Guns: how much longer will it take ....

So upon hearing that he should probably stop following, Mr. Zimmerman instead starts looking for a hiding place in the same area where he received the advice, and then suddenly finds Trayvon hidden after searching the same area for four minutes?

That scenario is implausible in the extreme.

It's a pretty odd coincidence that the confrontation happened right in the area where Mr. Zimmerman was advised that pursuit was a bad idea.

We certainly don't know how hard Zimmerman was searching, nor where Trayvon could have been hiding.

The theory that Martin, after running from Zimmerman decided to double back and attack him is just as implausible - given that Martin is known to have run, and doubling back to attack is contrary to his known behaviour.

Hiding though, is consistent with his known behaviour. Trying not to lead a creepy stalker back to his home is also consistent to his known behaviour.

Yep. When people are running or hiding, coincidences relating to what is known and what is not known can happen. Most murder cases involve circumstantial evidence where there are a lot of coincidences - and given the number of convictions that are later proven wrong, coincidences of this nature aren't that uncommon.

This is the problem with taking a killers word for what happened.

someone who has no intention of attacking you.

We don't have any reason to believe he was searching at all.

What we know is that he was advised that tailing Trayvon was a bad idea. Four minutes later he was still in the same area.

Yet somehow Trayvon ended up back in that area four minutes later.

Hiding doesn't being him back to Mr. Zimmerman's location four minutes later.

Do you have any evidence that they were running around in circles over this four minutes?

By the same logic, you have no reason to believe Martin doubled back - as you don't know where Martin was in relation to Zimmerman - just 'somewhere'.

Nor do you know they didn't jump through yards (with Martin trying to get away form Zimmerman) before ending up where they did.

Knowing what Zimmerman was told by police says absolutely nothing about his decisions afterwards - ie. during those 4 minutes.

If he was hiding, then he never left the area.

If he was trying to lead Zimmerman around in circles to get away from him without giving away his address, then he could still have been in the area.

Are you dense? He never had to leave - he could have been hiding nearby, and 4 minutes later is found by Zimmerman.

By the same asking for evidence - do you have any evidence that Zimmerman wasn't chasing Martin / hunting Martin down during these 4 minutes?

This is the problem - you only have the killers word for what happened.

You have alleged behaviour (of Martin's - allegedly attacking Zimmerman first) contrary to his known behaviour (running from the stalker), but to you only one explanation makes sense - the killers version.

There are other possibilities.

That's the thing. They were NOT in the process of killing a cop..

That is purely evidence-free vile supposition on your part, pure dark fantasy pure misuse of way excessive force,

that's why there is nationwide revulsion at the use of qualified immunity to let bad cops go free.

I know that four minutes later they were both in the same area that Mr. Zimmerman was in four minutes previously.

But Trayvon did leave the area. That's why Mr. Zimmerman was running after him until the dispatcher advised that it was a bad idea.

Knowing that Mr. Zimmerman was still in the same area four minutes later tells me that he decided to stop tailing Trayvon.

Yes. The fact that he was still in the same area four minutes later is evidence that he stopped tailing Trayvon when he was advised that it was a bad idea.

That is incorrect. I have the fact that the location of the confrontation was the same area where four minutes previously Mr. Zimmerman was advised that pursuit was a bad idea.

You only have Zimmermans words regarding where he was at each moment between him getting out of his vehicle, and him and Martin fighting.

While your above statement admits:
- that you have no clue where Martin was, and that he could have been hiding close by (Zimmerman himself admits this further down)

- that you have no clue what Zimmerman did during those four minutes (so he could have been hunting Martin). Ending up near where you started doesn't mean you didn't move.

The below map could have happened, or it could have happened differently (the map makes it look just like a walk, with two people running into each other)

The first quote is not correct

Zimmerman admitted he didn't know where Martin was, and even that Martin could be hiding very close by when he said to 911 (regarding his address) "It's a home it's 1950. Oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where the kid is."

So you have Zimmerman himself already following Martin, complaining "These assholes, they always get away" and "The back entrance...******* <unintelligible>" which is consistent with someone who is frustrated (ie. someone who may want to hunt a person down, even against better advice), who thinks Martin might be hiding close by (see previous quote).......

.......And Zimmerman, thinking Martin could be hiding nearby (see previous quotes):
- ends up in an alley between houses after:

- saying he would meet police (so why was he in an alley between houses 4 minutes later if he had to meet police)

- declining to meet police at a set position (the only benefit to this is to be able to roam around)
- after being asked his location, saying "Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?"...which sort of response enables a person to move around until police arrive.

That's only evidence that he ended up near where he started (but still down an alley between houses), and not evidence of what he did in between the start and finish times.

Which no one is disputing. Where you are taking the killers word - is how that came about.

...All the above is consistent with Zimmerman continuing to look for Martin (even after agreeing not to)

..and Martins alleged behaviour (doubling back and attacking Zimmerman) is not consistent with his known behaviour (running from Zimmerman)

But consistency doesn't mean it happened that way - perhaps it did happen the way Zimmerman claimed. The thing is - other alternative scenarios have a lot going for them as well.

The issue is - you are taking the killers word for it.

Uh huh. You have no knowledge of what is correct, as it is impossible for you to have such.

What you have is what you want to believe from the evidence that exists. From the evidence that exists, other scenarios are possible...but you want to deny other scenarios because they don't match what you want to believe, despite them also matching the evidence.