If I were on the jury I'd be ready to convict if evidence shows he was on top when the shots were fired, at least manslaughter, and if there is no evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, wow that kind of seals it.

Hmm I wonder how they are going to find a jury though. Very difficult.

The way I see it, Trayvon tried to walk away the first time, but Zimmerman kept coming at him. So Trayvon was justified in defending himself. If he tried to tackle Zimmerman, he might have hoped to knock him down to get away. But then the first shot was fired and he might have understood then that Zimmerman had a gun. So he was already too close to run away. The next thing he would have tried to do was push the gun away while he begged for his life.

So, if Zimmerman had the gun in his hand, the last thing that Trayvon would have been doing was using his hands to knock Zimmerman's head into the pavement. He would have been struggling for control over the gun. Which was his right.

Wow did I miss such a big piece of info?

after examining his gun, but I'm not sure how they would know that unless they can tell how many shots are in it when it's fully loaded and only one shot was missing. Apparently, on one of the 911 tapes the witness thought they heard two shots, but it was after the "first" one that the screaming instantly stopped. Personally, I tend to believe that there was only one shot fired, but I don't really know. It certainly doesn't seem like the prosecution believes that more than one shot was fired, but then again, maybe they do and are keeping that under their hat for some reason? I have no idea.

will resort to science fiction if they have to.

That's what Zimmerman claims, but his body was a good four feet or more away on the grass with his feet pointed toward the sidewalk. That alone makes me think that Zimmerman's story of having his head bashed on the sidewalk is a bunch of hooey. If Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired that means that both their heads were facing the sidewalk with Zimmerman's head over the sidewalk. So how did this shot blow Trayvon completely off of his knees straddling Zimmerman to land a good four feet or more away from the sidewalk and onto the grass? Didn't happen. Ain't no damn way that happened.

I, too, would like to know the extent of Zimmeran's injuries and any documentation of them seeing as they don't fit his claims as to how he got them. They were mild, and no one including him thought he should go to the hospital. And if you claim you were having your head bashed into concrete there's no way on earth that both police and paramedics wouldn't have taken him right straight to the hospital... they know that even a slight knock on the head can be life threatening. I also don't believe that he wouldn't have wanted to go himself. Who gets their head bashed so severely several times on concrete so much so they believe they nearly blacked out, yet also thinks they're just fine and dandy with no need at all for an examination? His story just doesn't fit the evidence in so many ways.

That actually makes sense.

Since what we DO know about them doesn't match his story of how he got them. So, yeah, I'd like to see any documentation about the extent of his injuries to prove out my own conclusions and so there's something absolutely concrete to point to as Zimmerman being an absolute liar on at least this one of the many issues. Makes perfect sense.

Peole don't just drop dead the moment shot.

Depending on the wound, you can stagger quite a ways with a fatal gunshot wound.

Now, it could very well be that Martin was shot at the location and position his body was found, presumably undisturbed. And certainly if he staggered to that spot, there will be an indication of that. But it's always important to look out for hidden assumptions.

Clearly Martin was doing utterly nothing wrong in going to the store and back, and a vigilante with a gun shot him to death. But the prosecution needs to avoid hanging its hat on a "there's only one way this could have happened" set of mechanics.

was just that speculation...

sP

Nuff said.

He passed premediatation test by ignoring the warnings of the operator.

He intended to kill him, no matter what.

The evidence would need to have been properly collected and preserved to mean anything.

Which is just nuts. ALL homicides get treated as a crime scene, and cops never just go with what the shooter claimed happen since if anyone is skeptical of people telling the truth or not it's the police. Yet for some unfathomable reason they didn't treat the scene as a crime scene, didn't rope off the area, didn't seem to do any forensics of the area at all, didn't bother to canvas the area to find out who Trayvon was and if he lived there or was a guest there, didn't speak to all the witnesses, etc. Every cop that's been on tv about this is absolutely baffled as to why this scene wasn't treated as any other homicide scene. Considering this, there's probably precious little evidence from the crime scene because they never BOTHERED to treat it as one. This really chaps my ass, and if Zimmerman gets off because the police didn't BOTHER to do their damn jobs and treat the scene properly it's their fault, and SHAME on them.

Sadly, there will always be "Zimmermans" in this world (as sickened and disgusted as I am by him). We have to be able to rely on law enforcement to do their job ... the Sanford police have proved that they cannot be relied upon to be anything but racist rednecked yahoos.

It would repel me less (though it would clearly still be repellent) if they were a bunch of Barny Fife's ... they chose not to do their jobs ... knowing that a succesful prosecution would be difficult if not impossible.

Every bit of it will be considered inculpatory by the pitchfork and torch brigade, and every bit will be seen as exculpatory by the racists who defend Zimmerman.

Here's a guarantee... the "audio experts" paid by the prosecution and the defense to support their theories will do just that. The prosecution "expert" will say the voice heard screaming is that of Martin, and the defense "expert" will say the tape provides inconclusive evidence. Much will hinge on how the jury views the testimony of each.

That's why the prosecution shouldn't head down "death by a thousand cuts" road. Keep it broad, there may be alternative physical scenarios, but the main point is that an unarmed teenager on his way to the store and back was shot by a hair trigger vigilante.

The thing about a defense like "stand your ground" is that it is an affirmative defense which must be proven. It's not "maybe you stood your ground". I don't know how you do that without putting on the defendant. And it would be easier to attack his affirmative defense on his character and credibility, than to get into a detailed physical sequence of events.