Originally Posted by Bonnie
There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman chased him down or was trying to detain him...where are you getting that from?
A witness stated she saw two men running about 10 feet apart just before the incident. If Martin was chasing Zimmerman don't you think he would have told that?
One of the alternate jurors said that they had the phone records of Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon's girl friend who testified for the state, which shows the time of their calls when this started, etc., and she testified that Trayvon said he was near
his father's fiancÚ's which is at the opposite end of the "T" of the sidewalk where the confrontation started so how does he end up back at the "T" where George Zimmerman is if he didn't backtrack to confront Zimmerman? If Zimmerman "chased" him to where he told Rachel he was, why wasn't the confrontation at that spot? The only thing that makes sense is that Trayvon decided to go back.
"Near" to Martin could have meant in the neighborhood, couldn't it? I mean did he say he was right at the front door? The girlfriend heard the beginning of that confrontation, didn't she? Did she mention Martin running before the scuffle? If not then Martin was lying about where he was or Zimmerman confronted him in front of his father's fiancÚ's place.
The prosecutors (both of them) kept painting a picture of a scared child; if he was so scared, why didn't he walk on to his father's fiancÚ's apt since he was so close to it, why go back if he's so scared of this person? The prosecutors repeatedly called Trayvon a "child" using the word wanting
the jurors to see him as this very young, small, defenseless scared child, if that's the case, what is this "child" doing walking all by himself to the store and back in the pitch black? And it was very very dark at night behind those apts they said. So which is he, the little child they painted him to be or the adult teenager who decided he was bigger than the other guy and could take him?
What kind of person, child, or man he was didn't concern me in this so I will leave that be.
People keep acting like Zimmerman did something wrong or illegal by getting out of his car, that by doing so he deserved the beating he was getting and he should have just taken it like a "man"; but that same thinking can be used when it comes to Trayvon and his bad judgement, not that anyone would dare say that out loud! IMO, they both
made bad judgement calls that led to this avoidable tragedy.
And which bad judgment call did Martin make?
The prosecutors wanted to make their case all about "emotion" because they had no case. As much as these jurors might have wanted to give Trayvon's parent's someone to pay for their son's life, they followed the law, they did their job, a job they didn't ask for.
To me, considering.......
- Zimmerman voices his disgust that they always get away.
- Zimmerman plainly states the boy is running away.
- Zimmerman gets out to pursue Martin.
- Zimmerman has a gun.
- Dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to meet police at the mailboxes and he tells them to call when they get there and he will tell them where he is. That clearly shows he doesn't intend on staying at the car.
-Zimmerman originally said he was getting out of his car to look at a street sign and was walking back to his car. It was no where near his car.
.....I believe Zimmerman kept looking after he hung up with 911. Located Martin, that is when girlfriend heard the beginning of the confrontation, Martin ran. I think Zimmerman chased him and caught him or Martin decided to turn and fight. Then when Zimmerman was losing he got scared and shot the kid.
Of course, I can't prove it. But to me, all the circumstantial evidence points to a forced or at the very least a provoked confrontation with Zimmerman being the clear aggressor.