Shot for getting skittles

Actually, neither of those have to be true for the claim of self-defense to be plausible. Liars and racists can be attacked, too.

Not those, either. First, it's unclear how much (if any) Zimmerman pursued Martin after being advised such action wasn't needed. Second, even if Zimmerman persisted, he was still within the law to do so. Third, a person who violates neighborhood watch guidelines can be attacked, too.

Not that, either. Zimmerman can be over-zealous and still be attacked.

Nor that. Maybe Zimmerman got out to piss on a bush and lied about reading the street number. Maybe he was still of a mind to look for Martin. But that still doesn't rule out him being attacked.

Since the heart of Zimmerman's defense is that claim, yes, you do have to believe that. If that (or something very similar) is shown to be untrue, then Zimmerman's claim of self-defense crumbles.

Also, since Zimmerman claims that as part of his defense, yes. If it can proven that the screaming is NOT Zimmerman, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense crumbles.

Yes, you have to believe that. Absent other evidence, his injuries tend to support that claim, however.

Eh, sorta. You have to believe that Zimmerman's actions fall within self-defense as defined by the law.

Not sure. It's unclear if her version of events differs significantly from Zimmerman's.

Yes. But the one eyewitness supports Zimmerman. The most outspoken earwitness seems convinced far out of proportion to what she heard that it was Martin screaming.

Size isn't everything in a fight. My old college room mate was a little dude about 5'8", maybe 125 lbs soaking wet, who could have your ass wipped before you even knew you were in a fight. What he lacked in height and weight, he made up for with speed.

Right, so a past arrest record is completely irrelevant when it comes to the kind of person Zimmerman was when it comes to what happened, but accusations of what Martin did and pictures of him hamming it up for the camera somehow count against Martin, even though he was minding his own business and had every right to be there? Am I understanding you correctly?

And yet this smear campaign against Martin kind of shows otherwise.

You're presuming a lot. How do you even know what direction they initially came from? Is that mentioned somewhere? I mean, for all you know, they came up from the bottom of that picture and Martin hung a left for whatever reason. Why would Martin be seeking Zimmerman out if he'd already been creeped out by the guy and gotten away from him?

No, but a general principle in court, and presumably for the investigators, is that if someone lies about one thing, that you should trust them less about everything else they say.

Zimmerman's account has its heart three things that can support it: his own word, the forensics, and any eyewitnesses.

From what's come out so far, we don't know much about the forensics. I believe they've already determined that Martin wasn't on drugs at the time of his death, which might lead to doubt about Martin's allegedly suspicious behavior.

We have witnesses apparently both supporting a self-defense theory and supporting the notion of Zimmerman as aggressor.

Zimmerman's credibility is the key to whether he might be charged, and more importantly for me, how investigators treated the case.

Doing the armchair thing, his credibility has enough questions about it in the wake of these two accounts that have come out that I think the detectives should have done things differently in investigating the case.

I can picture Martin being able to take Zimmerman to the ground despite the weight advantage.

However, if Martin had as dominating a position in the fight to the point where he was slamming Zimmerman's head to the ground repeatedly, I just don't see Zimmerman being able to get his gun unholstered without Martin noticing or being able to stop him.

But the forensics will certainly speak volumes as to what happened.

Why wouldn't you?

At a minimum I would think that you'd be worried about a concussion.

Well, to be fair, you all look alike.

Mewa said "pictures." The article claimed one picture, and from its description I have not seen it.

Yeah, that one picture smear campaign that no one has seen is huge.

Let the evidence speak. That is still what I say.

Y'all are still going to be arguing this shit even if Zimmerman goes to trial and gets convicted

Here's a picture of Trayvon at his junior prom.

Yeah because then it will be OBAMA TAKING AWAY MY GUN RIGHTS!!!!

Leave God out this!

@Paladin:

One has to believe that Zimmerman is telling the truth about the various things that I said earlier if one is going to buy into self-defense. As I said in an earlier post, it is a time-honored legal concept that if someone lies about one thing, you can reasonably conclude that they are lying about other things. Although it's possible to conclude that someone is lying about one thing but telling the truth about other things, it seems like having any part of his account unravel can go a good way to eliminating reasonable doubt.

The fact that he has apparently given two accounts of the attack (jumped from behind vs. having an exchange of words) should give doubt as to whether he's telling the truth.

Not any more than any of the other aspects of the story Zimmerman has said.

One could conclude that Zimmerman was screaming too, or that Zimmerman was just confused about whether or not he screamed. If one is going to boil it down to the main thing that matters is who attacked who, Zimmerman can even be lying about screaming and it wouldn't matter if you believe that he was in legitimate fear for his life.

It's pretty clear that her version differs significantly from Zimmerman's, and that those differences are not ones that can be explained by mere confusion.

Zimmerman's original account was that he got confused about where he was, got out of his car to look at a street sign when Martin attacked him from behind.

His second account is that Martin said, "You got a problem with me," Zimmerman said, "No," and was pulling out his cell when Martin said, "You do now." and punched him.

The girlfriend's account was that she had been talking with Martin, and Martin had been telling her that someone was following him for some reason. She said after advising him to run away, Martin said he would walk away fast. The girlfriend heard someone yell "What are you doing here?" and Martin said, "Why are you following me," before the phone line went dead.

The differences in these versions are fairly substantial and can't really be reconciled in Zimmerman's favor other than Martin's girlfriend was lying.

Do we know that he gave two accounts? Or has a more detailed version of what he said been released?

If Zimmerman isn't the one screaming for help (though has claimed that he was), that would be a serious (but maybe not fatal) blow to his defense.

She paraphrased a brief exchange between the two men that may or may not be consistent with what Zimmerman said. Zimmerman's account apparently mentions a brief exchange; I don't know if this is a recent addition, or if it was simply omitted from earlier releases of information.

"From behind" or "while returning to his truck?" It's a crucial distinction. Someone could easily read the latter and infer the former. We need to know EXACTLY what Zimmerman said.

The girlfriend does not report anything like the "You do now," but the rest is at least similar. She may not have heard it. She may have heard it and is choosing to omit that detail. Martin may not have said it. Who knows?

It seems clear that, at some point, Zimmerman did get punched, though.

Sounds pretty close to what Zimmerman is supposed to have said. Perhaps the call terminated before the discussion went any further. Perhaps a scuffle began and the phone got dropped.

The following exchange would be consistent with both persons' testimony:

If Zimmerman is returning to his truck when this exchange occurs, it seems consistent with his version of events and the girlfriend's report.

I'm pretty sure that I've not said much about Martin or Zimmerman's race in this thread, beyond that you have to believe that Zimmerman didn't use a racial slur or that if he did, it doesn't matter.

Most of what I've said points to what I see as logical inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story. Mainly:

1. Zimmerman has told two stories about how he came to be attacked. That suggest inconsistency and gives him less credibility.

2. Zimmerman's known behavior on the 911 call -- being upset that someone suspicious is in his neighborhood and that they always get away and aggressive enough to want to pursue someone he thinks is suspicious/dangerous -- is inconsistent with his self-described behavior after he meets Martin (losing sight of Martin, and supposedly saying he doesn't have a problem with Martin when he clearly does.)

3. Zimmerman's behavior contradicts the girlfriend's account of what happened. And while both could be said to have a motive to lie (Zimmerman to escape criminal and civil liability, the girlfriend to cause it/have her boyfriend remembered in the best possible light), the girlfriend's account seems more consistent with what we know about Zimmerman.

Those logical inconsistencies are all colorblind.

I haven't seen anyone who thinks this is probably a self-defense case address them, outside of Paladin saying that theoretically you can accept that Zimmerman is lying about some of his account and yet truly engaged in self-defense.

I could just as easily -- and unfairly -- say that anyone who thinks that Zimmerman should be considered a legitimate user of self-defense is doing so out of bias against minorities.

I haven't seen, or looked for, direct police accounts of any Zimmerman statements on the case. All we have to go by are media summaries of police accounts. People in this thread have linked to a number of stories on the case.

Here's one that had been linked to earlier in the thread, referring to what I consider to be Version 1 (Zimmerman was walking back to his truck when Martin attacked him from behind):

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...tice-fbi-and.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

More recently, there was a link to the Orlando Sentinel story with Version 2 (Martin came at me from my left rear, asked me if I had a problem, then attacked me):

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

For my money, these are two distinct versions of what happened and not an elaboration. YMMV.

Zimmerman's version of the exchange is that Martin was the instigator of the verbal exchange and the physical exchange, that he got punched in the nose without him doing anything to pose a threat.

The girlfriend's version of the exchange at a minimum has Zimmerman instigating the verbal exchange and possibly a physical exchange as well. Her account has her drawing the conclusion that Zimmerman pushed Martin, causing the phone to go dead. It also casts doubt on the notion of Martin as the aggressor since he was intent on walking away.

These differences can't be chalked up to mere confusion about the situation. Either Zimmerman is lying, or the girlfriend is (or I suppose, both are.)

This version is not fully consistent with either person's account.

Zimmerman's account is that Martin started the verbal confrontation. In this version, he does not.

The girlfriend's account is that she hears things get physical just before the phone line goes dead. So if she's telling the truth, someone pushed someone before the punch.

In your attempt to reconcile them, you smoothed over pretty important bits of each of their accounts.

No, but the differences between either and this are minimal.

The only thing I've seen is that an "insider" said that the confrontation began with Martin asking "You got a problem with me?" That does not mean it was the first words said between them.

The girlfriend says she heard someone (Zimmerman, presumably) call Martin first, and Martin responded. It could've been the other way around and would make little difference. Maybe they were both talking at the same time and overlapped.

But it doesn't really matter who said what to whom first. It matters who made it physical first. And, like it or not, the girlfriend's account IS consistent with Zimmerman's. Since we know there was at least one important thing--screaming!--that she didn't hear, it's not impossible she missed more. And even *if* Zimmerman got that one detail demonstrably wrong, the other evidence still backs him up.

Hears things get physical? Or hears the phone being dropped? Or hears the phone being put in a pocket? If the phone actually went dead, it was either damaged or shut off; if the latter, someone was putting it away.

No. I see that you're trying (a little desperately IMHO) to find any discrepancy you can use to charge Zimmerman with lying...and that's fine, you should push for your point-of-view as far as it will go...but the most you have here is Zimmerman (maybe) says Martin spoke first, girlfriend says Zimmerman spoke first. If that's so, could both be telling the truth as they remember it? Sure. Could either be mistaken? Sure.

The girlfriend's testimony would be much more compelling if Martin said something like "Why you pulling a gun on me, man?" or "My dad's visiting over there and I'm on my way back" or Zimmerman said "Die, you little cockroach!" or "Now to kill you and claim self-defense!" But, alas, such does not seem to be the case.

By and large, the only statements we have to judge the case on are media reports.

Yes, it's been reported that the police say that Zimmerman has given consistent accounts about the events.

Of course, that could be just as mistaken or accurate as any media reports of Zimmerman's account.

I've repeatedly said that the media reports could be mistaken. But they are what we have to go by.

Never said it does.

How can you tell that they were reporting inaccurately originally versus reporting correctly that he gave separate accounts?

No one is claiming that Zimmerman made a statement directly to the news.

The news reported what they got, presumably from police sources, about the case.

Now once again, they could have gotten the accounts wrong, or been misled by a police source or sources.

It's presumably still going to be some time before even the local PD's version of events is fully public, let alone the investigations by the state or the feds.

The wounds support the notion of him having been in a fight, not necessarily that he sustained those wounds after having been attacked by Martin. He could have just as easily gotten those wounds after having pushed Martin, pulled a gun on Martin, whatever.

There are witnesses, at least according to media reports, that support Zimmerman and that contradict him.

The news story paraphrase of Zimmerman's statement to police leaves out key details of how the gun came to be pulled and used.

From what the news story indicates, Zimmerman is getting beaten down, and having his head slammed against concrete.

Is the gun already out at this point? It's unclear, at least to me.

If the gun is not already out at this point, I personally find it hard to picture that Zimmerman would be able to get the gun out of its holster, point it at Martin's chest and fire, without Martin apparently noticing that Zimmerman was going for the gun or alternatively, being able to stop him despite being in an otherwise dominating position in the fight.

Maybe that's me being too unfair, or maybe the actual statement(s) Zimmerman gave to the cops would clarify matters. We'll see.

Where did you get that there was a weapons malfunction?

I realize that people decline hospital attention when they've been injured. But it strikes me that in combination with all the other issues to not pass the smell test here, both because this is a pretty serious beatdown that he described and because there are all the other issues in the case that seem IMO to merit some healthy skepticism.

It was reported that Zimmerman's pistol had fired one shot (the chambered round) but still had a full magazine in it. That means the pistol didn't fully or properly cycle.

Total conjecture: what it Zimmerman's pistol failed to cycle because it was in his pocket when it was fired?

Based on what I've seen, he was using either a paddle type or waistband type holster. He probably would have taken damage himself if it had gone off inside the holster.

Actually, that follows only if Zimmerman (the only known witness to that particular aspect of the story) is telling the truth about how contact was re-established. There is nothing to disprove his story, so "innocent until proven guilty" applies. But there is no good way to get from "We cannot consider him as guilty" to "We know he is telling the truth." But the latter must be concluded before you can say you "know Trayvon had a choice to back out of the violence."

At this point, all we can do is say: "It depends on whether or not Zimmerman is telling the whole, unvarnished truth or not." And that can only be a matter of opinion, no matter which way one tends to answer it.

But there is a witness that corroborates Zimmerman's story that Martin was on top of him and beating him, and that he was yelling for help before the gunshot. That tends to support his account.

Not in the least. It only shows that, whoever initiated violence, Zimmerman ended up getting the worst of it (until he used his gun).

That does not confirm, or even tend to confirm, his claim about who started it.

There's also the timeline of the 911 call and Zimmerman's breathing and exertion slowing down after he stopped the pursuit.

The key issue is who is the physical aggressor in this.

While it's not a logical necessity for the verbal aggressor to be the physical aggressor, it is a key point in trying to determine who the physical aggressor is.

In Zimmerman V 1.0, he is absolutely the victim, attacked from behind with no mention of words. In fact, it stands to reason that there were no words in this version because one doesn't yell surprise before surprise attacking someone from behind.

In Zimmerman V 2.0, he is still absolutely the victim of physical violence and of verbal aggression.

In Girlfriend V 1.0, Zimmerman is at a minimum the verbal aggressor.

If the confrontation "began" with Martin asking that, then those were the first words said between them, by definition. If other words were said between them, then the confrontation didn't begin with Martin asking "You got a problem with me."

Except the girlfriend says she heard completely different words being said by Zimmerman.

Either Zimmerman started the confrontation with the Martin by yelling, "What are you doing here?" as the girlfriend said or Martin started the conversation by saying, "You got a problem with me," as Zimmerman 2.0 said. These things can't both be true.

And while reconciling them can be done, it changes the character of what fundamentally was said by each.

A reasonable person could conclude that it does matter who said what to whom first, both for establishing credibility (i.e., if one of them is lying about any one thing, they are likely lying about other things.) and in an attempt to determine who is the physical aggressor (i.e., the person who is the verbal aggressor is quite likely the one who took things to a physical level).

A reasonable person could equally conclude the opposite.

How do you reconcile the girlfriend's account of a scared Martin trying to get away from an angry Zimmerman who pursues him and yells at him with Zimmerman's account of him losing track of Martin, then having Martin confront him and throw the first punch?

I think it takes a lot more work than to see them as fundamentally at odds.

Too tired/lazy to find the link to her account of the phone call, but my recollection is that she said she heard signs of a struggle before the phone went dead. Definitely not someone putting the phone away.

1. I never said that Zimmerman's a liar. I don't know who is telling the truth here. I won't have a better sense until more official material comes out, if even then. I also clearly said both have motives to lie. But when it comes down to a credibility contest based on what we know, I tend to believe there's a fair number of reasons to be skeptical of Zimmerman's account, and relatively few to be skeptical of the girlfriend's.

2. Some things you can be mistaken about, such as what someone said verbatim, or maybe the order of things. It seems to me that you can't, however, be mistaken about other things.

Either Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman when Zimmerman pursued Martin and demanded to know what he was doing there, as the girlfriend says, or Martin initiated a confrontation with Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says.

Given the nature of how they experienced the event and given that the event happened just before their accounts of it, one would think the chances for a mistake on the part of one or both parties explaining this fundamental discrepancy is minimal.

3. If you think who started the confrontation is a minor discrepancy, or what was said was minor, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it makes a huge difference if Martin just attacked Zimmerman with no conversation at all, if Martin started a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman and followed up by punching him, or if Martin was walking away from Zimmerman who caught up to him and demanded to know what Martin was doing there moments before things apparently got physical, with it being potentially unclear who started the physical encounter.

"Compelling" isn't the sort of word I'd use for it. I'd try unbelievable, at least for the last two.

Her account is consistent IMO with what we more or less objectively know about the event: Zimmerman saw someone he considered a potential threat and went to track him down, angrily, according to the 911 call. He wanted to know what Martin was doing there.

None of which has anything to do with the point at which contact was re-established. That's when it was first lost. We have nothing but Zimmerman's word that when contact was re-established, it was because Martin came looking for him, and that when that happened, he (Zimmerman) did not do anything that was threatening.

There's nothing that disproves Zimmerman's story either.

I have already stated as much, in multiple posts. I have even stated that, with no contradictory evidence, "innocent until proven guilty" must be applied.

I was simply taking issue with your claim that there is evidence that corroborates it. There is not. We have only his word on it.

So your alleging that the information is false? Based on what?

Aren't we all?

Zimmerman's 911 call.

Actually no. Listen to Zimmerman's 911 call, then tell me I'm presuming to much.

All I know is. If Martin had kept walking home as his girlfriend claims he did, the confrontation would've taken place further down from where it did.