His skin looks remarkably unscratched and unbloodied for someone who was taking repeated punches and having his head slammed into pavement, and apparently had a broken nose.
Its a crime in Arizona, and I assume it is in Florida as well. Hence why the "Minute Man" group ended up getting in so much trouble when they went past observe and report.
Based on everything I've heard and read, my 'feeling' is that Zimmerman wanted badly to catch someone for the break-ins, and decided that Martin had to be one of the people who was doing it. He followed him by car while calling 911 where he said "they always get away" and "*****in coons", and then left his car and potentially baited Martin into attacking him to give him a reason to shoot him in "self defense".
Not saying this is what happened, just seems like a plausible scenario given the information that's been presented.
NBC told the Washington Post that it has launched an internal investigation of the "Today" show's editorial process after its morning show aired an edited conversation between George Zimmerman and a 911 dispatcher recorded moments before the shooting. The investigation came after Fox News and others pointed out that the network spliced two parts of the call together, making it appear as if Zimmerman had said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In reality, Zimmerman was answering a dispatcher's question:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black.
The longer this story goes on, the worse it looks for the pro-Martin side and the media in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
The longer this story goes on, the worse it looks for the pro-Martin side and the media in general.
Sure it does..:rolleyes:
I never watched the TODAY show, and most people don't watcht the TODAY show, and hear that spliced audio you're talking about. The 911 calls are publicly available to everybody. You act like this is some kind of big expose or something.
Screams recorded on a 911 call during the confrontation that ended in Florida teenager Trayvon Martin's death don't seem to be those of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, two audio experts who analyzed the recordings said Monday.
Zimmerman, 28, has claimed self-defense in shooting Martin on February 26, saying the 17-year-old accosted him after he had called police to report the teenager as a suspicious person walking around his neighborhood.
But audio experts Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, who analyzed the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel using different techniques, said they don't believe it's Zimmerman who can be heard screaming in the background of the 911 calls.
"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International. "As a matter of fact, after 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."
Zimmerman was fired from his under the table security guard gig for being too aggressive. Not exactly a shocker, based on everything else. He's squeezed more incidents of stupidly aggressive behavior into his last 8 years of life than I put into 40.
-
Ultimately its up to a grand jury, then a trial jury, to decide.
But Zimmerman's story is not credible. It's basically: YEAH, I was the one chasing him... but (conveniently when nobody was looking) I lost him, stopped chasing him, and he attacked me, thus I am no longer the aggressor. So I shot him, but its HIS fault.
But Zimmerman's story is not credible. It's basically: YEAH, I was the one chasing him... but (conveniently when nobody was looking) I lost him, stopped chasing him, and he attacked me, thus I am no longer the aggressor. So I shot him, but its HIS fault.
If the factual aspects of the bolded statement are accurate, then he is correct. He was no longer the aggressor.
Quote from Cervid »
You mean the part where a person saying "punks" is misheard by people who have a strong desire to find racism to be an antiquated racist slur that isn't used any more?
You mean the part where a person saying "punks" is misheard by people who have a strong desire to find racism to be an antiquated racist slur that isn't used any more?
Yep. That part sure convinced me.
Or the part where people intent on hearing anything other than racism heard something else?
When I listen to it, I don't see how to can get "punks" out of it.
The "****in coons" part did it for me, oh and the fact that he chased down a black kid in a hoodie because...he was a black kid with a hoodie...
Too bad no one can hear what he actually said. You assume "coons" because you want so much for this to be a racist crime. But the fact is, no one can make out what he said in the tape - at least not until it is handled by an audio forensics team. And I'm sure if the tape was already handled by one of those and he did say "coons," it would have been all over the media by now.
Yeah..."black kid in a hoodie." 6'3" black man walking around "aimlessly" in the rain peering at windows in a community that had seen a lot of crime lately - all perpetrated by blacks.
Nice how you and others always leave those facts out of your comments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Or the part where people intent on hearing anything other than racism heard something else?
When I listen to it, I don't see how to can get "punks" out of it.
Mostly because the word is hard to understand in general and the term "coon" as a racist slur is an antiquated term that is not part of colloquial English anymore.
If the factual aspects of the bolded statement are accurate, then he is correct. He was no longer the aggressor.
It is uncorroborated by anybody, and its ridiculous that anybody without a pre-existing axe to grind would take his word for it.
-
Its like people witness me chasing my wife around with a gun, then I disappear into the woods chasing her, witnesses later see a struggle with my wife on top of me hitting me.. then I shoot her.
And I come out and say "What happened was is... I chased her with the gun, but then, yeah, I LOST her... and was coming back to my car... and then she sucker punched me, and yeah, I shot her in self defense."
-
If I pursue a guy with a GUN, It's outrageous for me to try to interject a "I stopped chasing with him with my GUN" into the story, without outside corroboration. And I dispute that that would exonerate Zimmerman.
"I chased a guy into the woods with a gun, lost sight of him, and he attacked me... "
The guy chasing people with a gun is the aggressor. Losing sight of your target doesn't suddenly stop you from being the aggressor.
It is uncorroborated by anybody, and its ridiculous that anybody without a pre-existing axe to grind would take his word for it.
-
Its like people witness me chasing my wife around with a gun, then I disappear into the woods chasing her, witnesses later see a struggle with my wife on top of me hitting me.. then I shoot her.
And I come out and say "What happened was is... I chased her with the gun, but then, yeah, I LOST her... and was coming back to my car... and then she sucker punched me, and yeah, I shot her in self defense."
-
If I pursue a guy with a GUN, It's outrageous for me to try to interject a "I stopped chasing with him with my GUN" into the story, without outside corroboration. And I dispute that that would exonerate Zimmerman.
"I chased a guy into the woods with a gun, lost sight of him, and he attacked me... "
The guy chasing people with a gun is the aggressor. Losing sight of your target doesn't suddenly stop you from being the aggressor.
Let's say you're trespassing on my property. I feel threatened, so I chase you off my property with my gun, but never fire it. Once I reach the end of my property and don't see you, I turn back and begin walking back to my house. At that point, you come back on my property and take me from behind. We struggle, and eventually I shoot you.
Am I still the aggressor, even thought I had turned around and was walking back to my house when you attacked me?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
What would you do if you were walking home and a man in a car started chasing you.
For me the fundamental fact in the case is an armed man decided for not a good enough reason to at the vary least chase down a 17 year old. If he had just minded his business Travyon would be alive and Zimmerman would be safety at home.
Instead Zimmerman made a decision that lead to an unnecessary death. As a country of laws we should punish people when they make unnecessary decisions that lead to innocent people's deaths.
It would be different if there the death was accidental, but it would be very hard to defend Zimmerman's actions as accidental or even out of self defense.
Again what would you do if a man decided to chase you down for no good reason.
What would you do if you were walking home and a man in a car started chasing you.
For me the fundamental fact in the case is an armed man decided for not a good enough reason to at the vary least chase down a 17 year old. If he had just minded his business Travyon would be alive and Zimmerman would be safety at home.
Instead Zimmerman made a decision that lead to an unnecessary death. As a country of laws we should punish people when they make unnecessary decisions that lead to innocent people's deaths.
It would be different if there the death was accidental, but it would be very hard to defend Zimmerman's actions as accidental or even out of self defense.
Again what would you do if a man decided to chase you down for no good reason.
What would you do if you lived in a community that had seen a string of crimes lately, all perpetrated by black men, and saw a 6'3" black man walking in the rain looking at windows - who immediately pulled up his hood and ran when seen?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Yeah..."black kid in a hoodie." 6'3" black man walking around "aimlessly" in the rain peering at windows in a community that had seen a lot of crime lately - all perpetrated by blacks.
Nice how you and others always leave those facts out of your comments.
A 6'3, black kid, walking home from the store, wearing a hoodie.
Were all of the crimes perpetrated by blacks? Even if they were, that doesn't make the guy a suspect.
Whatever happened on that night, we do know that Zimmerman was following this guy entirely because he was black and in his neighborhood. Unless you think we should accept that Zimmerman follows everyone that walks on the street? If you listen to the 911 call, this kid was guilty already in Zimmerman's eyes.
What would you do if you lived in a community that had seen a string of crimes lately, all perpetrated by black men, and saw a 6'3" black man walking in the rain looking at windows - who immediately pulled up his hood and ran when seen?
1. Do we know that all of the people who committed the crimes were black men?
2. Even if all of the previous crimes were perpetrated by black men, that does not make all black men suspects.
3. He was walking up to houses and looking in windows? Says who?
4. Clearly only guilty people pull up their hoodies in the rain and run when people are chasing them with a gun.
For me the fundamental fact in the case is an armed man decided for not a good enough reason to at the vary least chase down a 17 year old. If he had just minded his business Travyon would be alive and Zimmerman would be safety at home.
Instead Zimmerman made a decision that lead to an unnecessary death. As a country of laws we should punish people when they make unnecessary decisions that lead to innocent people's deaths.
See, but here's the kicker. So did Trayvon. We don't punish people for making decisions that lead to unnecessary deaths. We punish people for making decisions that are culpable for unnecessary death.
It would be different if there the death was accidental, but it would be very hard to defend Zimmerman's actions as accidental or even out of self defense.
Well, if it really was an accident it would be even easier to defend. I chased him, we got in a tussle, fell down, gun went off. Hell in that case (not the current case) there wouldn't be powder burns on zimmermans hands.
Were all of the crimes perpetrated by blacks? Even if they were, that doesn't make the guy a suspect.
All the crimes were perpetrated by blacks. And Martin was an unknown person in that community (he didn't live there, he was visiting) and he gave the appearance of casing houses in the rain. He also pulled up his hoodie and ran when he was seen. That is all extremely suspicious.
Whatever happened on that night, we do know that Zimmerman was following this guy entirely because he was black and in his neighborhood. Unless you think we should accept that Zimmerman follows everyone that walks on the street? If you listen to the 911 call, this kid was guilty already in Zimmerman's eyes.
He followed Martin because he was a 6'3" black male acting suspicious in a community he did not live in that had recently been the scene of a lot of crimes involving black males. Honestly, I would have called it in as well. And I probably would've followed him until the police arrived. But I wouldn't have gotten out of my car to follow him on foot, however.
2. Even if all of the previous crimes were perpetrated by black men, that does not make all black men suspects.
No, it doesn't. But anyone who did not live in that area would still be a possible suspect. People who live in an area typically don't commit their crimes in that area - they would be too easy to ID. Trayvon did not live there.
3. He was walking up to houses and looking in windows? Says who?
Zimmerman, but clearly in your mind he is a lying racist scumbag and you'll never give any credit to his side - even though as more information comes out, his story looks more and more true.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
go home. Thats what I would do. Maybe I'd try and lose him, then go home. Maybe I'd try and run hom cutting through lawns where the car couldn't go.
What I wouldn't do is lose him then follow him until he gets out of his car and jump him. Who knows! He may have a wapon (gun)!
What if his scenario is partially or completely fabricated (seems likely)? What if instead, Zimmerman was so frustrated that the perpetrators "always get away" and that the cops don't want his help, that he was determined to do this himself (which it seems that he did since he ignored the 911 dispatch). He chases down Martin, gets out of his car, and provokes Martin in some was that elicits a confrontation, leading to a fight. He then feels he has sufficiently baited Martin into having cause to shoot Martin, so he shoots him.
Given what we know of Zimmerman's personality, this seems far more likely than he "lost" Martin, turned around to give up, and Martin was close enough by to jump him, after he had lost him? Why would you run away from someone, successfully get away, and then confront them? That doesn't make any sense.
He also pulled up his hoodie and ran when he was seen. That is all extremely suspicious.
None of this is suspicious at all unless he really was going up to houses and peering in the windows, which, unless I'm mistaken, we have no reason to suspect he was.
He followed Martin because he was a 6'3" black male acting suspicious in a community he did not live in that had recently been the scene of a lot of crimes involving black males. Honestly, I would have called it in as well. And I probably would've followed him until the police arrived. But I wouldn't have gotten out of my car to follow him on foot, however.
"He followed Martin because he was a 6'3" black male," is probably the entire idea here. The whole "walking up to windows" thing would be suspicious, but I haven't heard that anywhere else, and it doesn't make sense if Martin was going to the store to get some stuff for himself and someone else, and was on his way home in the rain.
I also find it hard to believe that, if it was raining, Martin didn't already have his hood up.
If you saw someone who you know didn't live at a house walking around and peering in windows, then yes, that is suspicious. However, if you take that away, this is 100% racial profiling. Do we have reason to think that he was walking up to houses and looking in windows on his way home?
Zimmerman, but clearly in your mind he is a lying racist scumbag and you'll never give any credit to his side - even though as more information comes out, his story looks more and more true.
I just find comments from Zimmerman to be incredibly unreliable, because he is going to frame everything in such a way as to make himself appear as innocent as possible. I don't think he would do this because he's a bad person, I think almost anyone would and does do this in such a situation, and I would be just as skeptical of their stories.
No - I never said that. But it is very suspicious. After all, if he belonged in that area...why would he bolt when someone saw him?
Because some large guy was chasing him either in his truck, or on foot, and had a gun which he could have been showing. Running away from someone does not display guilt, it shows a strong desire to move away from someone.
You are driving through your community one night, and it is raining out. In recent months, your community has seen a drastic rise in crime - burglaries, muggings, and even a shooting. All apprehended perpetrators were black males. As you're driving, you see a 6'3" black male walking in between houses, looking around and giving off the appearance of casing the houses. When he sees you, he pulls up his hoodie and runs.
What do you do? Do you call the cops and keep an eye on him until they arrive? Or do you tell yourself he's not a criminal and ignore him?
Of course...I don't actually expect you to understand what I'm trying to do with this scenario. So far, you've shown an uncanny ability at ignoring documented facts that don't support your position.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
What would you do if you lived in a community that had seen a string of crimes lately, all perpetrated by black men, and saw a 6'3" black man walking in the rain looking at windows - who immediately pulled up his hood and ran when seen?
Call the police and let professionals handle the situation.
What if his scenario is partially or completely fabricated (seems likely)? What if instead, Zimmerman was so frustrated that the perpetrators "always get away" and that the cops don't want his help, that he was determined to do this himself (which it seems that he did since he ignored the 911 dispatch). He chases down Martin, gets out of his car, and provokes Martin in some was that elicits a confrontation, leading to a fight. He then feels he has sufficiently baited Martin into having cause to shoot Martin, so he shoots him.
Given what we know of Zimmerman's personality, this seems far more likely than he "lost" Martin, turned around to give up, and Martin was close enough by to jump him, after he had lost him? Why would you run away from someone, successfully get away, and then confront them? That doesn't make any sense.
Of these two possible scenarios the second one (he "lost" Martin, turned around to give up, and Martin was close enough by to jump him) seems orders of magnitude more likely to me...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5OiLQjUcOU
His skin looks remarkably unscratched and unbloodied for someone who was taking repeated punches and having his head slammed into pavement, and apparently had a broken nose.
Its a crime in Arizona, and I assume it is in Florida as well. Hence why the "Minute Man" group ended up getting in so much trouble when they went past observe and report.
Soldier Primer
Sig by ol MISAKA lo
My Trades
Not saying this is what happened, just seems like a plausible scenario given the information that's been presented.
:D:)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-case-exposes-worst-media-210020839.html
The longer this story goes on, the worse it looks for the pro-Martin side and the media in general.
It started looking bad after the mother was busy trademarking her son's name instead of planning his funeral.
Now it's looking downright dreary.
I never watched the TODAY show, and most people don't watcht the TODAY show, and hear that spliced audio you're talking about. The 911 calls are publicly available to everybody. You act like this is some kind of big expose or something.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223?localLinksEnabled=false
Zimmerman was fired from his under the table security guard gig for being too aggressive. Not exactly a shocker, based on everything else. He's squeezed more incidents of stupidly aggressive behavior into his last 8 years of life than I put into 40.
-
Ultimately its up to a grand jury, then a trial jury, to decide.
But Zimmerman's story is not credible. It's basically: YEAH, I was the one chasing him... but (conveniently when nobody was looking) I lost him, stopped chasing him, and he attacked me, thus I am no longer the aggressor. So I shot him, but its HIS fault.
Internal or external.
But seriously, do you have a source for this?
The "****in coons" part did it for me, oh and the fact that he chased down a black kid in a hoodie because...he was a black kid with a hoodie...
If the factual aspects of the bolded statement are accurate, then he is correct. He was no longer the aggressor.
Yep. That part sure convinced me.
Or the part where people intent on hearing anything other than racism heard something else?
When I listen to it, I don't see how to can get "punks" out of it.
Too bad no one can hear what he actually said. You assume "coons" because you want so much for this to be a racist crime. But the fact is, no one can make out what he said in the tape - at least not until it is handled by an audio forensics team. And I'm sure if the tape was already handled by one of those and he did say "coons," it would have been all over the media by now.
Yeah..."black kid in a hoodie." 6'3" black man walking around "aimlessly" in the rain peering at windows in a community that had seen a lot of crime lately - all perpetrated by blacks.
Nice how you and others always leave those facts out of your comments.
Mostly because the word is hard to understand in general and the term "coon" as a racist slur is an antiquated term that is not part of colloquial English anymore.
-
Its like people witness me chasing my wife around with a gun, then I disappear into the woods chasing her, witnesses later see a struggle with my wife on top of me hitting me.. then I shoot her.
And I come out and say "What happened was is... I chased her with the gun, but then, yeah, I LOST her... and was coming back to my car... and then she sucker punched me, and yeah, I shot her in self defense."
-
If I pursue a guy with a GUN, It's outrageous for me to try to interject a "I stopped chasing with him with my GUN" into the story, without outside corroboration. And I dispute that that would exonerate Zimmerman.
"I chased a guy into the woods with a gun, lost sight of him, and he attacked me... "
The guy chasing people with a gun is the aggressor. Losing sight of your target doesn't suddenly stop you from being the aggressor.
Let's say you're trespassing on my property. I feel threatened, so I chase you off my property with my gun, but never fire it. Once I reach the end of my property and don't see you, I turn back and begin walking back to my house. At that point, you come back on my property and take me from behind. We struggle, and eventually I shoot you.
Am I still the aggressor, even thought I had turned around and was walking back to my house when you attacked me?
What would you do if you were walking home and a man in a car started chasing you.
For me the fundamental fact in the case is an armed man decided for not a good enough reason to at the vary least chase down a 17 year old. If he had just minded his business Travyon would be alive and Zimmerman would be safety at home.
Instead Zimmerman made a decision that lead to an unnecessary death. As a country of laws we should punish people when they make unnecessary decisions that lead to innocent people's deaths.
It would be different if there the death was accidental, but it would be very hard to defend Zimmerman's actions as accidental or even out of self defense.
Again what would you do if a man decided to chase you down for no good reason.
You seem to have missed the first word in my sentence.
What would you do if you lived in a community that had seen a string of crimes lately, all perpetrated by black men, and saw a 6'3" black man walking in the rain looking at windows - who immediately pulled up his hood and ran when seen?
A 6'3, black kid, walking home from the store, wearing a hoodie.
Were all of the crimes perpetrated by blacks? Even if they were, that doesn't make the guy a suspect.
Whatever happened on that night, we do know that Zimmerman was following this guy entirely because he was black and in his neighborhood. Unless you think we should accept that Zimmerman follows everyone that walks on the street? If you listen to the 911 call, this kid was guilty already in Zimmerman's eyes.
1. Do we know that all of the people who committed the crimes were black men?
2. Even if all of the previous crimes were perpetrated by black men, that does not make all black men suspects.
3. He was walking up to houses and looking in windows? Says who?
4. Clearly only guilty people pull up their hoodies in the rain and run when people are chasing them with a gun.
go home. Thats what I would do. Maybe I'd try and lose him, then go home. Maybe I'd try and run hom cutting through lawns where the car couldn't go.
What I wouldn't do is lose him then follow him until he gets out of his car and jump him. Who knows! He may have a wapon (gun)!
I agree with this.
See, but here's the kicker. So did Trayvon. We don't punish people for making decisions that lead to unnecessary deaths. We punish people for making decisions that are culpable for unnecessary death.
Well, if it really was an accident it would be even easier to defend. I chased him, we got in a tussle, fell down, gun went off. Hell in that case (not the current case) there wouldn't be powder burns on zimmermans hands.
See above. Oh, also, if I had my phone on me I'd call the police.
That is correct.
All the crimes were perpetrated by blacks. And Martin was an unknown person in that community (he didn't live there, he was visiting) and he gave the appearance of casing houses in the rain. He also pulled up his hoodie and ran when he was seen. That is all extremely suspicious.
He followed Martin because he was a 6'3" black male acting suspicious in a community he did not live in that had recently been the scene of a lot of crimes involving black males. Honestly, I would have called it in as well. And I probably would've followed him until the police arrived. But I wouldn't have gotten out of my car to follow him on foot, however.
Yes, there were all black men.
No, it doesn't. But anyone who did not live in that area would still be a possible suspect. People who live in an area typically don't commit their crimes in that area - they would be too easy to ID. Trayvon did not live there.
Zimmerman, but clearly in your mind he is a lying racist scumbag and you'll never give any credit to his side - even though as more information comes out, his story looks more and more true.
No - I never said that. But it is very suspicious. After all, if he belonged in that area...why would he bolt when someone saw him?
What if his scenario is partially or completely fabricated (seems likely)? What if instead, Zimmerman was so frustrated that the perpetrators "always get away" and that the cops don't want his help, that he was determined to do this himself (which it seems that he did since he ignored the 911 dispatch). He chases down Martin, gets out of his car, and provokes Martin in some was that elicits a confrontation, leading to a fight. He then feels he has sufficiently baited Martin into having cause to shoot Martin, so he shoots him.
Given what we know of Zimmerman's personality, this seems far more likely than he "lost" Martin, turned around to give up, and Martin was close enough by to jump him, after he had lost him? Why would you run away from someone, successfully get away, and then confront them? That doesn't make any sense.
Because Zimmerman said so? Weren't some of these burglaries when no one was home? How would they know the race of such a person?
By doing what? Was he doing more than walking down the street on his way back to where he was visiting?
None of this is suspicious at all unless he really was going up to houses and peering in the windows, which, unless I'm mistaken, we have no reason to suspect he was.
"He followed Martin because he was a 6'3" black male," is probably the entire idea here. The whole "walking up to windows" thing would be suspicious, but I haven't heard that anywhere else, and it doesn't make sense if Martin was going to the store to get some stuff for himself and someone else, and was on his way home in the rain.
I also find it hard to believe that, if it was raining, Martin didn't already have his hood up.
If you saw someone who you know didn't live at a house walking around and peering in windows, then yes, that is suspicious. However, if you take that away, this is 100% racial profiling. Do we have reason to think that he was walking up to houses and looking in windows on his way home?
I just find comments from Zimmerman to be incredibly unreliable, because he is going to frame everything in such a way as to make himself appear as innocent as possible. I don't think he would do this because he's a bad person, I think almost anyone would and does do this in such a situation, and I would be just as skeptical of their stories.
Because some large guy was chasing him either in his truck, or on foot, and had a gun which he could have been showing. Running away from someone does not display guilt, it shows a strong desire to move away from someone.
You are driving through your community one night, and it is raining out. In recent months, your community has seen a drastic rise in crime - burglaries, muggings, and even a shooting. All apprehended perpetrators were black males. As you're driving, you see a 6'3" black male walking in between houses, looking around and giving off the appearance of casing the houses. When he sees you, he pulls up his hoodie and runs.
What do you do? Do you call the cops and keep an eye on him until they arrive? Or do you tell yourself he's not a criminal and ignore him?
Of course...I don't actually expect you to understand what I'm trying to do with this scenario. So far, you've shown an uncanny ability at ignoring documented facts that don't support your position.
Call the police and let professionals handle the situation.
Of these two possible scenarios the second one (he "lost" Martin, turned around to give up, and Martin was close enough by to jump him) seems orders of magnitude more likely to me...