Trayvon isn't here to tell his side of the story. We can never know with certainty what happened that night. Zimmerman's story is that he didn't pull out his gun until Martin was on top of him. There's no more reason to believe that story than there is to believe any other, really.
Martin had grass stains on his knees, abrasions on his knuckles. At least one eye witness said the man in the dark jacket (Martin) was on top of the man in the red jacket (Zimmerman). Martin was shot from underneath.
With that established, what makes more sense: Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin who then took Zimmerman to ground (as opposed to running away) and started beating him in the face instead of going for the gun?
Cause he was there at an official capacity. If an amateur were in any kind of danger, it'd make sense to say something like, "Stop, neighborhood watch!" or "Stop, I'm a cop!" "Freeze!" Something like that. That's why he's following him, right? To ask questions? After that, a normal person would do everything possible to avoid killing another human being. You'd shoot them in the leg. You'd say, "Hey seriously, stop" and shoot into the air. Stuff like that. You know, I question the fight. Like, did Martin essentially launch Zimmerman to the ground, and then immediately start hitting his head against the asphalt? It just seems like this perfect scenario that would have no real motivation. There'd be no reason for Trayvon to do any of this. He didn't do anything wrong. Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense that this Zimmerman guy made up his mind that this was a burglar before he even confronted him, and he confronted Trayvon, threatening him with violence? It does to me. I don't know why a blameless kid would go from 0 to nearly smashing a complete stranger's skull to death. For what? To avoid telling the cops that this weird dude was stopping him from going home? When faced with those two options, this kid was... "you know... it's time to kill some people." I just don't get it i guess.
You're arguing about what you think happened and what makes
sense to you personally instead of looking at what is proven.
Again, you don't shoot your gun in the air. You don't try to shoot someone in the leg either. You'll likely miss and be attacked, this isn't a movie.
You say Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman based on what? We do know he was irritated by the "creepy ass cracka" following him and that he was prone to violence.
Honestly... just the fact that he followed him should be enough. He shouldn't have gone in there. No way. No authorities would have told him to do so. If you run over someone with a car through neglect, then they get tried with vehicular homicide. Well, if you go into a situation with your gun so you can be a hero, and then you accidentally kill a totally innocent person, then you must account. I don't see what's unfair about that. This guy was reckless. We're not in the wild west. A gun does not give you license to play bounty hunter.
You describe Martin as a totally innocent person but can't prove it. We know he was on top of Zimmerman hitting him in the face.
What we don't know is what started the actual confrontation so how can say for a fact that Martin did not initiate the fight? You can't.
According to Zimmerman. That seems like another convenient interpretation that depends on him. Seems much more likely, that he lost track of him, and then found him again, confronted him, and killed him. Zimmerman was on the hunt for a burglar, and he wasn't gonna stop till he found him. What are you suggesting? That Martin realized that some guy was following him, and then he basically double backed in order to set the guy up and attack him? It's really weird how there is an obvious interpretation of how it could have gone, and then this far out depiction that paints Trayvon as this blood hungry teenager. Like, I don't know man. There's got to be more to it than that.
Do you have data that that actually happened like that? That the bruising on the head wasn't the result of a scuffle.. getting pushed down, etc? You seem genuinely well informed about the topic, so I'm down to be wrong. My initial reaction is that you seem to be relying a lot on Zimmerman's word. The truth is we don't know what happened that night. We don't know.
