Here's the funny thing about the Trayvon Truthers. They'll invent 1001
theories why GZ
has to be lying, why he
had to be chasing TM with an intent to catch him etc. All of which are based 100% on assumptions based on 20/20 hindsight. But they apply no skepticism to their theories.
Example. Let's examine this idea that seems eminently reasonable to them in every way, that GZ chased down and cornered TM with the
intent of restraining him. Now maybe it's just me, but that is ONE HELL of a gutsy act. Because at that moment GZ thought TM was a suspicious person that was possibly (likely?) a criminal. Criminals are often armed right?
And what happens when GZ meets up with this guy he chased down? He gets his ass handed to him. But wait a minute, he confronted him and was trying to detain him [I almost forgot, he had the 50 pound fat guy advantage

], right? Wouldn't any
self-respecting gung ho wanna be cop racist hot head have his gun unholstered and in hand if he was going to detain the dangerous criminal? Yet one can say with reasonable certainty he did not, because TM hands his ass to him and only after a minute of fighting is he able to unhoslter and use his weapon, a weapon which I surmise that TM didn't know he had.
Now again, think about it. You are ARMED and chasing someone in the dark that you believe to be a criminal, and you intend to detain this possibly violent criminal! Yet you don't have your gun drawn! Almost leads someone to think maybe he wasn't trying to get right up on them or detain them at all

.
BTW, would someone PLEASE make the argument that GZ would not have unholstered his gun because it is against the law? Because I really, really want someone to make that argument, after arguing the entire thread what a lawless violent lying hot head he is.
Lastly, I'd feel remiss if I didn't say that I'm not arguing that my theory above disproves the possibility that GZ tried to detain TM, it's still
possible.