So far no witness saw Trayvon slamming Zimmerman's head on the concrete.

[Just Saying]

Not one.

And the medical experts seem inconclusive at best.

[Bjorn Against]

1. No blood on the sidewalk or Martin's hands either

And the only wounds Zimmerman had were not consistent with getting his head pounded on the sidewalk. Anyone who thinks this was self defense is at the very least an idiot, in most cases they are racists as well.

[montanacowboy]

2. COULD THESE INJURIES BE

FROM THE KICKBACK OF THE GUN HITTING ZIMMERMAN IN THE NOSE, BREAKING IT AND PUSHING HIS HEAD BACK ONTO THE CONCRETE WHEN HE SHOT TRAYVON?

[bravenak]

3. Maybe the nose.

Since they were on the grass.

[uppityperson]

17. Yes.

[davidn3600]

4. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove innocence

Im amazed at how so few in here understand our justice system.

A defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty. The prosecution has to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt. The defense has to prove absolutely nothing at all.

Also the defense has not even started their case yet.

[Bjorn Against]

6. In this case the defense does have to prove something as they are claiming self defense

The state only has to prove the murder charge, they do not have to prove it was not self defense. If Zimmerman wants to claim the killing was justified then the legal burden is on him to justify it.

[geek tragedy]

7. Except he has to show he was reasonably in fear for his life and that

he couldn't just wrestle free and run away.

[Just Saying]

9. His narrative for self-defense was his head was pounded on pavement.

We know he killed someone so if his story is bullshit so is his self defense claim.

[Apophis]

16. You win the sub thread.

[last1standing]

14. In law, the defendant must prove an affirmative defense.

Zimmerman admitted that he killed Martin and so the law requires that he justify that killing by proving an affirmative defense - in this case self-defense. That is one of the first things they teach you in your first year of law school.

He must not only prove that he acted in self defense, he must prove that his level of retaliation was justified by the level of threat Martin presented. It will be difficult to prove that he felt his life was in danger because a 17 year old kid came at him with a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. Florida law may differ a bit now with their stand your ground law but I still don't think it allows killing people who threaten you with candy.

Now if there were Texas....

[Skidmore]

18. Yes.

As much as I would like to see some real consequences for Zimmerman who I believe went looking for trouble, these are the burdens of proof which much be met.

[cheyanne]

5. That is a very finde distinction you are making.

John Good say Martin on top of Zimmerman using his arms in an up and down motion. Whether it was punching or pushing head to the concrete is a slight difference. Dr. testifies that head wounds consistent with concrete bashing. See Talk Left.

[Just Saying]

8. I heard his testimony.

He said nothing about pounding his head up and down. Doc said basically could be or could be not.

Do you work for Talk Left? Just curious because everyone of your posts seems to mention them. Thanks but I'm fine here.

[SlipperySlope]

10. The reason no witness saw Martin slamming Zimmerman's head is..

The reason no witness saw Martin slamming Zimmerman's head is that no witness clearly saw the altercation at all. The witnesses either heard it, had the vision impaired by the darkness, or came to the scene after the shooting was done.

However; the testimony so far has been very consistent with Zimmerman's story. I'm waiting for the prosecution to explain what their version of events was, because the physical evidence all agrees with Martin on top of Zimmerman banging his head into the ground.

[Just Saying]

11. Not sure what you're watching

So far a witness on the phone overheard when Z confronted Trayvon after following him, another swears Z was the aggressor and it was Trayvon screaming, a third saw Trayvon on top of Z but saw neither punches land or head banging. Med professionals IMO have made Z's injuries seem insubstantial and Z himself waived going to hospital. Physical evidence shows Z had some abrasions on his head and a banged up nose but not how it happened.

[ksoze]

12. Even with your incorrrect analysis - its reasonable doubt

[Just Saying]

13. So says your incorrect analysis.

Have a nice weekend.

[Little Star]

19. Jeralyn is a defense attorney and she is ALWAYS on the defense side. n/t