idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also note where this took place--it was down a concrete path. Zimmerman's account was that he got out to check a street sign and was jumped when he turned his back. I'd really like to know how they got down that path, because I doubt Martin dragged him there. More likely is that Martin went down the path because he was afraid of the car following him, knowing it couldn't, and then Zimmerman got out of the vehicle and continued on foot.
Holy f'ing ****! Really? His car was parked and idling. You can hear it in the **** tape of the call to police
. You can then hear him getting out of his car
. He was not chasing Martin with his **** car! He was parked and watching Martin walking up the street towards him. Martin ran into the complex. Zimmerman followed him (no one is denying this). Zimmerman lost track of Martin and started walking along the concrete path
back to his car. That's when Martin approached him from behind, some words were said, and then (according to Zimmerman) he was attacked by Martin.
Zimmerman at no point said he "got out of his car to check a street sign". There was some information early on that said that Zimmerman said he turned to look at a street sign right before being attacked. But once again, your own idiotic assumption that he was chasing Martin while in his car makes you adopt yet another stupid assumption.
He was not in his car
. He was following Martin on foot. If he turned to check a street sign right before being attacked, he was on foot when he did it. WTF? You and your stupid bit with the **** car. I've asked you repeatedly to provide a source for your claim that Zimmerman chased Martin while in his car. Yet instead of doing so, or dropping the assumption, you just keep heaping more and more stupid assumptions on top of that one.
Do you realize that once you drop the assumption that Zimmerman was in his car, every single part of the timeline makes sense? Wow. Just wow.
Who initiated the conflict at that point, I don't care.
So you're saying that even if Martin did initiate the fight, it would still mean that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? Maybe you are so wrapped up in your false outrage to think this matters, but to most people, and to the law itself, this is the single critical point. If Martin initiated the fight, then he is at fault, and Zimmerman acted in self defense. If Zimmerman started it, then he can't claim self defense.
But you'd be an absolute dumbass if, in that situation, you didn't assume the person following you wasn't a threat. They've gone well past the point of acceptable disbelief.
Disbelief in what? If Martin ran away from Zimmerman initially (with Zimmerman following on foot
), then Zimmerman loses Martin and heads back to his car, and then Martin comes back and attacks Zimmerman, then your entire claim fails completely. There's nothing inconsistent or outside the range of acceptable belief there. If Martin was legitimately scared that Zimmerman was some kind of crazy person coming after him, why did he circle back around? Why did he come after Zimmerman?
What you should be finding increasingly hard to believe is that Martin acted purely out of legitimate fear of Zimmerman. You keep inventing details to make this seem more likely, but they aren't true. If Martin really thought that Zimmerman was a criminal stalking him and intending him harm, why not call 911 himself? Martin's actions are *not* consistent with a scared kid just trying to get home from the store without being attacked by some crazed stalker. His actions are very consistent with a hoodlum roaming the area looking for something to steal, realizing someone has spotted him, and then circling back to punish that person for daring to interrupt his criminal activities.
I fully admit that's speculation on my part. But it fits far more with the evidence and information we have than any theory I'm hearing you toss out. You just keep trying to poke holes in Zimmerman's account, but you do so by assuming things that have not been established, and all the while refuse to account for Martin's actions. He clearly was not just walking straight home, right? He clearly could have simply run away but didn't. He clearly could have called the police if he really thought his life was in danger, but didn't. At what point do you conclude that the assumptions you've built up about Martin might just be wrong? Pretty much nothing he was doing that night fits with the claim that he was just an innocent kid trying to get home from the store.
And once you abandon the assumption that Martin was just an innocent kid trying to get home, Zimmerman's story becomes much more believable. It's your own irrational insistence on sticking with completely unfounded assumptions that cause you to do this. Drop the assumptions and look at the facts. They tell a completely different story than the one you want to hear. Edited, Mar 30th 2012 8:38pm by gbaji