So, he wasn't suspicious at all.
At the same time you have the killer telling a 911 dispatcher that he looked suspicious.
I really find it difficult to believe anything a fellow says when he tells the cops that a guest in the community is acting suspicious just for walking down the street.
There are some hurdles Zimmerman's story has to get over to justify the killing. Did you find them yet?
Tell me the facts of this case, as you imagine them.
“......We are looking at a killing ~ the victim did nothing unlawful ~ even lived where he was headed. Stories are now saying he was killed 60 feet from home.
So, he wasn’t suspicious at all.......”
*******************************************************
The “logic” of your thinking is somewhat baffling to say the least. “...he wasn’t suspicious at all...” because he was close to “home”? That line of exceptionally logical thinking (sarc) must explain why John Wayne Gacy “wasn’t suspicious” when he was at or near his home—or in his sub-basement where all those young boys were buried.
We are looking at a killing ~ the victim did nothing unlawful ~ even lived where he was headed. Stories are now saying he was killed 60 feet from home.
So, he wasn’t suspicious at all.
Was he killed 60 feet from home? It was my understanding he didn’t live there. He was visiting. Why do you keep repeating falsehoods? Last night you claimed that Zimmerman did not tell the dispatcher that he had lost sight of Martin.
Suspicious is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you don’t think Martin was behaving suspiciously doesn’t mean that Zimmerman didn’t, or shouldn’t have (you weren’t there). Zimmerman saw someone in the neighborhood that he didn’t recognize. He reported to the dispatcher that Martin was looking from house to house, looked at him, and then ran.
The place and venue to sort these things out would be the Grand Jury room, not the court of public opinion.