I smell controversy on the horizon! I'm saddl'in up! Gosh darn my horse is dead!!! Can't somebody come up with a LIVE horse around here?!

All right...here's a little truth and speculation. George had a perfect right to be carrying a gun no matter where he was. He called for help when he saw he needed it. Then Trayvon scowls and hollars, "You got a problem?" Then he attacks George and beats him about the head and face. When Trayvon finally goes after George's gun, George grabbed it instead and fired.

Well?

Okay, maybe I haven't read everything on the case, but are we sure TM said that? Or are we taking GZ's word for it? Something about that guy doesn't scream out truthful boy scout! LOL Maybe TM was afraid for his life and reacted..GZ should have stood back..He's not a cop!

You ask.. "what if he didn't say that" what is the point of "what if"?

If you assert he said something else.. then present evidence.. to just GUESS and "what if" is silly.

I repeat..... the burden is on the prosecution.. they can't just do a Baez and open with a fairy tale... they have to present a case and prove it.

Restating the obvious in a summary fashion, what I recognize is the important thing about the DeeDee deposition is that she places TM safely back home while GZ was still up at the top of the T nearly a hundred yards away. Comparing the actual timelines derived from the time of connection for GZ and the audio being clocked and similarly adjusting to real time of day the residents 911 calls by clocking the audio and disregarding the less accurate CAD report approximated timelines, an accurized timeline of events corresponding to real time of day can be examined….accurate enough to be 100% certain that TM doubled back, backtracked by his own foolish choice and confronted GZ evidently for reason of being annoyed by the unwelcome but entirely lawful “watchfulness” of GZ who had “given offense” by such behavior.

So it was TM who for reason of a “perceived provocation” (which was no actual provocation) then unlawfully escalated a confrontation to which GZ was simply reacting. It was actually TM who was being overtly aggressive in escalating the course of events which led to the shooting. GZ was certainly not involved in any unlawful act by “profiling” a suspicious person, nor by following at a distance and surveilling a suspicious person. In fact it would not have been unlawful for GZ to have even been more assertive and to have approached near toTM and asked TM if he was a guest of a resident or a new resident in the neighborhood. GZ could have used any pretense or reason to speak to TM and look him over and that would not have been unlawful either. It is not against the law to initiate a conversation with a stranger and there are no “fighting words” or other provocative actions reported by witnesses attributed to GZ which can rebut, much less overcome the presumption based on the direct evidence that TM escalated events beyond words and was himself the aggressor in terms of the legal definition for unlawful conduct which involved a battery upon GZ.

Within a narrow definition for what actually is the continuous sequence of events relevant to the shooting itself, the “event clock” for the actual alteration between the two persons was “reset” by the distance which set the subjects apart, when TM arrived safely home at the residence where TM was a guest. TM made a bad decision to go back to confront GZ and that encounter led to a battery upon GZ. The timeline and the evidence shows no unlawful act by GZ preface to the shooting, nor is there any evidence that GZ was an aggressor closing the distance to close quarters and escalating or provoking the events which transpired. In the distorted paranoid delusion of a stoner thug it may have seemed there was some “right of retribution” against someone who dared to encroach on his “space” by unwelcome surveillance in the same way as a drunken bad tempered combative bar patron will preface a battery on another patron by the utterance of “what you looking at” to get that person to turn in the direction of the “sucker punch” already in transit with impeccable timing. The top of the T encounter of TM with GZ appears to be a perfectly parallel kind of scenario, where a combative stoner simply made an unwise choice of victim and got killed for his trouble.

This is indicated by a preponderence of the evidence and all the direct evidence of witnesses corroborates this analysis. All the alternate analyses are far fetched conjecture and speculation for which there is no supporting evidence. There is no probable cause for any criminal charge to have been filed in the first place against GZ. The entire prosecution of GZ is a politically motivated and manufactured fraud. No indictement would have been returned by a Grand Jury which is precisely why that constitutional right of GZ was circumvented and violated in this particular and fraudulent prosecution.

All good points Geosurface.

I would add a point I have made from early on....

If GZ was out to stalk, hunt, kill ... he would not have called the cops first and delayed long enough to know they could arrive at any second and witness his "crime"

THAT does not pass the Judge Judy test.

It does not make sense and so it's not true

I think this case is so clear and simple that it could be resolved by Judge Judy within a 20 min segment (or less)