Shellie Zimmerman ~ *Doubtful of his Innocence*

How about you just show some responsibility and point out where I compared Trayvon Martin to an old lady?

Thanks for devoting an entire post to me. I am flattered. However, you still need to back up your claims no matter how ridiculous they are.

 

I see that you didn't read the Watch Binder. ANY clothing that the watchman perceives as "spelling trouble" is sufficient. If Zimmerman deems a hoodie as gang related then that is sufficient. The watchman defines what that is, not you. When you watch you get to define what you deem as suspicious attire.
Ive been in the emergency services for 30 years. Gangs wear hoodies at times. Ive seem them high, Ive seen them dead, Ive seen them in fights, Ive seen them in the back of cop cars and Ive been in their houses/apts by the hundred.
I didn't mention off white jeans. Neither did Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't state that he used Martins clothing as any basis for his suspicions. The dispatcher elicited that from him.

Respectfully,

 

I did thus my question

What evidence refuted it, they presented none in court and the original investigators said they found none to refute it. So other than wishful thinking what is the basis of your not being convinced?

 

Trayvon Martin was a child.

 

The walkway across the T was not a dark alley, the "dogwalk" down between the buildings from which Martin approached from and where the fight progressed was.

 

My gated neighborhood is on the public transportation line.. Dozens of students and young working people walk every day.. at all hours.. in all kinds of weather wearing hoodies and talking on their cell phones.

Don't try to shine me on with stupidity.

 

OK and Martin could have avoided being killed if he had acted more like I would, he didn't and it got him killed. Zimmerman's actions were perfectly reasonable, Martin's were not, who bears the greater responsibility for Martin's death?

 

Quit denying Zimmerman's statements to the NEN dispatcher and investigators which they found credible it is embarrassing for you.

 

Geee.... that T is awfully far from where Zimmy's parked car was.

Since Zimmy didn't follow Martin, I guess Martin just dragged him all the way over there. Quite a feat considering Zimmerman's impressive bulk.

 

He had not reached puberty or the age of a youth? I think the ME said he had fully developed genitalia. Which definition are you using for child.

 

George said Trayvon was looking about.. NOT that he was peering into houses or walking on covered porches.

There are no roof overhangs second story or otherwise in these cheap Florida homes.

- - - Updated - - -

The LEGAL definition.

 

From "Thugvon" to "Thuckerberg"

Somebody arrest this suspicious hoodie wearer!

 

If I drove into the south side of Chicago at midnight, in a gang infested area, in a Mercedes, wearing a Rolex, with 10K in cash, and stopped the car to get out and have a smoke.....it would not be illegal. One may argue I should have the freedom to do that without being molested, but if I got mugged would anyone approve of, or admire what I did?...or think what I did was absolutely retarded?

Of course he didn't have the right to settle things toe to toe...but we're talking about a 17 year old. They are not well known for having a mature decision making process. Someone pushing 30 should though. I personally would not walk into a dark area where a potentially dangerous burglary suspect was last seen, when the cops were on their way, with a gun, JUST to prevent a possible burglary, especially if I can't fight well enough to fight back in any way at all

 

Your position doesn't allow for any possibility that Zimmerman could prevent any potential crime from someone he followed. That's the rub. If the watchman prevents the crime then all you have left is the baggage and cost of the watchman's activities without the benefit of citing a crime that was prevented!
I can scare off a rapist and run after the guy for 10 miles. But the narrative of the naysayers is that I was some idiot that wore out a pair of shoes scaring away some poor jogger!
The point is is that watchman have value that cannot be quantitatively measured because they prevented the crime from happening in the first place. But the cost, the baggage and the aftermath IS measurable.

Respectfully,

(let me apologize for my many replies to you. Nothing personal, just like a good debate and is intended in the most friendly context).

 

I'll repeat the fact: Trayvon Martin was a child. You just can't spin this fact away.

 

About 100 feet so what?

No he was trying to get a better observation and location to meet the police in the direct to which he ran.

Please explain to me how you follow someone you cannot see and have no idea where they are.

And since Martin told the girl friend several times he had lost that impressive bulk, could not see it, all the more reason to ask how do you follow someone you cannot see and have no idea where they are?

- - - Updated - - -

By what definition, had he reach puberty?

child n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.

 

So... he followed Martin.

He told the cops to meet him at the entrance. He mentioned it several times. For some reason, he chose to proceed in the other direction.

He could already see Martin. I believe that Zimmerman followed Martin so that he wouldn't lose sight of him. "These ***holes always get away." The jury verdict doesn't prove that Zimmerman didn't follow Martin. It only proves that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and did his job as the "eyes and ears".

Interesting.

According to you, Martin lost sight of Zimmerman, then somehow manged to attack him, despite the fact that he couldn't see him.

I think you're finally starting to see the holes in Zimmerman's story... the story he gave the cops after his detainment -- which were quite different from the details in his NEN call.

 

Huh?

Martin attacked Zimmerman. And then got shot right through the heart.

End of story.

 

Good points Rose. Most every person on the Martin side of things uses words like; "chase", "pursue" and "hunt down" when talking about Zimmerman. Those words carry an intent to overcome, detain, overpower or to kill. It nothing but disingenuous hyperbole.
There is no evidence or testimony that Zimmerman done anything other than exit his truck and run some 150' to see where Martin went. That's it. He ran that 150' in about 14 seconds and the dispatcher told him not to follow, he said okay and then calmly talked to the dispatcher for a while then hung up.
There was no chase. Zimmerman ran to a point where Martin once was.

 

Behind the apartments where he shouldn't have been as I said.

EXTENSIONS where the second story overhangs the patio creating an overhang, where some had awnings on that back as part of the screened in porches as the pictures show. Now you're being obtuse again as you have been about your fallacious misrepresentation of the law.

Which one?

So we are not talking about the physical definition of child then just an age of majority thing.

So what is the point of calling him a just a child? The age of majority is 21, do you consider 20 year olds children physically? Are you saying we send children into the military by force and put them on the front lines when we have a draft?

 

The cops were on thier way, so any potential burglaries would not have been successful, and trained cops would have arrested any burglars. A smart neighborhood watch coordinator would have considered that.

I appreciate your respectable tone as well, and I'm not fragile so you can speak plainly

 

He went in the direction he originally ran off to.

How do you follow someone when you can't see them and have no idea where they are?

No, after trying to come up with the best place to meet the to be arriving any minute, he said call him when they arrived because he was going to head back towards his truck and didn't want to miss them if they turned down the perimeter street rather than come up the center street.

As per the request of the NEN dispatcher he was trying to let them know what Martin did, but Martin ran off and he had no idea where.

You are no judge of that and his actions were perfectly reasonable to the request of the NEN dispatcher, that he didn't do what you think he should have done has no bearing on anything. Martins actions were NOT reasonable however and that is what got him killed.

No according to the testimony of the girl friend, what do you have to refute it?

I think like your statements about the incident itself you are engaged in desperate supposition. Don't now play the game of trying to tell me what I believe, I don't argue positions assigned to me by people losing their own in a debate.

 

"Zimmerman followed Martin after calling the cops. One confronted the other."

The narrative that you have offered has stripped away very relevant facts that leave us with the notion that both men had an equivalent probability of initiating the point of contact. You give equal weight to whats plausible from both men in lieu of what is probable considering the evidence.

It is VERY relevnt to consider that Martin was tall slim and athletic and wearing tennis shoes. Zimmerman was wearing jeans and work boots.

Martin spoke of Zimmerman with malice according to Rachel Jeantel. Zimmerman was speaking calmly to PD.

Zimmerman said; "he ran". Meaning that he could no longer see where he was. The first 911 call came a few minutes later.

Its much more plausible that Martin fully dictated if these men physically came together.

 

Meanwhile, a 6 year old girl is raped while you stay in your car. Yes, you avoided any possible confrontation but you likewise forfeited preventing a crime. True, we could invent scenarios all day long but the fact remains that the more zealous one is as a watchman, the more crimes you prevent. Thus, it is a risk/ benefit ratio. You and Zimmerman's risk/ benefit ratio's are different, yet both of your ratios fit into what is a reasonable expectation of concerned citizens protecting their neighbors. I suggest that the guy doing the volunteering gets the benefit of the doubt and is the one that defines reasonable action or inaction.

Respectfully,

 

It must be hell to always assume the worse from people! You go from a teenager walking home from a convenience store to a 6 year old getting raped?
Are you certain that your sense of reality is not slightly off track?

Do you really live with the fear of a 6 year old getting raped by a total stranger . . .rather than by a family member or a family friend? Check the statistics, and it might give you some reality check!

Your "reasonable expectations" are totally off!