George Zimmerman shot in road rage incident
- Thread starter Funky Bunch
- Start date
God you never stop making dumb posts. Zimmerman is a cold blooded killer gun nut so it is not shocked to hear you making an case for him.
He's not a cold-blooded killer. He's a cop want of bee who got in waaaay over his head then lied his way out.
George Zimmerman’s attacker says he was acting in self-defense
The man who shot at George Zimmerman on Monday is claiming he was trying to protect himself, the Orlando Sentinel reported on Monday.
Matthew Apperson appeared alongside his attorney, Mark NeJame, as well as his wife and mother following his encounter with Zimmerman, which was reportedly the latest in a series of clashes between both men.
According to NeJame, Apperson “simply maintained that he acted in self-defense. We see everything to suggest that is correct and nothing to suggest otherwise but we do not think it is appropriate to get into any of the facts specifically right now.”
NeJame did not identify the events leading up to his client’s run-in with Zimmerman in Lake Mary, Florida, but he did say that Apperson was “legally justified to shoot” and has a concealed-carry permit. Neither Apperson nor Zimmerman had been charged as of Monday night.
WKMG-TV reported that Apperson went to a local medical facility and asked a staff member, Kenneth Cornell, to call 911, saying he shot at Zimmerman. Cornell said that Apperson also told him he fired because he saw Zimmerman brandishing a gun of his own. After reaching emergency dispatchers, Cornell said, he passed the phone to Apperson.
“He said, ‘My name is Matt Apperson and this has been an ongoing dispute between George and I. This isn’t the first time, this is the third incident and I shot him,'” Cornell said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/george-zimmermans-attacker-says-he-was-acting-in-self-defense/
The man who shot at George Zimmerman on Monday is claiming he was trying to protect himself, the Orlando Sentinel reported on Monday.
Matthew Apperson appeared alongside his attorney, Mark NeJame, as well as his wife and mother following his encounter with Zimmerman, which was reportedly the latest in a series of clashes between both men.
According to NeJame, Apperson “simply maintained that he acted in self-defense. We see everything to suggest that is correct and nothing to suggest otherwise but we do not think it is appropriate to get into any of the facts specifically right now.”
NeJame did not identify the events leading up to his client’s run-in with Zimmerman in Lake Mary, Florida, but he did say that Apperson was “legally justified to shoot” and has a concealed-carry permit. Neither Apperson nor Zimmerman had been charged as of Monday night.
WKMG-TV reported that Apperson went to a local medical facility and asked a staff member, Kenneth Cornell, to call 911, saying he shot at Zimmerman. Cornell said that Apperson also told him he fired because he saw Zimmerman brandishing a gun of his own. After reaching emergency dispatchers, Cornell said, he passed the phone to Apperson.
“He said, ‘My name is Matt Apperson and this has been an ongoing dispute between George and I. This isn’t the first time, this is the third incident and I shot him,'” Cornell said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/george-zimmermans-attacker-says-he-was-acting-in-self-defense/
There's alot more to this current story that we don't know. What are the odds?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ed-florida-shooting-reports-article-1.2218015
But she confirmed Apperson was the man who claimed in September that Zimmerman threatened to kill him when they got into a road-rage dispute.
“Do you know who I am?” Zimmerman reportedly barked, according to a police report.
Apperson opted not to pursue charges after a Lake Mary police officer warned that “without the tag, witnesses, and/or clear video identifying the driver as George Zimmerman, it might be difficult to prove the alleged suspect was in fact Zimmerman,” the report states.
And from last year's story:
“I looked over - George Zimmerman was the driver - and they were threatening to kick my ass and to shoot me,” Apperson told a dispatcher. “I said, what are you going to do, shoot me? I’m not messing with you.”
The 35-year-old man pulled into a nearby gas station to call police and report the incident, during which he said the driver of the truck had been Zimmerman “for a fact.”
The truck followed Apperson “in an aggressive manner” into the lot and Zimmerman threatened to shoot Apperson “dead,” he told police. Zimmerman “peeled off” after Apperson went inside the store to call police.
Apperson was armed with a concealed handgun, which he is licensed to carry and which he removed while speaking to police about the incident.
Apperson called 911 again two days later to report that Zimmerman was waiting outside his workplace. Police responded and interviewed Zimmerman, who told officers he was visiting a doctor’s office in the Waymont Court plaza.
The man declined to press charges against Zimmerman, who was found not guilty in the February 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ed-florida-shooting-reports-article-1.2218015
But she confirmed Apperson was the man who claimed in September that Zimmerman threatened to kill him when they got into a road-rage dispute.
“Do you know who I am?” Zimmerman reportedly barked, according to a police report.
Apperson opted not to pursue charges after a Lake Mary police officer warned that “without the tag, witnesses, and/or clear video identifying the driver as George Zimmerman, it might be difficult to prove the alleged suspect was in fact Zimmerman,” the report states.
And from last year's story:
“I looked over - George Zimmerman was the driver - and they were threatening to kick my ass and to shoot me,” Apperson told a dispatcher. “I said, what are you going to do, shoot me? I’m not messing with you.”
The 35-year-old man pulled into a nearby gas station to call police and report the incident, during which he said the driver of the truck had been Zimmerman “for a fact.”
The truck followed Apperson “in an aggressive manner” into the lot and Zimmerman threatened to shoot Apperson “dead,” he told police. Zimmerman “peeled off” after Apperson went inside the store to call police.
Apperson was armed with a concealed handgun, which he is licensed to carry and which he removed while speaking to police about the incident.
Apperson called 911 again two days later to report that Zimmerman was waiting outside his workplace. Police responded and interviewed Zimmerman, who told officers he was visiting a doctor’s office in the Waymont Court plaza.
The man declined to press charges against Zimmerman, who was found not guilty in the February 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Not once have I said that. Why do you feed the need to lie, repeatedly? Are you incapable of understanding the subtle distinctions between believing GZ and analyzing all of the evidence in a cogent fashion, and making a reasoned judgment on whether there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction? I think your posting history answers that question.
What is sad is someone like you surrenders your intellect to your ideology, and gives up the ability to think rationally and critically.
Analyze:
GZ says he got out of his car to find a street sign. The first question is how could he not know the names of the three streets in the development where he lived and which he regularly patrolled. The second question is why he felt compelled to "walk" 250 feet to a street we know he already knew the name of - since it's the street on which he lived? He also "walked" directly by the last place where he says he saw Martin but didn't stop or even slow down to investigate. How do we know he didn't stop? Keep reading.
Analyze:
2:07 Zimmerman “Sh**. He’s running”.
2:09 ((A mechanical sound. Maybe the door latch. Maybe releasing seat belt. ))
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
2:10 ((Tone, which seems to be the usual warning chirp when a door opens))
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
2:14 Sound like the door slamming shut
Dispatcher: OK. Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance
2:20 Rustling/wind noises starting
2:22 Zimmerman:[Inaudible ]
2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
2:28 Zimmerman: Ok.
This is the point where GZ says he starts back to his truck...but he also said later that he got all the way to Retreat View Circle - a distance of 250 feet from where he said he parked his truck - before he was told to stop following. And he covered that distance in 14 seconds according to the tape of the 911 call. He certainly couldn't have slowed or stopped to look around where he claims he last saw Martin or he would have gotten the "OK, we don't need you to do that" before he could have possibly made it to Retreat View Circle.
Analyze:
GZ, in his written statement, said he was standing on the east/west sidewalk closest to us in this picture when Martin approached him, struck him, knocked him down and jumped on him. But Martin's body (marker 6) is thirty feet away to the south. How do you suppose that happened?
Analyze:
GZ says he shot Martin, rolled him over and stretched his arms out. But Martin - per police testimony - was face down and he had his hands under his body when they found him
I'll look forward to seeing your rational, cogent, reasoned, intellectual analysis.
Last edited:
I really hoped two things would happen: a) Zimmerman never runs afoul of anything ever again, or b) he dies an uneventful death.
This is, really, the worst outcome....a reason for people to rehash that entire debacle.
Yuck.
This is, really, the worst outcome....a reason for people to rehash that entire debacle.
Yuck.
Analyze:
GZ says he got out of his car to find a street sign. The first question is how could he not know the names of the three streets in the development where he lived and which he regularly patrolled. The second question is why he felt compelled to "walk" 250 feet to a street we know he already knew the name of - since it's the street on which he lived? He also "walked" directly by the last place where he says he saw Martin but didn't stop or even slow down to investigate. How do we know he didn't stop? Keep reading.
Analyze:
2:07 Zimmerman “Sh**. He’s running”.
2:09 ((A mechanical sound. Maybe the door latch. Maybe releasing seat belt. ))
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
2:10 ((Tone, which seems to be the usual warning chirp when a door opens))
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
2:14 Sound like the door slamming shut
Dispatcher: OK. Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance
2:20 Rustling/wind noises starting
2:22 Zimmerman:[Inaudible ]
2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
2:28 Zimmerman: Ok.
This is the point where GZ says he starts back to his truck...but he also said later that he got all the way to Retreat View Circle - a distance of 250 feet from where he said he parked his truck - before he was told to stop following. And he covered that distance in 14 seconds according to the tape of the 911 call. He certainly couldn't have slowed or stopped to look around where he claims he last saw Martin or he would have gotten the "OK, we don't need you to do that" before he could have possibly made it to Retreat View Circle.
Analyze:
GZ, in his written statement, said he was standing on the east/west sidewalk closest to us in this picture when Martin approached him, struck him, knocked him down and jumped on him. But Martin's body is thirty feet away to the south. How do you suppose that happened?
Analyze:
GZ says he shot Martin, rolled him over and stretched his arms out. But Martin - per police testimony - was face down and he had his hands under his body when they found him
I'll look forward to seeing your rational, cogent, reasoned, intellectual analysis.
Tarheel, I did this in detail a couple of years ago, when the trial took place. I went through the evidence and the transcript and had this very argument. I simply do not have time to do it again. It is clear, that one, like you, can cherry pick selected portions, and make your own arguments. There is other evidence that contradicts much of what you have posted.
Remember, there was a team of experienced lawyers from the state that put on this case in detail. The jury heard every bit of this evidence and acquitted GZ. Are you really suggesting that they simply didn't put on the case like you would have?
Many of the alleged contradictions that you cite were explained during the trial.
Analyze:
GZ says he got out of his car to find a street sign. The first question is how could he not know the names of the three streets in the development where he lived and which he regularly patrolled. The second question is why he felt compelled to "walk" 250 feet to a street we know he already knew the name of - since it's the street on which he lived? He also "walked" directly by the last place where he says he saw Martin but didn't stop or even slow down to investigate. How do we know he didn't stop? Keep reading.
Analyze:
2:07 Zimmerman “Sh**. He’s running”.
2:09 ((A mechanical sound. Maybe the door latch. Maybe releasing seat belt. ))
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
2:10 ((Tone, which seems to be the usual warning chirp when a door opens))
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
2:14 Sound like the door slamming shut
Dispatcher: OK. Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance
2:20 Rustling/wind noises starting
2:22 Zimmerman:[Inaudible ]
2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
2:28 Zimmerman: Ok.
This is the point where GZ says he starts back to his truck...but he also said later that he got all the way to Retreat View Circle - a distance of 250 feet from where he said he parked his truck - before he was told to stop following. And he covered that distance in 14 seconds according to the tape of the 911 call. He certainly couldn't have slowed or stopped to look around where he claims he last saw Martin or he would have gotten the "OK, we don't need you to do that" before he could have possibly made it to Retreat View Circle.
Analyze:
GZ, in his written statement, said he was standing on the east/west sidewalk closest to us in this picture when Martin approached him, struck him, knocked him down and jumped on him. But Martin's body is thirty feet away to the south. How do you suppose that happened?
Analyze:
GZ says he shot Martin, rolled him over and stretched his arms out. But Martin - per police testimony - was face down and he had his hands under his body when they found him
I'll look forward to seeing your rational, cogent, reasoned, intellectual analysis.
Tarheel, I did this in detail a couple of years ago, when the trial took place. I went through the evidence and the transcript and had this very argument. I simply do not have time to do it again. It is clear, that one, like you, can cherry pick selected portions, and make your own arguments. There is other evidence that contradicts much of what you have posted.
Remember, there was a team of experienced lawyers from the state that put on this case in detail. The jury heard every bit of this evidence and acquitted GZ. Are you really suggesting that they simply didn't put on the case like you would have?
Many of the alleged contradictions that you cite were explained during the trial.
Sure...GZ's story changed from - "He walked up to me and struck me, knocking me down" to "He walked up to me and we struggled to where his body was found where he struck me and knocked me down". Pretty easy to make a story fit the facts when you can change it to fit the evidence.
So, humor us, explain how he traveled 250 feet in 14 seconds and didn't bother to explore the area where he last saw Martin.
So, humor us, explain how he traveled 250 feet in 14 seconds and didn't bother to explore the area where he last saw Martin.
With such a contradiction (as you claim-anyway) then tell us why the jury didn't convict him?
coff,
Everything you've claimed in this thread has been demonstrated to be untrue with citations and links. You had the audacity to call me a liar, only to have my claimed backed with proof from both me and others. Sorry, but you've got no credibility here.
Everything you've claimed in this thread has been demonstrated to be untrue with citations and links. You had the audacity to call me a liar, only to have my claimed backed with proof from both me and others. Sorry, but you've got no credibility here.
Coff only really needs to stand on one thing: Zimmerman is, legally, not guilty of the crime you claim he is.
And Coff and I had some fun on this topic a few years ago. Don't waste your time again Coff.
And Coff and I had some fun on this topic a few years ago. Don't waste your time again Coff.
Ok, so was OJ. I guess Al Capone was only guilty of tax evasion as well.
Doesn't matter anyway. Zimmerman is going to end up dead or imprisoned soon anyway unless he makes some major changes to his actions and attitude.
Well, I would be happy to have that thread reviewed. At that time, I had a pretty good knowledge of the evidence. I do not have the inclination to go back and re-do that again.
Bottom line, the evidence presented was not enough to convict GZ. The jury reached the right result.
And OJ was legally not guilty either. And I do believe there is more evidence against GZ.
See, this response is typical of a low information/intellect poster. Apparently, you are unable to make subtle or less than subtle distinctions between individual cases. A thinking person should be able to articulate, based on evidence presented, a cogent analysis of evidence from which they can agree or disagree with a particular verdict. I am able to make a very compelling case, based on evidence, that the OJ jury was wrong. At the same time, I can support the GZ verdict, based on the evidence.
See, that is what happens when you think at a higher level than you.
If you believe that the evidence of guilt was stronger in the GZ case than in the OJ case, you are a card carrying idiot. Sorry, but that is the fact.
Go back and read my op. See if you can figure it out. GZ isn't guilty for the same basic reason OJ wasn't guilty.
Wrong. GZ was not found guilty because the jury, having viewed all the evidence presented, correctly determined that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
OJ was found not guilt because the jury decided to ignore the evidence and the law, engage in jury nullification, and render a verdict based on other, non-legal grounds having to do with race and politics.
BTW, I'm not "claiming" anything. It's documented. You have the link to his written statement to review his original story. If you're going to call someone's statements into question, back it up. Quit hiding behind, "I'm not going to rehash that except to question everything you post".
You haven't supported anything you said. You have been proven wrong multiple times. Which is it? Do you just stand on the juries decision? Cause if so, then it's no different than OJ. Now if you actually have a case, all you've done to support it is have every one of your arguments disproven. You even claimed I was lying about testimony, that is well recorded and supports my position. Now you can choose to ignore evidence and testimony if you want to in your argument, but to flat out deny its existence shows you to be either ignorant or a liar. Why not just have the wisdom to admit that you've lost this one?
That would be incorrect. But I'm not going to rehash it and support my statement. I'm drawing from your playbook and it sure makes life easier.
I completely agree, it is not, but it is all I could muster in response. Carry on.
The prosecution screwed the pooch in both cases. The OJ case is self-evident. In the Zimmerman trial they overcharged. There was never a prayer of getting a conviction on second-degree murder. The prosecution knew they blew it in the end and asked the judge to allow the jury to consider manslaughter, but it was too late. That wasn't the case they had presented to the jury and the jury disregarded it.
And, to placate coff, that's not just my take.
http://www.google.com/search?q=zimm...sm=122&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=ssl&surl=1&safe=active
Well, we agree on that GZ was overcharged, which did make a conviction more difficult. I don't think there was sufficient evidence for manslaughter, either.
But seriously, how do I find the original thread on this. I would like to review some of my posts there, because I had done some research.
