On May 30 2013 22:21 Lt_Stork wrote: Let's try to go through the event leading up to the gunshot. The 911 dispatcher is asking if he's following Trayvon and telling him he doesn't need to do that at 7.12 pm.
- He doesn't follow and stays on the phone until 7.13:41 pm. Call ends. - During this time Trayvon is on the phone with his girlfriend until 7.16 pm. - The first 911 call about the fight is at 7:16pm, reporting a fight and someone yelling help - The gunshot is at 7:16:55pm.
Zimmermans talks with police normally toward the end. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon, but stopped when he lost him. He wasn't threatened and Trayvon was not attacking him. - According to the girlfriend, they were still talking and Trayvon had a headset on when the final confrontation happened, between 7.15pm and 7.15:30pm
- The headset fell to the ground and call went dead at 7.16pm. Girlfriend heard Trayvon: “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
The fight lasted at the most a minute and a half before Trayvon got shot (source). In the 911 call someone is heard screaming help for over a minute, ending with the gunshot. Zimmerman claims it was him, Trayvons family claims it was Trayvon. The call is in the video bellow:
A minute and a half is what is up for debate. My personal thoughts: A person was yelling help for one minute. In that small community someone was bound to come outside and help him if it was Zimmerman. Several people called 911 minutes after the gunshot and 2 minutes later someone takes a picture of Zimmermans backhead.
The community had a history of burglaries, they knew Zimmerman, were probably friends, and appointed him neighborhood watch. Surely they would have recognized his voice screaming for help and would come out to help him.
The conclusion I draw is that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. He was in his community and if he shouted for help he could count on people to come out and help him. To shoot a 17 y/o kid after fighting for a minute?
You are drawing conclusions based on some really big assumptions: 1. That people would have been able to hear him screaming for help and they would have came to his aid 2. That he had a back up plan in case his life was in danger (people to count on to help him) 3. That it was Trayvon, not George Zimmerman, screaming for help 4. That a minute is not enough time to determine if your life is in danger
1 is wrong because a woman calls 911 for help and doesn't go outside and even says "I don't want to go out there" while on the phone. 2 is based on nothing. 3 Contradicts 1 and 2 and doesn't make any sense either because George Zimmerman was the one having his face and head smashed by Trayvons fist. The autopsy revealed that the only injuries Trayvon had were the gunshot wound in his chest, shot at intermediate range (1-18 inches), and one small abrasian on his left ring finger below the knuckle. Why would he be the one screaming if George Zimmerman was the one being punched? Why would he be screaming before he got shot when the only injury he sustained before that moment was the one on his fist? 4 is just false, especially if your head is bouncing between someones fist and the concrete, I'm sure many people would feel like their life was in danger if no one is coming to help them.
The "expert" analysis who "put his reputation" on the line said he was 95% certain that it was NOT George Zimmerman. Aside from the obvious of that not making any sense at all based on the context and the injuries both had, is one experts opinion that there is only 5% chance that it was Zimmerman screaming enough for reasonable doubt? Yes.
The screaming happened away from the road in a more quiet portion of the neighborhood. People would have heard them screaming. It's why someone called 911 without "going outside" because they did hear the screaming.
What we have is an armed man who had walked closer to the victim's house than he did his car--showing that he did follow the victim. The victim ends up dead after being followed by an armed man with a history of anger issues. The victim was walking towards his home, as can be seen on the map, and the shooter was walking away from his car, as can also be seen on the map.
A struggle happened wherein one or both the people called out for help--an argument is now in session about who it was that did.
People keep bringing up injuries as if it says anything; it should make sense that Travyon has less injuries than Zman, Zman because Travyon was the one unarmed. His life being threatened by an armed man, he charges at him has to use fists to deal damage to his attacker; in the end he lost the encounter. If they did speak then Travyon would be less than 21 feet away from Zman and hence had a chance to charge him before he got shot.
It's also possible that Travyon, after being only down the street from his house, randomly decides to attack some random person on the street for no reason. I guess, if you believe black people normally do that, you can see that as plausible.
What we do know is that a fight occurred. Both sides have evidence suggesting that the other person initiated it. In the end it's about what is more believable. That a black kid randomly attacks people he sees on the streets, or that an armed vigilante got trigger happy after following a stranger despite being told by authorities not to do that.
So you are making even more assumptions without proof and dismissing the injuries as irrelevant in determining who was screaming during the phone call.
A few assumptions 1. That he was told not to follow Trayvon. False. He said he was following him and the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that. That's not an order, and even if it was, he isn't obligated to "obey orders". 2. That Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with a gun before they started fighting. Plausible, but still just an assumption.
Aside from that your post is just race-baiting nonsense. You're more concerned about what sounds more believable to you than the facts.
If it's race baiting non-sense then why would a kid walking home randomly attack someone?
The facts is that we don't know who instigated it.
You believe that since Zman had injuries the victim must have instigated the attack, it's also possible that the victim was acting in self defense after perceiving the threat of a gun. Both lead to the same injuries and hence the injuries don't prove anything--only that a fight happened.
You then have to then ask "why" the fight happened. To some, it makes sense a black kid randomly attacks someone. To others, it makes sense that a vigilante got cocky. This is what is up for debate.
The only thing not up for debate is that Zman shot a kid who was walking home. The only thing not up for debate is that after being asked by the authorities not to follow the kid, he does so anyway. How do I know? Because if he went back to his car and drove home none of this would have happened. Instead he walked away from his car and ended down the block from the victim's home.
Does it make sense to me that a guy holding a gun who follows someone around ends up shooting someone--yes it does make sense to me. Does it make sense to me that a kid who is almost home would randomly start a fight for no reason? No, it doesn't. But that is what's up for debate.
You're still twisting the words to fit your narrative. He was not asked by the authorities to do anything. He was told it wasn't needed, big difference.
If George was in fact pointing his gun at Trayvon and threatening his life, how could he have retained control over his gun while getting the shit beat out of him? So he was just holding it in his hands pointing it at Trayvon, then he gets knocked on the ground and repeatedly punched while still holding the gun, not pulling the trigger, screaming for help, and finally after 40ish seconds of no help he decides to pull the trigger. Meanwhile all of this time Trayvon is just like "oh man I hope he doesn't shoot me with that gun but I'm gonna keep wailing on his head". That sounds like it makes more sense than George Zimmermans account.
Or maybe he was trying to point the gun at Travyon and Travyon did everything he could to not get shot until the gun finally found its mark.
We still don't know who yelled for help, an expert says it was Travyon, you say it was Zman, hence that is up for debate.
It really doesn't make sense for Martin to attack a man who is pointing a gun at him. Black people do not randomly attack people, but they also don't try to punch people who have a gun.
It is more plausible if Martin didn't realize Zimmerman had a gun. Has it been established in the case that Zimmerman had his gun out when he confronted Martin?
Lots of possibilities actually.
Gun could have been visible, but not in hand. Gun was in hand, but not pointed. Gun was not visible, but Zman looked like he was pulling the gun. All of which could scare Travyon into trying to fight for his life. And if in the 40 seconds Zman just focused on getting the gun out, then Travyon would sustain no injuries except the fatal one.
You conveniently skipped the possibility that Trayvon attacked Zman and the gun was never visible before that point.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
On May 30 2013 22:21 Lt_Stork wrote: Let's try to go through the event leading up to the gunshot. The 911 dispatcher is asking if he's following Trayvon and telling him he doesn't need to do that at 7.12 pm.
- He doesn't follow and stays on the phone until 7.13:41 pm. Call ends. - During this time Trayvon is on the phone with his girlfriend until 7.16 pm. - The first 911 call about the fight is at 7:16pm, reporting a fight and someone yelling help - The gunshot is at 7:16:55pm.
Zimmermans talks with police normally toward the end. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon, but stopped when he lost him. He wasn't threatened and Trayvon was not attacking him. - According to the girlfriend, they were still talking and Trayvon had a headset on when the final confrontation happened, between 7.15pm and 7.15:30pm
- The headset fell to the ground and call went dead at 7.16pm. Girlfriend heard Trayvon: “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
The fight lasted at the most a minute and a half before Trayvon got shot (source). In the 911 call someone is heard screaming help for over a minute, ending with the gunshot. Zimmerman claims it was him, Trayvons family claims it was Trayvon. The call is in the video bellow:
A minute and a half is what is up for debate. My personal thoughts: A person was yelling help for one minute. In that small community someone was bound to come outside and help him if it was Zimmerman. Several people called 911 minutes after the gunshot and 2 minutes later someone takes a picture of Zimmermans backhead.
The community had a history of burglaries, they knew Zimmerman, were probably friends, and appointed him neighborhood watch. Surely they would have recognized his voice screaming for help and would come out to help him.
The conclusion I draw is that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. He was in his community and if he shouted for help he could count on people to come out and help him. To shoot a 17 y/o kid after fighting for a minute?
You are drawing conclusions based on some really big assumptions: 1. That people would have been able to hear him screaming for help and they would have came to his aid 2. That he had a back up plan in case his life was in danger (people to count on to help him) 3. That it was Trayvon, not George Zimmerman, screaming for help 4. That a minute is not enough time to determine if your life is in danger
1 is wrong because a woman calls 911 for help and doesn't go outside and even says "I don't want to go out there" while on the phone. 2 is based on nothing. 3 Contradicts 1 and 2 and doesn't make any sense either because George Zimmerman was the one having his face and head smashed by Trayvons fist. The autopsy revealed that the only injuries Trayvon had were the gunshot wound in his chest, shot at intermediate range (1-18 inches), and one small abrasian on his left ring finger below the knuckle. Why would he be the one screaming if George Zimmerman was the one being punched? Why would he be screaming before he got shot when the only injury he sustained before that moment was the one on his fist? 4 is just false, especially if your head is bouncing between someones fist and the concrete, I'm sure many people would feel like their life was in danger if no one is coming to help them.
The "expert" analysis who "put his reputation" on the line said he was 95% certain that it was NOT George Zimmerman. Aside from the obvious of that not making any sense at all based on the context and the injuries both had, is one experts opinion that there is only 5% chance that it was Zimmerman screaming enough for reasonable doubt? Yes.
The screaming happened away from the road in a more quiet portion of the neighborhood. People would have heard them screaming. It's why someone called 911 without "going outside" because they did hear the screaming.
What we have is an armed man who had walked closer to the victim's house than he did his car--showing that he did follow the victim. The victim ends up dead after being followed by an armed man with a history of anger issues. The victim was walking towards his home, as can be seen on the map, and the shooter was walking away from his car, as can also be seen on the map.
A struggle happened wherein one or both the people called out for help--an argument is now in session about who it was that did.
People keep bringing up injuries as if it says anything; it should make sense that Travyon has less injuries than Zman, Zman because Travyon was the one unarmed. His life being threatened by an armed man, he charges at him has to use fists to deal damage to his attacker; in the end he lost the encounter. If they did speak then Travyon would be less than 21 feet away from Zman and hence had a chance to charge him before he got shot.
It's also possible that Travyon, after being only down the street from his house, randomly decides to attack some random person on the street for no reason. I guess, if you believe black people normally do that, you can see that as plausible.
What we do know is that a fight occurred. Both sides have evidence suggesting that the other person initiated it. In the end it's about what is more believable. That a black kid randomly attacks people he sees on the streets, or that an armed vigilante got trigger happy after following a stranger despite being told by authorities not to do that.
So you are making even more assumptions without proof and dismissing the injuries as irrelevant in determining who was screaming during the phone call.
A few assumptions 1. That he was told not to follow Trayvon. False. He said he was following him and the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that. That's not an order, and even if it was, he isn't obligated to "obey orders". 2. That Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with a gun before they started fighting. Plausible, but still just an assumption.
Aside from that your post is just race-baiting nonsense. You're more concerned about what sounds more believable to you than the facts.
If it's race baiting non-sense then why would a kid walking home randomly attack someone?
The facts is that we don't know who instigated it.
You believe that since Zman had injuries the victim must have instigated the attack, it's also possible that the victim was acting in self defense after perceiving the threat of a gun. Both lead to the same injuries and hence the injuries don't prove anything--only that a fight happened.
You then have to then ask "why" the fight happened. To some, it makes sense a black kid randomly attacks someone. To others, it makes sense that a vigilante got cocky. This is what is up for debate.
The only thing not up for debate is that Zman shot a kid who was walking home. The only thing not up for debate is that after being asked by the authorities not to follow the kid, he does so anyway. How do I know? Because if he went back to his car and drove home none of this would have happened. Instead he walked away from his car and ended down the block from the victim's home.
Does it make sense to me that a guy holding a gun who follows someone around ends up shooting someone--yes it does make sense to me. Does it make sense to me that a kid who is almost home would randomly start a fight for no reason? No, it doesn't. But that is what's up for debate.
You're still twisting the words to fit your narrative. He was not asked by the authorities to do anything. He was told it wasn't needed, big difference.
If George was in fact pointing his gun at Trayvon and threatening his life, how could he have retained control over his gun while getting the shit beat out of him? So he was just holding it in his hands pointing it at Trayvon, then he gets knocked on the ground and repeatedly punched while still holding the gun, not pulling the trigger, screaming for help, and finally after 40ish seconds of no help he decides to pull the trigger. Meanwhile all of this time Trayvon is just like "oh man I hope he doesn't shoot me with that gun but I'm gonna keep wailing on his head". That sounds like it makes more sense than George Zimmermans account.
Or maybe he was trying to point the gun at Travyon and Travyon did everything he could to not get shot until the gun finally found its mark.
We still don't know who yelled for help, an expert says it was Travyon, you say it was Zman, hence that is up for debate.
You really love doing this thing where you try to turn it into a debate between me and experts instead of a debate between me and you, it's pretty cowardly to be honest. Why don't you stand by your claims instead of constantly saying "experts disagree with you". How about "I disagree with you?" Guess what, other experts also said that the voice was Zimmermans.
Audio experts gave differing opinions on whether screams for help captured on 911 calls were those of neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman or the 17-year-old teen he fatally shot last year. One audio expert said in a report released Tuesday that the screams came from Trayvon Martin, while another audio expert says the shouts were a mix of Martin and Zimmerman
Um... I did say "hence that is up for debate" because we don't know who really yelled out help. This is not about you versus experts this is about experts versus experts. Both sides have evidence that it was their guy yelling help, that means its up for debate who was yelling for help. You act as if its already a given that Zman yelled for help, I'm showing you that that is not the case.
You pretending that it is definitively Zman who yells is you going against an expert--that's not some logic-fu I'm doing, that is you literally going against an expert.
Ok, I'm going to try and envision how the scenarios play out with Trayvon screaming and not Zimmerman and with the possibility that George threatened Trayvon with a gun first:
Trayvon Martin attacks George Zimmerman and while he is punching him in the face Trayvon is screaming for help.
George Zimmerman points a gun at Trayvon and Trayvon decides the best decision is to attack the man and punch him in the face while screaming for help. He felt the best way to stop this armed man from shooting him was to scream for help AND punch him in the face repeatedly.
or if it was George Zimmerman's voice we have these 2 scenarios
Trayvon Martin attacks George Zimmerman and while he is punching him in the face George screams for help and after 40 or so seconds of being punched he realizes that his gun was exposed and that Trayvon could use it to end his life so he in in turn shoots him before he could take it from him
George Zimmerman points a gun at Trayvon and Trayvon decides the best decision is to attack the man and repeatedly punch him in the face. George screams for help and ends up shooting Trayvon after no one comes.
Based on the context I'm going to go ahead and stick with the experts who say that it was George Zimmerman's voice. Also based on the context I'm going to say it sounds much more likely that Trayvon attacked George Zimmerman without knowing he had a gun.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
I don't think this is completely impossible, but not very plausible. A 17 year old who is alone isn't going to attack an adult man in some sort of homicidal rage because of something he said, if the other oprion is to just go home, possibly while verbally retorting. Martin would have to be a very rare kind of teenager for your scenario to make any sense.
I'm not sure what experiences you have but I've seen guys starts fight over much smaller things than being followed or accused of being up to something suspicious. I'm not saying Martin definitely confronted Zimmerman in an aggressive manner but I don't get why people act like it would be out of character for many people to do so in a situation like this.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
I don't think this is completely impossible, but not very plausible. A 17 year old who is alone isn't going to attack an adult man in some sort of homicidal rage because of something he said, if the other oprion is to just go home, possibly while verbally retorting. Martin would have to be a very rare kind of teenager for your scenario to make any sense.
And once again what you think is plausible is based on your own interpretation of the extremely limited information we have about either mans character. He did not necessarily need to have attacked in a "homicidal rage". For example, it could have started with both men getting in one another's faces, either Martin or Zimmerman pushing or throwing a punch after a certain boiling point was reached, and things escalating from there.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
I don't think this is completely impossible, but not very plausible. A 17 year old who is alone isn't going to attack an adult man in some sort of homicidal rage because of something he said, if the other oprion is to just go home, possibly while verbally retorting. Martin would have to be a very rare kind of teenager for your scenario to make any sense.
And once again what you think is plausible is based on your own interpretation of the extremely limited information we have about either mans character. He did not necessarily need to have attacked in a "homicidal rage". For example, it could have started with both men getting in one another's faces, either Martin or Zimmerman pushing or throwing a punch after a certain boiling point was reached, and things escalating from there.
Once again? This is pretty much the first time I've said anything like this. It is indeed more plausible that both ''men'' got into eachothers faces, but is it alright for Zimmerman to have shot and killed Martin at the end of that then? That scenario makes things much more diffcult.
I can't imagine that a jury will convict Zimmerman, there aren't enough witnesses to back up the state's version of events that would cover all aspects of the struggle between the two, the reasonable doubt seems insurmountable.
On May 30 2013 22:21 Lt_Stork wrote: Let's try to go through the event leading up to the gunshot. The 911 dispatcher is asking if he's following Trayvon and telling him he doesn't need to do that at 7.12 pm.
- He doesn't follow and stays on the phone until 7.13:41 pm. Call ends. - During this time Trayvon is on the phone with his girlfriend until 7.16 pm. - The first 911 call about the fight is at 7:16pm, reporting a fight and someone yelling help - The gunshot is at 7:16:55pm.
Zimmermans talks with police normally toward the end. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon, but stopped when he lost him. He wasn't threatened and Trayvon was not attacking him. - According to the girlfriend, they were still talking and Trayvon had a headset on when the final confrontation happened, between 7.15pm and 7.15:30pm
- The headset fell to the ground and call went dead at 7.16pm. Girlfriend heard Trayvon: “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
The fight lasted at the most a minute and a half before Trayvon got shot (source). In the 911 call someone is heard screaming help for over a minute, ending with the gunshot. Zimmerman claims it was him, Trayvons family claims it was Trayvon. The call is in the video bellow:
A minute and a half is what is up for debate. My personal thoughts: A person was yelling help for one minute. In that small community someone was bound to come outside and help him if it was Zimmerman. Several people called 911 minutes after the gunshot and 2 minutes later someone takes a picture of Zimmermans backhead.
The community had a history of burglaries, they knew Zimmerman, were probably friends, and appointed him neighborhood watch. Surely they would have recognized his voice screaming for help and would come out to help him.
The conclusion I draw is that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. He was in his community and if he shouted for help he could count on people to come out and help him. To shoot a 17 y/o kid after fighting for a minute?
You are drawing conclusions based on some really big assumptions: 1. That people would have been able to hear him screaming for help and they would have came to his aid 2. That he had a back up plan in case his life was in danger (people to count on to help him) 3. That it was Trayvon, not George Zimmerman, screaming for help 4. That a minute is not enough time to determine if your life is in danger
1 is wrong because a woman calls 911 for help and doesn't go outside and even says "I don't want to go out there" while on the phone. 2 is based on nothing. 3 Contradicts 1 and 2 and doesn't make any sense either because George Zimmerman was the one having his face and head smashed by Trayvons fist. The autopsy revealed that the only injuries Trayvon had were the gunshot wound in his chest, shot at intermediate range (1-18 inches), and one small abrasian on his left ring finger below the knuckle. Why would he be the one screaming if George Zimmerman was the one being punched? Why would he be screaming before he got shot when the only injury he sustained before that moment was the one on his fist? 4 is just false, especially if your head is bouncing between someones fist and the concrete, I'm sure many people would feel like their life was in danger if no one is coming to help them.
The "expert" analysis who "put his reputation" on the line said he was 95% certain that it was NOT George Zimmerman. Aside from the obvious of that not making any sense at all based on the context and the injuries both had, is one experts opinion that there is only 5% chance that it was Zimmerman screaming enough for reasonable doubt? Yes.
The screaming happened away from the road in a more quiet portion of the neighborhood. People would have heard them screaming. It's why someone called 911 without "going outside" because they did hear the screaming.
What we have is an armed man who had walked closer to the victim's house than he did his car--showing that he did follow the victim. The victim ends up dead after being followed by an armed man with a history of anger issues. The victim was walking towards his home, as can be seen on the map, and the shooter was walking away from his car, as can also be seen on the map.
A struggle happened wherein one or both the people called out for help--an argument is now in session about who it was that did.
People keep bringing up injuries as if it says anything; it should make sense that Travyon has less injuries than Zman, Zman because Travyon was the one unarmed. His life being threatened by an armed man, he charges at him has to use fists to deal damage to his attacker; in the end he lost the encounter. If they did speak then Travyon would be less than 21 feet away from Zman and hence had a chance to charge him before he got shot.
It's also possible that Travyon, after being only down the street from his house, randomly decides to attack some random person on the street for no reason. I guess, if you believe black people normally do that, you can see that as plausible.
What we do know is that a fight occurred. Both sides have evidence suggesting that the other person initiated it. In the end it's about what is more believable. That a black kid randomly attacks people he sees on the streets, or that an armed vigilante got trigger happy after following a stranger despite being told by authorities not to do that.
So you are making even more assumptions without proof and dismissing the injuries as irrelevant in determining who was screaming during the phone call.
A few assumptions 1. That he was told not to follow Trayvon. False. He said he was following him and the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that. That's not an order, and even if it was, he isn't obligated to "obey orders". 2. That Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with a gun before they started fighting. Plausible, but still just an assumption.
Aside from that your post is just race-baiting nonsense. You're more concerned about what sounds more believable to you than the facts.
If it's race baiting non-sense then why would a kid walking home randomly attack someone?
The facts is that we don't know who instigated it.
You believe that since Zman had injuries the victim must have instigated the attack, it's also possible that the victim was acting in self defense after perceiving the threat of a gun. Both lead to the same injuries and hence the injuries don't prove anything--only that a fight happened.
You then have to then ask "why" the fight happened. To some, it makes sense a black kid randomly attacks someone. To others, it makes sense that a vigilante got cocky. This is what is up for debate.
The only thing not up for debate is that Zman shot a kid who was walking home. The only thing not up for debate is that after being asked by the authorities not to follow the kid, he does so anyway. How do I know? Because if he went back to his car and drove home none of this would have happened. Instead he walked away from his car and ended down the block from the victim's home.
Does it make sense to me that a guy holding a gun who follows someone around ends up shooting someone--yes it does make sense to me. Does it make sense to me that a kid who is almost home would randomly start a fight for no reason? No, it doesn't. But that is what's up for debate.
You're still twisting the words to fit your narrative. He was not asked by the authorities to do anything. He was told it wasn't needed, big difference.
If George was in fact pointing his gun at Trayvon and threatening his life, how could he have retained control over his gun while getting the shit beat out of him? So he was just holding it in his hands pointing it at Trayvon, then he gets knocked on the ground and repeatedly punched while still holding the gun, not pulling the trigger, screaming for help, and finally after 40ish seconds of no help he decides to pull the trigger. Meanwhile all of this time Trayvon is just like "oh man I hope he doesn't shoot me with that gun but I'm gonna keep wailing on his head". That sounds like it makes more sense than George Zimmermans account.
Or maybe he was trying to point the gun at Travyon and Travyon did everything he could to not get shot until the gun finally found its mark.
We still don't know who yelled for help, an expert says it was Travyon, you say it was Zman, hence that is up for debate.
You really love doing this thing where you try to turn it into a debate between me and experts instead of a debate between me and you, it's pretty cowardly to be honest. Why don't you stand by your claims instead of constantly saying "experts disagree with you". How about "I disagree with you?" Guess what, other experts also said that the voice was Zimmermans.
Audio experts gave differing opinions on whether screams for help captured on 911 calls were those of neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman or the 17-year-old teen he fatally shot last year. One audio expert said in a report released Tuesday that the screams came from Trayvon Martin, while another audio expert says the shouts were a mix of Martin and Zimmerman
Um... I did say "hence that is up for debate" because we don't know who really yelled out help. This is not about you versus experts this is about experts versus experts. Both sides have evidence that it was their guy yelling help, that means its up for debate who was yelling for help. You act as if its already a given that Zman yelled for help, I'm showing you that that is not the case.
You pretending that it is definitively Zman who yells is you going against an expert--that's not some logic-fu I'm doing, that is you literally going against an expert.
Ok, I'm going to try and envision how the scenarios play out with Trayvon screaming and not Zimmerman and with the possibility that George threatened Trayvon with a gun first:
Trayvon Martin attacks George Zimmerman and while he is punching him in the face Trayvon is screaming for help.
George Zimmerman points a gun at Trayvon and Trayvon decides the best decision is to attack the man and punch him in the face while screaming for help. He felt the best way to stop this armed man from shooting him was to scream for help AND punch him in the face repeatedly.
or if it was George Zimmerman's voice we have these 2 scenarios
Trayvon Martin attacks George Zimmerman and while he is punching him in the face George screams for help and after 40 or so seconds of being punched he realizes that his gun was exposed and that Trayvon could use it to end his life so he in in turn shoots him before he could take it from him
George Zimmerman points a gun at Trayvon and Trayvon decides the best decision is to attack the man and repeatedly punch him in the face. George screams for help and ends up shooting Trayvon after no one comes.
Based on the context I'm going to go ahead and stick with the experts who say that it was George Zimmerman's voice. Also based on the context I'm going to say it sounds much more likely that Trayvon attacked George Zimmerman without knowing he had a gun.
All 4 of those are possible. No evidence refutes any of those scenarios nor do they refute my scenarios. Hence why it is up for debate.
You think its possible that Travyon Martin attacks zimmerman (you don't provide a catalyst for the attack, it just makes sense to you it seems) while I think its possible that an armed guy following his victim can start it. Both are possible.
On May 31 2013 07:15 mainerd wrote: I can't imagine that a jury will convict Zimmerman, there aren't enough witnesses to back up the state's version of events that would cover all aspects of the struggle between the two, the reasonable doubt seems insurmountable.
The state's main evidence is that they told Zman that it wasn't a good idea to follow a random kid and the kid ends up dead. The rest is a he said/she said game.
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Maybe he thought he was being stalked and decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson for following him? Who knows, there are certainly a large number of reasons. Maybe he just wanted to fight and thought that he could kick Zimmerman's ass because he looked at him the wrong way?
I'm guessing you don't mean holding the gun in his hand, but you mean on his person. Either way, why does having a gun on you make you more likely to attack someone? Also, if he attacked Trayvon how come Trayvon had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and the abrasion on his knuckle?
I could just as easily see the kid harassing Zman in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Regardless, there is no evidence of George punching Trayvon. None. So how can you even begin to argue that George threw the first punch when there wasn't any evidence he even threw one?
On May 31 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin.
There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate.
What if the text messages that got deleted included one from Trayvon saying "Some dude is following me and I'm gonna fuck him up if he doesn't stop"
How strong would the case against Zimmerman be then? We'll never know, but if Zimmerman is convicted it will be the worst decision in a criminal case since OJ was turned loose.
Edit: I guarantee that if there wasn't anything detrimental to the prosecution of Zimmerman nothing would have been deleted.
On May 31 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Maybe he thought he was being stalked and decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson for following him? Who knows, there are certainly a large number of reasons. Maybe he just wanted to fight and thought that he could kick Zimmerman's ass because he looked at him the wrong way?
I'm guessing you don't mean holding the gun in his hand, but you mean on his person. Either way, why does having a gun on you make you more likely to attack someone? Also, if he attacked Trayvon how come Trayvon had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and the abrasion on his knuckle?
I could just as easily see the kid harassing Zman in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Regardless, there is no evidence of George punching Trayvon. None. So how can you even begin to argue that George threw the first punch when there wasn't any evidence he even threw one?
because I said "initiated" and not "threw the first punch"
because if you initiate by pulling a gun and trying to shoot someone you are not very likely to punch them because, you know, you're trying to shoot them.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin.
There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate.
How many times do I have to tell you he was not asked to do anything? He said "we don't need you to do that" and you keep alleging that he was told "Do not do that". He didn't have an agenda against Martin, he felt he had a duty to stop criminals and Martin looked like a suspect to him. There isn't any evidence that showed Martin had a reason to attack Zman...just as there isn't any evidence that showed Zman had a reason to start a fight with Martin.
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Maybe he thought he was being stalked and decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson for following him? Who knows, there are certainly a large number of reasons. Maybe he just wanted to fight and thought that he could kick Zimmerman's ass because he looked at him the wrong way?
I'm guessing you don't mean holding the gun in his hand, but you mean on his person. Either way, why does having a gun on you make you more likely to attack someone? Also, if he attacked Trayvon how come Trayvon had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and the abrasion on his knuckle?
I could just as easily see the kid harassing Zman in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Regardless, there is no evidence of George punching Trayvon. None. So how can you even begin to argue that George threw the first punch when there wasn't any evidence he even threw one?
because I said "initiated" and not "threw the first punch"
because if you initiate by pulling a gun and trying to shoot someone you are not very likely to punch them because, you know, you're trying to shoot them.
So you're saying George had a reason to point a gun at Trayvon? It's more plausible to you that someone would point a gun at a random stranger than for someone to attack a random stranger?
Why does him being black have anything to do with it? Are you racist? How about it's completely plausible that a person who looked like they were doing something wrong (hint: it's not being black) was questioned by someone who was looking out his neighborhood? He was aware of reported break-ins and saw someone he didn't recognize walking behind houses.
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin.
There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate.
There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence".
On May 31 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin.
There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate.
How many times do I have to tell you he was not asked to do anything? He said "we don't need you to do that" and you keep alleging that he was told "Do not do that". He didn't have an agenda against Martin, he felt he had a duty to stop criminals and Martin looked like a suspect to him. There isn't any evidence that showed Martin had a reason to attack Zman...just as there isn't any evidence that showed Zman had a reason to start a fight with Martin.
On May 31 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Maybe he thought he was being stalked and decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson for following him? Who knows, there are certainly a large number of reasons. Maybe he just wanted to fight and thought that he could kick Zimmerman's ass because he looked at him the wrong way?
I'm guessing you don't mean holding the gun in his hand, but you mean on his person. Either way, why does having a gun on you make you more likely to attack someone? Also, if he attacked Trayvon how come Trayvon had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and the abrasion on his knuckle?
I could just as easily see the kid harassing Zman in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Regardless, there is no evidence of George punching Trayvon. None. So how can you even begin to argue that George threw the first punch when there wasn't any evidence he even threw one?
because I said "initiated" and not "threw the first punch"
because if you initiate by pulling a gun and trying to shoot someone you are not very likely to punch them because, you know, you're trying to shoot them.
So you're saying George had a reason to point a gun at Trayvon?
Yes, because he assumed Martin was up to no good. Because he was following martin. because after he was told he didn't have to do that, he ended up not going back to his car and put a bullet on a kid walking home instead.
You wanting to place the emphasis on "you don't have to do that" instead of the fact that he followed someone walking home and shot him is very disturbing--but its not out of character based on how you defended the NRA in the gun thread.
On May 31 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Not my picture, the OP's picture. (You did read the OP right?)
And I asked you for a reason why it makes sense a kid would attack someone when he's almost home. Because I can't think of any. I don't think any sane person can think of any. The only type of person who I can see coming to that conclusion is someone who thinks it makes sense black kids randomly attack people.
However, if what you're saying is true, and an armed man starts harassing travyon--then it's really Zman who initiates the fight with his harassment. That I could also see.
This means it could be:
a) Cocky vigilante b) Zman harasses Travyon c) Travyon attacks someone for some reason
Any other possibilities?
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin.
There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate.
There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence".
It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate.
EPT![[image loading]](http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg?w=510&h=342)
