Shellie Zimmerman ~ *Doubtful of his Innocence*

How is it out of Sync?

I completely agree that George was not guilty of anything. He had a reasonable beliff that he was under threat of death or Great Injury. The actions Martin took may have caused death or great injury but they didn't. Violent punk teens need to be given an appropriate sentence -which in my view would have been a custodial one of 6 months.

However Martins was reckless as to whether his actions might lead to his own Serious injury or Death due the legitimate use of force by a victim.

lets take this a step further.

A youth decides to go onto the freeway to spraypaint some graffiti under a bridge something we would probably think is worth a fine or being put on a program doing community service scrubbing graffiti. He is spotted by a Highway maintenence officer who gives chase. The youth runs accross the highway and causes a number of cars to swerve and hit each other. One car hits the youth and kills him.

Would we say the youth desrved to die? Of course not! Was he reckless..yes. Was his death his responsibility..yes. Did he endanger other road users..yes Did his recklessness lead directly to his death..yes but did he deserve death..no. It was an unfortunate consequence of his reckless behavior.

 

Zimmerman testified that Martin stated "you're gonna die tonight mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er," as he reached for Zimmerman's weapon when it was exposed as the result of Martin knocking him to the ground. What do you make of that?

 

How exactly does your statement contradict mine?

 

I am unconvinced that this is true. I have no doubt that Zimmerman had reasonable cause to defend himself but that doesn't mean I entirely beleive Zimmerman.Whatever the reality I do not beleive Zimmerman to be guilty of anything.

I also do not beleive Shellie Zimmerman for a moment concerning the lastest incident.

 

Well, if you believe in anything Darwin had to say, anyone stupid enough to run out into freeway traffic? They deserve to die.

 

Why do you doubt Zimmerman's testimony? My position is we don't know either way but that his defense was able to convince a jury that he acted within the bounds of the law. But the question before us as of now--at least in the context of the discussion involving me and Sandrine, is if Zimerman's testimony is accurate and Trayvon did threaten to murder him while reaching for his weapon, did Trayvon deserve to die? I say yes.

I habe no opinion one way or another on that one...

 

What did Darwin say about people deserving to die? Feel free to print anything he actually wrote and NO I will not research it for you. if you make a claim YOU have to provide the evidence.

 

Jeez, lighten up it's Friday! I was being a little snarky, hence the sunglasses. Besides, I was not implying a direct attribution to Darwin.

 

I doubt anything that points to Guilt unless proven. As I said I agree totally that he believed that he was in immediate danger I have no doubt about that at all. None whatsoever. However I do not have the same faith that martin Said these things. I beleive it is entirely possible he did so just as it is entirely possible that Zimmerman is lying.

For the purposes of this discussion Zimmerman is not on trial. We all agree that he was acting in justifiable self defence. For the purposes of this discussion Martin is on trial because we are trying to establish HIS guilt and he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt just as we gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt contrary to the demands of the progressives who wanted the prosecution to have the benefit.

I am certain that Martin doubled back to attack Zimmerman, the time frame makes anything else beyond the realm of reasonable doubt.

As to whether Martin stated that he was going to Kill Zimmerman I have reasonable doubt.

 

You didn;t imply it. You directly stated it.

I don;t do ''lighten up'' about someones death.

 

You are using hypotheicals that you define to support your opinion. It doesn't matter how old Trayvon was and it doesn't matter what injuries he actually inflicted. The fact is that a person doesn't have to wait until they are near death before defending their self. It would be stupid to do so or expect someone to do so. Reasonable fear is good enough. Just like a person doesn't have to check an attacker's ID to make sure they are over 18 before taking action. That would also be stupid. The common sense solution here is to address the problem with teen violence and stop making excuses for it.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep mentioning the seriousness of George's injuries. That isn't the standard to determine self defense so why even mention it.

 

Are you utterly Blind?

look again at what I posted in your quote above

I stated

Can you read that? Where it says that I completely agree that Zimmerman acted in self defence and yet for some strange reason you keep coming back as If somehow I maintain that zimmerman was guilty.

let me put it into big letters so you can understand

ZIMMERMAN WAS RIGHTFULLY FOUND NOT GUILTY

I am mentioning Zimmerman's injuries because it determines what sentence he should have gotten had Zimmerman not killed him and the Police had arrived in time to stop martins attack just before Zimmerman shot him


Do you not understand the difference between 'deserve' and 'likeley consequences'.?

 

I did not. Go back and re-read my quote. Carefully this time.

You must be a hoot at parties.

 

Of course I understand and you are still using hypothetical situation that YOU define to support your opinion. It doesn't matter what Trayvon WOULD HAVE been charged with he still committed a crime and put someone in justifiable fear for their life. He died as a result of a gun shot to stop his attack. That is justice. I have no idea who deserves to die or not. This is just a silly point that Trayvonites keep bringing up to bait someone into saying Trayvon deserved to die. Then they can say what an awful person is that would say something like that.

To be honest it is difficult to have sympathy for a violent punk teen that lives by the sword. That is the risk you take if you attack a stranger. They may be armed.Trayvon was stupid and died as a result.

 

Well... the process of natural selection explains that nature, somewhat cruelly weeds out the weak. "Survival of the fittest" while actually a summation by Spencer, is extrapolated from axioms all over On the Origin of Species addressing adaptability and its link to survivability. "Deserves" concerns the prospect of being weeded out by nature, or contributing to the extinction of a species. Social Darwinism is an extension of this premise.

In short... everything Darwin said about evolution supports the position of social Darwinism, which is one of the reasons for it's popularity.

 

Maybe it would be better to not think of Trayvon "deserving" to die but rather he was too stupid to live.

 

I prefer not to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)foot around it. The Trayvon Martin's of this world "deserve" a decent upbringing... however without that and absent any contribution to society, they "deserve" to die. God only knows how many bright lights have been snuffed by these drains...

 

I am 100% with you on these teens deserving a decent upbringing. Society deserves it too. There needs to be a productive solution to this problem but the liberal progs want to simply ignore it and make excuses for these violent thugs.

 

George new GF won't stick around for long.

 

Projection is fun!

 

Really? And what verdict do you think the jury will render? No wait....LOL!

 

Now that I have more resonance with.

 

Yea your right, because heaven knows it takes a grown man with a gun to handle an unarmed 17yr old teenager in a fist fight.

 

Yea a black kid walking home minding his own business who was found to be "suspicious" by a coward with a gun deserved to die. Unbelievable.

 

Was going to say it's probably just her jealousy and humiliation (and divorce lawyer) that are telling her to make these kinds of comments.

Then I saw you pasted the proof.

Thanks.