Looking at the undisputed facts in the Zimmerman case and applying Zimmerman's original story

[Tommy_Carcetti]

129. I think you are glossing over the fact that Trayvon was doing nothing wrong that evening.

Last edited Tue May 22, 2012, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

There's been no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon was doing anything except walking home from the 7-11 after buying some candy and an iced tea. None. On the 911 tapes, Zimmerman himself never said that Trayvon was peaking into windows or cars or anything. All we heard from him was that he was supposedly "up to no good."

So immediately we have to question Zimmerman's judgment. Immediately.

But let's line up the negatives as to the two players in this situation.

Trayvon Martin
*Suspended from school after apparent non-violent behavioral issues
*Had THC (not a natural aggressor) in his system, we don't know from when
*Evidence that he was engaged in a physical scuffle with George Zimmerman, witnesses statements contradict as to whether he was on top or on bottom.

George Zimmerman
*Prior arrest for battery on a police officer, charges were dropped after pre-trial diversion
*Subject of a restraining order by a former girlfriend
*At least one documented instance of having harassed an ethnic minority in his workplace, resulting in his termination
*Would frequently pepper 911 over neighborhood issues, mostly minor non-emergency concerns
*Chose to actively pursue Trayvon Martin on the night in question, despite no clear evidence of any wrongdoing on Martin's part
*The only individual armed with a weapon on the night in question
*Carried his weapon on his person while engaged in neighborhood watch duties in contravention to normal neighborhood watch SOP
*Was recorded on tape that evening saying "These assholes always get away" and "Fucking punks" (and I'll give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt that he said punks and not something more inflammatory)
*Evidence that he was engaged in a physical scuffle with Trayvon Martin, witnesses statements contradict as to whether he was on top or on bottom.
*Chose not only to display his weapon on the night in question, but to pull the trigger and shoot Martin
*Had several prescription drugs in his system on the night in question

You line those two up, and it is pretty clear that the tendancy towards rash and reckless behavior skews in favor of Zimmerman more so than it does Trayvon.

And sure, physical altercations sometimes begin with little more than a scowl or a short word or two, but rarely do they almost immediately turn violent unless the perpetrator has a known history of violent behavior. Which simply did not exist with Trayvon Martin. Whether it existed with George Zimmerman, I don't know.

Listen, I think there certainly was a physical struggle between Zimmerman and Martin. Who threw the first punch? I have no idea. My guess is there was some extended verbal argument that deteriorated into a physical fight. But the notion that Trayvon Martin hid out and ambushed Zimmerman and almost immediately began beating him after an extremely minimal verbal interaction just doesn't jive with the facts. And when that doesn't jive with the facts, it means that Zimmerman lied to police. And you have to ask why.

Finally, a question and answer.

Q: What does Shawn Tyson have to do with Trayvon Martin?
A. Absolutely nothing.

I don't know the details of the Shawn Tyson case, I don't know Shawn Tyson's background or any prior criminal history on his part, but one thing is for sure. He is a totally seperate person from Trayvon Martin, and shame on you for needlessly trying to draw a connection where you damn know there isn't one.