"Absolute Irrefutable proof" is not the test for either side in a criminal case. For the state, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ committed murder (or the lesser included manslaughter offense). That requires them to disprove GZ's self-defense theory.

There were no injuries on TM other than the gunshot besides a scrape on one finger. He does not display injuries of being physically confronted by GZ while GZ has injuries/marks/scrapes on the top, sides and back of his head, his face, and a broken nose to show he was physically attacked by TM.

As of now, no witness saw the onset of the altercation. No witness reported seeing George push or shove Trayvon. The state has not even alleged that. Zimmerman says Martin attacked him without provocation. Unless Zimmerman's version of events is not physically possible, how will it disprove his account? Not by saying "But this could have happened." The state needs evidence to support its theories. Inferences must come from the evidence. Reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence presented or lack of evidence presented.

You also need to realize that Florida law says that at trial, when the evidence concludes, if the facts present two reasonable explanations for what happened, one of which supports the Defendant's claim of self-defense, the judge should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal and not even submit the case to the jury.

While Zimmerman's account alone could be sufficient, the fact that W-13 (and I believe W-6) heard him say he shot TM in self-defense is considered corroborating evidence.

If reasonable people can view the evidence differently, the jurors likely will too, and if one of those views supports Zimmerman, it requires an acquittal.

The state's theory that GZ could have avoided any encounter with TM by staying in his car may be factually accurate, but it is immaterial, in my view, under the statutes and case law as to whether GZ acted in self-defense. TM could also have avoided the encounter had he not gone to 7-11 that night, or by going directly home. Zimmerman was in a place he lawfully had a right to be -- the public areas of his neighborhood. The state keeps saying TM wasn't doing anything unlawful. That's not the test. according to Florida law:
Quote:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So please stop confusing readers with "well this could have happened" and "this hasn't been ruled out." That's not the test.

Try to think of it from the perspective of: The state presents its case first. What evidence -- testimony and exhibits -- will it present to show murder or manslaughter? Assuming it makes a sufficient case -- then the defense presents its evidence of self-defense. What does the state have to refute his theory that amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt his self-defense claim is not valid?

XXXXXX You might see more clearly if you'd look for his (Zimmerman's) narrative of events instead of nitpicking answers to questions that include misinterpretations of what he just tried to explain.

He really doesn't vary from his narrative. Does that make it true? Who knows. But his version is consistent, it's hampered only by questions which misstate his previous answers.

How many times did he tell Singleton the circling was when he was at TTL, and the circling is not the same event as the one when Trayvon first approached his car at the clubhouse? At least 3 by my count.

Who cares whether it's by the clubhouse or at the clubhouse? Maybe he also stopped at the mailboxes. This is the night of the event and the next day and he's trying to recount a traumatic event step by step. That’s difficult for anyone to do.

I make my clients “walk me” through traffic stops and arrests and searches step by step, as close as possible to the event, before their memories fade. They get frustrated, they want to tell the main points and I want baby steps, in sequence. Getting the exact events for a traffic stop can take 3 hours of questioning, and there is no trauma like an assault or death involved. GZ was interviewed for less than two hours, by an officer not familiar with the neighborhood, who hadn’t been to the scene, who kept mixing things up when she repeated what she thought he had said. He started out trying to give her the main points, not knowing to distinguish between point A and point B. When she mixes the two up, he is quick to correct her on all points. He also corrects Serino on the dispatcher not instructing him not to follow Trayvon

He never varies on where Trayvon attacked him, when TM ran, that he cried out for help, that the guy who came out went back in to call 911 instead of helping him . That he was attacked for no reason, out of nowhere. That he kept asking for the police to come. That he never confronted or intended to confront TM, he expected police to do that. That he thought he was responding to the dispatcher’s questions when he got out of the car – to get an address and see which way Trayvon had run.

The jury won’t nitpick this. Why? Because it’s all pretty irrelevant to the charges: Did Trayvon attack him, and when he shot him, did he reasonably believe himself to be in danger of serious bodily injury or death?

No matter where he was, there’s no indication he did anything to provoke Martin’s use of force against him. And even if the jury thinks he did, it still has to acquit him unless it finds he had some other lesser means of extricating himself from danger posed by Trayvon’s fracturing his nose and banging his head into cement.

Witness 6 says TM was on top and GZ was trying to get up and couldn’t. GZ says every time he tried to sit up and get out from under TM, TM would slam his head back down. He has injuries, they don’t have to be life-threatening. What reasonable person wouldn’t fear serious bodily injury if unable to stop the attack? What other means did he have at his disposal – regardless of whether TM saw his gun and was reaching for it?

Keep in mind, GZ’s belief that TM had seen his gun and was reaching for it doesn’t have to be real; it just has to be reasonable and he really had to have believed it.

He had no way out from under TM. If he reasonably feared serious bodily injury or death, whether the aggressor or not at that point, he’s justified in using lethal force.

You are using a microscope to critique points I doubt will make a difference in terms of disproving his defense. Just look though the big lens and see the whole picture. I think it’s right in front of you.

The one "guess" I am allowing myself is that TM used the can of drink in the plastic carry bag as a weapon.... swung it and hit GZ in the face (nose)... probably stunned GZ for quite a few seconds.

I don't have a huge investment in this hypothesis...if evidence shows it did not happen I will abandon it in an instant.

Now before people say "the can was in TM's hoodie pocket"... there is confusion about where things were found, or placed by LE.

And besides.... the can could have fallen loose and TM pick it up before the rest of the struggle proceeded. That would explain why a bag (the bag?) was found empty on the path.

There were two voices...the one in mortal fear...was NOT Zbeast..

I made nothing up...I read the evidence and saw for myself...Zbeast is in trouble...just check the NEN call he place to his recreation...nothing fits...he's a liar and a bad one...

How is little man with weapon always so afraid and confused?

It's manipulation. he wants people to believe he was in genuine fear..If he was in fear, he should have stayed in his vehicle...Once he placed that call...his duty ended...hero complex, wanna be cop..kept him from standing down..Trayvon should not have been murdered, if he was fearful, stay in the safety of your vehicle...

You are going by a liars words...check the evidence...TM didn't get ONE punch in let alone give him exaggerated life threatening injuries..

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on the non life threatening injuires the liar claims...why is the blood running down? It appears he was ontop of his target..shot to the heart, directly front to back..he was standing when he shot and there was no fighting by then...he should have kept his ass in his truck....his civic duty ended with that call...but he wanted to be hailed a hero...but instead is being hailed a fucking murdering POS...who took a life cause he thought he could and get away with it...you cannot chase someone down, instigate it and then yell self defense...not in America...