Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492
Hey feel free to make up your own facts. If that's what you have to do in your mind to justify your position then roll with it. Just keep in mind that no witness or story from people that were there supports your version of the story.
All evidence completely supports Zimmerman having targeted Martin as a criminal. The evidence supports Zimmerman's tracking-down Martin.
The evidence supports completely there being a struggle between a kid walking home from the candy store and an armed stranger who stalked the kid deep into a darkened footpath.
Now, it's a matter of deciding who is responsible for the violence; the stalker with a history of violence/intimidation who had tracked-down the fleeing kid who the stalker had already decided was an "
", or the kid with no history of violence whatsoever, who was carrying candy, and who had already thought he had eluded the stranger by turning out of sight down a footpath, hundreds of feet from where he had passed the leering, armed stranger a moment earlier.