Why Trayvon may have been heading north on the dog path and still not "doubling back" to ambush GZ

[louis-t]

22. You can't even read a post and get it right.

I said "witnesses can be wrong", not "all of the witnesses are wrong".

As far as his 'story', I would ask "which one?"
The man lied about his finances to the court. He said he knew nothing about SYG law. Turns out he lied about that. He said he didn't think the screaming on the tape was him. Now he says it is.

The man claimed to have had his head smashed into concrete "10 to 20 times" and he "feared for his life" yet the medic said his injuries were minor and only required a Band-Aid. By the way, did you notice the photos from the police station where the bleeding on the back of his head had stopped? Even with his hair cropped short, most people (myself included) had trouble seeing if there really were cuts on the back of his head, yet the next day in a police video he had huge butterfly Band-Aids on the back of his head for dramatic effect.

Remember, the guy was not on 'watch', he was going to the store.
The man got out of his truck and followed his victim, spooking the kid enough that he ran.
He never identified himself as a so-called neighborhood watch person.

He is heard on the phone recording saying "they always get away", "he's running", and calling the kid a "punk". His recollection of the 'dialog' sounds fishy.

He initiated the conflict. The kid had done nothing wrong. He had the attitude, the anger, the means, the motive. It's all on tape, and unless the defense creates enough doubt that the guy confronted the kid, it's enough to convict on second degree murder.

The defense spent almost an hour this morning trying to get a witness to say that the kid could have moved his arms after being shot. All this to try and explain another 'story' by the killer that he had put the kid's arms out to his side (he probably only said that to impress the police), when the kid was found with his arms under his body.

The man had a documented history of being aggressive, the kid smoked a little pot.

There was no DNA from the guy who is still alive on the guy who was killed.

All the defense has "proven" so far is that the kid was most likely on top of the guy when he was shot. And they can't even prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't even prove where the tiny scrape on the kid's knuckle came from. It is very possible that the kid had to defend himself after the guy tried to push him around. It is very possible that the kid had one hand on the guy's wrist and the other on his face and was trying to wrestle the gun away. As the guy tried to sit up, the kid banged his head on the concrete. The kid was fighting for his life, and he had the right to defend himself.