The forensic witnesses are next. They will shed light to where GZ SUV is located, where the two men laying on the grass was found by the arriving cops and the condo that TM was trying to get to. Jentel testify that TM told her on the phone he is almost at the condo, then there was a thud and the call ended. We can assume that he is near the condo and almost home, but the location is not firmly established. If GZ and TM is both found laying in a location far from the condo, then TM must have followed GZ as GZ walked back to his SUV. If forensic indicate that, then GZ would be off the hook for manslaughter. He can initiate the event by following TM but once he breaks the move and turns back to his SUV, no matter how TM feels about GZ initially following him, he cannot become angry and chase GZ down. He now becomes the aggressor in the situation.
If GZ never followed TM then the DA has no case. I think GZ said he was going back to his SUV when TM confronted him, and punched him. You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did attempt to follow. The DA is using this act as the initiating event that lead to the fighting and shooting.
The forensics point to a single shot fired at very close range. No one again is disputing GZ fired the gun.
What is left is the self defense law. Suggest you read up on the self defense law before you start spouting more opinions instead of the law.
Well yeah, Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch. He was trying to watch where Martin went. That is not any sort of initiating criminal event to what followed. He was acting within the law and within his role as neighborhood watch. There is nothing wrong with what he did. You could argue he didn’t have to do it, that he could have ignored Martin’s presence and his activities, however, he was SUPPOSED to be keeping a neighborhood watch. There is no way that can be PROPERLY used as the basis for blaming Zimmerman for what happened after that. The prosecution is trying to do that because they’ve got nothing, without that attempt.
The problem is, that dog won’t hunt.
You conclusion does not flow logically from your premise.
You agree that GZ got out of the car in order to try to find out where TM went, as asked by the dispatcher. Then, later after unsuccessfully trying to see where TM went, GM is walking back to his car when he is accosted and attacked by TM.
So far, so good, but where in all of this is there any "following" by GZ?
By definition, you cannot "follow" someone whose location is unknown to you.
So to correct your statement to make it comprehensible and remove the nonsense: "You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did NOT attempt to follow, he attempted to locate."
You conclusion does not flow logically from your premise.
You agree that GZ got out of the car in order to try to find out where TM went, as asked by the dispatcher. Then, later after unsuccessfully trying to see where TM went, GM is walking back to his car when he is accosted and attacked by TM.
So far, so good, but where in all of this is there any "following" by GZ?
By definition, you cannot "follow" someone whose location is unknown to you.
So to correct your statement to make it comprehensible and remove the nonsense: "You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did NOT attempt to follow, he attempted to locate."