Zimmerman lied about Trayvon seeing his gun;
He didn't lie. Look at the recreation video he made the next day. This is a partial clip, but the part you're talking about starts about 3:10 or so. He said "He saw it..." and
corrected his statement by saying, "I
felt like he saw it." Check it out for yourself:
http://youtu.be/55l2Dj6AeFY
He lied about not knowing the Stand Your Ground law;
Supposedly, he learned of the "Stand Your Ground" law in a college class, right? Well, would you expect the college professor to speak in terms of a nick-name about the code section to which it refers, or to speak in terms of its real name? Because the title of the section is "
Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force." You would convict him for not knowing the nick-name of a law that the prosecutors claim he learned about in college, where they deal with code sections, code numbers and real titles?
He lied about Trayvon jumping out of some bushes on him;
He was never unequivocal about that. At times he said bushes, and other times he said "out of the darkness." He
believed that TM hid in bushes, but the possibilities of where he actually hid are plentiful. And the relevant point to anyone looking for "justice" in this case, should be that TM hid anywhere
at all, and that he made the first contact when he said "What you following me for" or something to that effect. The fact that GZ didn't know
exactly where he was hiding is irrelevant; the fact that he
was hiding is highly relevant.
He lied about not knowing the name of the street he was on (in a neighborhood in which he had lived for 4 years);
Let's say that's true, that he did indeed
lie about not knowing the street name. How far in advance of the actual meet-up was that? It was right after GZ said, "S-it, he's running" and that's when he got out of his vehicle. That is the precise point at which he lost sight of TM, so we know from trial that it was a full four minutes before the actual meet-up. What does the name of the street have to do with anything even if he did lie about it? Are you suggesting that "forgetting" the name of the street is part of some conspiracy to utilize the "Stand Your Ground" law four minutes later when he had no idea that TM would even still be in the area when he got back there? How does his lying about the street name or not defeat reasonable doubt in a juror's mind? It's a meaningless factoid that he didn't give the name of the street, whether he really did forget it or not. It has literally nothing to do with supporting or defeating reasonable doubt.
He lied when he said Trayvon was covering his mouth and squeezing his nose shortly before Trayvon tried to grab for his gun.
This is absolute, rank conjecture. Because Trayvon didn't have blood on whichever hand he put over his mouth and nose, it's a lie on GZ's part that it ever happened? You do know that it was raining that night, right? You do know that the grass was soaked, right? TM didn't even have his
own blood on his hands, and the prosecution made a big deal about his hands being underneath him clutching his chest wound. Can you explain why he wouldn't have his own blood on his hands if that was true? I can. Because the first cops on the scene turned him over in the rain and spent several minutes performing CPR on him. His hands were virtually clean when his autopsy was performed. Not having GZ's blood on his hands is much less questionable than not having his own blood on his hands, but there it is.
None of the minor inconsistencies you mention above have anything to do with the second at which Zimmerman made the decision to shoot TM, at least not in a legal sense. If he got it wrong that TM saw his weapon, and likewise got it wrong that TM was reaching for it, he definitely got it right that his head was being slammed against concrete. That fact alone, whether it was for two seconds or all 45 seconds of the Lauer Tape, is all that was needed for a reasonable belief that he was going to suffer great bodily injury or death if he didn't escalate to deadly force. That was the question for the jury, and God bless 'em, they saw through all the emotional arguments and distilled it down to just the legal question: Did Zimmerman employ deadly force according to the law or not? They say he did, and that is all the "justice" we have a right to demand of jurors.
Blues
