We don’t know what happened physically between the two. Not even the eyewitnesses seem to be sure what happened.
All we know is a “self-appointed neighborhood watchman” became suspicious of a teen in his neighborhood, pursued him, confronted him, and shot and killed him. We also know that the teen was unarmed and that he hadn’t committed a crime, and all accounts so far say he had no criminal record.
OTOH, reports state that the “watchman” himself had been in trouble with the police.
Remember the story of Joe Horn, the man in Texas who shot and killed two men who’d just broken into his neighbor’s home? For the record, I was completely in support of what he did. But, this story is quite different. This teen hadn’t committed a crime. For all we know, he might’ve been afraid of the man following him. He himself might’ve been acting in self-defense. Whatever the case, he cannot tell us his side of the story now.
Actually, we do not seem to know much at all about the “confronted” part.
We also do not know exactly what happened between the two.
The young black man ended up dead, so he is not telling us his side of the story.
The young Hispanic man called the police, and the police tell us that his story about self defense is completely consistent with the physical evidence.
Their histories suggest the possibility of aggression from each.
When confronted with conflicting stories, it is usually best to go with the physical evidence.
In fact, we do not even have conflicting stories here. We only have one side, and that is consistent with the physical evidence.
Does anyone think that it is out of the realm of possibility that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman without legal justification?
Does anyone think that it is impossible that George Zimmerman provoked the attack?
I think we have to go with the physical evidence.
The only so-called eyewitnesses I’ve seen are a couple of women who allegedly heard the altercation- and one of them said it had to be the kid screaming because it stopped after the shot was fired. The family’s attorney claims it’s a young voice calling for help. I’m betting the kid is a troublemaker, but the media will ignore this and interview every person in that complex who doesn’t like Zimmerman. Do I think Zimmerman killed with malice of intent? Of course not. Zimmerman probably approached the kid and asked what he was up to. The kid gave him some lip, attacked him, there was a scuffle for the gun, Zimmerman won. 10 to 1 Zimmerman gets hit with major charges, though. His life, as he once knew it, is over.
We don't know, nor do we have reason to suspect, that Martin committed any crimes that night before his encounter with Zimmerman.
Apparently Zimmerman is claiming that Martin attacked him and that the shooting was self defense.
If Martin attacked Zimmerman then this was a crime.
OTOH, reports state that the “watchman” himself had been in trouble with the police.
Mr. Zimmerman's claim (which is consistent with the physical evidence) is that he was assaulted by the "kid". What part of assault is not a crime in your world?
Again, the "watchman" had been arrested, but the charges had been dropped. When the charges were dropped any claims that he has "been in trouble" became false.