Off-Topic

And we don't know that all he did was get out of the car. To me, his action and words on the dispatcher call indicated a willingness to confront. All of sudden he's this passive innocent guy? the guy is defending himself and people will twist a story to defend themselves. I cannot believe people are taking this position that he was just attacked. I don't believe that for a bit and it isn't consistent with the girl's account of the phone call. I'm not saying Zimmerman's guilty, I just have a hard time believing people are just concluding he was attacked and therefore justified.

The girlfriends story is pretty consistent with what Zimmerman said happen. The only difference is that she says Trayvon was pushed which would probably sound the same on the phone as Trayvon jumping on someone.

Yep. The bandwagoning of social media KONY style was ridiculous. Everyone from LeBron to school walkout protests proving once again at the ever increasing attention whoring aspect in society. Look at me, I support this worthy cause. Only problem is, people didn't wait to see all the facts before rushing to judgement. The media fed right into it.

I'm not saying the case didnt deserve more scrutiny or that Zimmerman is completely innocent, just the rush to judgement driven by social media/media ignorance.

seems like neither Zimmerman nor Martin were "model citizens"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html

I agree that the events as we know them sound a bit disjointed and illogical, but IMO that's more because we don't know everything and get our info from media reports and word of mouth.

But still, there's nothing wrong with initiating a verbal conversation, even if it's confrontational in tone or nature.

The problem is that even if Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and even if he was wrong to do so, it does not necessarily make the shooting illegal ...

Agree, I think something happened in between where we need to be cautious about assuming Zimmerman instantly became a victim.

And I agree that confronting someone verbally does not justify an attack, I'm just rebutting Baldwin's assertion that Martin initiated the confrontation simply because he uttered the first words.

The details of confrontation and what actually ensued may be an important element of Zimmerman's self-defense argument. If the PD agreed that it was self-defense because he says he simply walked away and was attacked from behind unprovoked, then what led up to that may shed some light on whether that was a true account by Zimmerman or not.

No witness has said he was attacked from behind while going to the car. They only said they saw Martin on top.

Probable cause based on what evidence? That's really the issue. Skepticism about Zimmerman's story isn't admissible evidence indicating probable cause that a crime has been committed.

If Zimmerman says he was acting in self-defense, and at least one witness tells police that Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him, and Zimmerman has injuries consistent with being hit, what's the evidence to rebut the various indications that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense?

[I'm just speaking rhetorically ... not necessarily asking for a response.]

That isn't the timeline of events.

Zimmerman see's Trayvon and calls police.
Trayvon thinks he's being followed, and puts his hoodie up and starts to walk away.
Zimmerman starts to follow
Trayvon runs away and loses Zimmerman
Zimmerman returns to car
Trayvon confronts Zimmerman and asks about being followed
Zimmerman asks what he's doing.
A physical altercation begins

The only detail of that story that isn't confirmed by the girlfriend is what Zimmerman was doing between losing Trayvon and Trayvon asking him why he was following him.

I'm not making a case for conviction, just looking for probable cause. Is it necessary to have only admissible evidence to have probable cause?

Zimmerman's defense is based on his account of being attacked and being in fear of his life. So far witnesses have only accounted for martin being on top. No one has corroborated him being attacked. Maybe the self defense law does not discriminate but what if another witness says the violence was initiated by Zimmerman or that the physical contact was mutual? Would it not bring into Zimmerman's account as questionable. Given that there's a dead unarmed person, that is not probable cause? I don't know. if not, I would think the code is unfortunate.

oops, posted in an edit by mistake.

Here is the girl's account. At which point does it seem to you that she corroborated his claim that he gave up on the pursuit and was simply walking back to his car? And now that we established that there was a confrontation, what happened in between this confrontation and him being attacked from behind?

also, can you conclude whether he tracked Martin because he was trespassing or because he was walking in the rain? And where in the dispatcher transcript can I find this reference. And also where did Martin supposedly look to be on drugs?

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

I don't think you have the right to swing at someone if they're following you. You need to have some sort of reason to believe they're a threat...and by that I mean, something that's on a firm legal basis.

if a woman is being tracked by a stranger where it is clear she is endangered, and traps her in an alley, she has to wait for him to pull out a knife or his dick before she can defend herself?