Why Trayvon may have been heading north on the dog path and still not "doubling back" to ambush GZ

[Tommy_Carcetti]

A lot has been made about why it supposedly would have taken Trayvon so long to get back to the house where he was staying after losing Zimmerman. People who believe Zimmerman's account believe this is somehow evidence that Trayvon decided to "double back" with the specific intention of "ambushing" Zimmerman.

Now, I've repeatedly asked as to the logic of such a theory: Why would someone who clearly sought to escape a dangerous situation (i.e. having a stranger chase you for no apparent reason) decide to make such a radical 180 decision to then turn around and voluntarily re-insert himself in that dangerous situation that he just sought to escape? As of yet, I've yet to hear any reason that has convinced me that it would be a logical response for any rational human being, young or old.

But let's put that aside for the moment.

And let's consider three things regarding the case:

1. Trayvon was not a regular resident of the community and likely wasn't intensely familiar with its layout and whose house was whose.
2. It was dark outside when this all occurred.
3. This is a townhouse community wherein all the units look pretty much identical to one another, especially from the back.

Now let's look at the map:



Note that from the dog path you wouldn't be able to see the front of the houses, only the back. To my knowledge there were no numbers on the back of the units. The numbers would only be on the front of the units. So it might not be clear to someone with little knowledge of the community which unit was which. Even worse in the dark and in the rain.

Even if Trayvon thought one of the units was Brandy Green's house and he could attempt to knock on the back slider to have her son let him in, if he was wrong and he was knocking on the wrong slider, it might make him look even worse, as if he were trying to break into someone's house.

So it would make logical sense for him to go back up the dog path and out to Retreat View Circle, where the fronts of the houses were and where he could see the numbers and identify which house was Brandy Green's.

But he would never get to Retreat View Circle. His life would end on the dog path.

[Hoyt]

1. Quite plausible. There are other explanations leaving Z guilty, but that is a good one.

[Soundman]

2. Not plausible,

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 07:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Isn't that theory they floated in the movie your screen shot is taken from?

Why is it that the Zimmerman lynch mob can't even remotely entertain the idea that Travon might have went back to confront Zimmerman? Talk about bias. I have been watching the trial as much as I can. Anyone who is following with an open mind is in agreement that the states witnesses have proved Zimmerman's story time and time again. The eye witness who saw Martin on top and saw and heard Zimmerman yelling or help. None of the facts seem to have any effect on those who are in permanent hater mode. At least you present some type of theory other than guilty as charged, dispense with the trial, and get right to the lynching crowd.

[Hoyt]

3. Lynching? That is exactly what bigot boy and his gun did.

Martin had a right to fight Zimmerman's lynch mob.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. +1

[louis-t]

4. Keep watching that 'trail'.

The rest of us will watch the trial. No one has proved Zim's story. No one. Eye witnesses can be wrong. Ear witnesses can be wrong. The 'story' he tells doesn't make sense. It's not believable.

[Soundman]

7. Thanks for correcting my mistake,

I know the difference between trail and trial. I see that is the only thing you had to pick at. Obviously you can't state one fact that disproves Zimmerman's story. Just that every witness is wrong? Please, by all means, give me one fact the prosecution has presented that proves 2nd degree murder. I will wait, and by all means line up you best adjectives. This is usually the part where the Zimmerman haters start clocking out.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. "These assholes always get away"; "Fucking punks"

Offers a clear view into Zimmerman's mindset right before the shooting.

He was angry that night, and that anger clouded every little bit of his judgment and cost Trayvon Martin his life.

[Soundman]

12. I disagree

I guess people hear what they choose to hear. What I heard was a guy that sounded more exasperated than angry. If you are hearing malice in his words, you are choosing to hear that. I would not expect the jury to agree with you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Except he got out of the gun, armed, knowing police would be on their way.

People keep saying, "It's not illegal to follow someone!", "It's not illegal to call someone a fucking punk!", "It's not illegal to approach someone and ask them why he or she is there!", "It's not illegal to call police about a suspicious person"

But they aren't seeing the forest through the trees. All together, it paints a picture of someone who was going way beyond the scope of his authority, who was obsessed with people in his neighborhood he thought were suspicious (rightfully or wrongly), and who thought if he didn't act quickly, somehow his neighborhood would be at risk.

I don't think that Zimmerman got out of the car with the intent to shoot Trayvon. But that would be 1st Degree murder, which isn't on the table here. However, I am convinced that Zimmerman got out of the car because he wanted to detain Trayvon until police arrived, and he didn't care about the potential danger that his getting out of the car armed and pursing a stranger would pose.

[Soundman]

14. Again I disagree,

There is no evidence to support your claim, just speculation. Again the more likely scenario here is Zimmerman saw Travon run and got out to see which way he ran. Just as Zimmerman said. If he wanted to detain him he had the perfect opportunity when Martin walked right by him. I mean he was this big bad cop wanna be according to his haters. So why didn't he just get out right then and confront him with his gun pulled? Why would he wait until his fat ass would have to chase down an obviously more fit guy. Why wait until he was on his back being beaten to shoot?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

36. "The more likely scenario here is Zimmerman saw Travon run and got out to see which way he ran"

If he saw him run, then he saw which way he ran.

Duh.

Why would he get out of the car?

[Soundman]

40. My best guess

Is to see where he ran. If I remember correctly Zimmerman was parked in a way that would have only allowed him to see that he went around the corner. My GUESS is he knew the cops arrival would be imminent and if he had an eye on him it would assist them in catching them (Travon).

[NoOneMan]

38. If Zimmerman saw Trayvon run away, Zimmerman saw Trayvon was no longer a problem

Why would he wait until his fat ass would have to chase down an obviously more fit guy

A skinny little teen isn't more fit. You are being biased. It is showing.

Why wait until he was on his back being beaten to shoot?

Maybe Zimmerman wouldn't have been gotten beaten (his story) if he fought with two hands instead of reaching behind himself and into the holster pinned to the ground for his gun, thereby pinning his own magic arms behind him, which he magically pulled out, all while Trayvon was magically slamming his head into the concrete with one hand, while reaching the other around Zimmermans pinned down back to grab the gun he magically saw behind Zimmerman with his magic x-ray eyes.

[joeglow3]

28. Amazing how you discount his story, which has some evidence, but stand by yours, with less evidence

This sounds bad, but I don't care how the trial ends. I just want it to be ruled in accordance with our judicial system. And, as much as it clearly pisses you off, Zimmerman doesn't need to prove his side. He just needs to show there is a possibility. It is up to YOU to prove your story in order for him to get convicted.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. What evidence is there to suggest that Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman other than his own story?

Tell me.

[joeglow3]

46. The same as you have for your theory.

The problem is that the burdon of proof is on YOU (or the prosecutor), as it should be in our judicial system. Thus, your idea that he has to prove HIS story in order to prove his innocence is not how our judicial system works. And GUARAN-FUCKING-TEE if that was the case, your pleasure with the result from this case would be REAL short lived as the impact of that view settled in.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

47. While the state bears the ultimate burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....

....he does have an affirmative duty to present at least a plausible argument for self-defense.

He cannot just sit back and claim self-defense and not provide any evidence to back it up.


So are you agreeing that there is no evidence to support the ambush story other than Zimmerman's own story?

[joeglow3]

55. Based on what I have seen, there is dick for solid evidence from either side

Thus, as much as it pains me, I would rather the state set him free then use this level of burden of proof to convict a dozen innocent, most likely black, men.

[louis-t]

22. You can't even read a post and get it right.

I said "witnesses can be wrong", not "all of the witnesses are wrong".

As far as his 'story', I would ask "which one?"
The man lied about his finances to the court. He said he knew nothing about SYG law. Turns out he lied about that. He said he didn't think the screaming on the tape was him. Now he says it is.

The man claimed to have had his head smashed into concrete "10 to 20 times" and he "feared for his life" yet the medic said his injuries were minor and only required a Band-Aid. By the way, did you notice the photos from the police station where the bleeding on the back of his head had stopped? Even with his hair cropped short, most people (myself included) had trouble seeing if there really were cuts on the back of his head, yet the next day in a police video he had huge butterfly Band-Aids on the back of his head for dramatic effect.

Remember, the guy was not on 'watch', he was going to the store.
The man got out of his truck and followed his victim, spooking the kid enough that he ran.
He never identified himself as a so-called neighborhood watch person.

He is heard on the phone recording saying "they always get away", "he's running", and calling the kid a "punk". His recollection of the 'dialog' sounds fishy.

He initiated the conflict. The kid had done nothing wrong. He had the attitude, the anger, the means, the motive. It's all on tape, and unless the defense creates enough doubt that the guy confronted the kid, it's enough to convict on second degree murder.

The defense spent almost an hour this morning trying to get a witness to say that the kid could have moved his arms after being shot. All this to try and explain another 'story' by the killer that he had put the kid's arms out to his side (he probably only said that to impress the police), when the kid was found with his arms under his body.

The man had a documented history of being aggressive, the kid smoked a little pot.

There was no DNA from the guy who is still alive on the guy who was killed.

All the defense has "proven" so far is that the kid was most likely on top of the guy when he was shot. And they can't even prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't even prove where the tiny scrape on the kid's knuckle came from. It is very possible that the kid had to defend himself after the guy tried to push him around. It is very possible that the kid had one hand on the guy's wrist and the other on his face and was trying to wrestle the gun away. As the guy tried to sit up, the kid banged his head on the concrete. The kid was fighting for his life, and he had the right to defend himself.

[Soundman]

37. Pretty defensive I see,

Sorry this case upsets you so. I don't have a dog in this fight I am just looking for the truth.

Let me address your speculations because speculating is what you are doing for the most part.

What evidence did the prosecution present about the money?

He said that doesn't sound like me, not it wasn't me, why do have to make stuff up?

When I listen to myself it doesn't sound like me either. Oddly enough the today show had a segment on the very subject and they all agreed they do no sound like themselves, and all but Al said they couldn't stand to hear themselves. FYI I have a low baritone voice and I scream like a girl when startled, quite embarrassing for a 50 year old man, well it used to be, I have gotten over it.

I didn't realize you were a doctor that had personally examined Zimmerman, I will by all means defer you your qualified medical opinion. So where did you get your medical degree from?

The expert testified that Martin would have been able to walk and talk for a minimum of ten to 15 seconds, and as long as 1-3 minutes depending on his heart rate.

Please list the convictions of Zimmerman.

I didn't know that besides being a medical professional you were also personal friends with Travon, so just how much pot did he smoke? Did he let you handle his gun? Did he invite you to watch his fights?

There was some DNA. Just not on the front, in my world where reality reigns it would make sense that the person on top of another beating them would have little or no DNA on them. There was some on Martins back, also dovetailing with Zimmerman's statement of events.

All I hear from you is its possible this and it's possible that, and blah, blah, blah. Well I guess you can make up stories all you wish. And if you choose live in fantasy land that is your right.

The expert testified that the shot came from Zimmerman being on the bottom and Martin on top. He said no way were they standing, nor was Zimmerman on top.

The state has failed to make its case. End of story. We will now have to wait and see what the jury decides.

I said it before the trail and will say it again, no way is he guilty of 2nd degree murder. Involuntary manslaughter at the most. After watching the trail I don't think he is even guilty of that.

That's my opinion. I have no emotional involvement what so ever.

This case demonstrates exactly why we should not allow concealed carry, because this is what you get. I believe two people made several bad decisions that night that left one of them dead. Neither are innocent and neither are guilty.

Have a nice day, I will leave you to marinate.

[louis-t]

49. Ohhh, you soooo got me!1!!1

Prosecution didn't present evidence about their finances. It's irrelevant, but it shows a pattern of dishonesty. Here is the link anyway.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57452183/shellie-zimmerman-george-zimmermans-wife-allegedly-used-small-transfers-to-hide-finances/

You are once again misquoting me. I never said he said "that isn't me". Read my post again, I said exactly what you said. "It didn't sound like me". Jeez, who's the one making stuff up?

What's this about being a doctor and "handle his gun"? Jeez, you argue like a teabagger.

Uh, a small amount of THC was found in his system. Do you pay attention to ANY evidence?

I never said Zimmerman was convicted of anything. He did strike an undercover police officer, was charged with a felony, then plead down to misdemeanor and had it thrown out after entering alcohol rehab. He also had a restraining order put on him for domestic violence. Just what I said. Documented history of aggression.

I have NO idea what you are talking about re: DNA.

The testimony today did NOT determine that one was on top of the other. All they could determine was that the clothing was a few inches from the skin when he was shot. If the defense were to ask this expert who was on top, it would have been objected to as speculation. There is no way that ballistic guy could say for sure the kid was sitting on top of the killer. The defense only has to prove he wasn't lying on his back when shot.

I am going by what I understand Florida law to be re: 2nd degree murder. You, on the other hand, have just admitted that your mind was made up before you saw any evidence. Where's YOUR law degree? Sick of arguing with you.

[Soundman]

52. You are being dishonest.

Here are your words verbatim "He said he didn't think the screaming on the tape was him. Now he says it is. " you are saying he said he said it wasn't him right? Right? Zimmerman said ...."that doesn't sound like me" not that it isn't me.

Let me be clear, as I see you like so many here, love to put words in others mouths to suit your needs.

Initially all I knew about the case was message board hearsay. I assumed Zimmerman was a guilty vigilante who profiled a black kid in a white gated community. He shot the black kid at his first opportunity. This sounded plausible to me. It's not like this kind of thing has never happened before.

Out of pure boredom I watched a video that was posted here showing someone's interpretation of the events. As I was watching the video it became clear there was more to this story than I had been led to believe. So I researched the case. I read the witness statements. Watched Zimmerman's walk through, read anything I could find and educated myself. The more I learned the more I became convinced it was a sham. And I have not seen ANY evidence to change my mind since.

Maybe you have watched a different trial than I have. But every state witness did nothing but confirm Zimmerman's story, save Gentile, and I did not find her credible in the least.

[louis-t]

61. You are a waste of my time.

Like talking to repugs in my office.

[Soundman]

66. Not quite,

I understand how you feel. But to my defense, I am a sound guy. I hear people saying something similar to Zimmerman's response when hearing the screams all the time. So to me it is plausible that a person hearing themselves screaming would be surprised. The number one thing I hear inexperienced people say in the studio is, is that really me? I spent several years mixing death metal, so I would say I am also uniquely qualified to speak about the differing sounds the male (and female) voice can conjure in the form of a scream.

Back to original premise of this thread does any one know how long it would take to walk around that block, meaning, down the dog walk around the building and back to the T?

[Vattel]

64. +1000

[louis-t]

25. Oh, and I defy anyone to find the "bushes"

the kid supposedly jumped out from behind. Don't see them on the Google Earth thingy.

[katmondoo]

31. That's me! Zimmerman is guilty and the State is doing it's best to deny this

[NoOneMan]

33. Zimmerman doesn't have a "story"

The real fact is that he chased down a black kid he perceived as a "punk" and an "asshole" (and what supports this perception beyond attire and race?), shot him, and killed him. Thats fact.

Zimmerman's defense has woven a fantasy of red herrings to justify this murder. With Trayvon dead, we all can no more disprove these slight possibilities than we can disprove the existence of God or that perhaps a purple unicorn jumped the two of them that night. What we can prove beyond a doubt was the aforementioned fact that is currently not in dispute.

But Zimmerman's slightly possible fantasy justifications for murder are up for consideration of reasonable doubt simply based upon a perception of trustworthiness, which again, boils right down to a racial issue believe it or not. Just as Zimmerman killed the percieved "asshole" (aka as African American boy), the jury will use all social cues woven into their fantasy to determine if its credible enough to allow him to purge this weed smoking, hoodie wearing, lower-socioeconomic child.

As far as I can tell, it already is ok in so many people's minds that Trayvon Martin is dead. What we need now is just a reason that this purge is consistent with our ideals. We need something to soothe our cognitive dissonance, because we aren't allowed to say out loud, or even think out loud, that its ok to kill African American children that dress in a manner that we typically find foreign and offending to our white middle-class sensibilities.

We've just spent months fishing for a reason for our brains. A medicine for our social sickness.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. Why can't one remotely entertain the notion that Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman?

The problem is that it runs contrary to logic.

Logic does not support someone running from a stranger who is chasing them for no apparent reason, losing them, and then suddenly deciding that he's going to do a total 180 reversal by doubling back and attacking the person he had just managed to escape.

I tell you, that is why I am convinced Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That one part of his narrative runs so contrary to ordinary human nature that it taints Zimmerman's entire story for me.

[Soundman]

16. Logic also dictates,

If you are fearful and running from someone who scares you, you run the 60 yards home, go inside, and lock the door. Travon had minutes to do so. That is logic speaking. There is NO doubt that he had time to accomplish that.

Here is an interesting link: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/trayvon-martin-cell-phone-photos-show-weed-guns-and-horsebac

Not quite the angel people want to portray.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. Or you can hide out and wait until you believe the coast is clear.

And then proceed home.

Both going immediately home, or hiding out and then proceeding home make logical sense to me.

Deciding all of sudden you are going to double back and ambush and attack the strange man chasing you for no apparent reason, after you had just managed to lose him, makes no logical sense to me.

[EOTE]

19. Logic dictates that if you're truly scared of someone, you don't go confronting them when cops are

on the way. Logic also dictates that smoking weed and taking pictures of guns doesn't make one deserving of murder. And idiots that think that a person's cell phone records showing weed and guns makes one deserving of murder, or even vaguely suggesting that are worthless pieces of shit who really have no place in civilized society.

[louis-t]

24. The gun he was carrying made him brave.

I think he thought he had to prove something to the cops.

[NatBurner]

21. um, GZ is no angel either

http://tinyurl.com/lx6rewc

and then there's:

http://tinyurl.com/merjaxk

[louis-t]

23. So, this proves Trayvon had a gun?

Oh, he gave someone the finger! That proves he beat up Zimmerman!
He smoked pot! Gangsta! Evil! Kill him!
And by the way, he may not have known which unit was the one he was staying in. He was in the back where there were no addresses and it was dark. I still think he went past the unit he was staying in while trying to get away from the killer and was coming back to find the right unit when he ran across Zimmerman for the second time. I think this is when Zimmerman decided that this was his chance, he was going to 'win' this time and try to detain the kid without identifying himself.

[NoOneMan]

26. Im confused how weed makes him not an angel

Its a kick ass drug. Yeah, its not the hip middle class oxycotin all them clean cut white kids are kicking back on, but its the bee's knees in my book.

[nyquil_man]

20. You're conflating two different parts of the story.

Yes, there is a witness who testifies to seeing Martin on top, doing a ground and pound on Zimmerman. This witness, like all of the others, did not see anything until the two parties were already on the ground. Unless you're claiming that Zimmerman laid down to take a nap because his "fat ass" (your words) was tired from running, you can't use those witnesses to prove who started the confrontation.

To what top secret witness do you have access who proves that this theory is any less plausible than Zimmerman's story?

[LanternWaste]

27. Do victims of lynching often get caught attempting to commit money-fraud?

Do victims of lynching often get caught attempting to commit money-fraud?

[NoOneMan]

35. Why can't you entertain the notion that Zimmerman was going to rape Trayvon at gunpoint?

I do know if I were in Trayvon's shoes, it would be a possibility I would have been considering (and thereby, reacting to). Too bad we aren't just allowed to make up crazy fantasy shit at a trial (unless you are the richer one that can afford the gun that delivers the fatal blow and allows you to be the only one alive that gets to make up crazy fantasy shit)

[kelliekat44]

44. Yeah, doulbing back with a bag of Skittles to take on the man with a gun? nt

[dmr]

5. I've wondered two things:

While trying to evade Zimmerman the stranger, he got turned around and lost.

And/or, was afraid of leading Zimmerman the stranger back to his dad's place because the only one home was a vulnerable 12 year old boy. Trayvon could very well have been protective of his soon-to-be step-brother.

All those homes look alike, and being dark, it had to be scary and confusing.

[Lurks Often]

6. Why he would go all the way back up the path

when he could've taken the much shorter path to Retreat View Circle, ESPECIALLY since the man that made him nervous might still have been somewhere up there?

Below numbers are from using the ruler function on Google Earth and while not exact, should be within 5 feet/

Using the back of Brandy Green's condo as a start point it is 370 feet back up the path and another 90 feet to the street and street lights On the other hand, if he continues down the path to the southern T intersection, it is 70' feet to the T and 90' feet to the street and street lights. This of course presumes he stays on the paved parts of the path.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. It's not clear where he stopped/slowed down once he reached the dog path.

If he stopped and hid out closer to the top of the T, it might have made sense to head towards the top of the T to cut back to Retreat View Circle.

And again, this neighborhood was probably pretty unfamiliar to Trayvon, who wasn't a resident. Especially at night.

Again, this is all just a theory, but I do think it's quite plausible that Trayvon could have been heading north without having the intention to ambush Zimmerman.

[Lurks Often]

11. I agree neither of us know where Martin was on the path,

although lost/confused or not, it fails to explain why he would head back up the path in the direction where the man following him (Zimmerman) was last seen only a couple of minutes before.

[louis-t]

50. Again, you're assuming he knew where he was going.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Lurks Often]

51. Certainly

it is very easy for ALL of us to sit behind a keyboard and express our opinions about things that happened over a year ago. But it certainly doesn't make any sense to me to go back up a path toward the last place I saw the man following me.

[louis-t]

56. Unless he saw the guy doing what he said he was doing and that is

heading back to his truck. Trayvon then might have headed toward the main road to get his bearings, thinking he was behind the guy that was stalking him and Zimmerman may have turned back and headed toward path looking for him. I am looking at the drawing, and it seems very possible that they just ran into each other.

[Lurks Often]

59. Possible

but it still makes more sense to head south down the path toward the main road and avoid the area where the person you think was following was last seen.

[yardwork]

15. That's what I think happened.

Trayvon couldn't find his father's girlfriend's unit. He must have been terrified in the last minutes of his life. Lost in the dark and rain, stalked and the murdered by a nut.

[katmondoo]

34. Amen

[joeglow3]

29. I have seen hundreds of people looking for fights

If you honestly find that concept completely unbelievable, you are either extremely ignorant or intentionally being obtuse.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Fights right after they've been chased by a stranger for no known reason....

....and managed to lose them?

If you honestly can say you've seen hundreds of people do that, then I'm saying I'm currently dating Zooey Deschanel.

[NoOneMan]

39. I've seen a lot of people looking for fight myself

Of course, I've never seen anyone doing it alone (because they are alone) or without at least a few buddies to impress (or back them up).

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. So such a scenario as I've described would be pretty unusual and nonsensical, correct? nt

[NoOneMan]

42. Of course

Its part of this fantasy that the boy who was minding his own business before he was chased down and killed "caused his own death"

[Bodhi BloodWave]

43. Zooey sure gets around in that case

cause I'm about 100% certain i was on a date with her in Oslo last night

one thing i don't see brought up a lot is this; now if i had been Trayvon and was in a thinking state of mind i would likely have hid away hoping to lose him before trying to head home rather then run straight there, after all, if you were watching over a younger child would you lead somebody chasing you straight to them or would you hope to lose them then head home?

[joeglow3]

45. Did you read I what I said?

Where did I say I saw hundreds fitting your exact facts. What I HAVE seen is people get pissed for a multitude of reasons and then start a fight.

I have seen people get pissed because they think someone looked at them the wrong way and start a fight.

I was at a bar and some guy was slowly backing his car out and I stopped to let him know he had room and he flew out of his car, wanting to fight (he obviously thought I did something threatening).

So, in response to your point, you are either extremely ignorant or intentionally obtuse. It is far from unreasonable that someone may get pissed over something like this and look for a way to "teach someone a lesson."

I am not saying I think that is what happened, but the view that it is impossible is itself, stupid and ignorant.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. It's extremely unplausible, unlikely and illogical.

Could it happen?

Possibly. Most likely if the person had some sort of mental defect. Which I do not believe to be the case here.

[joeglow3]

53. Then you must not get out too much

I dated a girl who lived in a rough part of town in high school. This mentality was VERY prevalent. There were times I would have to turn around on a residential street because teenagers would be standing in the road, refusing to move. If you looked at them too long, they would throw shit at your car and try to start a fight. It was an attitude thing that they should demonstrated strength.

People do a lot of stupid shit to compensate for different things or to try and prove something. Your view shows that you have clearly lived a VERY sheltered life.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. Did you follow them and chase them for reasons that would be unknown to them?

To the point where they would feel that they might be in some danger from you?

If not, your analogy is false.

[joeglow3]

57. You just proved my point

These people would throw shit at you and start a fight just for looking at them.

If I did what you are asking, they would most definately try to ambush me to beat the shit out of me and "teach me a lesson."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. No I didn't.

If someone wants to "throw shit at you" it means they aren't scared of you. And you haven't done anything to make them be scared of you.

If you put them in a position where they would be scared of you, and then they manage to escape you, why would you assume they would then want to voluntarily place themselves back in the zone of danger after having utilized significant efforts to evade you?

[joeglow3]

62. Because of the mere existence of person A.

While your scenario is possible, so is the likelihood that this person will want to blindside you. Especially if they are bigger like GZ was. Again, this is much more common that the original poster seems to think it is (it NEVER would happen). Again, you guys must not get out of suburbia too much.

[Decoy of Fenris]

67. Go to a casino sometime.

You'll see fights over people bumping into one another, for taking the wrong card, for smoking at a nonsmoking table, for wearing "Unlucky" colors, you name it.

I've had fights break out, directly in front of me, over a chair. A goddamn chair resulted in one guy punching another's face in until he was bleeding and unconscious. Even then, the aggressor kept pounding until security dragged him away.

Fights do happen for almost any reason. If you think otherwise, you may be deluding yourself, although I wish the world was the way you think it is.

[Nevernose]

60. My current (totally unprovable) theory:

Trayvon got past the T intersection and went a little ways south. He paused to catch his breath, still on the phone, not realizing that psycho-vigilante had gotten so crazy as to get out of his truck and follow him. Zimmerman moves at least to the T intersection -- whether he went past or not is irrelevant, though I think that's just Zimmerman's bullshit to justify his shooting. He sees Trayvon, grabs Trayvon's left shoulder with his left hand (remember that Zimmerman is left handed) and Trayvon elbows backward, popping Zimmerman in the face. This explains how right-handed Trayvon hit Zimmerman on the left side of his face, plus explains the testimony of him yelling, "Get off! Get off!" The Skittles were probably still in his left hand. They ran forty feet, Zimmerman --high on Adderall and now enraged -- tackles him, they wrestle, Zimmerman pulls his gun and Trayvon screams, the gun goes off. Zimmerman's a dipshit by everyone's account, so it might have been accidental.

I think that all of the evidence supports this theory, and makes a lot more sense than Zimmerman's story. Plus, George's story isn't so different that it would be hard to screw up. The guy has years and years of experience lying to authorities to get out of trouble.

[moondust]

63. I doubt that Trayvon turned offensive.

He was in somebody else's neighborhood, mainly white. If anything he was probably trying to avoid attracting attention to himself or raising suspicion, and certainly wouldn't want a confrontation. It was light enough outside that somebody looking out their window would be able to see anything he might do to arouse suspicion. If he did somehow end up in a confrontation there would be nobody to come to his rescue. Better to avoid confrontation at all costs and keep on walking.

I don't believe Zimmerman's story.

[Vattel]

65. I do not think that Zimmerman chased him down,

but you are certainly correct that he might have been having a hard time identifying the correct house. There are lots of possible reasons why Martin didn't get home and safely into his house. He and Zimmerman somehow crossed paths, and then someone started a fight. Was it Zimmerman or Martin? Who knows? Did Martin try to smash Zimmerman's head into the concrete? Maybe, maybe not. You and I don't know and neither does the jury. So the jury should acquit Zimmerman.