DeeDee's troubling testimony to the prosecution

OH so he was not the young football player he was made out to be? The pictures used that showed him in his football uniform were accurate depictions of the Trayvon on the day he was shot?

 

And what shortcut? It took him 40 minutes to walk from the 7/11 to the complex. What kind of gated area has a wide open space to let in thugs after dark?

 

You don't even realize how ridiculous that sounds do you? You refute what someone else has to say because they didn't "see" it and then turn around and say "I don't have to see it to know it's true." You contradict yourself in the same sentence. Hopefully Z doesn't have people like you on his jury or he won't get a fair trial. You just don't use any common sense.

 

The Optimists sponsor youth football teams and that was just a keepsake photo..

 

So you don't have a video. I didn't think so. But carry on with your crystal ball trying to tell us exactly what T did.....lol..

 

You still don't get it. It is not a problem he reported someone suspicious. The problem is be falsely convicted T of being a criminal responsible for crimes in his neighborhood. Maybe it will take a month or two for you to catch on?

 

No he didn't. He saw someone that looked suspicious and commented that those kind of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s always get away. Stating the obvious and the truth is not convicting someone of being a criminal.

 

Good grief you are so dishonest I can't believe you have the audacity to keep posting. That is not what he said but keep trying to change indisputable facts when you can't back up your claim.

The sad part is, even with dishonesty you fail to justify Z's comments.

 

Sorry, but your conjectures are not fact nor what you make up the truth. You call people all sorts of names because they don't agree with what you make up. Sad.

 

Your position is dishonest, to say the least.

You look at snippets of evidence, and use that to bolster your position that Zimmerman is guilty - which is perfectly acceptable.

Me, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what happened that evening, and I'm waiting for the trial.

Zimmerman may have shot Martin in cold blood, or he may have shot him in self-defense - I don't know.

What I do know - and what I've stated repeatedly - is that I don't think the state will be able to present a viable prosecution, there's simply too much evidence that tends to bolster Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

My opinion as to what Zimmerman may have done under similar circumstances with different people is just that - an opinion, nothing more. I tend to think that Zimmerman was an over-zealous watch captain, who would have reported anyone or anything he thought suspicious.

But, because you want to believe that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, you refuse to accept that - you're dead set, bound and determined to prove to one and all that Zimmerman is guilty.

All I can say is "Thank God you're not on a jury - impartiality isn't your forte!"

 

I use snippets? I'm one of the few that constantly looks at All of the evidence and will correct errors no matter who makes them. I would ask you back up your allegation, but just like the current claim you cannot support, you also don't have the ability to be honest and retract the BS.

I had no role in Z only reporting blacks as suspicious when he became a resident. I had no role in him falsely accusing two different black residents of crimes. I had no role in the person who called SPD two days after the shooting and told them Z had problems with racism against blacks. Unlike you, I support the claims I make.

You said you "honestly" believe Z would have done the same thing if it was a white guy. In order for you to "honestly" believe that you have to convince yourself he never saw a white guy he didn't know walking at 7 pm with a hood up while it was raining.

I warned you earlier to just give it up so it's not my fault your posts look silly and prove your claim of impartiality was pure smoke.

 

It isn't conjecture. It is pure fact he said

"THESE (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)S ALWAYS GET AWAY"

Basically, it seems like you have admitted to yourself the facts are not in Z's favor so when someone corrects your errors with pure fact you dishonestly call it conjecture. It would be funny if it wasn't so childish.

 

You warned me earlier? Who died and made you a moderator here, newbie?

In order for me NOT to believe that Zimmerman didn't stop anyone he saw, then I have to believe that he was profiling black people only - that essentially, Zimmerman was engaging in stereotyping.

Which - based on the reports I've read - may or may not be true.

However, unlike you, I'm trying to remain impartial as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. However I must confess - if a person such as yourself believes that Zimmerman is guilty, I'm becoming inclined to believe the opposite...

 

You said you believed Z would have taken the same action regardless of skin color. So tell us how it is plausible he never saw a white guy he didn't know walking at 7pm with a hood up in the rain in a 2+ year period.

No dodging.

No whining.

Just help us understand how that is reasonable because the difference between us is I am basing my opinion on the facts while you have based your opinion on nothing.

 

Why is that an unreasonable assumption?

Because in a two year period Zimmerman never called the police on any white people - at least not that we know of?

As I've said repeatedly, you don't know who Zimmerman may have interacted with in the two years before the shooting. You don't know their ages, you don't know their races, you don't know their gender - all you know are the ones that he made calls to the police department about, and the majority of those seem to be mundane.

What about the potholes in the road he called in on? What about the motorcycle doing wheelies on I-4 he called in? Or the stray dog in the neighborhood, the people who left their garage door up, the loud parties, the young teens crusing the complex? What about the kids playing basketball and trashing the pool bathroom, or the Orange County pickup that was driving poorly?

If you've read the police report of the calls Zimmerman made to 911 - the 47-page report that the Sanford PD has put online - you'll see that the vast majority of his calls to 911 are about routine, mundane, minor, trivial issues.

And with that, Zimmerman seems to me like a person who was obsessed with law and order - someone who was the self-appointed "Sheriff of Dodge City", and was going to make it his duty to keep the peace in his area.

THAT'S why I think Zimmerman would have stopped anybody walking through the apartment complex - black, white, Asian, Latino, Ewok.

 

It was a very simple question: explain how is it plausible he never saw a white guy under the same conditions he saw T in over a 2+ year period. You didn't even attempt to address it. It was your claim and your standards.

It's obvious your claim cannot be supported and for whatever reason, you refuse to admit the obvious.

It's embarrassing you refuse to address your own claim then assume I've not read the entire report on his past calls as an attempt to distract. You're all done.

 

Whatever.

I think the guy was obsessed with law and order. I think he would have stopped anyone he saw - and the 911 call record seems to bear that out.

But because it's crucial to your contention that Zimmerman was profiling black people, you refuse to accept that.

Incidently, since English doesn't seem to be your primary language, there is a difference between claim and opinion. I am of the opinion that Zimmerman would have stopped anyone he saw. If you're confused by the two terms, look here.

Since this thread is due to be locked down any time now, I'll ask the question that you've probably been dying to answer, praying that someone will set you up on the soapbox - the question that I'm sure that you've got a thousand semi-witty and not-so-astute comments for...

Presuming that Zimmerman DID profile Trayvon on the night of the shooting... wait for it... wait for it... Ready?

So what if he did?

 

His call records do not support your claim it is likely he would have reported anyone. In fact, the records prove the exact opposite because he only reported blacks during his residency. Are you confusing potholes and wheelies for people????

There is no escaping the fact he only reported blacks during his residency and that is why it is absurd for you to claim an opinion he would have called on anyone. Not only is there nothing to support your claim, the evidence proves is it flat out wrong.

My contention is based on the dam indisputable fact he only reported black while living there. I'm using facts to support my opinion while all you all you have for yours is hubris.

It is pretty revealing you think I've been waiting for the question because I've explained it several times and even in posts you quoted. It's like you make a mini career on ignoring the facts.

 

So the people he called in on for leaving their garage door up were black? The people he called in on for loud parties were black? The pothole was black? The barking dog was black? The driver of the county truck was black?

You're sinking deeper and deeper into a self-created quagmire.

 

No.. GZ reported open garage doors, dogs, potholes... but when he reported "suspicious persons".. they were black.

 

Before I go any further with this, and incur the scornful wrath of SkyStryker because my opinion isn't what s/he thinks it should be, I need to ask a question --

In the, say two years before the shooting, how many burglaries were there in the complex? Specifically, I'm looking for demographics of the crime in that particular area - what the crimes were, and what the race of the criminals was, if known. If by chance you've come across this info, a hyperlink would be appreciated.

What I'm wondering - and this is only a theory SkyStryker, so don't get your panties in a wad - is that if, IF Zimmerman did in fact engage in a little race-profiling, he very well have had reason to do so.

 

To the best of my knowledge there were 7 burglaries in the prior 14 months.

I don't think the issue is profiling... I just think GZ went too far.

Look at his actions. He went to Hanity, he set up a website to solicit funds, he tried to contact Angela Corey.. He turned in a lapsed passport instead of his current one and he lied re: his finances at the bond hearing.

If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't want GZ as a client.

 

He's not exactly helping his case by doing any of that, I'll certainly agree.

But, none of that means he's guilty of 2nd-degree murder either - he's just not the kind of squeaky-clean client lawyers love.

 

NOT garage doors and stray dogs or potholes.. Those are NOT "suspicious persons".

 

The guy is an idiot.. Imagine talking to the police for three days without a lawyer?

On the profiling discussion.. Why didn't GZ assume that he was walking home from a friend's??

I am more and more convinced that GZ has lied about what happned.... and would have happened at some point if he kept "patrolling the streets at night.