it doesn't prove it, just like the phone call doesn't prove the opposite. all i'm saying is that the crux for the defense is that zimmerman was attacked and then shot. there is no evidence to the contrary. it would be hard to argue that trayvon was shot and thens able to wound zimmerman afterwards. did trayvon have any wounds that weren't related to the gunshot?

like i said previously, zimmerman was in the wrong in my mind. i just don't think there's enough evidence (like you say) that the public knows that will state, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty of murdering trayvon illegally. that doesn't mean there isn't evidence that we don't know yet.

this has all of the makings of the casey anthony case (minus the lying). everyone can feel that she did something BAD, and it was wrong, but something is just not there to convict.

The phone call Martin had with his girlfriend is very much evidence to the contrary.

maybe we're talking about a different phone conversation. my bad. i'll admit that based on your comment here i must be thinking of the wrong phone call.

Martin apparently was on the phone with his girlfriend before he was getting attacked? Wasn't he carrying skittles and nothing else?

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Sorry, but it's funny that no one here is a lawyer, has the case file in front of them, witnessed the murder, or has been privy to anything other than media gabble but still insists on taking a position and then debating the shit out of it.

_________________

He bought Skittles and iced tea from the store.

While walking home, he was on the phone with his girlfriend, and had mentioned he put his hoodie up because it was raining. He noticed someone following him (presumably Zimmerman, and commented on it to his girlfriend. She told him to start running, but he said he'd just walk a little faster.

Eventually he did start to run. When Zimmerman caught up, she heard Martin ask 'What are you following me for?', then a man respond 'What are you doing here'. Then, a shove, the phone hit the ground, and went dead.

COMPLETELY blows up Zimmerman's accusation that Martin came after him first. I don't believe there is a recording of the call, just his GF's testimony, but timestamps when compared to Zimmerman's calls to 911 show Martin on the phone with his GF when Zimmerman approached him.

no, but isn't the point of discussion to do just that?

i can say, as a fact, when i discuss these things (outside my expertise) i don't pass my opinion off as fact. no one here is political experts, but everyone shares their respective opinion.

Ya, it goes counter to the fact that he had lost contact(sight) with Trayvon for a while, when he suddenly reappeared, and attacked him. A jury will find it hard to believe a scrawny kid cornered a large man to attack him after he was already trying to evade him, especially seeing the g/f 's testimony and the times don't jibe. Simply being caught in this lie could be enough to convict.

Some food for thought.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

It's starting to look like Zimmerman really did confront/assault/shoot him without being in self defense.

Wasn't there witnesses, though?

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

they all have different stories

_________________

Wasn't part of the issue that he directly defied police orders to stay put? He called the police, the police said don't make a scene, wait for the officers, and he totally ignored that. Regardless of what actually happened, I'd imagine the fact that he didn't listen to police at all particularly helps his case. Couldn't one argue that if the kid actually did attack Zimmerman in some manner, it could have been out of self defense, given he had this very large man following him for what sounds like a while? It's possible Travyon saw Zimmerman as a threat to his own life, and tried to defend himself from some guy who was following him, and Zimmerman took that as an excuse to shoot.

Wow...nice find. Zimmerman is toast.

At least something is FINALLY happening with the only suspect in a murder. Maybe the reason it didn't go to grand jury is that they didn't want to leave Zimmerman's charging to chnace. That doesn't look good for the chance of conviction to me, but the evidence sure seems to point to a racially-motivated unprovocked attack to me.

Not quite.

Prosecutors can either hold a probable cause hearing, or take the case to a grand jury. In both cases, the end goal is an indictment.

For a grand jury, only the prosecution presents evidence. The defense can't be there, nor can they challenge anything at this point. If the prosecution presents enough evidence , the grand jury will return a true bill and indict. Grand jury proceedings are secret, so the prosecution doesn't tip their hand with the evidence that they have.

If you choose to skip the GJ, then the prosecutor files an information to a judge, who then holds a hearing on the evidence. The defense is present at this hearing, and can challenge evidence and witnesses. This is why it's not commonly used. In fact, when you look at the big picture, you need MORE evidence to skip the GJ than you do if you file an information.

Even better, didn't know that.

By far and away the biggest issue in determining guilt is not who followed who or who "confronted" who (this term having different possible meanings/implications for different people). It's about how actual physical contact began and turned into a physical fight, and then during this physical contact whether Martin posed a threat of death or serious injury. This boils down to possibly only 10-20 seconds of this whole incident. If Martin was actually getting the better of the fight (possibly struck first?) and Zimmerman was in a vulnerable position and in fear of serious injury/death, not only would the shooting be justified, but the "stand your ground" law doesn't even come into play.

"Stand your ground" is more about defending yourself before giving up space. If Zimmerman, or anybody for that matter, refuses to retreat from somebody, and then that person begins to beat him senseless or tries to stab him or tries to pry his pistol from him (not that any of that necessarily happend with Martin), then the "ground" has already been lost, so to speak. Even before that law was passed, the person that refused to retreat would still be justified in using deadly force to defend himself. No matter what the circumstances were leading up to a face-to-face, if one person poses a threat of serious injury or death, the other can respond with deadly force. Who followed who, or what one incorrectly thought about the other doesn't matter.

Martin could've thought he was about to get mugged, and turned to Zimmerman only after Zimmerman caught up to him. But if Martin became the aggressor from there and managed to get on Zimmerman and beat him or put him in a position where Zimmerman thought he was about to get badly beaten, Zimmerman has a defense. Even if jerk #1 started a physical fight, but jerk #2 got the clear upper hand and was beating #1 to a pulp and #1 was totally defenseless and about to lose consciousness, #1 would be justified in shooting #2.

So as I said, this whole case depends on what happened in the few seconds immediately before the shooting. Prosector's offices are persuaded by public pressure at times the same as any police dept. The 2nd degree murder charge is a step above probablility, but I think she's hoping to have a split jury that will have manslaughter as an option to reduce charges to. Manslaughter is definitely the better charge to pursue (not that Zimmerman is necessarily guilty), so that shows to me some pressure by the prosecutor. Murder is going to be harder to prove, and I doubt there's any smoking gun evidence out there unless a 911 caller/witness saw a lot more than what's been reported.

Here's some interesting reading from an NPR discussion including some good info from Florida attorneys, and SYG law experts.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/12/150507016 ... erman-case

In a nutshell, it seems like this case is really going to be decided in pretrial on the merits of the SYG defense. If the judge determines in pretrial that Zimmerman was not defending himself, then Zimmerman has to be screwed since he's admitted to shooting Martin. The manslaughter/murder 2 distinction is interesting.

The judge won't be determining in pre-trial if Zimmerman was defending himself. The judge in pre-trial will only determine if "stand your ground" applies as reason to throw out charges against Zimmerman. Stand your ground may not apply, and may very well not need apply, for Zimmerman to have a legit defense.

Edit - I should clarify, in pre-trial a judge always has to decide if the case should be thrown out based on self-defense, but that is normally a formality. In this case the much bigger issue is whether "stand your ground" applies and if it precludes Zimmerman from prosecution. Even if the judge decides against that, the traditional age-old concept of self-defense stil may apply and win an acquital. The chances of that aren't diminished or tipped off based on what the pre-trial judge decides, unless of course the judge dismisses the case. I highly doubt the pre-trial judge will put himself in position to be the latest subject for a bounty. Too much publicity and public pressure to not be passed off on a jury.