Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE

Oh I'm just tinkering around on the very edge of my true capabilities old sport - I'm hardly out of first gear here

Must be difficult to muster energy for it, given your constant diet of crow....

Originally Posted by Tim Jonas

Must be difficult to muster energy for it, given your constant diet of crow....

I have 'boundless energy' - worry not on my account, I assure you I'm neither bored - tired nor as yet challenged

Nor accurate.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Nor accurate.

Nor a pedant

I think your posts are pedantic.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

I think you are a pendant.

Well that's incredibly coincidental

Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE

Well that's incredibly coincidental

Synchronicity, man, synchronicity.

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.

Originally Posted by rcposter

No eyewitness saw Martin attack Zimmerman.

I find it very, very hard to believe that there were NO eyewitnesses. Perhaps they will come out later, kind of like the photos did.

BTW where is this 'history of violence'?

Of course Trayvon could have simply gone home, or called 911 himself if he really had been"stalked".

Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE

Nor a pedant

Sure you are. Anyone correcting spelling and grammar like you do is a total pedant. It's the sole reason why I take joy in pointing out when you make the same kinds of mistakes. I don't do that to anyone else.

Originally Posted by rcposter

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.

The person responsible for the violence is the one who attacked first. It's extremely simple.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Of course Trayvon could have simply gone home, or called 911 himself if he really had been"stalked".

Like he was? He quickened to get out of sight from the stranger in the truck. But the path he had turned down would have ultimately ended up at the very street he had fled. Perhaps he gave the stranger a moment to drive away before continuing back to the street.

But as we now know, Zimmerman had grabbed his gun, got out of his truck, and tracked-down the kid.

Originally Posted by UlteriorModem

I find it very, very hard to believe that there were NO eyewitnesses. Perhaps they will come out later, kind of like the photos did.

BTW where is this 'history of violence'?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323345

History of violence

But assistant prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked the family members about two incidents. In 2005, George Zimmerman had to take anger management courses after an undercover law enforcement officer accused him of attacking him as he tried to arrest Zimmerman’s friend.

In another incident, in 2005, his ex-fiáncée, hair salon employee Veronica Zuazo, filed for a restraining order against Zimmerman — for domestic violence.
Of this particular incident, according to the Miami Herald, Zuazo claimed that she saw Zimmerman, her ex, driving near her home in August 2005. She called him and he said “he was just checking up” on her.

After they spoke for an hour at her home, Zuazo claimed she asked him to leave. He grew upset, snatching her cellphone away from her, pushing her, she said,The Herald writes.

A pushing match ensued and her dog, protecting her, jumped up and bit him on the cheek.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...#ixzz1sbZV2b2k

Originally Posted by rcposter

Like he was? He quickened to get out of sight from the stranger in the truck. But the path he had turned down would have ultimately ended up at the very street he had fled.

See map. Trayvon did not have to encounter Zimmerman. When he saw him he could have turned around