During the Zimmerman trial, we have had DUers argue for his acquittal, which, of course, happened...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. "He clearly doubled back at some point to confront Zimmerman." Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit.

First of all, you clearly discount the possibility that Trayvon hid out for a minute or two until he felt confident that he lost the strange man who was chasing him for no reason.

Secondly, let's not forget that the shooting occurred on the dog path in the back of the houses. So if in evading Zimmerman, Trayvon ran down the dog path, let's consider a few things. First, it was dark and rainy, with poor visibility. Moreover, it's a townhouse community, with the backs of the connected houses looking nearly identical to one another. Lastly, Trayvon was not a resident of the community, but a guest. He may not have been intimately familiar with the backs of the houses enough to identify which one is the house that he is staying at. There were no house numbers on the back of the house. The house numbers were all on the front of the houses. So wouldn't you agree that if Trayvon had actually been heading back up the dog path, it may have very well been because he wanted to get back over to Retreat View Circle so he could properly identify the house he was staying at?

Last and most importantly, why? Why would someone who was doing nothing wrong that night, and then found himself being followed and chased by a strange person for reasons unknown to him, who then ran away from his pursuer and manage to lose his pursuer, then suddenly change his mind and voluntarily double back and attack the man he worked so hard to escape? That makes zero sense. That's why I could not have voted to acquit Zimmerman, because that's the only story that placed him as a victim and it made no sense at all. It defied all logic. Wouldn't you agree?

Not to mention you make a big deal about supposedly how close Trayvon was to his house and the time that elapsed, but you completely gloss over how close Zimmerman claims he was to his car during that same amount of time, and what he was doing during that time? Or his dubious claim that he got out of the car only to identify the street he was on, despite the fact he had lived in the community for years, that the community only had 3 streets total, and he was the neighborhood watchman presumably familiar with his own neighborhood.

I'm calling total bullshit on your opinion here.