I don’t think you understood my point. The DEFENSE will attempt to keep some of Zimmerman’s statements out of the trial.
Also, while I believe Zimmerman, many here don’t realize there is a legitimate legal issue as to whether he was justified in shooting and killing. Maybe not murder 2, but manslaughter, etc.
3 big items are obvious. Zimmerman knew police were on the way, he apparently had moved to the grass so his head wasn’t hitting the sidewalk at that point, and he got his arm free well enough to draw a gun and fire.
I’m not accepting all these points but that is the case. Zimmerman’s inconsistent statements seem to involve how he was able to have a free hand if he was under such a life threatening assault at that moment.
That'll be an uphill battle too, unless the statement is in the nature of an involuntary confession, and I don't see that happening. I expect the prosecution to raise the same bogus arguments that have permeated discussion here and elsewhere. Not enough injury to justify use of deadly force, for one.
-- Zimmerman's inconsistent statements seem to involve how he was able to have a free hand if he was under such a life threatening assault at that moment. --
We'll have his account soon enough. As for the "at the moment" criteria, the justified use of force isn't limited to a particular instant. If Martin isn't showing any sign of letting up or otherwise abandoning his intention, Zimmerman's got a good argument that he remains in fear.