You are assuming this kid to be a thug in this instance when most of the evidence is that it was Zimmerman with his record and behaviour that was thuggish....he got out of his car and an altercation took place...stands to reason the kid was miffed...look at it from both sides....if that was you that some guy in this case Zimmerman was following, what would you have done.... if you felt confident about being there and were being followed...you would have stopped turned and asked what the guy wanted and when asked what you were doing there and you explained and the guy didn't accept your explanation, you would have told him to piss off, because you had a legit right to be there. It is all speculation on the information given and everyone has an opinion, it is human nature to want to take a side of the person that fits your idea of the norm rather than seek justice.<quoted text>
We speculate that the thug banging Z's head on the sidewalk will kill Z, and you call that pure speculation.
You specualte that Z somehow confronted the thug until he was provoked enough to attack Z, and you have no evidence, and you call our theory "pure speculation".
We base our guess on known facts, you base you guess on things you made up.
I go with the facts.
That is why we have a jury of our peers...