I don't know anything about self-defense? Does that mean I am lying?

No. No.

But when there is nothing there ... folks tend to grab at straws.

Because essentially the statute (amendment) to which Speedo referred was not "new" law, but was the same as case law interpretations from the past regarding "self-defense" .. of which I was familiar.

And I wrote that to him in a reply.

One can accuse of lying all they want, ....

.... but the physical evidence generally supports Zimmerman's statements given the circumstances. What the physical evidence may not support is what someone said he said, who want's him convicted.

I don't remember discussing a Texas "Stand your ground" law. I do remember discussing the Texas so-called "Castle Law" which gives Texas homeowners quite a bit of latitude when it comes to protecting their homes from intruders, and I pointed out that the Texas law was quite a bit stricter than similar laws in other states.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Hannity asked if Martin was running away from him because he didn't know who he was.

"He wasn't running out of fear," said Zimmerman.
Hannity asked, "You can tell the difference?"

"He wasn't running," said Zimmerman.

Hannity makes the point that Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that he thought the teenager was running.


clearly Zim was recorded telling the 911 dispatcher the kid was running, Hannity even busted him ..

just one of the miscalculations ... having to remember your story over a period of time must be difficult.

CBJ7, neither you nor the prosecutor has produced an eye-witness to testify that Zimmerman's wounds were self inflicted!?!

Originally Posted by Old-T

And your medical credentials come from where?

What "credible" medical examiner makes diagnoses by looking at photographs alone, Old-T.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What you said is NOT inconsistent ...

"no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law"

does NOT = "self-defense laws"!

One may call things a "trendy" title, but they are not taught as such or identified as such.

Example .. many threads ago ... Speedo referenced a "Stand Your Ground" law in Texas.

I questioned him about that ... by the title. I was not familiar with Texas law by that title.

Does that mean I don't know anything about self-defense? Does that mean I am lying?

No. No.

But when there is nothing there ... folks tend to grab at straws.

Because essentially the statute (amendment) to which Speedo referred was not "new" law, but was the same as case law interpretations from the past regarding "self-defense" .. of which I was familiar.

And I wrote that to him in a reply.

One can accuse of lying all they want, ....

.... but the physical evidence generally supports Zimmerman's statements given the circumstances. What the physical evidence may not support is what someone said he said, who want's him convicted.

+1

[Yssup Rider]

Zimmerman's WK speaks out. Corpy, have you been following this deal? Georgie boy has been caught in lie after lie. Kinda like YOU!

Knock knock, Corpy!

(speaking of lies ... Feel free to post the link to my poll).

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't remember discussing a Texas "Stand your ground" law. I do remember discussing the Texas so-called "Castle Law" ....

You are correct. You did write "Castle Law" ... at it was Wentworth who sponsored it.

My apologies. My comparison still stands, and is valid.

The law you referenced was merely a codification of existing case law interpretations based on various factual circumstances. That and the "saddle bag" law on firearms both have needed to be codified for years ... to be consistent throughout the State.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Old-T
And your medical credentials come from where?

Medical examiners need more "credentials" than just medical education, training, and experience.

For instance they must decide if the cause of death of "homicide" or "suicide" and then they must made a determination of the "manner" of death ... for instance "strangulation" ... was it loss of oxygen or severing of nerve ... from gunshot or some other cause .. beating, strangulation, drowning, suffocation, etc., someone with just medical training shouldn't be making those decisions and findings.