I agree. This is by no means all the prosecution has, but even on it’s own, it’s a weak document.
The most damning claim is that Z followed M after being “instructed” by a dispatcher not to do that. That’s been dealt with numerous times, the dispatcher has no legal authority to command Z. It doesn’t address the actual fight beyond “A struggle ensued”, a phrase that could be used to describe what happened after Germany invaded Poland.
This is pretty lame stuff.
What’s even more strange to me is the idea that Zimmerman “confronted” Martin. Even if he did, he was well within his legal rights to say “hey, who are you? What are you doing here?” That wouldn’t give Martin the right to punch him in the face.
Even if Zimmerman grabbed Martin’s arm, there is principle of proportional response, and grabbing somebody’s arm does not give them the right to punch you in the face, jump on top of you and bang your head against the pavement. And it doesn’t eliminate your right to self-defense.
It seems to me that they may allege Zimmerman confronted Martin while brandishing or “flashing” his gun, which would (I’d think) make Martin’s actions in starting a fight justifiable self-defense.
What I don’t understand is that even if that is what happened, I can’t see any conceivable way it could be provable.
It’s not even “he said, she said;” it’s “he said, she imagines.”