An amazing video detailing the murder of Trayvon Martin

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. "Big city teenager" talk aside....

Think about it for a second. You allege that Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman was the one acting out of fear. It's not too hard to draw reasonable inferences here. Let's look at Person A and Person B.

Person A: Walking back from the store where he bought snacks. He's in a neighborhood that not actually his own home neighborhood and that he's not completely familiar with. Other than the family that he's staying with, he doesn't know anyone in the neighborhood. He hasn't actually done anything that could be considered criminal activity. He sees a car slowly follow him as he's walking back. Then he sees the driver get out of the car and start to chase him. He has no idea who this person is or why he would be chasing him.

Person B: Lived in the neighborhood for several years. Appointed himself neighborhood watchman of the area. Has a CCW. Repeatedly made calls to police about various activity in the neighborhood, some of which was criminal, some of which wasn't. Sees Person A. Doesn't actually witness Person A do anything that could be construed criminal, but still calls the police. Tells dispatch that Person A is "up to no good" and "looks like he's on drugs" based solely on the way that he is walking (putting aside for a minute Person A's demographics and how that might playing into profiling, just to give Person B the benefit of the doubt.) He knows police are on the way; he called them. He still decides to get out of the car, armed with a gun. As he gets out of the car, he says, "These assholes, they always get away' and "fucking punks" (again, benefit of the doubt there.) When dispatch asks if he is following Person A, he says yes. Dispatch tells him he shouldn't. Tells dispatch to have police call him instead of meeting him at his car.

These are all pretty much indisputable facts in evidence, leaving out areas where it is more speculative.

Now, you tell me , based on those two profiles, who is more logically likely to be the aggressor, Person A or Person B? Be honest.

You can talk about "testosterone" "libido", "pride" and "lack of good sense" all you like. Perhaps if Zimmerman and Martin both lived in the same neighborhood and had some prior beef with one another, and Zimmerman started chasing him one night and lost him, then it might make sense that Trayvon doubled back to start a fight. But these two were total strangers. Trayvon had no idea whatsoever who Zimmerman was, why he was chasing him, or what his intentions were. Unless Trayvon Martin was just a raving lunatic prone to attacking strangers (no evidence of that being the case), it would make no sense for him to double back and attack his pursuer after having lost him. None. Testosterone can't explain that basic common sense away.

Regarding your question, even before I saw this video I believe it was quite possible that, after having lost Zimmerman, Trayvon may have hid out for a couple of minutes, just to make sure the coast was clear before continuing to head home. It would make sense to wait a minute or two before re-exposing yourself out in the open, where you had just been chased.

This is all classic flight or fight psychology, basically innate to the human sense regardless of who you are. Whether you are a grown adult, or, in your words, a "big city teenager."