Off-Topic

You gotta love the baby looking pic the media has been using all the time vs. what he looks like now. The media today has become so slanted in projecting stories (whatever angle they want to project) rather than straight unbiased reporting.

Let's say Zimmerman did catch up to Martin, let's say Zimmerman did initiate contact and then Martin ended up punching him in the nose and start beating him up (according to the only eye witness we know of so far says they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman)

let's say all this is true and Zimmerman shot him b/c he thought he was going to die.

What happens then?

Zimmerman gets off on self-defense.

The question I have is that balistics can EASILY tell whether the shot came from underneath Martin while he was above, or whether they were both standing.

If they were both standing, after being on the ground, that means that escape WAS a possibility, and that Zimmerman should be held accountable. If Martin was shot from the ground, then Zimmerman should be free, since that is a clear case of not being able to avoid bodily harm. It really should be that simple, and even basic crime scene photos should provide the necessary evidence.

We can debate whatever we want...I'm just not sure what you're debating/suggesting/arguing. If your point is that Zimmerman may have lied, then yes, of course that's true. But most people are debating this issue in the context of whether or not he should be prosecuted, and I'm not sure speculation on what may or may not theoretically have happened impacts that discussion much.

I think he's getting off either way. I also think the law will come under review...whether it will be tweaked or not remains to be seen.

I think people want to know whether Zimmerman was appropriate investigated for arrest, that's all. Conviction is another story.

Relevant portion of the SYG law if Zimmerman instigated conflict:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Countdown to the riots....

I'm not just saying he could have lied, I'm giving reasons to why he may be lying. And others are giving reasons why he may be telling the truth. we are not all just discussing whether he can or cannot be prosecuted. We're also speculating on what took place, which I presume is what the investigators are doing as well. This is normal discourse. Now, if you're telling me the accuracy of his accounts has no bearing on any prosecution or lack thereof because of the manner into which the law is drafted, then fine. If not, then why are you confused about why I'm raising doubt about Zimmerman's claims? I'm under the impression that his defense lies in his statement. I'm also under the impression that none of us know all the facts.

His lawyer is claiming no "SYG" defense. Again, this doesn't change any prosecution but I read that the PD relied on "SYG" to not arrest him. is it a moot point?

Why is any of that relevant? It's not like Zimmerman knew any of that and it affected his objective judgment as to the threat posed by Martin.

Its not relevant to the case but its relevant to the story.

Yes, he could, and he presumably would. I'm sure there are some similar/analgous self-defense jury instructions that would also support deadly force in that situation...