Has anything Z has recounted strained credibility for you yet?
Every house has weapons in it, for someone who is planning an unprovoked attack on an unsuspecting person. There must be a couple of dozen different types in a kitchen alone.
I don’t think he ran to his house. I think he started running when Z said he did to try and call Z’s bluff and had no intention of trying to outrun a man in a car who could pop up anywhere if his previous actions were anything to go by. He also didn’t know if this man on the phone had an accomplice waiting upo ahead, so it’s hardly beyond imagination that he’d want to be sure there was nobody around before he made another dash towards home.
I think he hid in the shadows behind the houses and waited to try and figure out which way Z would go.
There’s some nice juicy evidence in my post upthread where the uber-reliable person who took the photo which provides the best evidence of Z’s wicked head wounds(but none of his messed up face) also says when he turned up on the scene he could see TM had been shot by the powder burns on his clothing and that Z wasn’t demanding he help out with restraining a dead body, but was instead insistent on his wife being phoned. And having his wounds photographed, no doubt.
What about Z’s own evidence admitting that he was attacked almost immediately after finishing his dispatch call, when people didn’t start reporting the screams until over a minute later?
Are you happy just to accept all Z’s inconsistencies as being a result of his traumatic experiences? Have you managed to explain to yourself the inconsistency in his reenactment vid where he says T disappeared twice down the dog path, the second time after walking all the way back to where he’d parked his vehicle, where despite having a gun on his hip, he was quaking with fear and so threatened he had to roll his window up?
Seriously, howtf can you believe anything that comes from this man’s mouth?
Btw, have you discovered whether he even had any cash or credit cards in his possession when he went shopping that evening? I’ve tried trawling the internet for the details, but I’m having no luck. Perhaps your keen mind is already aware of such information?
I have said that a perceived threat could have come from a strange man following you in a truck and then getting out of the vehicle and running after you.
You don’t find that scenario threatening and you have trouble understanding how anyone could find being in that scenario troubling.
I get that you have trouble getting that.
That’s fine. You don’t have to understand.
Other people find a scenario wherein a strange man follows them in a truck and then gets out of the vehicle and runs after them to be a scenario where it’s reasonable to be fearful. I just ask you to realize that people who see such a scenario as a potentially dangerous situation are reasonable people.
I am not sure if repeating myself will yield any greater understanding.
As I noted some posts ago…
What bluff was Zimmerman making and how was he going to pop up somewhere else? The car makes it harder to track him as the evidence shows.
It was established that he lost sight of Zimmerman. But under your scenario he chose the opposite of going home. He then chose to confront Zimmerman and attack him even though he wasn’t threatened during the conversation.
I know he was at the T intersection which is the opposite of hiding and in the opposite direction of his house.
So “almost immediately” and “a minute” are completely different, but “right by” and “several minutes walk away” are the same thing? You’re not even consistent with your nonsense.
No, I think the inconsistencies, minor as they are, are as a result of being a human being, not a recording device.
Having a gun doesn’t prevent one feeling fear, it just means one can do something about it if that which one fears comes to pass.
Because it is consistent with the other physical and witness evidence in the case, and because it explains what happened in a more plausible way than any other theory I’ve heard, including the numerous ridiculous fragments of hypotheses you’ve come out with.
I doubt anyone would have checked for that, or would even have been in a position to. He wasn’t arrested at the scene, and as far as I know wasn’t searched - I’m not sure on what grounds they could have searched him without an arrest. Why would you expect this particular piece of evidence to exist?
I see it being posed every time M’s proximity to Brandy’s house come up.
I don’t know. I am not even sure that he did come there. Has anyone reported M coming there besides Z?
Of what significance is my ignorance in re that matter?
The significance of your ignorance is that the laws of physics apply. Martin can’t occupy 2 places at once. It’s clear based on both phone calls that Martin isn’t standing in plain sight. There is nothing to hid behind at this location. So he’s not there, time passes, and he’s there.
If someone got out of their car and ran towards me, I might find it threatening.
What you’re contending, hearing someone out of my sight get out of their car and start running, I would not. I certainly wouldn’t go out of my way to find the person who was running and punch them in the face. No reasonable person would.
Of course, “followed Martin in his car, then got out and chased him” is not a conclusion that any reasonable person can draw from the evidence we have.
I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that that could be threatening. As that’s not the scenario that either you or I are proposing happened, I still fail to see the relevance of bringing it up again.
I’ll make it quite clear. The evidence we have does not allow a reasonable person to conclude that Zimmerman acted in a way that would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened, were that reasonable person in Martin’s position.
So, either something happened for which we do not have evidence, or Martin was unreasonable.
Are your meagre skills up to talking about the case at hand, rather than drawing conclusions from invented counterfactual scenarios then pretending those conclusions can be applied to this case?
As I said before Steophan brought up the idea. Iirc, it was brought up in the midst of a discussion of semantics. I am not willing to wade back through the posts for links. Believe me or not. Look for yourself if you really wish to know.
Because I suddenly my imagination about M’s motives is relevant?
Also, does anyone who thinks he reached his back door want to hazard a guess at why the violent, confrontational Trayvon would not at least pop indoors and swap his shopping bag and goodies for a more gangsta weapon?
[/QUOTE]
Maybe he preferred beating people’s heads against the ground to stabbing them. Or maybe even his father’s girlfriend may have been moved to ask why he needed a knife to go back outside. I suspect he thought he was enough of ass-kicker not to need artificial aids. Unfortunately for him, it turned out that the ass-kickee had a gun.
I’ve a feeling you aren’t looking from a totally impartial perspective. No biggy, neither am I? I think the fucker is guilty of at least death by reckless behaviour and if there isn’t such a charge, there should be. This tragedy was more easily avoidable by Z than it was T. Z was supoposed to be the reasonable adult that evening, not the suspicious-looking guy following an innocent stranger in the dark. If Z’s subjective belief that TM was a criminal is relevant, then TM’s belief that Z was acting shadily also has to be.
Yes, but it’s not being suggested that he ran all the way home to go indoors and report the village weirdo; in fact, I’m not even sure why people believe he ran all that way when he could have just been waiting in the shadows for Z to walk by. Perhaps he wanted to stretch his legs in preparation for the fancy footwork he’d soon need?
I’m saying TM ran as a bluff. Do you think he was stupid enough or lacking in street smarts at least, to let Z see his intentions, rather than just casually stroll out of sight then run like the wind?
OInviously not, as he’d managed to keep him in sight all the way across the estate. Considering he didn’t want to confront Trayvon and just wanted to meet with the police, it’s baffling that he’d even want to leave the car. It’s not like he’d seen TM commit any crime and it was imperative he be pointed out and dealt with.
It’s called getting the lay of the land before you go rushing off into trouble. Do you agree at all that at this point TM had a reaon to be alarmed if that’s indeed what he’d chosen to do?
When you’ve only got Z’s say so to back that up, you may as well call it speculation.
You still don’t know that. The only people that could were Z and T, and T’s saying nothing and Z’s bullshitting like his life depends on it, when really, it’s already over and there’ll be no golden sunset for him wherever he goes.
Personally, I think it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
The other responses aren’t worth batting back and forth, but I can’t ignore this. To cover all avenues and asses for the sake of finding the truth about why a teen with no previous for violent behaviour suddenly went berserk when he met George Zimmerman. If Florida laws let people leave police stations after they’ve admitted killing somebody, and they don’t even know who the somebody is, then that is a recipe for disaster.
is relevant to the laws of physics. Unless you have evidence that space aliens teleported Martin to that location he had to go there under his own power. It doesn’t require a motive so replace “why” with “how”.
I wasn’t there, but I would guess that he used his feet. Though he may have crawled, rolled, done somersaults, cartwheels, backflips or some such.
hope that helps.
As an aside, would anyone be interested in hearing Derren Brown’s interpretation/analysis of Z’s reenactment and interviews, just to see if he picked up any obvious tells? How much credibility would you give to his opinion if he said that Z was lying near enough all the way through?
He was being reasonable. He called the police. Martin was being unreasonable, he didn’t call the police and instead attacked Zimmerman even though there was no threat in the conversation.
He could have been waiting in the shadows. This has been suggested a number of times by me. He chose to talk to his girlfriend instead of the police. He chose to attack Zimmerman.
You said he called his bluff. I can’t read your mind. All your posts are imaginary scenarios without any evidence to support them.
No, Zimmerman didn’t keep him in sight all across the estate. He lost him when he went by the club house. It’s not baffling that he left the car. The whole purpose was to direct the police to Martin. It makes perfect sense.
It doesn’t make sense for Martin to approach Zimmerman to get a lay of the land and there is nothing in the conversation that is threatening.
Zimmerman’s entire conversation on the phone and his re-enactment is compared to the evidence at hand. It’s a function of evidence that directly contradicts his account.
Yes, the evidence shows this as the location of the start of the fight. He doesn’t have to say anything and the evidence shows this. It moved a few feet south where witnesses can account for the remainder of the fight.
And this is consistent with Zimmerman’s account as is Dee Dee’s testimony that Martin engaged in conversation first. He came to Zimmerman. The confrontation is the product of Martin and there is no evidence of a threat by Zimmerman.