Juror#8

You don't know that he didn't. It was dark, raining, in a large community, with similar structures, and somewhere where Trayvon had only been "a few times." You don't know that Trayvon didn't go the wrong way. It is entirely plausible and is as plausible as any other scenario. Even if you discount the girlfriend's testimony, Zimmerman himself said that Trayvon was running away. If he ran away from the situation once, why then would he decide to turn around and seek out the situation that, only minutes before, he ran away from? I'm not sure that he was intercepted. I think that, for reasons mentioned in my last two posts, he inadvertenly ran back into Zimmerman. Zimmerman himself said that Trayvon ran away from him. It is plausible given the atmospherics - nighttime, lack of familiarity, on the phone, raining. And why would we he run away, to only minutes later turn around and seek out what he just determined to be a threat, such that he needed to run in the first place? There is something missing.

Exactly, I don't know. That's all I've wanted other's to acknowledge - that they don't know. But the "Trayvon stalking" narrative is unsupported by anything even remotely resembling a fact.

Think about this for a second - you're 17, in a somewhat foreign environment, at night, in the rain, and someone that you don't know is following you for no reason. Better yet, think about someone you know who is 15-18 years old under those circumstances. You don't think that they would be out-of-sorts, disoriented, scared, unsure, fight-or-flight? At night. It's raining. And what if, thinking that they're moving away, they run into the person who has been following him? It's like a scene out of a horror movie. You don't think that sympathetic nervous system would take over? IF this is true, you can't understand why someone, who tried to run, but is back facing a person who has been following him, would get state of nature? You ever see a scared dog back against a wall? I don't know if it is those things are true. But I do know that the girlfriend, who was on the phone with Trayvon, said he was trying to flee. That the girlfriend mentioned that Trayvon mentioned that he was being followed. That Zimmerman himself said that Trayvon was running AWAY from him. That Zimmerman followed him. That Tryvon didn't live there. That is was dark. That it was raining. That it was late. That I would be scared under those circumstances.

You're point presumes that the girlfriend was being untruthful. Otherwise, it becomes an issue for you that Trayvon made repeated statements about being followed and running/fast walking away. You query: ...as if both accounts should be taken equally though they somewhat contradict each other. Why are they not equal and why am I skeptical about about Zimmerman's version of events more so than the girlfirend's? Well, because the girlfriend didn't shoot anyone and the girlfriend's freedom is not contingent upon whether or not people believe her story. EVEN if she has the motivation to stick it to Zimmerman, that motivation is no where near as galvanizing as Zimmerman wanting to ensure his own freedom. That's why.

That's fine. You're entitled to you opinion, and frankly I may agree with you. I can't argue with your sentiment, feeling, or intuition on the matter. But the volume of people who were stating, unequivocally, that Trayvon stalked Zimmerman was RIDICULOUS. And that they used that justify a notion that Trayvon got what he deserved, is suspect and makes you wonder about their individual biases. A "Trayvon stalking" narrative is not supported by ANY evidence. In fact, it is against the weight of evidence as we CURRENTLY understand it.

Everything that I'm seeing suggests that Trayvon did, or tried to, or, at one point, was fleeing - and that he acknowledged the need to get away from someone who was following him. The ONLY witness statement on the matter supports that: http://viewfromll2.c...-martins-death/ Approx. 7:12pm [+ or - 59 seconds off of 7:12pm, from the time as recorded by Zimmerman's call to police. Exact time unknown]: The original phone call that Trayvon made to Dee, which lasted 18 minutes, is disconnected. Almost immediately after that phone call ends, DeeDee calls Trayvon back. He answers, and DeeDee reports that he says to her, “I think this dude is following me.” She says that she tells him “Run!” and that Trayvon responded that he’s not going to run, he’s just going to walk fast. What now GG? More cartography? Want to find some more theories to blame the deceased?

This is really sad and I hope that you've considered what you're saying, and how inconsiderately you're acting (in consideration of the subject matter). People just shouldn't act in this neanderthalic way around a subject matter of this particular depth and moment. As I said, "blithley": http://viewfromll2.c...-martins-death/ 6:54pm: Trayvon makes a call to “DeeDee,” a minor female that has been reported as his girlfriend. He is using a headset, walking home on his way back from the store after grabbing a snack and a drink, and he has been on the phone with DeeDee since he left there. According to DeeDee, it begins to rain, and he takes shelter at one of the buildings in the townhouse complex, while the two continue to chat. The referenced building is possibly the awning marked in purple on the above image. 7:04pm: An unknown individual makes a call to Trayvon while Trayvon is still talking to DeeDee. Unlike both Trayvon and DeeDee, this individual is not using a phone on a T-Mobile phone plan. Trayvon apparently puts DeeDee on hold, and then answers the new call in order to speak briefly to the new caller. This conversation lasts anywhere between 1 second and 59 seconds. After, Trayvon switches his call back to DeeDee. This phone call between DeeDee and Trayvon is recorded as having a duration of 18 minutes — which means from connection to termination, it was somewhere between 17 min, 0 seconds and 17 min, 59 seconds. Although the T-Mobile call times are imprecise, it would appear the call is disconnected at around 7:12pm. 7:09:34 pm: Zimmerman, in his truck, spots Trayvon. He calls the non-emergency dispatch number for the police, and the call log records his call as connecting with dispatch at 7:09:34pm. [Note: Relevant log begins on page 46.] He reports a suspicious black male in neighborhood. An recording of Zimmerman’s police call . Zimmerman states “The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.” Zimmerman meant to say 1111 Retreat View Circle. It appears that Trayvon is around the clubhouse when Zimmerman’s call to police begins, at the intersection of Retreat View and Twin Trees. This is consistent with DeeDee’s claims that Trayvon was hanging out under a complex building to take shelter from the rain. Everything that I'm seeing suggests that he did, or tried to, or, at one point, was - and that he acknowledged the need to get away from someone who was following him. The ONLY witness statement on the matter supports that: http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/05/minute-by-minute-timeline-of-trayvon-martins-death/ Approx. 7:12pm [+ or - 59 seconds off of 7:12pm, from the time as recorded by Zimmerman's call to police. Exact time unknown]: The original phone call that Trayvon made to Dee, which lasted 18 minutes, is disconnected. Almost immediately after that phone call ends, DeeDee calls Trayvon back. He answers, and DeeDee reports that he says to her, “I think this dude is following me.” She says that she tells him “Run!” and that Trayvon responded that he’s not going to run, he’s just going to walk fast. What now GG? More cartography? Want to find some more theories to blame the deceased?

Check out this minute-by-minute account: http://viewfromll2.c...-martins-death/ It may be worth fact-checking to ensure accuracy, but it just appears to me, as if Martin was trying to flee Zimmerman and they circled back to one another inadvertently. His girlfriend , on the ohone with him, and the only one who has any knowledge of Martin's state of mind during that interim period, has said that Tryavon was saying things like: Approx. 7:12pm [+ or - 59 seconds off of 7:12pm, from the time as recorded by Zimmerman's call to police. Exact time unknown]: The original phone call that Trayvon made to Dee, which lasted 18 minutes, is disconnected. Almost immediately after that phone call ends, DeeDee calls Trayvon back. He answers, and DeeDee reports that he says to her, “I think this dude is following me.” She says that she tells him “Run!” and that Trayvon responded that he’s not going to run, he’s just going to walk fast. Read that entire accounting. It just seems like there is more to this story than meets the eye. I'm NOT saying you 3rd, but I think there are a few people here giving Zimmerman an odd benefit of the doubt that he doesn't deserve. I can't place my finger on why though I suspect what the issue is. But before I started asking questions in this thread, people were universally responding to me that Trayvon had attacked Zimmerman. That's sad. And not a fact. He fleed Zimmerman for a reason. And when the stakes are this high, no one should be conferred that benefit. The process needs to play out fairly.

I quoted my statement. You very clearly see the use of the word "apparently." I even defined "apparent" for you so that you could see that the statement presupposed incomplete evidence, and an incomplete understanding of the issue. Not sure what else I can do. I never blamed Zimmerman. I only said that the last thing we know for sure was that he got out of his vehicle to follow Trayvon. Something happened (that no one knows) between Zimmerman following Trayvon and the altercation happening. With respect to "take his ass whoopin," I VERY clearly stated that the reasonable 35 year old 190 lb. man would not have an apprehension of serious bodily injury or worse from a 150 lb. 17 year old dude punching him. He has hands and can defend himself. So he should have FOUGHT BACK, or, take an ass whoopin. But shooting the kid was the B word way out. That is not "hood ethos." That is a man talking. Sorry IF you weren't raised to defend yourself with your bare hands. I bet if it happens in a bar in you local watering hole it's just "good ole' boys being rowdy." But then again, those Joe Americans wouldn't have stalked anyone to fight them (and of course Trayvon did and you can prove it, right?) Anyway... You're trying to create my argument for me again, and then debate a bastardized point. You don't have to ascribe words to me, just read what I said yesterday: You're literally making things up. You're lying to fit a narrative. I've told you (supported with my actual words) what I've said, and you're comfortable with these bastardized interpretations that you enjoy arguing against. MY words again: How do you know that Zimmerman didn't continue following Trayvon, they encountered one another, a fisticuff ensued, Zimmerman felt he was over-matched and ran in a different direction where the matter escalated. There were quite a few minutes between when the call ended and when police arrived. You are the only one assuming facts. I just say that "I don't know" and move on. Again, you are the ONLY one assuming anything. And you are trying to protect those whose assumptions are in league with yours. To the point that you're actually criticizing me for saying "draw no assumptions," "let the facts develop," "we don't know what happened." As between you and I, you are the only one fixated with this point. It doesn't concern me in the least. But it serves as the foundation for your bias so champion it.

A little GGG huh? Ok, I can plug in to that.

How do you know this? Simple question. Just give me a simple answer. We'll try this one more time? I haven't disrespected you. Show the same courtesy. Otherwise, just don't respond to my posts. You wouldn't say it to my face. Why be disingenuous here? How do you know this? Simple question. Your entire post is based on a singular assumption that you don't know to be true but yet you refuse to let go of: Assumption: Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman de-escalated the confrontation and was returning to his vehicle. How do you know that to be true and why do you assume it? *If you make your response personal again, just do us both a favor and save the response. I'm trying to keep it respectful with you. Hopefully you can contain your emotions and just answer my simple question* WHAT ASSAULT COMMITTED BY MARTIN?!?!?! How do you know that Zimmerman didn't encounter Trayvon again, push or swing at him, and then get his ass kicked. An "assault" is a legal term that doesn't mean someone was punched in the face. It requires "intent." How can you ascribe "intent" to Martin if you don't know what transpired priorly? And are you sure you don't mean "battery"? Anyway, same point applies. The only people presuming anything here is you and everyone else who keeps saying that Martin assaulted anyone. PROVE IT! It is unbelieveable that people can literally create a narrative, say it enough times, and then address it as fact. I HAVE BEEN THE ONLY ONE SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWING MARTIN AND THE SUBSEQUENT ALTERCATION. 10 other people here speak on that interim period as if they know factually what happened. And, to add insult to injury, they use their SUPPOSITION to substantiate why Zimmerman was justified in his actions. It feels like the fu(king "Twilight Zone" in here.

Wai...wai...wai...wai...wait..... You said this: That, according to you, is justified because I said this: Despite this: And this: And this: And this: And this: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... That you cherry pick ONE statement, that I preface with "apparently," to prove your sweeping statement that I was in league with the 'supposed' media witch hunt of Zimmerman (even though I say clearly in one post that the media is "off base") is ridiculous. Just in case you were unaware, apparently (second definition), in this context, means: ap·par·ent adjective according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual: He was the apparent winner of the election. So now what? Did you miss that the first time around? Still sticking to your statement? Your statement grows increasingly more suspect when you read my countless posts saying clearly "GIVE THE GUY A FAIR SHAKE." What of those? Oh, I get it, why ruin a perfectly good hypothesis by acknowledging the existence of myriad contrary data points. That's why, in response to my earlier mention of the counteless posts that run contrary to your statement, you ignore them and say [paraphrasing] "what about post #2." Ok, I'll take your post #2, and raise you post #112, #240, #267, #335, #343, #369, and a few others. It appears as if you and B-Man (who I'm convinced can only interpret information if it comports with his pre-determined view of the issue - which is why he won't touch any point that I just made above; he'll just wait for someone else to make a witty comment and then piggy back) just want to advance an agenda instead of making square points. It's odd that you would have taken that approach given that your response to me initially was a very cogent point about the community maps that, per usual, I acknowledged as evidentiary, and possibly affecting the disposition of the case. I don't expect anything substantive from B-Man. But I'm very surprised at your approach to this.

Where? How? When? I was the one saying TIME AND TIME AGAIN that threre was a lot of information left to surface and that the process should unfold. Not that I expect you to retract the statement - you'll just find a way around it but, here goes anyway: Keep in mind that the thread was created on March 20 On March 20th, I said: "1. Who started the struggle - the only one who knows that is Zimmerman (assuming that if there were eye-witnesses with substantive details it would have led to Zimmerman's arrest). The court, though, is obliged to draw inferences based on circumstantial data." Post#112 On March 23rd, I said: "The fact is, there are still some outstanding issues that need to be brought to light. I tend to think that, at least presumptively, Zimmerman is culpable for an illegal act because: -He appears to have ignored the admonitions of police during the 911 phone call -He had a weapon and appeared to have adjudicated the matter in his mind (based on his comments to 911 dispatcher) -He couldn't point to anything that Martin was doing wrong during the call. Martin wasn't encroaching on someone else's property, nor was he randomly looking into vehicles. In fact, there was nothing said that indicated that he was doing anything that would even justify a simple Terry stop. So based on these CIRCUMSTANTIAL things, and without the benefit of any additional info, Zimmerman is gonna be on the hook for some kind of criminal offense." On March 25th, I said: Juror#8 - Post 240 "The man definitely deserves a fair trial. If there is a trial, there needs to be a venue change. The local jury pool is probably tainted. I hope the judge closes off the proceedings and sequesters the jury and puts a gag order on everyone. It will be a sad if Sharpton begins broadcasting his show from the courthouse doors. This matter needs to be properly and fairly adjudicated." On March 26th, I said in Post# 267: "White folks seem to have either said that Zimmerman's innocent, or they've said let the judicial process take it's course and arrive at a fair determination. Black folks seem to be almost entirely of the opinion that Zimmerman has already been adjudicated and was found "guilty." No real trial. No due process. The irony is that for hundreds of years black folks fought for due process under the law - especially in states that traditionally usurped that kind of fair and institutionalized jurisprudence. It really should be black folks who are at the proverbial head of the "give the man a fair trial" class." Post #335 - March 27: "At the end of the day, NOTHING has changed. As mentioned above, if it is true that Martin took a punch at him or that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, it doesn't really impact the above considerations ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon." Those claiming that the scales are tipping toward Zimmerman and Martin advocates are being somehow exposed as "wrong" fundamentally misunderstand the law and the how these circumstances fit within the law's complex tapestry. The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too." Post #343 "Secondly, IF Zimmerman hurled a racial slur at Martin, in concert with him following him, without an articulable crime having been committed, at night, against the admonition of police, replete with a weapon - it is going to create, at least, a rebuttable presumption of Zimmerman being the initial aggressor." Post#369 "I, like everyone else, have their opinions based on the evidence that has been put forth to date. But I have been careful to distinguish MY OPINION from black letter law and analysis of that law. In fact, my opinion hasn't even settled. I don't have any opinion about Zimmerman's criminal guilt or innocence. If certain things come to fruition, that may change. As of now, I believe the same thing that I believed a week ago when I wrote my first post on this matter: -He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation -He went against the admonition of the police entity and followed a gentleman who didn't commit an articulable crime -He is bigger than Martin (which is only relevant in a proportionality context) -He had a weapon; Martin didn't" What does it say about you that you'd make that kind of statement in the face of all this contrary evidence? Maybe you're hung up on me calling him a "thug." I still think that. Zimmerman shot a kid who was going upside his head instead of fighting like a man. Again, you said this: Reading the posts that I've quoted, is that really how you feel? You still think that's a fair statement?

When I was playing the race card. You mentioned "hood ethic." Are playgrounds in the "hood"? Do people only play basketball or football in the "hood"? Do people only fight in the "hood"? If not, where did that come from and how did it find it's way into our conversation. It appears as if you're the only one playing the race card. And on top of that, you're playing the playing of the race card. Oh and it sucks that you don't like the way I speak/write. But I also didn't ask you to respond to me. Who jumped whom? Same question I asked Meazza, why are you giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt that Trayvon jumped him? Isn't the only thing that we know factually that Zimmerman followed Trayvon? Why would you assume this additional information? What about the situation or the two gentlemen themselves allows you to comfortably assume facts not in evidence? I believe that the only place that you and I differ is whether or not Zimmerman should have reacted with that level of force. Based on the circumstances, their relative height/weights, and in consideration that prior to Zimmerman using deadly force, the struggle's pinnacle was Trayvon punching Zimmerman in the face, it doesn't seem that Zimmerman's actions were warranted or that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would feel that their life was in danger such that deadly force was necessary to repel the threat. No. I wasn't pandering to race. I actually don't think that it has a place in this discussion and would prefer to leave it out. If you're referring to my point to Jauronimo, see my recent response to him. If it was the tounge-and-cheek comment to Meazza, notice I never mentioned race and was actually tip toeing around a response that he made about Jewish-Italian Americans (or something to that affect). I am firmly anti-Al Sharpton (see some of my comments about him in past posts). You are right, hoodie and young black male is a common description for perpetrators of crimes. Yes, Trayvon did fit the description and I would be on guard too if my gated community had a young punk with a hoodie hanging around looking aloof. I don't blame Zimmerman for that. You'll find that we agree on many of these same points. My only beef is around how the matter culminated and why. And it bothers me that for all the calls of certainty, fairness, bias, etc., there is a comfortability amongst some people here stating highly suspect points: 1. Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman. 2. Zimmerman's head was bashed on concrete. And NO ONE is calling the statements, or the people, out for making them. Excellent point and it begins to shed some light on what I feel is the dispositive issue - "what happened that led to the physical confrontation?" Your statement at least acknowledges that there is NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman and, if anything, it is a point that should be submitted to a fact finder to be considered based on the circumstantial evidence (the rain, the map, how long Trayvon had to return, etc.) With that said, I'd like to delve into this point deeper because, circumstantially, it will tend to lend credibility to, or adversely affect, Zimmerman's statement of the events. I don't know how many times Trayvon had been there, and at night, and with the rain; he could have easily found himself walking in circles, back at the same point, and Zimmerman yelling out at him "___________________" On the other hand, Trayvon could have stalked Zimmerman back to that location and pounced. I have said, ONLY, that we don't know. Everyone else is talking as if they do know and it is collectively against Trayvon. Why? And since we don't know, why were people so comfortable with accepting Zimmerman's version of events while in the same breath crying about media bias.

I don't care about the media. I think that they are skapegoat for people to react, on both sides, irrationally, and forego sound judgment. I care about this conversation with You, Jauronimo, B-Man, and Chef. Using the media provides an excuse to ascribe arguments to others based on their biases. I have no dog in this race. I think a few things about this matter that I have stated, and restated: 1. Trayvon was blithely walking through the community. 2. Zimmerman followed/chased/pursued him. 3. Something happened after Zimmerman began pursuing Trayvon that led to an altercation (no one here knows what that something was but everyone seems to be giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt about it) 4. Zimmerman got his ass kicked by Trayvon as a result of whatever happened in #3. 5. Zimmerman shot Tryavon. I think that those are fair facts. Please tell me where I said anything different than that. I have only opined when discussing WHY ZIMMERMAN DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOOT TRAYVON. In that context, I've mentioned that fights happened often. That THE ONLY THING WE KNOW FOR SURE is that the inciting incident was Zimmerman exiting his car in pursuit of a young man who was doing nothing criminally wrong. That Zimmerman could have fought the younger, lighter boy like a man. Otherwise, he should have taken his ass whoopin and both could have lived to fight another day. That the pictures of the back of Zimmerman's head didn't suggest AT ALL that his head was slammed into concrete. And most importantly, that the reasonable 190 lb. 35 year old man shouldn't have been afraid for life and limb from a fist fight with a 150 lb. 17 year old. I have opined nothing else. is there anything about those points that is decidedly unfair or biased? Anything I missed? If anything, the bias is towards valuing life.

I was just refuting Chef's point that his head was being bashed in. The pictures just don't show that to be the case. It shows a man who was on the ground being punched and getting his ass whooped. Because you've stated on numerous occassions that Trayvon subsequently attacked Zimmerman. You state it as fact but that is just Zimmerman's account. I just wanted to know why you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? Just a point about B-Man. Read my exchange with him and enjoy the devolution of his point (especially read the part about what I have and haven't said in this exchange and his response to that).

Again, you're willing to accept Zimmerman's version of events expressly. We know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Where do you get that Trayvon confronted him and instigated the attack? What witness do we have substantiating that? Or maybe because his parents are from the islands? Or maybe because he wore a hoodie? Or maybe your dislike for people grows in proportion to the darkness of their skin. Who knows? Thank you for proving my point - in more ways than one. Because he was punched. No one, not even Zimmerman, suggested that he was on his stomach, face down, and his face was being bashed into the ground. No one is refuting that he was punched (which explains the broken nose). Does that picture substantiate Zimmerman's account that his head was being smashed/smacked/thumped into concrete?

Any pictures of his head being bashed in? Call em out Meazza. B-Man. DCTom. Oh, you're referring to these scratches/abrasions: http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rtr328bf.jpg Gotcha.

No. My name makes sense. But because I like games as much as the next guy, tell me how my arguments here substantiates that request for a name change. I've emphasized facts. BUT acknowledged when I wasn't sure about something. AND Made clear when I was opining. But this is coming from the guy who, like MEAZZA, hasn't called one person out for the "thumping/slamming" head against concrete narrative that is inconsistent with every post-incident photo. Why? Meazza? Anyone? Can you link me to where you called those assertions out? Thoughts? Meazza? Anyone? DCTom? But I guess that is just me needing to be right.

Do you know what happened after Zimmerman followed Trayvon? Intereresting, neither do I. But we do know that there was a status quo ante point of Zimmerman in his zone, Trayvon in his zone, and no altercations between them. We also know that Zimmerman broke that unsteady peace. We know further that SOMETHING about Zimmerman's activity (leaving his vehicle to pursue Travon) led to an altercation. You're willing to give the person who left his vehicle in pursuit the benefit of the doubt but not the person who at one point in time,was standing around minding his own business. I wonder why... Did you gather that from me saying that Trayvon whooped Zimmerman's ass? How "victim-like" does that sound to you? Oh you must be coming down with a case of "ifsomeoneisnotavictimtheyshouldbeshot." It appears as if you just ascribed an argument point to me and decided to debate it. Otherwise tell me where I said Trayvon was a victim. If you can't, do the stand up thing and PM me with a "my bad."

What was the opinion and what was said to justify it? Just want to make sure that we're discussing the same points. Because based on your statement, it appears that you just wanted to contribute and there is nothing that you can precisely refute with facts.

An "ass whoopin" may be a reasonable response to someone following, antagonizing, making statements, hollering after, or whichever the case may be. I said clearly that I didn't know what happened in the intervening time between George getting off the phone and the altercation happening. But since Trayvon didn't bother George, and George approached, followed, chased, Trayvon, then it's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that there was something about Zimmerman's activities that led to the struggle. Because by Zimmerman's own admission, when he was in his vehicle, Trayvon was either standing aloofly or blithely walking through the community. That was the status quo ante before Zimmerman decided to intercede - blithely walking through the community or standing/staring aloofly. Fighting on the playground is not different. It's two dudes throwing them thangs. And you missed the point - no reasonable person should think that a (comparatively) smaller and spindly boy (and he looks, even in his recent pics, like a boy), fighting ONLY with his fists, is going to pose threat to a larger man's life and limb SUCH THAT THE LARGER MAN CAN ONLY USE DEADLY FORCE TO REPEL THE THREAT OF FISTS FLYING AT HIS FACE. Zimmerman, at the time of arrest was about 190 lbs. Trayvon, from best that I can determine, was about 150lbs. That is a 40 pound weight difference (give or take 5 lbs.). You can romanticize your "black people must be life sucking aggressors" theme all you want. It doesn't alter the reality of fact. What is "hood ethics"? Is that something that we black people understand instinctively OR since we all grow up in the "hood" does it just stick to our tabula rasa at some point between when our mother's are smoking crack and scamming welfare checks and when our dad's are pimping "hoes," stealing cable, and having illegitimate children? Get back to me on that one. And yes, the bolded point was speculation - as evidenced by the use of the word "probably." No I didn't. I just cut and pasted really quickly the definition. But since it fits within you and DC Tom's overall narrative of "have to be rightism," then we'll go with it. But you do realize that your definition makes my point, right? Or how about this one: Chase 1 a : to follow rapidly : pursue b : hunt c : to follow regularly or persistently with the intention of attracting or alluring 2 obsolete : harass 3 : to seek out —often used with down <detectives chasing down clues> 4 : to cause to depart or flee : drive <chase the dog out of the garden> 5 : to cause the removal of (a baseball pitcher) by a batting rally 6 : to swing at (a baseball pitched out of the strike zone

No worries bro. Just wanted to articulate, as artfully as possible, and in fairness to the anatomy of the gun firing process, what is happening so at least I know that disagreement with my point wouldn't owe to overly bland descriptions. Unbelieveable. Thomas Raynesford Lounsbury once said: "One must view with profound respect, the capacity of the human mind..." Eh, whatever....

By his own admission, yes he did. Chase verb (used without object) 5. to follow in pursuit: to chase after someone. 6. to rush or hasten: We spent the weekend chasing around from one store to another. Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running? Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood. Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards? Zimmerman: The back entrance...!@#$ing [disputed/unintelligible] Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah. Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Okay. Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name? Zimmerman: George...He ran. Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name? Zimmerman: Zimmerman. Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from? Zimmerman: [redacted] Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there? Zimmerman:: Yeah. Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at? Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of? Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through so I don't know the address. Dispatcher: Okay. Do you live in the area? Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible] I'm about to rise to the level of my Juror#8 ("Davis") namesake. To my knowledge there wasn't a single witness that said that Zimmerman's head was being thumped against the ground. Not the women who lived two stories above where the incident happened. Not Mary Cutcher. Not the dog walker. Not the man who took pictures of Zimmerman post incident. Not Selma Lamilla. Zimmerman said that Trayvon was doing ________. But the scratches/abrasions on Zimmerman's head are not consistent with being slammed against cement: http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rtr328bf.jpg Those are scratches consistent with getting his ass kicked, someone punching him in the face, and his head getting scratched up as he endeavored to avoid the punches or get up. That is not the type of laceration that you'd expect to see when skin is interacting violently with concrete. The vogue thing to do right now is to take Zimmerman at face value because he had a bloody nose, a busted lip, and some scratches on his head. Many kids throughout America on the football field, on the basetball court, and in fisticuffs on the playground at 3:00 after school experience worse EVERYDAY. They're not fearing for their life and they don't react the way Zimmerman did. Trayvon would have stood up, called Zimmerman a punk ass biatch, laughed, and went about his way. Zimmerman would have had a well whooped ass. But they both would have lived to fight another day. Except that Zimmerman couldn't take his ass whoopin, couldn't fight back, and instead escalated a situation that he precipitated, into some final judgment because he was salty. Not sure that that is fair.

Of the 4 that I own, the only one that I haven't used at the local range is my Israeli military issued Glock 19 - and only because it hasn't arrived yet. Why do you ask?