03-08-2013, 02:47 PM
(03-08-2013, 10:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: If you think you're a big, bad, tough guy and are gonna kick the shit out of somebody to teach them a lesson, make sure they're unarmed first.
I just don't agree with the reasoning, no matter who states it or how it's stated, that Trayvon MUST HAVE acted like a thug that night and MUST HAVE been the physical aggressor when there's nothing to back that up except the shooter's statement (which might be true, remains to be seen); a statement which is contradicted by the police affidavit.
According to Zimmerman's statement, after he stopped following Trayvon and called 911, Travyon confronted him and asked him if he had a problem. George says that he told Trayvon "no" and Trayvon said, "well, you do now". At which time George claims that he searched for his phone to call 911 again and that's when Travyon punched him.
So, according to Zimmerman, Trayvon didn't jump him. In his own version of events, George would have had the opportunity to tell Trayvon that he was neighborhood watch. Or, if he thought Trayvon looked physically threatening, he could have said, "I don't have a problem, but I do have a gun and I've called 911 already", or something to that effect.
The fact that George did neither in his version of events, leads me to believe it's possible that George wanted to stop Trayvon from getting away no matter what it took, even though George had witnessed no crime committed by Trayvon. It's also possible to me that Zimmerman pulled out his gun to try to keep Trayvon from "getting away, like they always do", even though Trayvon isn't one of "those" who was suspected of crime in the area, with whom George expressed frustration during his 911 call to report Trayvon.
George elected not to testify at a scheduled immunity hearing. If he'd testified and shown that he acted in self-defense, charges would have been dropped (which happens 70% of the time according to the Olando Sentinnel).
So, there are reasonable questions regarding George's version of events and it would be scary if an armed person could shoot an unarmed stranger (regardless of the age, race, or gender of the parties) with no witnesses and people weren't asking questions. George (or his attorney) will have the opportunity to address those questions in court in order to prove their claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted in self defense. Until then, I'm personally not assuming that anything unproven MUST HAVE happened.