All we have are speculative scenarios. Here's one that fits what we know - which is that Martin took steps to avoid a confrontation (he ran) and Zimmerman took active steps to close the gap (he got out of his car and followed)...
Zimmerman and Martin, either by design of one or my pure bad luck for both of them, find themselves face to face. Martin is angry at being followed. Zimmerman is intimidated and either reaches for or shows the gun. If this happened (and it is as likely as any scenario) then Martin had every right to beat the stalker with the gun into submission.
My thinking on this is that Zimmerman is a jerk who got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.
That’s a real ninja move. Taking a poke at a guy who (according to your theory) flashed his piece stuffed in his waistband, then jumping on top. Maybe if Trayvon was as high as a kite (impaired judgment) he might go for it, but...
My thinking on this is that you're reading your own biases into this story big-time.
I don't know where you get off insinuating that a person has no right to follow a suspicious person. And it has turned out that Martin is no angel, was a pot smoker (which can be very expensive) and had been suspended for possession of burglary tools. Dots to connect if you are so inclined that Martin may very well have been doing something other than innocently walking home from the 7-11.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal or improper in this episode. And the thug culture mindset that Martin clearly had started to embrace is entirely consistent with Zimmerman's version of Martin confronting Zimmerman for following him - and then attacking him for no good or legal reason.
So yeah, we can't get Martin's version of events or close all the gaps with irrefutable evidence. But we have data points to weigh Zimmerman's story. And ALL the points so far back his version of events. The only reason he is charged is political cowardice and expediency, because the evidence gets nowhere near a civil preponderence standard, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
A pretty sorry statement of the position the prosecutors (and you) are taking here - that Zimmerman bears any kind of culpability for what happened. And if I were you, I would take pause in the fact that you are on the same side as the folks on the left braying for changes to Stand Your Ground and self-defense legal rights.
According to Zimmerman's version, he had lost sight of Martin when suddenly Martin came up to him from behind. If he had tried to run, Martin could have caught him, but if he didn't know Martin was about to knock him down, and he expected the cops to be there any moment, why should he run? He didn't know if Martin was armed.
Again according to Zimmerman, it was only after they were on the ground and Martin was beating him up that Martin saw his gun and tried to grab it. If he had succeeded, Zimmerman would be dead, and no one outside of Sanford, FL, would have heard of the incident. "Dead Hispanic, unknown assailant."
You go with that.
The problem I see now is that your reasoning is being clouded by your prejudice regarding Zimmerman.
LOL, you’re pathetic.
“Zimmerman and Martin, either by design of one or my pure bad luck for both of them, find themselves face to face. Martin is angry at being followed. Zimmerman is intimidated and either reaches for or shows the gun. If this happened (and it is as likely as any scenario) then Martin had every right to beat the stalker with the gun into submission.
My thinking on this is that Zimmerman is a jerk who got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.”
You are free to think that, just as others are free to speculate that Martin was a thug on the path to a life of crime. Neither are supported by facts. And here’s the important part, the state is not going to be able to argue your case. Maybe they can spin a story in the closing argument, but they won’t be able to demonstrate Zimmerman, jerk or no, started it in the manner you postit.
Notice that from what we’ve learned in the affadivit, various comments, police reports, and the evidence nothing says they’re going to prove at trial that Zimmerman threatened Martin by reaching for or pulling his gun. Had he done so, yes, obviously Martin would be free to defend himself. As it is, they’re arguing Zimmerman started the fight by following and confronting Martin earlier, and ultimately by getting our of his truck after a non-cop didn’t order him not to.
They don’t add that extra little bit of Zimmerman doing something to excuse Martin’s violence after they run into eachother. Because there’s no evidence for it, only your speculation based on what a jerk you think Zimmerman is. Why you’re allowed to assume Zimmerman started it without evidence but others aren’t allowed to do the same for Martin is beyond me. But it doesn’t matter. The trial’s the thing now, and in that world they have to prove Zimmerman started it and had a depraved mindset to convict on murder 2.
For your edification, here is the post to which I’m referring. You first offer a plausible alternative scenario:
“All we have are speculative scenarios. Here’s one that fits what we know - which is that Martin took steps to avoid a confrontation (he ran) and Zimmerman took active steps to close the gap (he got out of his car and followed)...
Zimmerman and Martin, either by design of one or my pure bad luck for both of them, find themselves face to face. Martin is angry at being followed. Zimmerman is intimidated and either reaches for or shows the gun. If this happened (and it is as likely as any scenario) then Martin had every right to beat the stalker with the gun into submission.”
Then you go on to say:
“My thinking on this is that Zimmerman is a jerk who got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.”
Actually, literally that’s what both sides think. At least the sides that think either he started the fight without preplanning it or he started. But why the “jerk” part, then, except to pile on for no good reason? If you think he deserves to be called a jerk and blamed for getting in over his head and shooting his way out in a dangerous situation which he’s not responsible for, you’re a meaner man than I.
And why add it after the scenario you laid out except to imply that you believe it? Certainly I took it to mean that’s what you believe. Especially when you add in how vociferously you object to assertions that Martin started it, and never to the opposite.