An Eyes for Lies reader today who wishes to remain anonymous sent me this picture (no longer available) and pointed out where George Zimmerman indicates his gun is during the fight with Trayvon Martin.
He clearly indicates his gun is not on his hip–where it would be easily accessible. Instead, he shockingly and surprisingly indicates its on his BACK SIDE.
If Trayvon Martin was on top of George, as he claims, it would (A) be much harder to see –especially in the dark–remember they were in the dark, and (B) George could have easily stopped Trayvon from getting the weapon by rolling on his side crushing Martin’s fingers.
The second point this reader made was that if his gun was on his backside, as he indicates, George couldn’t easily grab the weapon without Trayvon noticing and going for it. It would have been an awkward grab and hard to grab!! It would have been a struggle, which George doesn’t remotely speak about or show in his re-enactment.
George Zimmerman has been caught in lie after lie, but it appears this case is not about the truth or lies. I’ve come to accept that, sadly.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2013-07-11 11:51:002023-01-11 18:24:21George Zimmerman and His Gun
He says, “To be clear, if we were talking about Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting…[however] Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different.”
Abrams believes it will be hard to get a conviction for second-degree murder or manslaughter when fighting self-defense because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove “he had the intent to kill and did so with “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.”
Essentially, says Abrams, “If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.
So essentially, the law allows for a person to be an idiot, stalk them, incite fear of danger, and then kill them legally for protecting themselves and scaring the perpetrator who incited it all. Then since there are no good witnesses to the crime because it was dark, the perp can lie without worry and get away with it.
I find this very sad.
Thanks, PF, for the story link!
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2013-07-09 10:38:002023-01-11 18:26:19Dan Abrams on George Zimmerman
Many people have wondered what I thought of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony. I watched the first 15 minutes of this video and did not see any indications of deception. I do, however, see a young woman who has great distrust and a lack of respect for authority.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2013-07-08 10:30:002014-08-12 18:42:10Rachel Jeantel’s Testimomy
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2013-07-03 11:48:002014-08-12 18:42:11George Zimmerman’s Re-enactment: My Opinion
When I listen to Zimmerman speak, I see a man who has not only been coached to speak, but I also see a man who is incredibly inconsistent and self-centered. This is all about Zimmerman. It’s a public media campaign to win the public over, but as a body language and deception expert, he’s failed miserably.
He is not confident in what he is saying, doesn’t own the words that come out of his mouth and shows us this by the vast amount of clues that he leaves behind in his wake. These are not his natural thoughts, if you want my opinion–not even close. I quiver to hear what Zimmerman really thinks.
I can pick out the words, the sentences, the points he was told to make. They jump at me like lightening on a dark night.
Zimmerman is also very inconsistent and can’t even get one minute into the interview–on his first question–when he says he hasn’t had time to reflect and then he immediately says that’s had lots of time to reflect. He is all over the place because he’s not being genuine to himself or us. If he is honest, he’d have no reason to jump all over, but he clearly is jumping all over. He’s like split mercury on the floor– try to pin it down and you can’t!
Zimmerman’s speech is also choppy because he is thinking constantly as he speaks. Why does he feel the need to be so controlled? Honest people’s words flow when they speak because honest thoughts come to us as second nature.
Why doesn’t he have any emotions about taking someone’s life?
If I killed someone in self-defense, even if it was justified, I would still be sad that I was put in that position–that I had no option but to take a life. That would disturb me and most people. I might even be mad, but not Zimmerman. He’s arrogant and self-righteous, yet gives us no credible reason to sympathize with his behavior that night. He gives us nothing to feel he was truly in a position where he had to take a life. His story is so inconsistent, its without question unbelievable.
We also aren’t seeing normal emotions in Zimmerman because I believe he feels he has to suppress himself, or he will never stand a chance.
I also don’t believe Zimmerman that he’s never heard of the stand your ground law. Did you see that sheepish smile?
I don’t have a clue where Hannity is getting the idea that Martin reached for something when he first alledgedly circled Zimmerman in his car. This is news to me. However, about this incident Zimmerman says to Hannity, “I was certain I could see him saying something to me.” Really? In Zimmerman’s written statement to police, which was taken right after the incident, he actually hand wrote these words, “I could not hear if he said anything.”
This is the third analysis I have done of Zimmerman and in each one, it is littered with changing stories, and inconsistencies.
Now read this shenanigans: It speaks for itself.
HANNITY: …then we get to the issue where you said to — on the 911 call that he’s running. You said that to the dispatch. Is there any chance in retrospect as you look back on that night and what happened, and the nation obviously is paying a lot of attention to this– ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. HANNITY: — trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time — that maybe he was afraid of you, didn’t know who you were? ZIMMERMAN: No. HANNITY: You don’t think — why do you think that he was running then? ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more — HANNITY: You said he’s running. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn’t running out of fear. HANNITY: You could tell the difference? ZIMMERMAN: He wasn’t running. HANNITY: So he wasn’t actually running? ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. HANNITY: OK. Because that’s what you said to the dispatcher, that you thought he was running.
When someone will change a story like this to support their beliefs, its clear we aren’t going to get anything reliable from Zimmerman outside of more manipulation and control and deceit.
I’m hoping to get more time to watch the rest of this! I haven’t made it to “Gods Plan” yet. I think I could write a novel on Zimmerman’s inconsistencies!
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2012-07-20 11:36:002012-07-20 11:36:00My Analysis of George Zimmerman on Hannity
