Jump to content

Zimmerman Lied To Hannity On National TV


Recommended Posts

In his interview last year Hannity asked Zimmerman if he was familiar with the "Stand your ground" law.

 

Zimmerman said NO.

 

ummmmm....except that semester he had covering it continuously according to his professor, who gave him an A for the class in 2010. LOL

 

What else is Zipgun lying about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So what?

He can get on Hannity and say he's King Midas and his daughter is pure gold and it doesn't change anything about what happened that night

 

Found a new straw to grasp at, did you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget about the Hannity interview, did you see the badonkadonk on Martins b itch!

 

What was her name, ... she was the first witness for the pros',... you know the one that spoke perfect Black English and said "Crazy ass White Cracker" isn't a racist term.

 

Regardless and either way - Damn that girl gotta a nice side of back fat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his interview last year Hannity asked Zimmerman if he was familiar with the "Stand your ground" law.

 

Zimmerman said NO.

 

ummmmm....except that semester he had covering it continuously according to his professor, who gave him an A for the class in 2010. LOL

 

What else is Zipgun lying about?

 

And his lawyer was sitting right next to him......

 

Stand your ground was part of that course. Was he in attendance when they covered that subject?

I'll wait while you verify.

 

 

Talk about grasping at straws .....LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his interview last year Hannity asked Zimmerman if he was familiar with the "Stand your ground" law.

 

Zimmerman said NO.

 

ummmmm....except that semester he had covering it continuously according to his professor, who gave him an A for the class in 2010. LOL

 

What else is Zipgun lying about?

I see that you remember every detail of every class you attended. Especially when a fact has many variations. Stand your ground is part of the self defense concept in states that have that version of the law. It states that you do not have to run away before using force to protect yourself. Was this extracted out of the self defense part of the couse for a major discussion or was it just mentioned in passing about self defense.

 

Since you are making the accusation you must have the course syllabus. So enlighten us about how in depth they went with Stand Your Ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his interview last year Hannity asked Zimmerman if he was familiar with the "Stand your ground" law.

 

Zimmerman said NO.

 

ummmmm....except that semester he had covering it continuously according to his professor, who gave him an A for the class in 2010. LOL

 

What else is Zipgun lying about?

Wow! Great catch. And Obama is responsible for everything said in Reverend Wright's church too! Glad that you have evolved on that subject and hold Obama accountable. It says a lot about your character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do liberals care about this so much? I don't get it. The guy isn't even a conservative or white. Also, liberals don't care about all the black children being murdured every day in the innner cities across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?

He can get on Hannity and say he's King Midas and his daughter is pure gold and it doesn't change anything about what happened that night

 

Found a new straw to grasp at, did you?

 

Zimmerman is the only one who knows the details of what happened that night.

 

If his ability to be honest comes into question, so does his story about what happened that night.

 

Or at least that's the way the prosecution will present it to the jury.

 

So yes, in a sense, it is relevant, even if it's not relevant to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmerman is the only one who knows the details of what happened that night.

If his ability to be honest comes into question, so does his story about what happened that night.

Or at least that's the way the prosecution will present it to the jury.

So yes, in a sense, it is relevant, even if it's not relevant to you.

You're correct, but the class in question was not centered on Stand Your Ground. It was a general criminology class that touched on the subject.

Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter testified today that he taught Zimmerman criminal litigation back in 2010 at Seminole State College. Carter, who is now an Army prosecutor, called Zimmerman one of his "better students," noting that Zimmerman received an A for his work.

And in fact, there is no law in Florida which is called "Stand Your Ground". The law is actually Florida Statute Title XLVI CRIMES, Chapter 776 entitled JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE:

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(B) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(B) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(B) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(B) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stand your ground was part of that course. Was he in attendance when they covered that subject?

I'll wait while you verify.

 

As he got an A for the course and assuming that the course was one term lasting about 60 days and that the stand your ground topic was covered during one lecture, the chances that he was there for that part of the course are approximately 99 times higher than the chance he happened to miss that 1 specific lecture. Unless he missed a lot of lectures which would not likely result in him getting an A. .

With odds like that, asking for verification is like asking someone to prove that golfboy takes a shit at least once a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As he got an A for the course and assuming that the course was one term lasting about 60 days and that the stand your ground topic was covered in one lecture, the chances that he was there for that part of the course are approximately 99 times higher than the chance he happened to miss that 1 specific lecture. Unless he missed a lot of lectures which would not likely result in him getting an A. .

With odds like that, asking for verification is like asking someone to prove that golfboy takes a shit at least once a week.

 

I understand your position, but the OP and ABC news made it sound as though this entire course was about Stand Your Ground.

My point was, that it was a general information course, not an in-dept study of that particular law.

 

And again, "Stand Your Ground" is a slang term for the actual law, which is called Justifiable Use of Force.

 

The Prosecution is grasping at straws here, trying to offset the fact that almost all of their witnesses confirmed Zimmerman's account of what happened that night, so much so, that the prosecution had to impeach the credibility of some of their own witnesses testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct, but the class in question was not centered on Stand Your Ground. It was a general criminology class that touched on the subject.

Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter testified today that he taught Zimmerman criminal litigation back in 2010 at Seminole State College. Carter, who is now an Army prosecutor, called Zimmerman one of his "better students," noting that Zimmerman received an A for his work.

And in fact, there is no law in Florida which is called "Stand Your Ground". The law is actually Florida Statute Title XLVI CRIMES, Chapter 776 entitled JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE:

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

( B) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

( B) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

( B) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

( B) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

A rose by any other name......

 

And it isn't as if the term "stand your ground" in reference to this statute isn't widely used. Would they have used it in the course? Who knows.

 

You're making a case based on the likelihood it wasn't and that Zimmerman had never heard the term when that is not at all a likelihood..

 

Occam's razor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The science knows what happened that night.

"Tray hit me like 50 times man. I had to pop him"

Well today they showed where NO BLOOD was found on the sleeves of the hoodie.

FUHK!!

Now what!!

Zimmerman's blood was on the front of Martin's hoodie, and his DNA (not blood) was on the sleeve, which supports Zimmerman's contention that Martin was trying to suffocate him.

 

Do you not pay attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his interview last year Hannity asked Zimmerman if he was familiar with the "Stand your ground" law.

 

Zimmerman said NO.

 

ummmmm....except that semester he had covering it continuously according to his professor, who gave him an A for the class in 2010. LOL

 

What else is Zipgun lying about?

I thought you had something of substance to Say. Move along Ya'll nothing to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rose by any other name......

And it isn't as if the term "stand your ground" in reference to this statute isn't widely used. Would they have used it in the course? Who knows.

You're making a case based on the likelihood it wasn't and that Zimmerman had never heard the term when that is not at all a likelihood..

Occam's razor.

I'm simply showing that the OP was dishonest.

BTW, the law that I quoted you is more widely known in Florida as the Castle Doctrine.

 

Now what did the instructor call it in class? We don't know. My guess is that he called it by the actual name of the law (Justifiable Use of Force) and made mention of the fact that it is also known as Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO BLOOD was found on either sleeve or cuffs.

Had Tray hit Z like 50 times as Z contends, there would have been blood on the sleeves and cuffs.

No way around that.

Depends on where he was hit. There was Zimmerman's DNA on the sleeve.

How did it get there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Zimmerman is the only one who knows the details of what happened that night.

 

If his ability to be honest comes into question, so does his story about what happened that night.

 

Or at least that's the way the prosecution will present it to the jury.

 

So yes, in a sense, it is relevant, even if it's not relevant to you.

 

 

Nothing Zimmerman said on it was under oath, what's more, it's a TV show, with no obligation to be fair, complete, or even truthful.

In fact, on this forum I guarantee you that every Lib screaming racism is behind this case will tell you that Hannity is a liar to the core.

So why should ANYBODY take seriously what was on his show?

 

In fact, IMO the prosecution was stupid for bringing it up, and they only did so to appease the race mongers, who they think will riot unless they cover each and every base there is in this attempt to railroad an innocent man into prison.

They gave Zimmerman a chance to (once again) tell his story without cross examining him

IMHO it would be a much better strategy to have presented none of that and used it to counter Zimmerman when he testifies to his side of things, there's enough minor inconsistencies to do that.

NOW,,, Zimmerman doesn't have to testify, his story is out there, and there will be no cross examination neither

Major screw up if you ask me,,,,

 

NO BLOOD was found on either sleeve or cuffs.

 

Had Tray hit Z like 50 times as Z contends, there would have been blood on the sleeves and cuffs.

 

No way around that.

 

The ME didn't preserve TM's clothing properly, and therefore the evidence was lost

They sealed it in a plastic bag and allowed it to decompose instead of drying it properly

They also washed his hands before documenting them, and they look quite a bit different from the pics at the scene. (where they weren't bagged, neither)

 

It's a wonder they recovered anything at all,,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...