Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

[Baloney Sandwich]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his

mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly

exaggerated. As in so many other parts of his narrative, Zimmerman was clearly lying about this. Guy was barely nicked. PERHAPS when Martin managed to get on top, for a few

seconds, GZ scraped the back of his head against the sidewalk, but it was hardly a severe blow.

So I'll repeat again: it is very unlikely Zimmerman actually feared for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled our his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to death.

Let's accept everything you jist wrote to be the truth. Why do you suppose he shot him then?

 

[jamny]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?

GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

OK, how about on top of you on the ground and punched one time in the face. Enough to shoot?

I was going to extend this to another hypothetical but it can go on forever and Ramsey has done a much better job of making my point for me with his last few posts.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

My drivel is backed up by the medical examiner. Sorry it makes your hero out to be a liar.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

But you are reading the statute. If you had to forget all of that and only use the judges instructions to the jury, do you reach the same conclusion?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why do you suppose he shot him then?

The punk was about to get away.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his

mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly

exaggerated. As in so many other parts of his narrative, Zimmerman was clearly lying about this. Guy was barely nicked. PERHAPS when Martin managed to get on top, for a few

seconds, GZ scraped the back of his head against the sidewalk, but it was hardly a severe blow.

So I'll repeat again: it is very unlikely Zimmerman actually feared for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled our his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to death.

Let's accept everything you jist wrote to be the truth. Why do you suppose he shot him then?

Two possibilities:

First, because he was losing the fight, and got pissed off about it. If this is true, Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2.

Second, because Zimmerman feared for his life; however, this was an UNREASONABLE fear. If this is true, Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Zimmerman is kind of wimpy, so I'll go with door #2.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

This isn't about what the law should be. It's about what the law is. The elements of a self defense claim were determined by the Florida legislature. If the legislature had wanted to create a presumption of the fear of death or great bodily harm in the case of any battery, they could have done so.

They did not. They drew the line at (a reasonable fear of) the standard for aggravated battery. For simple battery, the right to self defense is confined to a level below deadly force.

The jury is free to find that Zimmerman was being subjected to a aggravated battery. Or that he legitimately feared as such. But there is also plenty of evidence against that proposition, particularly if the jury finds Zimmerman's self-serving, unsworn statements lack credibility.

My example to Jamny and others is that the law does not state anywhere that if someone punches you, you are required to reciprocate. There are people in here picking fights and getting angry that AT SOME POINT, the law states the victim has a right to say stop and that he is justified in using deadly force. That point was clearly passed in this case based on the evidence, there is nothing to contradict John Good's eyewitness testimony. Martin did not give Zimmerman the opportunity to flee, John Good ID'd Martin on top, John Good ID'd Martin throwing down punches, John Good ID'd Zimmerman screaming.

Using Those meddling kids always get away as evidence is not good enough, Ramsay Hunt Experience.

I've never used those meddling kids as evidence. I've never bought the theory for 2nd degree murder, because I've always felt that even if I granted the State every factual inference (Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, followed him, got in a confrontation, and shot him), I couldn't find facts that rose to depraved mind murder.

Conversely, if I were to grant every single factual inference in favor of Zimmerman, he'd be acquitted, but that's true in just about every murder trial. If I had to grant every single factual inference in favor Aaron Hernandez, I'd have to acquit him. But I don't think his jury is going to do that, and Zimmerman's jury isn't obligated to do so here. The only evidence to support Zimmerman's head being "bashed into concrete" or that he was "being smothered" is his own inconsistent, self-serving, unsworn statements. I don't find that evidence credible, particularly when the only other witness is dead.

My contention has always been that even if I resolve a very large number of factual disputes in Zimmerman's favor, it is still manslaughter under the law. I don't care whether Zimmerman followed Martin. It doesn't matter. I don't care whether Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. It doesn't matter. I suppose I would care whether Zimmerman's head was being "slammed" into the concrete, but the physical evidence suggests it wasn't, just as it suggests that Martin was not "raining down blows" on Zimmerman (or at least was not connecting on such blows).

So I assume, for Zimmerman's benefit, that Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman. The physical evidence suggests that if the police had then come around, broken up that fight, and arrested Trayvon Martin, he would have been arrested for simple battery. A jury is free to disagree, but that's my impression. And I haven't seen credible evidence that a reasonable person would have believed that he was being subjected to anything more than that. Good's testimony supports simple battery. Not aggravated battery, IMO. Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

Wow. Once again you have gotten to the heart of the matter, with great clarity and simplicity. Why couldn't the prosecution have made this argument? Because they were so invested in murder 2 that they had to talk about "hate in his heart"?

There are no consequences to me punting on the theory Zimmerman was charged on. I'm just a Yahoo on the internet.

There arguably are very real consequences if the prosecution does so. Political consequences to be sure, but also just plain strategic consequences. It's one reason why I was a very good law student and I'm not as good a lawyer. I zero in on the very best, IMO, argument and always want to stick with it. More experienced litigators prefer to keep every option open. It's considered bad lawyering to give concede an argument when you don't have to.

I think that's wrong. And I think it's borderline unethical when there are consequences affecting a criminal defendant's liberty, but that's the way cases are tried, in my experience.

 

[3C's]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

OK, how about on top of you on the ground and punched one time in the face. Enough to shoot?

Is the back of my head hitting concrete? Absolutely.

OK, how about in the grass as GZ himself said he maneuvered to.

ding ding ding. "he feared he was going to have his head bashed in on the concrete" GZ taped saying he shimmied off the concrete onto the grass. "yeah, but he had a justifiable fear!"

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death,...

Can you tell me which witness entered into evidence that Martin was suffocating Zimmerman?

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

But you are reading the statute. If you had to forget all of that and only use the judges instructions to the jury, do you reach the same conclusion?

The jury instructions are from the statute.

But your point stands, because I'm also familiar with caselaw interpreting a phrase that was not defined in the jury instruction "great bodily harm."

If I were in the jury, I would have come back and asked for an instruction on that term (in the case that has provided my most extensive criminal experience, the jury asked for a definition of "valuable consideration" in a gambling case).

But even absent that, I would have looked at the way the term was used elsewhere in the instructions. I would have seen it in the definition of "deadly force" and in the definition of a "deadly weapon." And I would have thought that every word had to have some type of meaning. So that "great bodily harm" had to be something more than "bodily harm." Or even "moderate bodily harm."

 

[kface]

Anyone you cut it I cannot believe we have hit a point as a society where you can start a fight and then as soon as you start losing kill the guy. I really believe some people are falling back down the evolutionary ladder

 

[Bob Magaw]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

any documented cases ever of somebody getting smothered to death in a street fight?

probably not too common...

is this an MMA tactic, in which case zimmerman may have known about it for alibi purposes?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Anyone you cut it I cannot believe we have hit a point as a society where you can start a fight and then as soon as you start losing kill the guy. I really believe some people are falling back down the evolutionary ladder

Actually I find this great progress. Zimmerman's supporters represent ideas that are slowly dying off. That is why this case is so important. To cling to our past.

 

[Mario Kart]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his

mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly

exaggerated. As in so many other parts of his narrative, Zimmerman was clearly lying about this. Guy was barely nicked. PERHAPS when Martin managed to get on top, for a few

seconds, GZ scraped the back of his head against the sidewalk, but it was hardly a severe blow.

So I'll repeat again: it is very unlikely Zimmerman actually feared for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled our his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to death.

Let's accept everything you jist wrote to be the truth. Why do you suppose he shot him then?

Two possibilities:First, because he was losing the fight, and got pissed off about it. If this is true, Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2.

Second, because Zimmerman feared for his life; however, this was an UNREASONABLE fear. If this is true, Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Zimmerman is kind of wimpy, so I'll go with door #2.

I hope you never find yourself in fear of your life, Tim. Your every move and every thought will be scrutinized for days on end. And, if you are in fear of your life, ever, hopefully you will not have any scars on you. You'd be thrown in jail in less than a week given your stance in this thread.

 

[Zow]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

I'm not saying I agree with Tim's point here, but you really don't see what point he is making and that there's some validity to it at all, do you?

 

[lod01]

Man, I wish this thread had more giant blocks of nested quotes. They're great.

 

[Joe McGee]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

There was a lot of strategy going on about race. Both sides were implying it and didn't want to address it directly. The persecution said this case wasn't about race, then proceeded to talk about how Trayvon was profiled. Even the Martin family lawyer is playing the semantics game saying the case isn't about race but has a racial component to it now.

I assume neither side wants to lose the jury.

 

[jon_mx]

Because there was no case against him. It is a very flimsy circumstantial case that no prosecutor would take under normal circumstances. This is only a case because of the politics.

Yet the jury is still away from their families. I know that you and the rest of the sheep were given this talking point a long time ago, but no matter how many times it is repeated it will only be true to believers. The case for manslaughter has really come down to the jury instructions and how they interpret them. The odds for a conviction are much higher that your 100-1 nonsense as evident that the jury hasn't gone home.

You have had a few good post in this thread where there was some hope for you that you were capable of some independent thought, had some ability to retain and even analyze real information, etc. Then you slipped back to this. Why?

Talking points? Who the hell you think I listen to? I haven't listened to one minute of talking heads on talk radio or foxnews in a year. The only thing I have seen are the idiots on HLN or CNN between court coverage.

So? Zimmerman was charged 15 months ago. Or 8 burglaries ago.

15 months ago I was not on Zimmerman's side

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his

mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly

exaggerated. As in so many other parts of his narrative, Zimmerman was clearly lying about this. Guy was barely nicked. PERHAPS when Martin managed to get on top, for a few

seconds, GZ scraped the back of his head against the sidewalk, but it was hardly a severe blow.

So I'll repeat again: it is very unlikely Zimmerman actually feared for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled our his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to death.

Let's accept everything you jist wrote to be the truth. Why do you suppose he shot him then?

Because the "####### punk" was a criminal, and one who had kicked his ### when he tried to question or detain him. The fight only served to further convince him that he was dealing with a "####### punk." And he thought he could get away with it because he knew the self-defense law. Zimmerman didn't find out he was dealing with a normal kid until after he shot him.

 

[Bob Magaw]

and zimmerman claimed martin said "you're going to die tonight"...

really?

i actually did witness a fight in high school, where the person who got the better of it said, i'm going to kill you, but it was a party, a lot of people were around on both sides, and he was dragged off...

it just seems like zimmerman put bad comic book villian dialogue in martin's mouth... like, what is the worst possible thing i can say martin said as an alibi and to justify my actions?

 

[Zow]

Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

But you are reading the statute. If you had to forget all of that and only use the judges instructions to the jury, do you reach the same conclusion?

The jury instructions are from the statute.

But your point stands, because I'm also familiar with caselaw interpreting a phrase that was not defined in the jury instruction "great bodily harm."

If I were in the jury, I would have come back and asked for an instruction on that term (in the case that has provided my most extensive criminal experience, the jury asked for a definition of "valuable consideration" in a gambling case).

But even absent that, I would have looked at the way the term was used elsewhere in the instructions. I would have seen it in the definition of "deadly force" and in the definition of a "deadly weapon." And I would have thought that every word had to have some type of meaning. So that "great bodily harm" had to be something more than "bodily harm." Or even "moderate bodily harm."

I hope the jurors are as logical as you or employ similar deductive reasoning skills. I don't think they will though, and the distinctions will be lost on them.

 

[3C's]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

any documented cases ever of somebody getting smothered to death in a street fight?

probably not too common...

is this an MMA tactic, in which case zimmerman may have known about it for alibi purposes?

Though people keep bringing it up as an MMA "tactic", smothering is illegal in most if not all amateur MMA orgs. Not sure how many of the pro orgs allow it. Pretty sure UFC does. It's not effective at all since the grounded person has 2 hands with which to fight back, unless of course those hands are busy doing something else, like grabbing for or holding something.

 

[3C's]

Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

But you are reading the statute. If you had to forget all of that and only use the judges instructions to the jury, do you reach the same conclusion?

The jury instructions are from the statute.

But your point stands, because I'm also familiar with caselaw interpreting a phrase that was not defined in the jury instruction "great bodily harm."

If I were in the jury, I would have come back and asked for an instruction on that term (in the case that has provided my most extensive criminal experience, the jury asked for a definition of "valuable consideration" in a gambling case).

But even absent that, I would have looked at the way the term was used elsewhere in the instructions. I would have seen it in the definition of "deadly force" and in the definition of a "deadly weapon." And I would have thought that every word had to have some type of meaning. So that "great bodily harm" had to be something more than "bodily harm." Or even "moderate bodily harm."

I hope the jurors are as logical as you or employ similar deductive reasoning skills. I don't think they will though, and the distinctions will be lost on them.

6 women man...

 

[Ballstein]

ERASE thread. mistrial comig.

 

[Zow]

One of the CNN lawyers is bringing a point that I made at the start of the trial and which Ramsay also made later on: the prosecution presented Zimmerman's prior statements so that they could attack them- the closing argument was all about making Zimmerman out to be a liar. I believe that was a tactical error. What the prosecution should have done instead is not offered any of Zimmerman's statements- that might have forced the defense to put Zimmerman on the stand in order to relate his narrative, and the prosecution may have won the case during the cross-examination.

If Zimmerman is acquitted, then this decision by the prosecution may be a pivotal reason.

Give it up. He wasn't taking the stand.

Then he would have been convicted. If the prosecution hadn't offered Zimmerman's narrative, and Zimmerman refused to take the stand, he would have been convicted rather easily IMO.

Had the prosecution not done so, then I imagine Zimmerman would have had to testify. Usually in self defense cases the defendant has no "choice" but to testify.

Hence my comment that things must have gone well for the defense because Zimmerman had the luxury of choosing not to testify and still have been able to make a prima facie case for self defense.

But again, I haven't watched the trial so I don't know anything.

...and/or they decided that Zimmerman makes a horrible witness, which could well be true too.

Undoubtedly this was a factor too I'm sure. As I wrote somewhere earlier he seems like the type of guy that would probably too strongly make his points and say too much.

 

[Rayderr]

BREAKING NEWS: The Jurors have not reached a verdict in the Zimmerman trial.

 

[financewonk]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

 

[3C's]

ERASE thread. mistrial comig.

I'd bet on mistrial and this thread doubling in posts.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

Can you present a scenario where Martin sees and goes for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman gets there first? And gets off a shot that hits Martin directly in the heart? I have stated for pages and days (weeks?) that I cannot imagine how this is possible. What reasonable possibility am I overlooking?

 

[ArbyMelt]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

I completely agree he probably did embellish a few things, but that doesn't mean he didn't fear for his life, and could be found not guilty. Sadly, we don't know exactly what happened even with evidence presented. This is a "lack of evidence" vs. "emotion" case, and the 5 women jury may ultimate let emotion win out. We shall see. I'm leaning hung jury for now.

 

[Joe McGee]

and zimmerman claimed martin said "you're going to die tonight"...

really?

i actually did witness a fight in high school, where the person who got the better of it said, i'm going to kill you, but it was a party, a lot of people were around on both sides, and he was dragged off...

it just seems like zimmerman put bad comic book villian dialogue in martin's mouth... like, what is the worst possible thing i can say martin said as an alibi and to justify my actions?

Agreed, but none of us were there. We can only go by the evidence and it is possible that he said it, however improbable. The State had witnesses that lied through teeth and it was obvious. And that's where the case stands. 2 imperfect people in an altercation where one is dead and can't tell his side.

 

[3C's]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

Can you present a scenario where Martin sees and goes for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman gets there first? And gets off a shot that hits Martin directly in the heart? I have stated for pages and days (weeks?) that I cannot imagine how this is possible. What reasonable possibility am I overlooking?

In the dark of night, when neighbors had trouble distinguishing who was who from feet away, Martin saw the concealed weapon as the coat lifted up while punching and smothering Zimmerman.

 

[jon_mx]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

My drivel is backed up by the medical examiner. Sorry it makes your hero out to be a liar.

You mean the medical examiner who owes her current job to the prosecution and whose examination consisted of looking at pictures?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

Can you present a scenario where Martin sees and goes for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman gets there first? And gets off a shot that hits Martin directly in the heart? I have stated for pages and days (weeks?) that I cannot imagine how this is possible. What reasonable possibility am I overlooking?

In the dark of night, when neighbors had trouble distinguishing who was who from feet away, Martin saw the concealed weapon as the coat lifted up while punching and smothering Zimmerman.

So? That is fine, hoe do you get the rest of this-

When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

15 months ago I was not on Zimmerman's side

I know you said self defense was really weak. Then you slipped up and received your marching orders.

ETA: Your first instincts served you well.

 

[jon_mx]

Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

But you are reading the statute. If you had to forget all of that and only use the judges instructions to the jury, do you reach the same conclusion?

The jury instructions are from the statute.

But your point stands, because I'm also familiar with caselaw interpreting a phrase that was not defined in the jury instruction "great bodily harm."

If I were in the jury, I would have come back and asked for an instruction on that term (in the case that has provided my most extensive criminal experience, the jury asked for a definition of "valuable consideration" in a gambling case).

But even absent that, I would have looked at the way the term was used elsewhere in the instructions. I would have seen it in the definition of "deadly force" and in the definition of a "deadly weapon." And I would have thought that every word had to have some type of meaning. So that "great bodily harm" had to be something more than "bodily harm." Or even "moderate bodily harm."

By the same token it has to mean much less than deadly force or the law has meaningless words in it.

 

[3C's]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

Can you present a scenario where Martin sees and goes for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman gets there first? And gets off a shot that hits Martin directly in the heart? I have stated for pages and days (weeks?) that I cannot imagine how this is possible. What reasonable possibility am I overlooking?

In the dark of night, when neighbors had trouble distinguishing who was who from feet away, Martin saw the concealed weapon as the coat lifted up while punching and smothering Zimmerman.

So? That is fine, hoe do you get the rest of this-

When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

I'm agreeing with what I assume is your premise that Zimmermans story about the gun seems hard to believe. I see no way that Martin could have seen/located the concealed gun in pitch dark while having his hands busy doing other things.

 

[Courtjester]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

I'm not saying I agree with Tim's point here, but you really don't see what point he is making and that there's some validity to it at all, do you?

I disagree. He is basically giving the jury another scenario, in case they don't fully agree with the original story. He is not changing his original statement, he is merely giving them another avenue. I am sure you do that in trial all the time. The job of a defense lawyer is to muddy the water and present enough what ifs to create reasonable doubt.

It is like everyone jumping on the prosecution when they brought out the dummy and did a reenactment of the struggle. A lot were saying that the Prosecution really helped create an image that TM was aggressively beating GZ by being on top, but what I saw is them basically giving the jury a lot to chew on there about the shooting actually being not justified due to distance between the bodies.

 

[cstu]

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

TM didn't need to go for the gun for GZ to have reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm, all he needed to do was be on top of GZ on the ground and hitting him with GZ's head on the concrete. TM made a huge mistake and it cost him his life.

As to GZ's lying, he could well have. However, has the prosecution even tried to deny TM was on top of GZ when he was killed? The bottom line for me is if you are on top of someone and hitting them then it's perfectly reasonable for them to fear serious bodily harm.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

But you are reading the statute. If you had to forget all of that and only use the judges instructions to the jury, do you reach the same conclusion?

The jury instructions are from the statute.

But your point stands, because I'm also familiar with caselaw interpreting a phrase that was not defined in the jury instruction "great bodily harm."

If I were in the jury, I would have come back and asked for an instruction on that term (in the case that has provided my most extensive criminal experience, the jury asked for a definition of "valuable consideration" in a gambling case).

But even absent that, I would have looked at the way the term was used elsewhere in the instructions. I would have seen it in the definition of "deadly force" and in the definition of a "deadly weapon." And I would have thought that every word had to have some type of meaning. So that "great bodily harm" had to be something more than "bodily harm." Or even "moderate bodily harm."

By the same token it has to mean much less than deadly force or the law has meaningless words in it.

"Deadly force," by definition, is force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. So I don't understand your point at all. Yes, it's true that Zimmerman didn't have to literally fear for his life. But he had to reasonably fear that someone would exercise "deadly force" against him. That's the definition.

In other words, in order to use deadly force to defend himself, he had to reasonably fear a commensurate use of force against him. That's the only logical way to read the instructions.

NOTE: I doubt the jury will read the instructions logically. This is why the argument over jury instructions is so important.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

Can you present a scenario where Martin sees and goes for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman gets there first? And gets off a shot that hits Martin directly in the heart? I have stated for pages and days (weeks?) that I cannot imagine how this is possible. What reasonable possibility am I overlooking?

In the dark of night, when neighbors had trouble distinguishing who was who from feet away, Martin saw the concealed weapon as the coat lifted up while punching and smothering Zimmerman.

So? That is fine, hoe do you get the rest of this-

When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

I'm agreeing with what I assume is your premise that Zimmermans story about the gun seems hard to believe. I see no way that Martin could have seen/located the concealed gun in pitch dark while having his hands busy doing other things.

Oh, I thought you were explaining how Martin could find it. My bad. My point is more that if Martin is such control and he knows the gun is there he beats Zimmerman to the gun. And if I am wrong about that then at the very least he is no longer positioned such that he is shot in the chest.

 

[timschochet]

and zimmerman claimed martin said "you're going to die tonight"...

really?

i actually did witness a fight in high school, where the person who got the better of it said, i'm going to kill you, but it was a party, a lot of people were around on both sides, and he was dragged off...

it just seems like zimmerman put bad comic book villian dialogue in martin's mouth... like, what is the worst possible thing i can say martin said as an alibi and to justify my actions?

Agreed, but none of us were there. We can only go by the evidence and it is possible that he said it, however improbable. The State had witnesses that lied through teeth and it was obvious. And that's where the case stands. 2 imperfect people in an altercation where one is dead and can't tell his side.

Like most of your other posts in this thread, this is simply nonsense. There is no evidence that a single state witness lied. There is no evidence that even SUGGESTS it.

The only person that we have evidence of lying is George Zimmerman in his narrative to the police. Several of his statements are contradicted by the evidence; others by common sense.

 

[Joe McGee]

and zimmerman claimed martin said "you're going to die tonight"...

really?

i actually did witness a fight in high school, where the person who got the better of it said, i'm going to kill you, but it was a party, a lot of people were around on both sides, and he was dragged off...

it just seems like zimmerman put bad comic book villian dialogue in martin's mouth... like, what is the worst possible thing i can say martin said as an alibi and to justify my actions?

Agreed, but none of us were there. We can only go by the evidence and it is possible that he said it, however improbable. The State had witnesses that lied through teeth and it was obvious. And that's where the case stands. 2 imperfect people in an altercation where one is dead and can't tell his side.

Like most of your other posts in this thread, this is simply nonsense. There is no evidence that a single state witness lied. There is no evidence that even SUGGESTS it.

The only person that we have evidence of lying is George Zimmerman in his narrative to the police. Several of his statements are contradicted by the evidence; others by common sense.

I'm not saying George Zimmerman didn't lie, I'm saying Zimmerman lied and a couple of witnesses lied. Rachel Jeantel was lying and telling multiple versions on the stand just to name one. I realize you have your blinders on.

 

[cstu]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

TM didn't need to go for the gun for GZ to have reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm, all he needed to do was be on top of GZ on the ground and hitting him with GZ's head on the concrete. TM made a huge mistake and it cost him his life.

Zimmerman in the tape at the very least implies that he has squirmed off the concrete before he holds the conversation about calling 911 or getting help, before Martin tells him he going to die that night, all before Zimmerman goes for his exposed gun. In his words. That particular threat seems to be gone.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

It really depends on what those lies are. If he lied about leaving his car, about whom was following who, about the way the fight went down and especially about the extent of his injuries and exactly what his thoughts were regarding them, then these things lead me to think he is probably guilty of at least manslaughter.

 

[timschochet]

and zimmerman claimed martin said "you're going to die tonight"...

really?

i actually did witness a fight in high school, where the person who got the better of it said, i'm going to kill you, but it was a party, a lot of people were around on both sides, and he was dragged off...

it just seems like zimmerman put bad comic book villian dialogue in martin's mouth... like, what is the worst possible thing i can say martin said as an alibi and to justify my actions?

Agreed, but none of us were there. We can only go by the evidence and it is possible that he said it, however improbable. The State had witnesses that lied through teeth and it was obvious. And that's where the case stands. 2 imperfect people in an altercation where one is dead and can't tell his side.

Like most of your other posts in this thread, this is simply nonsense. There is no evidence that a single state witness lied. There is no evidence that even SUGGESTS it.

The only person that we have evidence of lying is George Zimmerman in his narrative to the police. Several of his statements are contradicted by the evidence; others by common sense.

I'm not saying George Zimmerman didn't lie, I'm saying Zimmerman lied and a couple of witnesses lied. Rachel Jeantel was lying and telling multiple versions on the stand just to name one. I realize you have your blinders on.

She was not a good witness, but I have no evidence that she was lying. Not sure how she even contradicted herself significantly on the stand.

In any case, my "blinders" (by which I assume you mean my presumption that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter even though I would vote to acquit him) is not affected by her testimony in any way.

 

[cstu]

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

TM didn't need to go for the gun for GZ to have reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm, all he needed to do was be on top of GZ on the ground and hitting him with GZ's head on the concrete. TM made a huge mistake and it cost him his life.

Zimmerman in the tape at the very least implies that he has squirmed off the concrete before he holds the conversation about calling 911 or getting help, before Martin tells him he going to die that night, all before Zimmerman goes for his exposed gun. In his words. That particular threat seems to be gone.

I don't know about that but this is what the gunshot expert had to say:

A nationally renowned gunshot wound expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with accused murderer George Zimmerman's story that the teen was on top of him and leaning over when he was shot.