That’s actually what I think happened. Martin didn’t stray far from that area. That makes the most sense rather than that bullshit “doubling-back” story that would require super athletic abilities (and all the black male stereotypes you can think of).
Zimmerman found him and that’s when the party began.
What we’ve got to remember is, if the phone records are accurate, there was only 2 minutes between the end of Z’s call and the gunshot, so if the fight went on for only a minute, that means that TM was still only hid in the shadows for a minute and that time would have flew by under the circumstances Trayvon was going through.
I don’t think that’s true. Two minutes are unaccounted for between when Zimmy got off the phone NEN and the estimated start time for the fight. The latter estimate is based on when Deedee got disconnected and when the first 911 call was made. So from the time Z got off the phone to the gunshot, at least 4 minutes would have passed, IIRC.
The 2-min block of time is something that Zimmerman defenders gloss over, because they know it reflects badly on Zimmerman’s credibility and innocence. Why did it take one minute, let along two minutes, for Zimmerman to return to his truck? Gee, I dunno. Maybe it’s cause he didn’t head to his truck.
From one of Redbrow’s earlier posts. I’ve not checked the discovery docs to confirm it, I’ll admit.
Z says “he ran” 2 minutes before the end of the call, so, although that gives us around 4 minutes until TM would be dead, if TM didn’t know where Z was going to turn up next and was hid in the shadows listening and looking for any further sign of Z, that time too would have gone by very quickly for Trayvon.
It seems far more reasonable that he spent that time not far from where he ran and that Z came upon him, than that he ran all the way home then wandered back to the top and found Z where he says he was.
ps. Come to think of it, those times must be off, because the nen call was 4 minutes long, not 2 minutes. Hmmm?
Exactly…those are my thoughts. He ran and hid all the while Zimmerman was still looking for him–he never stopped looking for him.
He possibly could have heard Martin talking on the phone to DeeDee and/or possibly seen the light from Martin’s cellphone–if there was one.
Another possibility is that he was hiding from Zimmerman, thought the coast was clear, emerged only to find Zimmerman there waiting for him–like a “gotcha”.
Yet another possibility was that maybe Zimmerman was telling the PARTIAL truth that he lost Martin and was going back to his truck, but at the same time Martin thought the coast was clear-- and they bumped into each other, just by chance.
But any way you slice the pie, Martin felt he had to defend himself–and I don’t blame him.
A while ago in this thread, there was a lot of discussion about the times logged in by dispatch. It was determined you can’t use those times because they represent when the dispatcher recorded the events in the system, not necessarily when the events themselves occurred.
I’m pretty sure it’s well-founded that there was a gap of unaccounted for time before the fight started, and it was plenty of time for Zimmerman to make it to his truck. I cited the evidence in this thread, but I don’t feel like pouring through the pages to find the post. Sorry.
About the gap, I did some googling and came across this description of events. It seems pretty fair and objective and presumably is based on stuff in the discovery dump (although I have not verified that).
But that’s just it: a threshold finder of fact doesn’t have to succumb to this reduction ad absurdum exercise you’ve created. Whether probable cause exists for any given set of facts is a matter of law. The standard is not applied by stating a workable general concept and then drawing it out to absurd lengths.
Your method of analysis seems to be deciding something is untrue because you don’t like the result otherwise. If this were true, society would be too stupid to exist, you decide, and so therefore it can’t be true.
But you have no experience, training, or understanding of the concept, and yet this lack doesn’t bother you. Why is that? I mean – you must grasp at some level that lawyers spend three years in law school and at least some time in practice before they can confidently assess issues like these. But you are supremely confident that you can do it with some Internet study.
Why?
If witnesses did indeed report hearing a despondent boy, that would create probable cause.
But I find it very very difficult to believe that three witnesses all chose to describe the cries they heard as “despondent.”
They don’t have to succumb to anything. Cops can arrest anyone if they have reason to believe they’ve perpetrated a crime.
Skip the hot air and answer me this: if the cops had arrested Zimmerman that night, based on the information they had at the time, would they have acted inappropriately? Do you really think they’d have little justification for taking that action?
At least one reported hearing a child or boy cry out. Her roommate corroborated her claims. “Despondent boy” was what was simply used in the report. Sorry if this is all news to you, but maybe you need to do some more homework before you come to the defense of these cops.
You have already been both noted and warned about calling names in this forum, both times from myself. So consider this a second warning.
You only get a limited number of warnings, just so you’re aware…so you need to knock off right now or your posting privileges may come under review by the mods.
Do not call names in this forum. Make a topic in the BBQ Pit if you want to call out another member on their posts.