George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[RavenSky]

Amazing that people make up scenarios that Zimmerman hasn't even alleged. That's dedication!

On his video his version was..."I got out of the car to check for a street sign and see where he went" The dispatcher said stop and I said okay. I went to RVC to look for an address, and I was walking back when I got jumped.

The man LIVED on Retreat View Circle. There are only four streets in the entire community, of which he *claimed* to be the self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain for. He also claimed to know nearly everyone that lived there by name (his reason for being immediately suspicious of Trayvon), but that night he suddenly *forgot* the name of the street he lived on, the same street that just coincidentally happened to be the same street that went to the back entrance he thought Trayvon was headed for.

Sure...

Do you seriously buy his story about looking for a street sign?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because that is consistent with his behavior and he was magically at the point go the physical altercation.

- - - Updated - - -

But people aren't arguing probable paths. They are arguing specific paths with assumed speeds, distances and trajectories that cannot possibly be known and based upon the evidence are quite fantastical or magical.

And that's why I asked for which path that martin took or probably took. There are 4 or 5 paths that followed with all but one doubling back. And then for the one for not doubling back, we have to ask if that would be consistent with both testimonies.

Why would have HAVE to double back? Do you have the exact movements on both Martin and Zimmerman at all times? I can come up with about 12 probable paths, none of which double back... in other words, you are just making things up to fit your narrative.

And at the same time you are forgetting about at least two documented fights by Martin and the one where he got detention because the teacher said he hit someone.

Please provide the documentation of Trayvon Martin's past physical altercations.

We had the one with the three rounds, one other that didn't have mention of rounds, and the one he got detention for. Even Jeantel just said she thought it was a normal fight. I'm also curious how often fights occur at the school that he went to.

Kindly provide links to factual sources

 

[RavenSky]

And how many of the six know situations did he call the cops prior to the event?

He has quite a long history of calling the police for *reasons* big and small. He also has a habit of calling the police every time he thinks someone is calling them because of his violent aggressive behavior.

How many times did he call the 311/911 calls about real suspects and at least one of them was caught later?

none

For carrying a gun, we allow citizens to carry guns so they don't have to be afraid of criminals.

IF he was a Neighborhood Watch Captain, he was trained NOT to carry a gun while performing those duties. IF he felt so afraid of Trayvon, he should have stayed in his truck. And even IF we "allow citizens to carry guns so they don't have to be afraid of criminals", Trayvon was NOT a criminal. He was an innocent teenager who had done nothing more than walk to the store to by a beverage and candy, but now he is DEAD and you are still defending his killer.

And for identifying himself, we don't know which was said, one account was "What are you doing here?" That would be a normal introduction in a conversation before identifying oneself. According to the supposed conversations all that was said, "Why are you following me" followed by the punch.

He admits to not identifying himself. He tried to detain an innocent teenager without identifying who he was or why he was stopping Trayvon (not that he had any business doing that in the first place) yet you refuse to even consider why that might be alarming to Trayvon. You continue to slander a dead teenager by insisting Trayvon was "angry" as opposed to "afraid", and insist he "punched" Zimmerman as opposed to "tried to get away". You and George Zimmerman, insisting an innocent dead teenager had to be "up to no good"

And for the last part, that was young foolishness because we do tel stories slightly different each time we tell them and I am curious if his lawyer told him to do the walkthrough or the interview after the incident.

His stories were wildly different, not "slightly different."

Why do you continue to defend a man who killed an innocent teenager? And even if you want to believe that it was nothing more than a tragic accident (because you can't believe Saint George would purposely harm anyone - all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), why do you continue to slander the innocent dead teenager?

 

[RavenSky]

But you also don't need to have the exact locations to figure out the probable paths of both people.

There's a presumption of guilt--Martin was black, Zimmerman wasn't. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is innocent he's guilty.

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

There's a presumption of guilt--Martin was black, Zimmerman wasn't. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is innocent he's guilty.

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

The family fought tooth and nail to not have the school/facebook/texts released and not allowed to be presented in court. The reason that Trayvon said that he had to live with his dad was that his mom believed he was fighting too much. Would she believe that from one fight?

 

[coloradoatheist]

On his video his version was..."I got out of the car to check for a street sign and see where he went" The dispatcher said stop and I said okay. I went to RVC to look for an address, and I was walking back when I got jumped.

The man LIVED on Retreat View Circle. There are only four streets in the entire community, of which he *claimed* to be the self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain for. He also claimed to know nearly everyone that lived there by name (his reason for being immediately suspicious of Trayvon), but that night he suddenly *forgot* the name of the street he lived on, the same street that just coincidentally happened to be the same street that went to the back entrance he thought Trayvon was headed for.

Sure...

Do you seriously buy his story about looking for a street sign?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because that is consistent with his behavior and he was magically at the point go the physical altercation.

- - - Updated - - -

But people aren't arguing probable paths. They are arguing specific paths with assumed speeds, distances and trajectories that cannot possibly be known and based upon the evidence are quite fantastical or magical.

And that's why I asked for which path that martin took or probably took. There are 4 or 5 paths that followed with all but one doubling back. And then for the one for not doubling back, we have to ask if that would be consistent with both testimonies.

Why would have HAVE to double back? Do you have the exact movements on both Martin and Zimmerman at all times? I can come up with about 12 probable paths, none of which double back... in other words, you are just making things up to fit your narrative.

And at the same time you are forgetting about at least two documented fights by Martin and the one where he got detention because the teacher said he hit someone.

Please provide the documentation of Trayvon Martin's past physical altercations.

We had the one with the three rounds, one other that didn't have mention of rounds, and the one he got detention for. Even Jeantel just said she thought it was a normal fight. I'm also curious how often fights occur at the school that he went to.

Kindly provide links to factual sources

to be fair, the street he didn't remember the name of wasn't his street but a different inner one. The outer one which was the one he lived on he remembered. I don't think at the time that he left the car that he was thinking about the street sign but after he said okay to stop following Martin the dispatcher kept asking him questions about where he was and blended the memories.

 

[coloradoatheist]

He has quite a long history of calling the police for *reasons* big and small. He also has a habit of calling the police every time he thinks someone is calling them because of his violent aggressive behavior.

How many times did he call the 311/911 calls about real suspects and at least one of them was caught later?

none

For carrying a gun, we allow citizens to carry guns so they don't have to be afraid of criminals.

IF he was a Neighborhood Watch Captain, he was trained NOT to carry a gun while performing those duties. IF he felt so afraid of Trayvon, he should have stayed in his truck. And even IF we "allow citizens to carry guns so they don't have to be afraid of criminals", Trayvon was NOT a criminal. He was an innocent teenager who had done nothing more than walk to the store to by a beverage and candy, but now he is DEAD and you are still defending his killer.

And for identifying himself, we don't know which was said, one account was "What are you doing here?" That would be a normal introduction in a conversation before identifying oneself. According to the supposed conversations all that was said, "Why are you following me" followed by the punch.

He admits to not identifying himself. He tried to detain an innocent teenager without identifying who he was or why he was stopping Trayvon (not that he had any business doing that in the first place) yet you refuse to even consider why that might be alarming to Trayvon. You continue to slander a dead teenager by insisting Trayvon was "angry" as opposed to "afraid", and insist he "punched" Zimmerman as opposed to "tried to get away". You and George Zimmerman, insisting an innocent dead teenager had to be "up to no good"

And for the last part, that was young foolishness because we do tel stories slightly different each time we tell them and I am curious if his lawyer told him to do the walkthrough or the interview after the incident.

His stories were wildly different, not "slightly different."

Why do you continue to defend a man who killed an innocent teenager? And even if you want to believe that it was nothing more than a tragic accident (because you can't believe Saint George would purposely harm anyone - all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), why do you continue to slander the innocent dead teenager?

He wasn't on duty that night as a neighborhood watch, he was a member of that community. So what do you volunteer for that? Just say I'm a concerned citizen. His question was what are you doing here, which is a valid question. The issue is who escalates it into violence from there.

 

[Arctish]

And at the same time there isn't any possibility that a 17 year old male decided that he got pissed and started a fight?

Of course, but that misses the entire point (and ignores the possible reason whys) Martin was and continues to be demonized as a purple drank, burgalizing, fight-mongering thug by a significant number of people to imply or aver that he deserved what he got. On the other hand, the same people portrayed and continue to portray Zimmerman as a lovable dimwitted peaceful law abiding citizen even though there is now plenty of evidence to contradict the peaceful and law-abiding assumptions. Given that we do not know what happened, why should people believe Zimmerman's entire story in light of his revealed tendency towards drawing guns and the obvious fact he has every incentive to lie.

Also, if we apply Occam's Razor, all the assumptions about Martin getting angry, Martin deciding to leave the safety of his father's home, Martin ambushing the creepy ass guy following him, etc. are discarded as mere speculation and unnecessary complications. What is left are the known facts and their obvious implications: that the armed pursuer continued his pursuit until he found the teenager he was looking for, the fleeing pedestrian continued fleeing until he could no longer avoid the creeper from the car, and that when they finally came face to face, the man with a history of aggression and violence was aggressive and violent.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Of course, but that misses the entire point (and ignores the possible reason whys) Martin was and continues to be demonized as a purple drank, burgalizing, fight-mongering thug by a significant number of people to imply or aver that he deserved what he got. On the other hand, the same people portrayed and continue to portray Zimmerman as a lovable dimwitted peaceful law abiding citizen even though there is now plenty of evidence to contradict the peaceful and law-abiding assumptions. Given that we do not know what happened, why should people believe Zimmerman's entire story in light of his revealed tendency towards drawing guns and the obvious fact he has every incentive to lie.

Also, if we apply Occam's Razor, all the assumptions about Martin getting angry, Martin deciding to leave the safety of his father's home, Martin ambushing the creepy ass guy following him, etc. are discarded as mere speculation and unnecessary complications. What is left are the known facts and their obvious implications: that the armed pursuer continued his pursuit until he found the teenager he was looking for, the fleeing pedestrian continued fleeing until he could no longer get away, and that when they met the man with a history of aggression and violence was aggressive and violent.

And if the fight had been right in front or right behind his dad's house your razor would apply. With where the fight occurred, he double backed for some reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a presumption of guilt--Martin was black, Zimmerman wasn't. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is innocent he's guilty.

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

1) You're neglecting the fact that he was purchasing all the legal parts of purple drank.

2) You're neglecting the fact that it's likely he was casing houses.

3) I don't believe he was innocent--I think he didn't like being followed and attacked Zimmerman.

4) Why do you insist on slandering Zimmerman?

 

[Arctish]

Also, if we apply Occam's Razor, all the assumptions about Martin getting angry, Martin deciding to leave the safety of his father's home, Martin ambushing the creepy ass guy following him, etc. are discarded as mere speculation and unnecessary complications. What is left are the known facts and their obvious implications: that the armed pursuer continued his pursuit until he found the teenager he was looking for, the fleeing pedestrian continued fleeing until he could no longer get away, and that when they met the man with a history of aggression and violence was aggressive and violent.

And if the fight had been right in front or right behind his dad's house your razor would apply. With where the fight occurred, he double backed for some reason.

It is not certain that he doubled back; you are speculating that he did. And even if he did double back, that does not mean he decided to go on the offensive. "Some reason" includes, but is not limited to, doubling back in order to throw off pursuit, hearing one of the neighbors out that night ahead of him and thinking it was the creeper therefore doubling back to avoid him, or Martin having no clear escape plan in mind therefore any doubling back would have been an unplanned event.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we have no reason to believe Martin changed his mind about avoiding the creeper, and no reason to believe Zimmerman changed his mind about finding Martin, much less that these changes of heart happened damn near simultaneously. If we apply Occam's Razor we must discard the needlessly complicated explanations, and go with the simplest one: both Martin and Zimmerman pursued their chosen courses of action; Zimmerman was successful, Martin was not.

 

[Arctish]

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

1) You're neglecting the fact that he was purchasing all the legal parts of purple drank.

Martin had none of the ingredients for Purple Drank. But you already knew that.

2) You're neglecting the fact that it's likely he was casing houses.

There is no evidence Martin was casing houses, and nothing that makes it likely. But you already knew that.

3) I don't believe he was innocent--I think he didn't like being followed and attacked Zimmerman.

That's fine. You believe what you find believable, and you think whatever you think. It's not something others find believable, or likely, or even plausible, but whatever.

4) Why do you insist on slandering Zimmerman?

What slander? It's true Zimmerman was involved in a fight in Virginia and the records are sealed. It's true his fiancé got a Restraining Order against him for domestic violence. It's true he threw a cop up against a wall when the cop was detaining Zimmerman's friend for underage drinking. It's true several other people have reported Zimmerman became violent and aggressive toward them or witnessed him being violent toward others. Zimmerman has a documented history of aggression and violence. Saying so isn't slander.

 

[Bronzeage]

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

1) You're neglecting the fact that he was purchasing all the legal parts of purple drank.

2) You're neglecting the fact that it's likely he was casing houses.

3) I don't believe he was innocent--I think he didn't like being followed and attacked Zimmerman.

4) Why do you insist on slandering Zimmerman?

Items one through three cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the following months, Zimmerman seems incapable of staying out of trouble. It's not slander to say he is a violent person who engages in risky behavior and is a danger to people around him.

It would be nice if Zimmerman were the heroic character his defenders would like him to be, but he is just not an upstanding citizen. He's just a man who escaped murder charges on a technicality.

He has been fortunate that the women in his life decline to press the issue, once they are safe. It's only a matter of time before his violent nature puts him in prison, or results in his death.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Please provide the documentation of Trayvon Martin's past physical altercations.

We had the one with the three rounds,

I'm sorry a formal fight is very different than the assaults George Zimmerman started

the one he got detention for. Even Jeantel just said she thought it was a normal fight. I'm also curious how often fights occur at the school that he went to.

We had one about every other week at my school, and I wondering why you think that the amount of fights at his school is relevant. Especially since he did not start the school fight and may not have been involved in it at all.

Zimmerman is known to attack.

And yes, I still want the documentation for these.

 

[Rhea]

1) You're neglecting the fact that he was purchasing all the legal parts of purple drank.

2) You're neglecting the fact that it's likely he was casing houses.

3) I don't believe he was innocent--I think he didn't like being followed and attacked Zimmerman.

4) Why do you insist on slandering Zimmerman?

Oh my god. You are serious.

 

[RavenSky]

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

The family fought tooth and nail to not have the school/facebook/texts released and not allowed to be presented in court. The reason that Trayvon said that he had to live with his dad was that his mom believed he was fighting too much. Would she believe that from one fight?

Until you post factual links to all of those claims and your previous ones, I refuse to further engage in your slanderous claims about Trayvon.

In the meantime, why are you continuing to demonize an innocent dead teenager on a thread about his killer again being violently aggressive?

 

[RavenSky]

The man LIVED on Retreat View Circle. There are only four streets in the entire community, of which he *claimed* to be the self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain for. He also claimed to know nearly everyone that lived there by name (his reason for being immediately suspicious of Trayvon), but that night he suddenly *forgot* the name of the street he lived on, the same street that just coincidentally happened to be the same street that went to the back entrance he thought Trayvon was headed for.

Sure...

Do you seriously buy his story about looking for a street sign?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because that is consistent with his behavior and he was magically at the point go the physical altercation.

- - - Updated - - -

But people aren't arguing probable paths. They are arguing specific paths with assumed speeds, distances and trajectories that cannot possibly be known and based upon the evidence are quite fantastical or magical.

And that's why I asked for which path that martin took or probably took. There are 4 or 5 paths that followed with all but one doubling back. And then for the one for not doubling back, we have to ask if that would be consistent with both testimonies.

Why would have HAVE to double back? Do you have the exact movements on both Martin and Zimmerman at all times? I can come up with about 12 probable paths, none of which double back... in other words, you are just making things up to fit your narrative.

And at the same time you are forgetting about at least two documented fights by Martin and the one where he got detention because the teacher said he hit someone.

Please provide the documentation of Trayvon Martin's past physical altercations.

We had the one with the three rounds, one other that didn't have mention of rounds, and the one he got detention for. Even Jeantel just said she thought it was a normal fight. I'm also curious how often fights occur at the school that he went to.

Kindly provide links to factual sources

to be fair, the street he didn't remember the name of wasn't his street but a different inner one. The outer one which was the one he lived on he remembered. I don't think at the time that he left the car that he was thinking about the street sign but after he said okay to stop following Martin the dispatcher kept asking him questions about where he was and blended the memories.

"To be fair" you are the one who claimed he "went to RVC to look for an address". You even claimed it was a direct quote from his video statement (You didn't post a link to said video, of course). George Zimmerman lived on Retreat View Circle. So which is it? Did George Zimmerman allegedly forget what street he lived on, was he lying about what he was doing, or are you misrepresenting the facts to suit your agenda?

 

[RavenSky]

He has quite a long history of calling the police for *reasons* big and small. He also has a habit of calling the police every time he thinks someone is calling them because of his violent aggressive behavior.

none

For carrying a gun, we allow citizens to carry guns so they don't have to be afraid of criminals.

IF he was a Neighborhood Watch Captain, he was trained NOT to carry a gun while performing those duties. IF he felt so afraid of Trayvon, he should have stayed in his truck. And even IF we "allow citizens to carry guns so they don't have to be afraid of criminals", Trayvon was NOT a criminal. He was an innocent teenager who had done nothing more than walk to the store to by a beverage and candy, but now he is DEAD and you are still defending his killer.

And for identifying himself, we don't know which was said, one account was "What are you doing here?" That would be a normal introduction in a conversation before identifying oneself. According to the supposed conversations all that was said, "Why are you following me" followed by the punch.

He admits to not identifying himself. He tried to detain an innocent teenager without identifying who he was or why he was stopping Trayvon (not that he had any business doing that in the first place) yet you refuse to even consider why that might be alarming to Trayvon. You continue to slander a dead teenager by insisting Trayvon was "angry" as opposed to "afraid", and insist he "punched" Zimmerman as opposed to "tried to get away". You and George Zimmerman, insisting an innocent dead teenager had to be "up to no good"

And for the last part, that was young foolishness because we do tel stories slightly different each time we tell them and I am curious if his lawyer told him to do the walkthrough or the interview after the incident.

His stories were wildly different, not "slightly different."

Why do you continue to defend a man who killed an innocent teenager? And even if you want to believe that it was nothing more than a tragic accident (because you can't believe Saint George would purposely harm anyone - all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), why do you continue to slander the innocent dead teenager?

He wasn't on duty that night as a neighborhood watch, he was a member of that community. So what do you volunteer for that? Just say I'm a concerned citizen. His question was what are you doing here, which is a valid question. The issue is who escalates it into violence from there.

No, the issue isn't "who escalates it into violence from there" because George Zimmerman has already escalated it into violence by taking his gun with him to chase after an innocent teenager while profiling Trayvon as a burglar. No, a "private citizen" chasing someone else down and demanding to know what they are doing is not a "valid question." It is creepy and scary. George Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck and waited for the police, but because he is a violent aggressive lying asshole, he chased after an innocent teenager and killed him.

So again, explain to me why you are on this thread that is about GEORGE ZIMMERMAN again being a violent aggressive asshole, but you are trashing an innocent dead teenager that Zimmerman killed?

 

[RavenSky]

Also, if we apply Occam's Razor, all the assumptions about Martin getting angry, Martin deciding to leave the safety of his father's home, Martin ambushing the creepy ass guy following him, etc. are discarded as mere speculation and unnecessary complications. What is left are the known facts and their obvious implications: that the armed pursuer continued his pursuit until he found the teenager he was looking for, the fleeing pedestrian continued fleeing until he could no longer get away, and that when they met the man with a history of aggression and violence was aggressive and violent.

And if the fight had been right in front or right behind his dad's house your razor would apply. With where the fight occurred, he double backed for some reason.

The bolded is a complete fabrication, and a perfect example of your continued demonization of the dead INNOCENT teenager on a thread about his KILLER getting violent and aggressive with yet another person.

Why do you continue to defend George Zimmerman? Do you identify with him for some reason?

 

[RavenSky]

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

1) You're neglecting the fact that he was purchasing all the legal parts of purple drank.

2) You're neglecting the fact that it's likely he was casing houses.

3) I don't believe he was innocent--I think he didn't like being followed and attacked Zimmerman.

4) Why do you insist on slandering Zimmerman?

1 - bullshit
2 - bullshit
3 - bullshit
4 - bullshit

You, too, continue to post absolute fabrications about an innocent dead teenager on a thread about his killer getting violent and aggressive with yet another person. Why do you continue to defend George Zimmerman and slander Trayvon Martin? Why are you continuing to derail this thread, which was not about Trayvon Martin, with these continued slanders against an innocent dead teenager? Do you even care that his young life was snuffed out by George Zimmerman?

 

[Mumbles]

Bullshit.

But I will ask you the same question -

We know that Trayvon Martin was innocent of any wrong doing that night. He was not committing a burglary. He was walking home from the store after properly purchasing a beverage and some candy. Even if you want to pretend that all of George Zimmerman's actions up to and including killing Trayvon Martin were fine, why do you continue to slander an innocent dead teenager?

P.S. Are you still dodging my questions about Trayvon's "culture"?

1) You're neglecting the fact that he was purchasing all the legal parts of purple drank.

"Purple Drank" is a mixture of codeine-based cough syrup and Sprite. Martin was carrying Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Drink, meaning that he had no ingredients for any "purple drank". Regardless, the cough syrup is the active ingredient, so you must show that he had access to a codeine-based cough syrup to show that he had any intention tocreate "Purple Drank" that night - and that's before you explain why this would lead him to somehow lead Zimmerman into a path between two sets of houses and then beat him to death.

Good luck with that.

2) You're neglecting the fact that it's likely he was casing houses.

As Zimmerman describes him, Martin was simply walking down the street and looking around as he did so, and not at all "casing houses". In fact, had Martin been "casing houses", this would have slowed him down, thus making Zimmerman's story even more improbable.

3) I don't believe he was innocent--I think he didn't like being followed and attacked Zimmerman.

Well, nobody in their right mind likes being targeted and followed by a strange man. as to being attacked, do we have any explanation for how Zimmerman and Martin ended up where they were, if Zimmerman didn't continue to follow Martin after his call?

4) Why do you insist on slandering Zimmerman?

It's difficult to see how calling a guy who shot and killed someone, and continues to get into a series of violent confrontations, "violent" is "slander"