Trayvon Martin Derail

[RavenSky]

Yes it has been hashed out before, but it keeps coming back up. For those two to meet up in the spot where they ended up would require crazy things like Martin walking twice past his house without going in and then slowly walking the wrong way to his house. I believe Z did want to find M and walking around looking for him to tell the police was what he did. If he had chased him down it would have been by M's house, not where they fought.

Doesn't M have the right to walk around his neighborhood without being accosted by a nutcase with a gun. So what if he walked past his house twice. That's everyone's right.

Aside from the fact that ColoradoAtheist's contentions have already been shown to be completely false... we had maps and timelines showing his claims to be false...

even IF we wanted to play hypotheticals on that point - yes, Trayvon had every right to continue to walk around his neighborhood, especially if he feared leading the creepy-ass cracker back to where his little brother was home alone. We can all play the speculation game.

But the FACTS are undisputable and Zimmerman was 100% in the wrong and he flat out killed Trayvon. I hope he has nightmares about it every night of his miserable life. Of course, that would assume he has a fucking conscience, and I don't think he does.

 

[ZiprHead]

It doesn't matter where Martin was because where ever he was in his neighborhood he has a lawful right to be there without being assaulted by some asshole cop-wannabe.

We don't know who assaulted whom. It may be more plausibly Zimmerman, but there is no hard evidence either way. All I was saying is that the theory that Zimmerman went all the way to the back entrance and then chased Martin back up to the T is not likely to have happened. They confronted each other near the T, had a scuffle which ended with Martin getting shot.

Wrong. We have Jeantel's direct ear-witness testimony.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Doesn't M have the right to walk around his neighborhood without being accosted by a nutcase with a gun. So what if he walked past his house twice. That's everyone's right.

Aside from the fact that ColoradoAtheist's contentions have already been shown to be completely false... we had maps and timelines showing his claims to be false...

even IF we wanted to play hypotheticals on that point - yes, Trayvon had every right to continue to walk around his neighborhood, especially if he feared leading the creepy-ass cracker back to where his little brother was home alone. We can all play the speculation game.

But the FACTS are undisputable and Zimmerman was 100% in the wrong and he flat out killed Trayvon. I hope he has nightmares about it every night of his miserable life. Of course, that would assume he has a fucking conscience, and I don't think he does.

Huh? We have about 2-3 minutes of Martin unaccounted for. There hasn't been a Martin side to explain those minutes.

He might have nightmares, One person knows for sure what happened, the other one may know more of the truth too and she might have to live with any guilt if she knew he came back to confront Z.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't know who assaulted whom. It may be more plausibly Zimmerman, but there is no hard evidence either way. All I was saying is that the theory that Zimmerman went all the way to the back entrance and then chased Martin back up to the T is not likely to have happened. They confronted each other near the T, had a scuffle which ended with Martin getting shot.

Wrong. We have Jeantel's direct ear-witness testimony.

Not really. She heard a bump, followed by the phone getting seprated by someone saying Get Off Get Off. The get off was after the fight. Even on shows afterward she said she didn't know what happened and believed Martin threw the first punch.

 

[Jayjay]

We don't know who assaulted whom. It may be more plausibly Zimmerman, but there is no hard evidence either way. All I was saying is that the theory that Zimmerman went all the way to the back entrance and then chased Martin back up to the T is not likely to have happened. They confronted each other near the T, had a scuffle which ended with Martin getting shot.

Wrong. We have Jeantel's direct ear-witness testimony.

She couldn't have known Martin's exact location, or which route he took. What she said was that Martin ran from Zimmerman (likely referring to him running around the T to the walkway between houses), and that Martin stopped running because "he was right by his fathers house", which could have been anywhere. And after several minutes, Martin and Zimmerman meet again at the T. So if Martin did go all the way (or part of the way) to his dad's house, he must have turned back for some reason. Maybe because he thought the threat was over, or maybe he just didn't feel like walking in the dark.

Unofficial transcript of Jeantel's testimony: http://www.johnrickford.com/Writing...ial/JeantelTranscript/tabid/1406/Default.aspx

 

[Arctish]

Wrong. We have Jeantel's direct ear-witness testimony.

She couldn't have know Martin's exact location, or which route he took. What she said was that Martin ran from Zimmerman (likely referring to him running around the T to the walkway between houses), and that Martin stopped running because "he was right by his fathers house", which could have been anywhere. And after several minutes, Martin and Zimmerman meet again at the T. So if Martin did go all the way (or part of the way) to his dad's house, he must have turned back for some reason. Maybe because he thought the threat was over, or maybe he just didn't feel like walking in the dark.

Unofficial transcript of Jeantel's testimony: http://www.johnrickford.com/Writing...ial/JeantelTranscript/tabid/1406/Default.aspx

Saying that Martin 'doubled back' has been used to imply that Martin attacked Zimmerman. If you're not trying to imply that, fine. The path he took might have involved several twists and turns, and we can't be sure he never re-crossed any part of it. But if you are implying that going back toward the T means he changed his mind about escaping, let me offer this analogy:

Some years ago, my sister walked out of her house to go to work. She exited her front door, which was on the west side of the building, and turned left to walk to her driveway. When she got there she discovered there was a black bear cub sitting in her driveway and she had no idea where the sow was. She crept back slowly to her front door, keeping watch the entire time. Once safely inside she called work to tell her boss she was going to be late. It turned out, she had inadvertently walked between the sow and the cub, but got inside before the sow spotted her.

But suppose my sister saw the sow behind her and thought the sow saw her. The smart thing to do would have been to turn left and go along the south side of the building and then over to the backyard, putting distance between herself and the danger. She would have carefully approached the north side, slowly walked along it, and peered around the corner to the west side to see if the sow and cub were still there. If she didn't see them, she would have gotten to the front door and inside as quickly as possible.

You might say that my sister doubled back. But if you said it proved that she had changed her mind about avoiding the danger and had decided to attack the bear, I would be sorely tempted to call you an idiot. You would have no reason to suppose she would do anything that stupid and reckless, just as you have no reason to suppose Martin got away from Zimmerman but then turned around and decided to attack him.

The reason Loren, coloradoatheist, and Derec keep claiming Martin attacked is because it's the only way they can exonerate Zimmerman. Just look at their arguments. Clearly they understand that the victim of an assault has the right to defend him- or herself whereas the instigator of a fatal fight can be charged with murder. But there is nothing in Martin's history to suggest he would do any such thing. OTOH, Zimmerman had a juvenile and adult criminal record for fighting, was heard getting swearing-hot angry at the alleged 'fucking punk' he suspected of being one of the 'assholes' who 'always get away, and had armed himself and gone out in pursuit.

How in the hell does Zimmerman get the benefit of the doubt while the unarmed teenager walking and talking to a friend gets all the blame? Do you really think Martin doubled back to attack the bear?

 

[RavenSky]

How in the hell does Zimmerman get the benefit of the doubt while the unarmed teenager walking and talking to a friend gets all the blame? Do you really think Martin doubled back to attack the bear?

It doesn't pass any sort of rationality test I can imagine, yet clearly we have people that cling to their belief.

I don't understand it.

Bilby wants to know why this case keeps coming up. This is one of the reasons: How can ANYONE look at this situation and believe Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon.

Maybe if I could understand that, I could understand how Trump got elected.

Does the sane person living among insane people start to believe himself the insane one?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does the sane person living among insane people start to believe himself the insane one?

It's not that you doubt your sanity so much as you stop seeing any sort of returns on it.

"I could examine this logically and offer a solution, and defend it, and point out why it's a solution when the options being offered are just gobsmacking insane, or i could just assume we're all going to end up doing something stupid, and stop fighting it."

 

[marc]

My thought on the 'double back' 'theory' is there is no need for it. If I'm running from someone, my goal would be to lose them. Once out of sight I could look for a place to hide, with the hope the person chasing me with goes past or takes a different path. TM might have hidden himself, while Z went past the T to the next street. Waiting a bit, then thinking he lost the guy, TM might have then started talking to his girlfriend, and head for home again, just before Z came back to the T and spotted him. No need for him to double back to explain why their confrontation happened so close to the T.

 

[coloradoatheist]

My thought on the 'double back' 'theory' is there is no need for it. If I'm running from someone, my goal would be to lose them. Once out of sight I could look for a place to hide, with the hope the person chasing me with goes past or takes a different path. TM might have hidden himself, while Z went past the T to the next street. Waiting a bit, then thinking he lost the guy, TM might have then started talking to his girlfriend, and head for home again, just before Z came back to the T and spotted him. No need for him to double back to explain why their confrontation happened so close to the T.

Even that story is weird from the layout of the the neighborhood. That would mean he ran about 50 feet, took a 10-20 foot turn and then said he lost him. then while he was waiting Zimmerman was within a few feet of him talking to police while he is on the phone with Jeantel.

- - - Updated - - -

How in the hell does Zimmerman get the benefit of the doubt while the unarmed teenager walking and talking to a friend gets all the blame? Do you really think Martin doubled back to attack the bear?

It doesn't pass any sort of rationality test I can imagine, yet clearly we have people that cling to their belief.

I don't understand it.

Bilby wants to know why this case keeps coming up. This is one of the reasons: How can ANYONE look at this situation and believe Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon.

Maybe if I could understand that, I could understand how Trump got elected.

Does the sane person living among insane people start to believe himself the insane one?

He got the benefit of the doubt because all the evidence was in Z's favor. The other side only had feint hope on crazy speculation.

 

[Arctish]

Even that story is weird from the layout of the the neighborhood. That would mean he ran about 50 feet, took a 10-20 foot turn and then said he lost him. then while he was waiting Zimmerman was within a few feet of him talking to police while he is on the phone with Jeantel.

- - - Updated - - -

How in the hell does Zimmerman get the benefit of the doubt while the unarmed teenager walking and talking to a friend gets all the blame? Do you really think Martin doubled back to attack the bear?

It doesn't pass any sort of rationality test I can imagine, yet clearly we have people that cling to their belief.

I don't understand it.

Bilby wants to know why this case keeps coming up. This is one of the reasons: How can ANYONE look at this situation and believe Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon.

Maybe if I could understand that, I could understand how Trump got elected.

Does the sane person living among insane people start to believe himself the insane one?

He got the benefit of the doubt because all the evidence was in Z's favor. The other side only had feint hope on crazy speculation.

What evidence was that? Please list it so we can examine it.

As far as I can see, the only evidence the Zimmerman supporters have is Zimmerman's self-serving, shifting explanations, a few minor scrapes they want to be evidence Martin was the aggressor, a witness who was pretty sure he saw Martin on top at one point during the fight, a metric shit ton of speculation, and tales of the black teenaged boogeyman who wanders neighborhoods at night, using his supernatural powers to determine which townhouses in a development full of identical townhouses have prescription cough syrup in them and vowing to kill neighborhood watch volunteers who dare to look at him.

This is countered by what was reported in real time during the recorded call, the testimony of every other neighborhood witness including two who said Zimmerman was on top of Martin at the end of the fight, Jeantel's testimony, and a significant portion of Zimmerman's recorded statements to the police, including the walk-through in which he says he went across the top of the T to Retreat View Circle but couldn't provide a reason that made sense. Also, there's Zimmerman's history of violence, his apparent malice toward a teenager he didn't recognize but nevertheless called a "fucking punk" and an "asshole", and his decision to engage in armed pursuit.

Who does that, BTW? Is there anyone here who has ever grabbed their gun and set out in pursuit of a "fucking punk" or an "asshole"? Don't get me wrong. I'm not against guns per se. I often carry one when I go out late at night to walk the dog. But I can't imagine doing what Zimmerman did, especially not to someone I had realized was a teenager, and who wasn't actually doing anything but ambling along a sidewalk and hurrying away when I stopped my car to stare at him.

 

[Jayjay]

She couldn't have know Martin's exact location, or which route he took. What she said was that Martin ran from Zimmerman (likely referring to him running around the T to the walkway between houses), and that Martin stopped running because "he was right by his fathers house", which could have been anywhere. And after several minutes, Martin and Zimmerman meet again at the T. So if Martin did go all the way (or part of the way) to his dad's house, he must have turned back for some reason. Maybe because he thought the threat was over, or maybe he just didn't feel like walking in the dark.

Unofficial transcript of Jeantel's testimony: http://www.johnrickford.com/Writing...ial/JeantelTranscript/tabid/1406/Default.aspx

Saying that Martin 'doubled back' has been used to imply that Martin attacked Zimmerman. If you're not trying to imply that, fine. The path he took might have involved several twists and turns, and we can't be sure he never re-crossed any part of it. But if you are implying that going back toward the T means he changed his mind about escaping, let me offer this analogy: [analogy snipped]

No, I was not implying that. Nor did I mean "double back" to mean anything other than simply turning back to the T rather than going straight home. At that point, Martin probably hadn't seen Zimmerman leave his vehicle, or that Z had crossed the T on foot. There is no reason to assume that Martin was looking for a confrontaton.

What irks me is that some people are throwing facts out the window and imagine an obviously non-factual narrative to paint Zimmerman as some sort of horror movie monster who methodically hunted Martin down by cutting him off and chased him for several hundred feet. There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, following him. But how does that justify using a racist slur?

Maybe it doesn't, but Zimmerman was running after him at some point saying "these assholes always get away," and then was stalking after him, even after Trayvon Martin ran away from him. That is indeed creepy. In fact, it's way more than creepy, it's reason to want to defend yourself or to lead your creep-ass whatever-you-want-to-call-him stalker somewhere away from your house.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, had no legitimate reason to stalk Trayvon Martin.

Z thought Trayvon looked suspicious.

Zimmerman looked suspicious. In fact, he was way more than suspicious. He carried a gun, while stalking after a minor, very angry, and ignoring all of his training and what the police told him to do. That is way, way more than suspicious.

As for racism, I see Derec wants to ignore this:

I ignore nothing. Sure, Z did a lot of stupid things since his acquittal. But what he said to a waitress 4 years after the incident with Trayvon really has no bearing on what transpired that night.

Your dismissive argument is exactly what I was writing about. Zimmerman's preference for racial segregation and his willingness to lie about assaults are apparent in his behavior at the restaurant.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Saying that Martin 'doubled back' has been used to imply that Martin attacked Zimmerman. If you're not trying to imply that, fine. The path he took might have involved several twists and turns, and we can't be sure he never re-crossed any part of it. But if you are implying that going back toward the T means he changed his mind about escaping, let me offer this analogy: [analogy snipped]

No, I was not implying that. Nor did I mean "double back" to mean anything other than simply turning back to the T rather than going straight home. At that point, Martin probably hadn't seen Zimmerman leave his vehicle, or that Z had crossed the T on foot. There is no reason to assume that Martin was looking for a confrontaton.

What irks me is that some people are throwing facts out the window and imagine an obviously non-factual narrative to paint Zimmerman as some sort of horror movie monster who methodically hunted Martin down by cutting him off and chased him for several hundred feet.

While Zimmerman is not a horror movie monster like Jason, he is a terrible, angry, violent liar, but if you were a teenage boy and he were stalking you after you ran away, you would certainly be more frightened than you would be watching a movie.

There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

I thought the cell phone was found some distance away from the T?

 

[Jayjay]

No, I was not implying that. Nor did I mean "double back" to mean anything other than simply turning back to the T rather than going straight home. At that point, Martin probably hadn't seen Zimmerman leave his vehicle, or that Z had crossed the T on foot. There is no reason to assume that Martin was looking for a confrontaton.

What irks me is that some people are throwing facts out the window and imagine an obviously non-factual narrative to paint Zimmerman as some sort of horror movie monster who methodically hunted Martin down by cutting him off and chased him for several hundred feet.

While Zimmerman is not a horror movie monster like Jason, he is a terrible, angry, violent liar, but if you were a teenage boy and he were stalking you after you ran away, you would certainly be more frightened than you would be watching a movie.

Obviously watching a movie would not be scary at all because the viewer knows it's not real. But it does not seem like Zimmerman was at any point cutting Martin off.

There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

I thought the cell phone was found some distance away from the T?

About 50 feet from the top of the T. So relatively close, considering Martin's dad's house was some 350-400 feet away.

 

[RavenSky]

Even that story is weird from the layout of the the neighborhood. That would mean he ran about 50 feet, took a 10-20 foot turn and then said he lost him. then while he was waiting Zimmerman was within a few feet of him talking to police while he is on the phone with Jeantel.

- - - Updated - - -

How in the hell does Zimmerman get the benefit of the doubt while the unarmed teenager walking and talking to a friend gets all the blame? Do you really think Martin doubled back to attack the bear?

It doesn't pass any sort of rationality test I can imagine, yet clearly we have people that cling to their belief.

I don't understand it.

Bilby wants to know why this case keeps coming up. This is one of the reasons: How can ANYONE look at this situation and believe Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon.

Maybe if I could understand that, I could understand how Trump got elected.

Does the sane person living among insane people start to believe himself the insane one?

He got the benefit of the doubt because all the evidence was in Z's favor. The other side only had feint hope on crazy speculation.

Zimmerman had zero actual evidence on his side, only his ever-changing stories. But thank you for proving my point.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

While Zimmerman is not a horror movie monster like Jason, he is a terrible, angry, violent liar, but if you were a teenage boy and he were stalking you after you ran away, you would certainly be more frightened than you would be watching a movie.

Obviously watching a movie would not be scary at all because the viewer knows it's not real.

Well, that's the point: those characters are not real, just as those movies are not real. No one is comparing Zimmerman to Jason either, but as I wrote, Zimmerman "...is a terrible, angry, violent liar." That's a very scary, real thing.

Now, I don't know if you've ever been a teenage boy and had some older man stalk you in a truck, but I did have that happen to me. It is very scary when no one else is around and it's getting dark. When that happened to me, I waited for him to be out of sight, and then I ran a shortcut I knew through some backyards of an apartment complex.

But it does not seem like Zimmerman was at any point cutting Martin off.

He could have been and we don't know whether Trayvon went in a different direction than his house. More importantly, we don't know if Trayvon could have thought he would be cut off since his stalker was driving a truck.

There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

I thought the cell phone was found some distance away from the T?

About 50 feet from the top of the T. So relatively close, considering Martin's dad's house was some 350-400 feet away.

Your relative comparison may seem non-arbitrary to you, but is actually quite arbitrary. You might as well be saying 50 feet is relatively close if one considers the distance to the Sun. Let's review why: the confrontation began with something verbal and the phone being knocked down. Knocking down a phone or a similar action to a phone will not result in a 50 foot distance, but instead several feet from the location of the phone. So 50 feet is a huge distance relative to the several feet that a phone normally is thrown from a human-to-human collision or being knocked down. Now see, that's a relevant, non-arbitrary relative comparison.

So let's look at what this means. It means the fight moved toward the T, some 50 feet away. Why would it since that seems non-random? Well, it could be by chance or knowing Zimmerman's personality and how he manipulates situations and police, he could have been drawing Trayvon in that general direction during the course of the physical fight so that when the police arrived, he could say he followed their instructions. It could mean that Trayvon was trying to crouch down in the shadows or hide behind something which would actually be very rational. Since Zimmerman could have been somewhat close behind and could be a fast runner with a gun, it might make sense for Trayvon to hide once out of sight. Hypothetical cases aside, what this fact of 50 feet does not mean is that Trayvon circled back to the T being the aggressor as people try to make it look like.

 

[Mumbles]

Saying that Martin 'doubled back' has been used to imply that Martin attacked Zimmerman. If you're not trying to imply that, fine. The path he took might have involved several twists and turns, and we can't be sure he never re-crossed any part of it. But if you are implying that going back toward the T means he changed his mind about escaping, let me offer this analogy: [analogy snipped]

No, I was not implying that. Nor did I mean "double back" to mean anything other than simply turning back to the T rather than going straight home. At that point, Martin probably hadn't seen Zimmerman leave his vehicle, or that Z had crossed the T on foot. There is no reason to assume that Martin was looking for a confrontaton.

What irks me is that some people are throwing facts out the window and imagine an obviously non-factual narrative to paint Zimmerman as some sort of horror movie monster who methodically hunted Martin down by cutting him off and chased him for several hundred feet. There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

Again, this is far more likely than the idea of Trayvon Martin as a stereotypical "black brute" who, having run away from Zimmerman, suddenly ran back in a rage.

- - - Updated - - -

Saying that Martin 'doubled back' has been used to imply that Martin attacked Zimmerman. If you're not trying to imply that, fine. The path he took might have involved several twists and turns, and we can't be sure he never re-crossed any part of it. But if you are implying that going back toward the T means he changed his mind about escaping, let me offer this analogy: [analogy snipped]

No, I was not implying that. Nor did I mean "double back" to mean anything other than simply turning back to the T rather than going straight home. At that point, Martin probably hadn't seen Zimmerman leave his vehicle, or that Z had crossed the T on foot. There is no reason to assume that Martin was looking for a confrontaton.

What irks me is that some people are throwing facts out the window and imagine an obviously non-factual narrative to paint Zimmerman as some sort of horror movie monster who methodically hunted Martin down by cutting him off and chased him for several hundred feet. There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

Again, this is far more likely than the idea of Trayvon Martin as a stereotypical "black brute" who, having run away from Zimmerman, suddenly ran back in a rage.

 

[Jayjay]

Obviously watching a movie would not be scary at all because the viewer knows it's not real.

Well, that's the point: those characters are not real, just as those movies are not real. No one is comparing Zimmerman to Jason either, but as I wrote, Zimmerman "...is a terrible, angry, violent liar." That's a very scary, real thing.

That was not the point of the horror movie analogy. It's not that a horror movie monsters are terrifying and scary, it's inconsistencies. When you see a teenagers making out in a horror movie, and Jason shows up, he starts by cutting the head off the guy. The girl screams (probably with the severed head in her lap) and starts running. She runs, and when she finally thinks she's got a way, what happens? It's Jason, and he shows up in front of her. There is no explanation how Jason managed to get ahead of her and cut her off when she was running for her life, and we can forgive such plot holes because it's for dramatic purposes. Shock value.

That's what the stories that posit Zimmerman cutting Martin off at the rear entrace or chasing him through the houses are. They are inconsistent with evidence and common sense, and the only reason they get repeated is because of shock value. It's a much better story to have him sneak up in front of Martin, maybe say a catchphrase like "did you miss, punk?" or laugh maniacally before starting to run after him and chasing him all the way back to the T, than him just standing there like moron with his flashlight like some mall cop. But in reality, the latter is much more likely to have actually happened.

But it does not seem like Zimmerman was at any point cutting Martin off.

He could have been and we don't know whether Trayvon went in a different direction than his house. More importantly, we don't know if Trayvon could have thought he would be cut off since his stalker was driving a truck.

Which would explain why he didn't just go all the way through, but not why he wouldn't enter his dad's house from the back. But based on Jeantel's testimony he thought he got away at that point, so probably he didn't care.

There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

I thought the cell phone was found some distance away from the T?

About 50 feet from the top of the T. So relatively close, considering Martin's dad's house was some 350-400 feet away.

Your relative comparison may seem non-arbitrary to you, but is actually quite arbitrary. You might as well be saying 50 feet is relatively close if one considers the distance to the Sun. Let's review why: the confrontation began with something verbal and the phone being knocked down. Knocking down a phone or a similar action to a phone will not result in a 50 foot distance, but instead several feet from the location of the phone. So 50 feet is a huge distance relative to the several feet that a phone normally is thrown from a human-to-human collision or being knocked down. Now see, that's a relevant, non-arbitrary relative comparison.

So let's look at what this means. It means the fight moved toward the T, some 50 feet away. Why would it since that seems non-random? Well, it could be by chance or knowing Zimmerman's personality and how he manipulates situations and police, he could have been drawing Trayvon in that general direction during the course of the physical fight so that when the police arrived, he could say he followed their instructions. It could mean that Trayvon was trying to crouch down in the shadows or hide behind something which would actually be very rational. Since Zimmerman could have been somewhat close behind and could be a fast runner with a gun, it might make sense for Trayvon to hide once out of sight. Hypothetical cases aside, what this fact of 50 feet does not mean is that Trayvon circled back to the T being the aggressor as people try to make it look like.

Positing that Zimmerman is a mastermind who not only chased Martin, but did it in a way to deliberately direct the fight at a location where he would have an alibi after he murdered Martin, is exactly the kind of implausible story-telling that just doesn't work in real life. I think Zimmerman was not a genius capable of such foresight (and actually, no real-life "genius" would hatch such ridiculous plans to begin with), I think he's a moron.

Now, as for th elocation fo the phone, it was a few feet away from the body. But Zimmerman's keys were at the T. The plastic bag that Martin had was somewhere in between. That gives us a pretty good idea where they would have met, and where the fight happened. Maybe they didn't have their hands on each other at the whole time, but until they were on the ground, they could have still moved quite a bit while fighting.

And again, I am not saying that Trayvon Martin turned back looking for a fight. It is most likely because he didn't know Zimmerman was still lurking there. Unless Martin saw Z cross the T, he wouldn't even know he was out of his car.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Saying that Martin 'doubled back' has been used to imply that Martin attacked Zimmerman. If you're not trying to imply that, fine. The path he took might have involved several twists and turns, and we can't be sure he never re-crossed any part of it. But if you are implying that going back toward the T means he changed his mind about escaping, let me offer this analogy: [analogy snipped]

No, I was not implying that. Nor did I mean "double back" to mean anything other than simply turning back to the T rather than going straight home. At that point, Martin probably hadn't seen Zimmerman leave his vehicle, or that Z had crossed the T on foot. There is no reason to assume that Martin was looking for a confrontaton.

What irks me is that some people are throwing facts out the window and imagine an obviously non-factual narrative to paint Zimmerman as some sort of horror movie monster who methodically hunted Martin down by cutting him off and chased him for several hundred feet. There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

Except Zimmerman was talking on the phone and using his flashlight within 40 feet of Martin. So why would you get up and walk away after a nominal short period of time in which you could see and possibly hear him?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, that's the point: those characters are not real, just as those movies are not real. No one is comparing Zimmerman to Jason either, but as I wrote, Zimmerman "...is a terrible, angry, violent liar." That's a very scary, real thing.

That was not the point of the horror movie analogy. It's not that a horror movie monsters are terrifying and scary, it's inconsistencies. When you see a teenagers making out in a horror movie, and Jason shows up, he starts by cutting the head off the guy. The girl screams (probably with the severed head in her lap) and starts running. She runs, and when she finally thinks she's got a way, what happens? It's Jason, and he shows up in front of her. There is no explanation how Jason managed to get ahead of her and cut her off when she was running for her life, and we can forgive such plot holes because it's for dramatic purposes. Shock value.

That's what the stories that posit Zimmerman cutting Martin off at the rear entrace or chasing him through the houses are. They are inconsistent with evidence and common sense, and the only reason they get repeated is because of shock value. It's a much better story to have him sneak up in front of Martin, maybe say a catchphrase like "did you miss, punk?" or laugh maniacally before starting to run after him and chasing him all the way back to the T, than him just standing there like moron with his flashlight like some mall cop. But in reality, the latter is much more likely to have actually happened.

But it does not seem like Zimmerman was at any point cutting Martin off.

He could have been and we don't know whether Trayvon went in a different direction than his house. More importantly, we don't know if Trayvon could have thought he would be cut off since his stalker was driving a truck.

Which would explain why he didn't just go all the way through, but not why he wouldn't enter his dad's house from the back. But based on Jeantel's testimony he thought he got away at that point, so probably he didn't care.

There is no evidence of that, and everything we know puts their confrontation in the rather small area between the T and where Martin's body and cell phone were found.

I thought the cell phone was found some distance away from the T?

About 50 feet from the top of the T. So relatively close, considering Martin's dad's house was some 350-400 feet away.

Your relative comparison may seem non-arbitrary to you, but is actually quite arbitrary. You might as well be saying 50 feet is relatively close if one considers the distance to the Sun. Let's review why: the confrontation began with something verbal and the phone being knocked down. Knocking down a phone or a similar action to a phone will not result in a 50 foot distance, but instead several feet from the location of the phone. So 50 feet is a huge distance relative to the several feet that a phone normally is thrown from a human-to-human collision or being knocked down. Now see, that's a relevant, non-arbitrary relative comparison.

So let's look at what this means. It means the fight moved toward the T, some 50 feet away. Why would it since that seems non-random? Well, it could be by chance or knowing Zimmerman's personality and how he manipulates situations and police, he could have been drawing Trayvon in that general direction during the course of the physical fight so that when the police arrived, he could say he followed their instructions. It could mean that Trayvon was trying to crouch down in the shadows or hide behind something which would actually be very rational. Since Zimmerman could have been somewhat close behind and could be a fast runner with a gun, it might make sense for Trayvon to hide once out of sight. Hypothetical cases aside, what this fact of 50 feet does not mean is that Trayvon circled back to the T being the aggressor as people try to make it look like.

Positing that Zimmerman is a mastermind who not only chased Martin, but did it in a way to deliberately direct the fight at a location where he would have an alibi after he murdered Martin, is exactly the kind of implausible story-telling that just doesn't work in real life. I think Zimmerman was not a genius capable of such foresight (and actually, no real-life "genius" would hatch such ridiculous plans to begin with), I think he's a moron.

There were many times Zimmerman lied to police and either said he did what he was supposed to do or lied about saying he didn't do what he wasn't supposed to do. None of this makes Zimmerman a "mastermind" or a "genius" and therefore your criticism of one particular hypothetical is nonsensical. It is quite obvious that Zimmerman knew he was supposed to be at the T and so falling back to the T doesn't take a genius mind. It just takes someone to be aware of that fact and try to execute it. An I.Q. of about 85 would be cognizant of the requirement from police. An I.Q. of about 90 would be aware of the need to conform to police instruction during a fight.

Now, as for th elocation fo the phone, it was a few feet away from the body. But Zimmerman's keys were at the T. The plastic bag that Martin had was somewhere in between. That gives us a pretty good idea where they would have met, and where the fight happened. Maybe they didn't have their hands on each other at the whole time, but until they were on the ground, they could have still moved quite a bit while fighting.

None of this seems relevant. Since the phone was dropped/knocked down first, it puts the start of the fight 50 feet away or thereabouts. End of Story.

And again, I am not saying that Trayvon Martin turned back looking for a fight. It is most likely because he didn't know Zimmerman was still lurking there. Unless Martin saw Z cross the T, he wouldn't even know he was out of his car.

We really don't know what Trayvon knew and he could have speculated many things.