“Being “unfamiliar” to Zimmerman was the only offense. The deceased had every reason to be in the neighborhood because he LIVED THERE. I was not aware that people had to check in with Zimmerman every time they walked the streets.”
Martin did not live there. He was visiting.
“Whoa fella you missed a couple of points: Zimmerman started FOLLOWING the deceased because in Zimmerman’s mind the person was “suspicious”. Zimmerman made that admission to the police dispatcher. The question is on what grounds did he reach this conclusion? Has anyone asked him that? Had he witnessed a crime that caused him to be suspicious of the deceased?”
I just read the transcript. Zimmerman says “Oh sh*t he’s running”, and exits the truck. He does mention Martin behaving suspiciously. Read the transcript.
“In sight of where? Was the deceased still walking down the street and Zimmerman is moving from cover to cover to, as he puts it, “keeping him in sight”? Where was Zimmerman doing the observing from? The truck or on foot?”
Zimmerman was observing Martin from the truck. Martin runs. Zimmerman exits the truck to continue observing.
“If Zimmerman was so curious wanted information on the deceased why didn’t he just drive up to the person and ID himself as the friendly neighborhood watch and tell him “...I have not seen you around here before, do you live here?” Its that simple. I have asked people that question myself in a non-threatening manner.Zimmerman’s story does not add up here”
Perhaps Zimmerman was just observing because he did not want to confront Martin with questions and risk violence? (he does mention seeing something in Martin’s waistband - perhaps he fears it may be a gun?)
“Now you have made the leap into fantasy because there is NO EVIDENCE to support this conclusion you are posting.”
Umm the evidence would be Zimmerman’s own statement of which there is nothing to contradict. Furthermore, I specifically said that what I presented was a possible scenario unlike you that presents possible scenarios as evidence.
“In order for your conclusion to work, the deceased would have to reverse the surveillance Zimmerman was conducting on him and somehow see Zimmerman and his truck. Then he would have to decide to FOLLOW Zimmerman back to his truck and start a fight.”
I presented a scenario not a conclusion. You’re the one making conclusions (based on no evidence I might add) “Reverse surveillance”? You mean like hiding around a corner and seeing Zimmerman returning to his truck? Where do you live? In a cave? You’ve never experienced youth anger due to “not giving them respect”? Please.
“it seems that somehow there was contact created by Zimmerman BEFORE returning to the truck that caused a physical struggle to ensue.”
Again where’s the proof? Pure speculation on your part.
“So he says as he tries to save his own skin”
You wouldn’t defend yourself?
“I shot so many holes in this silly idea of yours that even you now don’t believe it. Zimmerman was not arrested because he did not tell the whole story and was a friend of the cops on the force. This is why the police chief has stepped aside and tried to wash his hands of the whole situation. But the truth will come out and Zimmerman has some explaining to do.”
You did nothing of the sort. Judging by your previous posts you’d have trouble outwitting my 10 year old niece. Zimmerman was not arrested because the evidence supported his story. The burden is not on him to prove his innocence. It is on people like you to prove his guilt. Speculation and conjecture aren’t going to cut it. Come up with some proof and get back to me.