General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Looking at the undisputed facts in the Zimmerman case and applying Zimmerman's original story [View all]Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)It does not necessarily establish any context within that physical struggle, i.e. who struck who first.
From what I read, there was more than one eyewitness to the event, and accounts differ. As is typical in eyewitness testimony. I would not necessarily place a god-like emphasis on eyewitness testimony.
Yes, the timeline is somewhat of a murky matter, but as another poster pointed out, you also have to wonder why it would take the same amount of time for Zimmerman to allegedly cover less distance trying to walk back to his car. Unless.....Zimmerman wasn't being forthright to the dispatcher.
And I know you dispute my argument about what is and is not a logical decision and appear willing to write off the absurdity of Trayvon premeditating an attack on Zimmerman as a matter of testosterone, but in conjunction with what we know about Trayvon, it's a stretch. I guess there may be a first time for everything, but still, there appears nothing in past instances to support a premeditated aggression by Trayvon. Whereas the same cannot be said about Zimmerman.
And yes, Zimmerman alleges Trayvon attacked him out of the blue. According to Zimmerman, he was walking back to his car, Trayvon surprised him from behind, shouted at him, and then attacked him without provocation.
Again, this is not to speculate on how a physical altercation between Trayvon and Zimmerman actually took place, but rather to raise questions on Zimmerman's first and initial story to police on how it occurred. And if Zimmerman's story at trial deviates from this initial story, it will mean Zimmerman lied to police, and you then have to ask yourself why he lied to police.