The trial of George Zimmerman

[BC1]

Disparity of force comes into the fight as TM was on top pounding GZ's head with the ground under GZ's head. That doubles if not triples TM's blows and could very easily deliver great bodily injury if not death to GZ. Which gives GZ the ability to use death force to end the attack. Weather he was the aggressor or not.
Google Massad Ayood on Disparity of Force. He has testified in court on this many times.

Absolutely. In PP we teach disparity of force. And one doesn't need a weapon to cause death or injury of such magnitude to permanently disable another. Banging a head on the sidewalk is no different than hitting someone with a chunk of concrete.

 

[BC1]

Stand your ground laws aren't about being watched. Stand your ground came into affect after the physical altercation took place. So no, Martin could not "stand his ground" just for being followed.

Zimmerman did honor the request to stop following.

This is a grey area but, yes, you may stand your ground against being followed. FL statutes 790 & 779 do not require retreat from someone who is following you. Some other states have a "duty to retreat" provision, but this is also often misinterpreted. Duty to retreat is really designed to keep the two parties from coming to combat. To avoid road rage. To keep an argument from getting physical. But even in NYS (PL Article 35) the duty to retreat is gone once the attack commences. I personally would rather see the parties part ways before it gets bad. In states requiring duty to retreat the duty only exists if you can do so with complete safety to all. When waking with a child by the hand you cannot retreat. You may stand your ground. A disabled person may stand their ground, etc.
.
I have a feeling this jury will hang.

 

[BluesStringer]

And by the way, in case anyone has forgotten (or never knew), the only eye-witness to any part of the fight will come during the defense's case, and unless he's had a 180° change-of-heart from what he said here, Zimmerman was being "beaten up" by Martin, who he clearly puts on top.

I'm not 100% positive, but it appears that I was mistaken that the witness in the above video will come in during the defense case. I'm pretty sure he's on the stand right now, and his testimony has changed a bit from what he said in the above short TV interview. Now he's saying that he isn't "100% sure" that the guy who asked him for help was the one in the red top, and on the bottom. He hasn't equivocated about which subject was on the top or bottom, but in the video above he says that, "The guy on the bottom, who I believe was wearing a red sweater, was yelling to me 'Help! Help!'" Saying "to me" implies at least eye contact that he thought on that night he could discern. He is downplaying that now though, saying he's not "100% sure" which one was yelling help, and saying it was too dark to make out faces.

The guy seems like a good witness so far, but the defense is going to have a field day with that "not 100% sure" and not being able to discern whether the cries for help came from the red-sweater-wearing guy on the bottom or not. I'm going to bet that O'Mara gets him to say that he's 90% or 95% sure it was the guy on the bottom crying for help. We'll see, but I still think he's going to be more helpful to the defense than the prosecution.

Blues

 

[CapGun]

The words contained within the FL code section(s) covering use of force are extremely clear. I don't think the words "disparity of force" are contained in those sections, but the meme is addressed as clear as it can be from where I sit. I believe the bolded text above is perfectly consistent with memes contained in the code, though I'm not sure I see where CapGun is arguing against that premise. Where I think CapGun might be going a bit into the realm of conjecture is assuming that any aggression was displayed by George Zimmerman that night. I mean that in a legal, statutory sense of the word, not whether or not some of us might consider it "aggressive" for him to have gotten out of his vehicle. The only evidence about what happened to start the fight is Martin's female friend who is still destroying his case on the stand as I type this, who said that the last thing she heard before she perceived the fight starting was Zimmerman saying, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. She also said that Martin was the first one to speak between them, when he said, "What are you following me for?" or something to that effect. There is zero evidence to show, or even logically suggest, who threw the first blow, who advanced towards whom or what happened after the connection was lost within seconds of her perception that the fight was on.

And by the way, in case anyone has forgotten (or never knew), the only eye-witness to any part of the fight will come during the defense's case, and unless he's had a 180° change-of-heart from what he said here, Zimmerman was being "beaten up" by Martin, who he clearly puts on top.

Thank you for taking the time to do all this typing. You shed light on what I am trying to get at. I will have to be more direct. Please read my upcoming response to ffChen

 

[BC1]

Were any of the ancestors of those offended white people ever owned by a black person?

I never owned a slave. Wouldn't even if it was legal. Never cracked a whip. I don't know anyone who ever owned a slave. Don't know of anyone who ever was a slave. Don't know anyone who knows another person who ever was a slave. I never did anything racist to anyone. In fact I went to a high school that was 38% black and had black friends. I'm an equal-opportunity discriminator.
.
So someone please tell me what the hell am I paying for? Why am I a cracker?

 

[CapGun]

In case you missed it.

if you don't know what action or situation justifies the use of your firearm (aka deadly force aka punching someone in the head), I advise you to get some more training.

Firefighterchen >>> Nei Ho Ma ! We can all use more training when it comes to firearms! Your smug remark leads me to tell you to work on your reading comprehension skills!!!
Please quote me where I asked at all or ever on this thread what action justifies the use of deadly force! As you read this read it like I am talking slow, easier to understand.
This whole trial (this is and was my whole point) clouded by all the talk of neighborhood watch protocol, did George disobey orders? Did he follow him? To me all moot points. We can get to the crux much faster dealing with MY QUESTION! In this case; George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin or any other two individuals in any other scenario you want to conjure up...... Hope this is simple enough for you.
Two people standing there arm distance apart ..... If you use the name GZ or TM you are bringing in unnecessary and confusing info to answer the question at hand. If you have to do that just delete your response BECAUSE YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! Here goes. Two people arms length apart or any distance for that matter....at what point or what circumstance is it justifiable for one person (to be clear there is no physical confrontation or physical attack by either side at this point!) At what point or what circumstance is it justifiable to punch someone out???
See, absolutely no mention of deadly force. No mention of "disparity of force". Just as before. If anyone responds with anything mentioning those subjects or even the Martin Zimmerman case I think that again you are missing this simple question! BC1, Blues, help. HELP! I am drowning in a vortex of fantasy hoping to get this question answered without peripheral BS

Just a simple Gui Lo or "Creepy Ass Cracker"!

 

[BC1]

Two people arms length apart or any distance for that matter....at what point or what circumstance is it justifiable for one person (to be clear there is no physical confrontation or physical attack by either side at this point!) At what point or what circumstance is it justifiable to punch someone out???
See, absolutely no mention of deadly force. No mention of "disparity of force". Just as before. If anyone responds with anything mentioning those subjects or even the Martin Zimmerman case I think that again you are missing this simple question! BC1, Blues, help. HELP!

Lot's of factors come into play. No two situations will ever be exactly the same which is precisely why "what if" scenarios on these forums are ridiculous.
.
I agree, remove the names TM and GZ; remove the race issue and focus on the actual confrontation. The person who throws the first punch is not always the initial aggressor. There is legality to a pre-emptive strike when the other party has communicated intent to commit an imminent act, grave threat is present, the party is squaring up and has the means and ability to act. One need not wait for the actual punch in every case. Additionally, an attack that involves an assault of such depravity that significant injury will occur permits the use of deadly force in nearly every state. If TM was on top of GZ punching him one must consider this is not the ordinary punch. We've all been punched at some time in our life. Your head moves, absorbing some of the kinetic energy of the blow. But when your head is on the ground a greater degree of kinetic energy is absorbed by the victims head. Greater injury very possibly occurs. What seems like and average smack can be deadly when one's head is on the ground. Quite similar, damage-wise, as striking someone in the head with a chunk of concrete instead of a fist.
.
This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances that lead to death. Perhaps this is nothing more than one person with a dedicated sense of community service meeting with someone who, as a young male, is flexing his blooming manhood and bravado. Sometimes two people meet at the wrong time in their lives.
.
My advice is always the same. First, unless it is unavoidable, get the hell out of there before the conflict starts. Second, never be pro-active unless you're choosing to defend someone who, without your help, is going down hard. Community policing works. Just don't let it cause the ruination of your life. Although I generally advocate not being a sheepdog I WOULD NOT sit-by and listen to someone screaming like that for help without intervening. I'm ashamed of the number of people who heard this altercation and who have a weapon and who chose to stay in their home.

 

[BluesStringer]

Here goes. Two people arms length apart or any distance for that matter....at what point or what circumstance is it justifiable for one person (to be clear there is no physical confrontation or physical attack by either side at this point!) At what point or what circumstance is it justifiable to punch someone out???

With no other information than that two people are standing at arms' length from each other, the answer is "NEVER."

I have no idea what that has to do with anything though. If anyone has misunderstood the limits on your question as being only in relation to two people standing at arms' length with no other information to go on when a fight suddenly erupts, it's probably because this thread is about the Martin/Zimmerman case and there are quite a few facts that we all know about it, none of which include the two of them just standing there and spontaneously erupting into hand-to-hand combat. We're not talking about a limited-information hypothetical, we're discussing real events first, and a trial that is going on because of those events second. Link Removed

Back on-topic, O'Mara is wrapping up his re-cross of Mr. Goode (I think is his name) right now. After listening to his entire testimony, I have to wonder why on Earth he was called as a prosecution witness.

Blues

 

[nogods]

Back on-topic, O'Mara is wrapping up his re-cross of Mr. Goode (I think is his name) right now. After listening to his entire testimony, I have to wonder why on Earth he was called as a prosecution witness.

Blues

I agree - if the prosecution had not called him I would think the defense would have - he seemed to confirm Zimmerman's claim, and he directly contradicted the other two prosecution witnesses who put Zimmerman on top.

Seems like the headway made by the prosecution yesterday has been dissipated by this witness.

 

[CapGun]

With no other information than that two people are standing at arms' length from each other, the answer is "NEVER."

I have no idea what that has to do with anything though. If anyone has misunderstood the limits on your question as being only in relation to two people standing at arms' length with no other information to go on when a fight suddenly erupts, it's probably because this thread is about the Martin/Zimmerman case and there are quite a few facts that we all know about it, none of which include the two of them just standing there and spontaneously erupting into hand-to-hand combat. We're not talking about a limited-information hypothetical, we're discussing real events first, and a trial that is going on because of those events second. Link Removed

Back on-topic, O'Mara is wrapping up his re-cross of Mr. Goode (I think is his name) right now. After listening to his entire testimony, I have to wonder why on Earth he was called as a prosecution witness.

Blues

OK Back to this case only. In one scenario or guess this went from no physical involvement to deadly physical confrontation. In my scenario of any twp people the answer is never. Obviously this trial is about the "incremental-ism" that led to the bad result.
Just have to wait for final arguments to see how the defense and the prosecution ties up their theory. So far no hard core eyewitness that can deliver testimony on this fact without reasonable doubt.
For me the testimony of GZ on his back with his injuries says a lot without further eyewitness to seeing him as the aggressor.
Many pundits have said that Zimmerman scared the wits out of the "young kid" Martin.
Then as in a post about John Wayne he was courageous in that he overcame his fears and confronted Zimmerman. What? Zimmerman after calling the police, ran after him, tackled him to the ground and decided to cold bloodily shoot him. Pick your own hypothesis I guess but two things I think about are. 1) Of course if GZ stayed put...and I am not saying he did anything wrong but there probably would have been a different outcome. 2) If TM was actually a scared kid or not so "courageous", at 5'11" 160 and 17 he could have easily outrun the 29yr old, "soft" GZ all the way back to his father. I think that would have produced different results also. It's not about "duty to retreat" so please don't bring it up. Just good 'ol human nature. I wonder if anyone at the trial will bring up the point that TM had that option. I think it says a lot about his temperament. I am sure there are those that will say that a black kid should never run from a "crazy ass cracker". In this case it's not about ego or race, just common sense survival as it turns out.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Firefighterchen >>> Nei Ho Ma ! We can all use more training when it comes to firearms! Your smug remark leads me to tell you to work on your reading comprehension skills!!!
Please quote me where I asked at all or ever on this thread what action justifies the use of deadly force! As you read this read it like I am talking slow, easier to understand.
This whole trial (this is and was my whole point) clouded by all the talk of neighborhood watch protocol, did George disobey orders? Did he follow him? To me all moot points. We can get to the crux much faster dealing with MY QUESTION! In this case; George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin or any other two individuals in any other scenario you want to conjure up...... Hope this is simple enough for you.
Two people standing there arm distance apart ..... If you use the name GZ or TM you are bringing in unnecessary and confusing info to answer the question at hand. If you have to do that just delete your response BECAUSE YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! Here goes. Two people arms length apart or any distance for that matter....at what point or what circumstance is it justifiable for one person (to be clear there is no physical confrontation or physical attack by either side at this point!) At what point or what circumstance is it justifiable to punch someone out???
See, absolutely no mention of deadly force. No mention of "disparity of force". Just as before. If anyone responds with anything mentioning those subjects or even the Martin Zimmerman case I think that again you are missing this simple question! BC1, Blues, help. HELP! I am drowning in a vortex of fantasy hoping to get this question answered without peripheral BS

Just a simple Gui Lo or "Creepy Ass Cracker"!

Before you try and drill someone with reading comprehension insults, try using proper grammar and sentence structure?

My first response, first paragraph, answered your question with my opinion. It had no mention of gz or tm. There was then a space to signify a new paragraph or a new thought, where I tied it back into the original thread topic.

Like I said early, imo a punch to the head IS deadly force. There is no "punching to only knock out." Just like there is no drawing a firearm and "shooting to wound." No matter how anyone tries to spin it to make it sound like it's not as bad as "killing" they are both considered deadly force. I'm sorry you couldn't understand that before.

Your question is like asking, "two people are standing apart, when are you justified to shoot to wound them (NOT talking about deadly force)? Sorry bud, doesn't work like that.

 

[BluesStringer]

I agree - if the prosecution had not called him I would think the defense would have - he seemed to confirm Zimmerman's claim, and he directly contradicted the other two prosecution witnesses who put Zimmerman on top.

Not really accurate, at least if Zimmerman's account is believable (I happen to think, so far, that it is). He says that he was either on top or would appear from a distance to be on top, as he was crawling out from under the dead weight of Martin after he shot him. He also says that he got on top and moved Martin's arms to where they were visible, but the pictures that one of the resident-witnesses took, and just testified about, contradict that part of his story. In any case, if Zimmerman testifies, he will put himself on top of Martin for a brief period after he fired, which is when all the witnesses (except for John Goode) were testifying about. I'm not sure if any of his statements to police or depositions come in if he doesn't testify (you would probably know about that), but O'Mara/West can explain his top-position at the very end of the contact with Martin during closing arguments I would think, and it will remain perfectly consistent with what Goode saw before the shooting occurred.

Seems like the headway made by the prosecution yesterday has been dissipated by this witness.

Wow. So you think the obvious coaching of the witness to check herself before her second day of testimony, and throw in a bunch of meaningless and sarcastic yes sirs and no sirs made "headway" for the prosecution? She remained consistent about what she thought about Zimmerman hitting Martin first, but she provided exactly zero evidence or knowledge of that happening. She was a net loss for the prosecution from beginning to end. If I were a juror, after all the racist language from Martin towards Zimmerman, between her and John Goode (at this point, without benefit of any other testimony), she would be the 40 in a 60/40 ratio of witnesses responsible for my vote for acquittal.

If the "headway" you're perceiving is in relation to the witnesses who put Z on top after the shot was fired, that's perfectly consistent with Z's story. I don't see where you get that any headway was made for the prosecution yesterday.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

So the last prosecution witness for the day/week was the physician's assistant who saw GZ a day or two after the events. Apparently, she was called by the prosecution to get evidence in that GZ had started taking MMA training, information which he included in a questionnaire the first time he visited that medical office. I believe that that first visit was in August of 2011. So West got that info in, but spent minimal time on it, and then proceeded to question the PA about GZ's injuries the day or two after the shooting, doing everything he could to get her minimize their seriousness. She was quite matter-of-fact though, and really didn't say anything to minimize or exaggerate the injuries.

The problem is though, where this *prosecution* witness is concerned, is that she is imminently qualified to testify as an expert witness on whether or not GZ's injuries were consistent with being violently punched and/or having his head pounded into concrete, and the defense drove a truck through the door that the prosecutor opened in questioning her about those injuries. Of course, the answer to every single one of O'Mara's questions about that was, "Yes, that injury is consistent with being punched/pounded into concrete" and there wasn't a thing the prosecution could do to stop that line of questioning since they introduced it.

The thing everyone has to keep in mind here, and that the prosecution seemed to forget as they tried to minimize the seriousness of GZ's injuries, is that how serious his injuries turned out to be after the fact, has no bearing on whether or not he had the requisite reasonable belief that his life was in danger at the point he drew and fired his weapon. Today's PA testimony buttressed his story and made the head-being-pounded-against-concrete meme much easier to believe for the jurors.

Oh, and then on re-direct, the prosecutor tried to bring up the MMA training again, ostensibly to leave the jury with that subject highlighted in their minds for the witness that ended the week. O'Mara objected though, on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of cross. He hadn't mentioned the MMA thing at all, so the judge had no choice but to sustain the objection, so concrete-consistent injuries = maximized, GZ's MMA training = minimized.

The PA was one of two witnesses today who were called by the prosecution, but were then converted to defense witnesses on cross. You guys in Florida are over-paying your prosecutors!

Blues

 

[gejoslin]

I never owned a slave. Wouldn't even if it was legal. Never cracked a whip. I don't know anyone who ever owned a slave. Don't know of anyone who ever was a slave. Don't know anyone who knows another person who ever was a slave. I never did anything racist to anyone. In fact I went to a high school that was 38% black and had black friends. I'm an equal-opportunity discriminator.
.
So someone please tell me what the hell am I paying for? Why am I a cracker?

~
I know where your coming from! In the middle 1800's an ancestor of mine, I'm in a direct line of descent from that family name, was a well know abolitionist. My family came to the colonies in the 1670's. None EVER owned another human, black, white or any other color! As a matter of fact my line came from Gaul, we were slaves of the Roman Empire.
Do the Italians owe me something? Why am I a racist? Cracker? Honky? Just because I'm white? I have American/Indian blood in my veins. Not enough to qualify for American/Indian college grant money anyway. My Grandfather and mother could have if they wished it. But too much that the White Supremacists wouldn't have me! According to what I've read. But do know how to crack a whip. :wink:
Not bit**ing just sayin'.

 

[Bigcarlover]

~
I know where your coming from! In the middle 1800's an ancestor of mine, I'm in a direct line of descent from that family name, was a well know abolitionist. My family came to the colonies in the 1670's. None EVER owned another human, black, white or any other color! As a matter of fact my line came from Gaul, we were slaves of the Roman Empire.
Do the Italians owe me something? Why am I a racist? Cracker? Honky? Just because I'm white? I have American/Indian blood in my veins. Not enough to qualify for American/Indian college grant money anyway. My Grandfather and mother could have if they wished it. But too much that the White Supremacists wouldn't have me! According to what I've read. But do know how to crack a whip. :wink:
Not bit**ing just sayin'.

Last legal slavery ended about 1870. Given the average life expectancy back then, you're probably looking at about 100 years since the last slave was even alive. Not to mention the number of people that have immigrated since then, who's ancestors were not even in the U.S. to own slaves.

 

[BC1]

The problem is though, where this *prosecution* witness is concerned, is that she is imminently qualified to testify as an expert witness on whether or not GZ's injuries were consistent with being violently punched and/or having his head pounded into concrete, and the defense drove a truck through the door that the prosecutor opened in questioning her about those injuries. Of course, the answer to every single one of O'Mara's questions about that was, "Yes, that injury is consistent with being punched/pounded into concrete" and there wasn't a thing the prosecution could do to stop that line of questioning since they introduced it.

Blues

I caught that too. They opened the door. What did they expect her to say, that getting your head pounded into concrete causes no injury?

 

[BC1]

~
I know where your coming from! In the middle 1800's an ancestor of mine, I'm in a direct line of descent from that family name, was a well know abolitionist. My family came to the colonies in the 1670's. None EVER owned another human, black, white or any other color! As a matter of fact my line came from Gaul, we were slaves of the Roman Empire.
Do the Italians owe me something? Why am I a racist? Cracker? Honky? Just because I'm white? I have American/Indian blood in my veins. Not enough to qualify for American/Indian college grant money anyway. My Grandfather and mother could have if they wished it. But too much that the White Supremacists wouldn't have me! According to what I've read. But do know how to crack a whip. :wink:
Not bit**ing just sayin'.

Same here. Family straggled-into America during the mid 1700's. Settled in Boston and upper NYS. They were horse breeders and blacksmiths. No one had a slave.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Firefighterchen >>> Nei Ho Ma ! We can all use more training when it comes to firearms! Your smug remark leads me to tell you to work on your reading comprehension skills!!!
Please quote me where I asked at all or ever on this thread what action justifies the use of deadly force! As you read this read it like I am talking slow, easier to understand.
This whole trial (this is and was my whole point) clouded by all the talk of neighborhood watch protocol, did George disobey orders? Did he follow him? To me all moot points. We can get to the crux much faster dealing with MY QUESTION! In this case; George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin or any other two individuals in any other scenario you want to conjure up...... Hope this is simple enough for you.
Two people standing there arm distance apart ..... If you use the name GZ or TM you are bringing in unnecessary and confusing info to answer the question at hand. If you have to do that just delete your response BECAUSE YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! Here goes. Two people arms length apart or any distance for that matter....at what point or what circumstance is it justifiable for one person (to be clear there is no physical confrontation or physical attack by either side at this point!) At what point or what circumstance is it justifiable to punch someone out???
See, absolutely no mention of deadly force. No mention of "disparity of force". Just as before. If anyone responds with anything mentioning those subjects or even the Martin Zimmerman case I think that again you are missing this simple question! BC1, Blues, help. HELP! I am drowning in a vortex of fantasy hoping to get this question answered without peripheral BS

Just a simple Gui Lo or "Creepy Ass Cracker"!

There is none. Both parties should walk away. There is no justification at that point


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[CapGun]

Before you try and drill someone with reading comprehension insults, try using proper grammar and sentence structure?

My first response, first paragraph, answered your question with my opinion. It had no mention of gz or tm. There was then a space to signify a new paragraph or a new thought, where I tied it back into the original thread topic.

Like I said early, imo a punch to the head IS deadly force. There is no "punching to only knock out." Just like there is no drawing a firearm and "shooting to wound." No matter how anyone tries to spin it to make it sound like it's not as bad as "killing" they are both considered deadly force. I'm sorry you couldn't understand that before.

Your question is like asking, "two people are standing apart, when are you justified to shoot to wound them (NOT talking about deadly force)? Sorry bud, doesn't work like that.

Hey Chen, As infantile as this is it was your wise A remark that I didn't understand what was involved to use deadly force and that I needed more training that I responded the way I did, You could not have gotten that impression if you understood what I wrote, hence the reading comprehension advisement.
Now as far as my sentence structure and a few typos because of my own laziness to proof read all my post and the fact that I am using my wife's laptop instead of my own PC, which is easier to use and less frustrating to type on..... I believe you could understand what I was saying. I understand it's hard not to be a wise guy on the internet from what I have read.
There is a transitional point when a confrontation goes physical. The question is what justifies that that transition? There mere point that by being followed by an individual made you feel threatened? I don't think that qualifies.For a more critical mind like Chen's, let me say that I know it doesn't qualify. If that isn't enough, let's just say I would not use it as justification.
The use of "deadly force" can take many forms and does not have to end in death but have the likely potential that it could end that way. It is more a function of what would "stop the threat". To be clear on that if shooting someone to stop a threat was what was required (or hitting him in the head with a bat) and the aggressor wasn't killed you were still using what would be referred to as "deadly force". If you weren't defending yourself and you smashed someone in the head there would be a good chance you might be brought up on attempted murder charges.
Maybe they will get to a point in this trial where it is explained just when Trayvon Martin was justified in doing what he did to Zimmerman. I don't think that will happen because I don't believe he was justified.That is what the trial is about for me. That transitional point. Difficult to prove when it doesn't seem Martin's best option was taken from him. The simple option ...... He could have run!
For us here it would be situational awareness and avoidance.
I'll have the popcorn ready for next week.
So Chen no ill will here but know I never attack anyone, I just react.
I took my time. Don't cry for me, it's just tough to type with this brace on my arm after surgery. :dirol:

 

[BluesStringer]

Maybe they will get to a point in this trial where it is explained just when Trayvon Martin was justified in doing what he did to Zimmerman. I don't think that will happen because I don't believe he was justified.

Not trying to contradict you, just offer another perspective, but I believe the reason Martin won't be shown to have been justified is that all the witnesses who had the potential to say he was justified for some reason, have already testified, and none of them saw that part of the altercation. In a baseball analogy, tie goes to the runner, with the tie being that either one of them *could have* started the fight, and the runner being the defendant, Zimmerman. If tie goes to the runner as far as who was the aggressor (statutorily-speaking), it's already over. The best the prosecution can do at this point is present statements and depositions that have some minor inconsistencies, but hey, the guy had his head pounded on and was described by the first witness to contact him after the shooting as "staggering around" and said he "squatted, trying to collect himself." On the significant facts, he hasn't been at all inconsistent, and all the witnesses support his story, whether they perceive otherwise or not. A couple or three said they saw GZ on top, but that was after the shooting, and is perfectly consistent with his story of how it looked as he tried to get out from under Martin's body. Even he says he was on top for a brief time. This trial has always been a political sham from the beginning.

I will be absolutely amazed at this point if Zimmerman ever takes the stand, which is fairly unusual in a self defense case. Such is the quality of the prosecution's case though. Their witnesses have already established a prima facie self defense case for the defendant they're prosecuting!

Blues