Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial are facing a collapsing case and renewed question over whether Angela Corey succumbed to the political pressure and overcharged the case. The prosecution’s case has thus far been a disaster and many are now questioning whether charges should have been brought at all, let alone charged as second degree murder. For some inexplicable reason, the prosecutors led with Rachel Jeantel, who was one of the least compelling witnesses that they could have called from earlier perjury to ever-changing testimony. Now Angela Corey (right) and her office appear to be turning toward alternative areas of prosecution involving the daughter of one of the defense counsel.
Don West, who took apart Jeantel’s conflicted testimony on the stand, took his daughter out for ice cream and she posted on Instagram a picture with the caption: “We beat stupidity celebration cones #zimmerman #defense #dadkilledit.”
Prosecutors have asked for an inquiry on the basis that witnesses should be treated with respect. However, such rules apply to counsel not their progeny. West insists that he was not aware of the message.
The photo was actually taken the day before the cross examination.
I fail to see why the prosecutors would not accept the word of opposing counsel, particularly given the fact that this is his daughter.
Given the earlier allegations of withholding evidence in the case, the prosecutors should show a bit more judgment in my view. Of course, they have been busy presenting what appears a case for acquittal.
I have long been critical of Corey’s charging of the case as second degree murder and concerned that this was a case where public pressure influenced the prosecution. The video of Zimmerman’s account and the supporting testimony of these prosecution witnesses were known to Corey before the charges. Yet, she pursued second degree murder in what would be viewed as a difficult case even for manslaughter. I would leave counsel’s daughter alone and focus on the disaster unfolding in court.
Source: ABA Journal
@davidm2575 1 – The closest we have is a police dispatcher telling GZ that they did not need Zimmerman to do that [to follow Martin]. Telling him that they don’t need him to do that is not the same thing as ordering him to stand down and wait for police. […..]
Nevertheless, Zimmerman says that he stopped following Martin at that point, and I believe him. […]
Zimmerman’s Written Statement, 26 February 2012
Zimmerman Interview with Investigators Serino and Singleton, 29 February 2012
Zimmerman clearly understood that the dispatcher was telling him not to follow. Although he implies in his written statement that he immediately turned around to return to his vehicle, all other statements, including the reenactment, has him saying that he agreed with the dispatcher, but that he continued forward to Retreat View Circle because he wanted to “get an address.”
Ah, the address. The address Zimmerman so wanted to get for the dispatcher, the address that the dispatcher never asked for until Zimmerman was allegedly already at Retreat View Circle. Because when the dispatcher asked, after Zimmerman said, “Sh!t, he’s running,” which way was ‘the suspect’ was running, Zimmerman immediately answered, “Towards the back entrance.” The dispatcher, you see, asked for the “way,” for the “direction,” not for an address; that was asked when Zimmerman affirmed that he wanted to meet the incoming LEO. But, wait, does Zimmerman give the dispatcher any one of the addresses surrounding him there on Retreat View Circle? No. He starts to give out his own address. Then he agrees to meet the LEO at his truck, where it’s at a “cut-through” that doesn’t have an address. Then he agrees to meet the LEO at the mailboxes near the clubhouse. Finally, he simply interrupts the dispatcher to ask that the LEO “call me and I’ll tell him where I’m at.”
There was a two-minute span between the NEN call ending at 7:13:40 and the abrupt end of Trayvon’s phone conversation at 7:15:44 (and the first 911 call began at 7:16:11). If Zimmerman didn’t plan to be at his truck or at the mailboxes, just what do you suppose he intended to do that would justify the “I’ll tell him where I’m at” and that had him still in the area during those two minutes?
nenerinys wrote: “If Zimmerman didn’t plan to be at his truck or at the mailboxes, just what do you suppose he intended to do that would justify the “I’ll tell him where I’m at” and that had him still in the area during those two minutes?”
The most reasonable speculation I have for that is that he probably hoped to spot Martin again, or perhaps see evidence of which home he went into, such as from a light turning on. If Zimmerman’s sole focus was to wait on the police, he would have just got into his vehicle and returned home or waited in his vehicle at the clubhouse or mailboxes, or whatever. Clearly he had something else in mind. I think it would be to catch sight of the “suspicious person” again, but others here think his motives were more sinister, that he was hoping to hurt Martin. The problem I have with the sinister concept is that we would not expect someone to involve the police when they have such evil motives. If the police got there and found Zimmerman physically attacking Martin, Zimmerman would go to jail. It just doesn’t make sense to call the police if that is your plan. It is more reasonable to assume that Zimmerman hoped to be able to point the police to where the “suspicious character” was.
Davidm and dog, see, the reason those suppositions on your part are not realistic is this:
Z and his lawyers chose to give up the SYG hearing.
The rest of it is rhetoric. If the defense could have made out a halfway decent case for self-defense in light of the physical evidence collected, they’d have saved the HOA over a million dollars. THEY CHOSE NOT TO EVEN TRY. Dog, remember you predicted that there would be the hearing and your guy would walk out victorious for having killed the “choirboy”?
The defense is in the middle of its third big retreat:
RETREAT #1 – give up the SYG hearing.
RETREAT #2 – give up trying to prove Z’s injuries were serious.
RETREAT #3 – (ongoing) give up the ability to put on any evidence of self-defense that is not immediately torn to pieces by the prosecution.
Malisha – Stand your ground and self defense are two different things. The Stand Your Ground law gives immunity from prosecution in the first place.
Have you considered that perhaps the defense team thought because of all the public outcry, it would be better for Zimmerman to go through trial where all evidence could be presented, and that way they would get this over with permanently? If a Stand Your Ground hearing caused Zimmerman to be freed, he would have had the Black Panthers and others rushing for mob justice in the case, arguing that the State was complicit in protecting its own. It also is my understanding that Zimmerman could also later be tried at any time because there would be no trial verdict. So this case would be looming over his head forever. The best thing for Zimmerman is to argue the case based upon long standing self defense grounds rather than the more controversial Stand Your Ground law. Incidentally, it is my understanding that a Stand Your Ground hearing for dismissal can be held after the trial as easily as it can before it.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, to prove that Zimmerman had a depraved mind and was targeting Martin with a desire to hurt him or kill him. I think they have failed to do that. More than that, I believe Zimmerman. I perceive the truth to be that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Thanks to searchingmind on the Leatherman blog, the defendant has admitted to having a depraved mind.
THE CASE: CHARLIE GIBBS versus STATE OF FLORIDA, (CASE NO. 4D03-920)
Gibbs’s theory of defense was that he was impaired, and the shooting was an accident,occurring as he fell or was pulled away. The jury rejected the accident theory and convicted him of second degree murder. Gibbs argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove the depraved mind element of second degree murder. Second degree murder is “[t]he unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.” § 782.04(2), Fla. Stat. (2000).
THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RULED AS FOLLOWS:
“Pointing a loaded gun at the head of the victim and then firing has frequently been held to be an
act “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” See Keltner v. State, 650 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (finding the act of pointing loaded weapon in direction of someone and firing is imminently dangerous and evinces a depraved mind); Presley v. State, 499 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (finding act of approaching vehicle, taking out gun, and shooting into vehicle window supported second degree murder conviction); Dellinger v. State , 495 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (finding act of pointing rifle at wife without knowing whether it was loaded and pulling trigger was sufficient to demonstrate depraved mind); Edwards v. State , 302 So. 2d 479, 480-81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (finding act of pointing loaded gun at victim and then firing is imminently
dangerous to human life and evinces a depraved mind); (…).”
itchin;
T’ain’t gonna happen.
GZ stalked a man after being told to stand down – with a Loaded Gun!
Unless the Judge directs a verdict of NG;
GZ is going to hear the clank of the steel cage closing – Nightly!
Foreman/woman: Ok, folks, I will serve as Foreman for as long as this takes. The judge read us the instructions and I suggest that we go over them, in the order that she read them, at this time.
[instructions read aloud by Foreman to all]
First juror on the right of foreman: I think we should cut to the chase. Do I have a reasonable doubt as to any element of the offense and if so then I vote not guilty and if you all agree then we acquit and go home. Agreed?
[all nod]
First juror: I have a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in other than self defense. I mean this: I believe him when he says the kid was on top punching his head on the curb. I believe him when he says the kid was groping for the gun and I believe him when he says he was in fear for his life.
Therefore I vote not guilty. All in favor say aye.
BD,
You should know that a statement not under oath is admissible as having been said, but the court cannot vouch for the truth of the statement.
As for what the jury thinks is anyone’s guess. I have not watched any of the trial. Just read the news, but a friend of mine who is a forensic psychologist and trial consultant took the time to call me and tell me the prosecution is not doing too well in the witness department. We just have to wait and see.
I have a feeling that if Zimmerman is acquitted, he may get the Rodney King treatment from the feds on a civil rights violation. Remember when those officers were acquitted at state court level, the feds ending up with a conviction of some of the officers? IIRC, the main officer got four years.
OtterrayScribe: This has been the State’s case. They put the statements of Z into evidence. Hearsay objection has long ago been waived by them.
Z does not have to take the stand. Probably wont. Probably should not. Jury will probably be out for a half a day. Z will probably get sprung. If race is a factor it will be prejudice against Z for being Hispanic.
The judge did allow two hearsay statements in as “res gestae” being:
He was beating me up so I had to shoot him and
I was yelling for help but nobody helped me.
Neither of these proves self-defense. AND the people to whom he SAID these things will have to be cross-examined. There’s no way around it.
If statements made by the killer were enough to prove self-defense, there wouldn’t ever be a wife convicted for killing a husband. All she would have to say would be, “He was beating me up so I had to kill him” and/or “I was yelling for help and nobody helped me.”
UH OH, OPEN SEASON ON HUSBANDS!
Davidm etc., they are in evidence for statements Z made, NOT for the truth of those statements. If statements like that could be entered for the TRUTH of what was said, then obviously all a murderer would EVER have to do is tell a few people, after the fact, that he had not done it! BOOM there’s evidence he didn’t do it.
For them to be evidence of SELF-DEFENSE as opposed to evidence of statements Z made to police, on TV, etc., somebody (he or somebody who witnessed the events) has to get up there, testify, and be subjected to cross-examination. I can’t wait!
Malisha – Nobody’s statement should ever be taken as proof. We must weigh what is said and see how concordant it is with what everybody else says and with physical evidence presented. Furthermore, I take the position of presuming innocence unless proven guilty.
So from the start, I assume Zimmerman is innocent. I look for evidence that proves him to be lying. For example, is there physical evidence that he attacked Martin prior to pulling the trigger on the gun? No. Did anyone see him attack Martin? No. Did the girl on the phone conclude that Martin was jumped while talking to her? No. She didn’t even know Martin was killed until two days later. Did Zimmerman have a hatred for black people that might be a motivation for killing Martin? No. Did Zimmerman know Martin and want to kill him? No. Has Zimmerman attacked other people in his neighborhood? No. So why did Zimmerman end up in this situation?
Based upon the evidence presented, the most rational explanation is that Zimmerman was concerned and anxious about burglaries in his neighborhood. Seeing a hooded person standing in the rain, walking slowly and pausing to stand even though it was raining, raised his suspicion that Martin might be a burglar staking out homes to rob. He decided to call the police and ask them to check him out. This provoked Martin, evidenced by him calling Zimmerman a creepy a* cracker and Martin also called Zimmerman the n word. Did Martin continue back to where he was staying? No, he apparently doubled back and confronted Zimmerman. They exchanged words, Martin wanting to know what Zimmerman’s problem was and Zimmerman wanting to know what Martin was doing around there. That’s when the fisticuffs started. We don’t have any evidence from any witness about who threw the first punch. We have Zimmerman’s statement that Martin punched him in the nose, causing him to fall to the ground. Is there any physical evidence this happened? Yes. Zimmerman’s nose was broken and bleeding. Do we have any evidence whatsoever that events happened in a different way? No.
Could Zimmerman be lying about the punch? Of course, but in the absence of any other physical evidence, such as Martin having a broken nose or other similar injury, or some witness saying that they saw Zimmerman attack Martin first, the presumption of truth must go toward Zimmerman’s statement in this regard.
Even this, however, does not justify using deadly force. The only justification is if Zimmerman believed his life was in danger. For this, we have the testimony of John Good, who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, using the MMA technique of ground and pound against Zimmerman. We also have the contusions and lacerations on Zimmerman’s head, and the wetness and grass on Zimmerman’s back, indicating that Zimmerman was on the bottom and getting hurt. Zimmerman claims that Martin saw his gun as they were struggling and threatened to kill him immediately. This is when Zimmerman says he un-holstered his gun and shot it at Martin. No witnesses corroborate that Martin made the threat, but no witnesses claim Martin never made the threat either. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption of truth must go with Zimmerman.
Does anyone in this forum believe Blackstone’s formulation?
Blackstone’s formulation is: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
My sense is that most here presume Zimmerman to be guilty in absence of absolute proof that he is innocent. Also, a pacifist ideology may affect the way some view the evidence. There may be the factor of people not believing in the right and duty of lethal defensive action.
The only way a “defense” can be made that Trayvon “punched” GZ, is for a witness to stipulate to such. Being that (thus far) the only witness to the event(s) are GZ and Trayvon, the “affirmative” proposition of it was “self defense” lacks any foundation at the current state of the trial.
And GZ’s defense team would have to be out of their minds to permit GZ to go on the stand.
That is, unless they already get the sense they are sunk – and a last ditch effort to babble B.S. to the jury is made.
What OS said.
David, I am making an assumption that Zimmerman’s lawyer is competent. If the legal team is competent, then hell will freeze over before Zimmerman takes the stand. The prosecution is slavering to get him on cross examination. A cross examination would be ugly. It is only on TV dramas that the defendant takes the stand. After more than forty years in this business and thousands of cases, I can count on my fingers the number of times a defendant has taken the stand.
When a defendant makes an exculpatory statement, it is taken for what its worth, which most jurors regard as “not much.” On the other hand, an inculpatory statement is taken at face value, in that if the defendant says, “Yeah, I did it,” then there is nothing to defend or explain away.
David,
Go back and read what I said. I said that statements made to the police may be entered into evidence. Same with recordings, video and photographs. Statements not made under oath are understood as evidence the statement was made, and not for the truthfulness of the statement.
You are really trying too hard. You are not the jury, and are only hearing and seeing a fraction of what the jury hears and sees. Not one person on this blog knows the whole story from the jury’s viewpoint.
OS wrote: “Statements not made under oath are understood as evidence the statement was made, and not for the truthfulness of the statement.”
Interesting legal point here. Thank you for this.
So even though the statements are in evidence, there would be value to Zimmerman taking the stand if he wants to establish the truthfulness of his statements that he made. Am I understanding you right?
See, there has been no testimony yet that Martin punched Z. There has been no testimony yet that Martin threatened to kill Z. So preventing the “escalation that leads to the serious injury or death” is not in evidence. Now, should Z choose to testify, and should he say that Trayvon Martin punched him, and threatened to kill him, then those allegations will be subject to cross-examination by the prosecutors. We will see if the jury believes that Trayvon Martin broke any laws. To date, this has not happened so the beliefs you hold, and express, are not equivalent to facts in evidence.
I sure hope you have a chance to find out if these things you believe are believable to the jurors in this case.
On the other hand, there are many possible scenarios that do match the facts that are already in evidence. Any one or many of them may be more believable to the jurors than the one you believe.
Malisha wrote: “See, there has been no testimony yet that Martin punched Z. There has been no testimony yet that Martin threatened to kill Z. So preventing the “escalation that leads to the serious injury or death” is not in evidence.”
I’m not sure why this false belief persists.
If you believe Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Florida_vs._George_Zimmerman
Sanford Police Department Christopher Serino was the lead investigator for the incident. Recordings of Serino’s interviews with Zimmerman were played for the Jury as well as the re-enactment that Zimmerman performed with Serino.
I don’t have time right now to look up links to the re-enactment where Zimmerman makes these statements you claim are not in evidence. Some have speculated that the prosecution entered such into evidence in an effort to prevent Zimmerman from taking the stand.
David, I’m not going to respond to all your points but one. It was Rachel who said the “heavy breathin’ man”. I was quoting her sworn testimony. After 7 hours of nasty cross examination her testimony did not change. The “creepy ass cracker” defendant was following Trayvon while he was at the mail kiosk sheltered from the rain, and continued to follow him up Twin Trees. Trayvon ran to the T and toward home. It is Rachel’s testimony that he thought he had lost the creepy guy and they were talking about the basketball game that was going to start soon. The Trayvon tells Rachel that the creepy guy is right in front of him. She hears Trayvon say, “What’s you following me for?” and the “heavy breathin’ man” says, “What you doing around here?” All quotes are directly from Rachel’s testimony. At this point she hears a bump to Trayvon’s mike. When pushed repeatedly by defense counsel on what she hears she bumps the microphone in front of her. The next thing she hears is grass, as in, the mike fell into the grass.
Considering the number of stories the defendant has told, I’m at an absolute loss how anyone could believe him. Which story? No witness whatever says that Trayvon hit him, first, second or last. The injuries the defendant has are superficial. I expect the mothers on the jury have already had a laugh or two about his booboos. Moms would wash away the blood, wash with antiseptic, kiss them and shoo the kid back out to play.
I really hope the defendant decides to testify.
bettykath;
Your analogy is so ‘Spot On’ and well put – it’s refreshing.
In previous discourse with opposing counsel, upon the argument that “one needs no probable cause to pursue” – (noted above). My response was that such – too – was bogus banter.
Following someone – is Stalking – and forbidden by Law.
Congrats and bringing that issue home – wish you were with the prosecution!
Concur Otteray.
Opposing counsel (davidm –) argues facts not in evidence, innuendo and fails (miserably) in laying proper foundation. As others we know have done, when he is countered with a factual rebuttal; he simply moves on to the next effort in obfuscation.
Davic,
Unless Zimmerman testifies, it it NOT evidence. Statements or confessions made to the police may be entered into evidence if the judge rules in favor of letting statements in, but you seem to be relying on hearsay. Hearsay is not evidence except in certain limited circumstances. In fact, virtually nothing anyone says outside of sworn testimony can be considered. I said “virtually” because there are a few limited exceptions.
OS – you are wrong. Prosecutors entered into evidence four statements by Zimmerman, including a videotaped walk-through of the Retreat at Town Lakes in Sanford Florida where Zimmerman then lived which was made the day after the altercation. These statements were accepted into evidence by the judge without Zimmerman taking the stand.
david, One other point. If someone were to slow follow me in a car, I would find that provocative. If I made movements to lose the follower, and then found the follower had left his vehicle and showed up in front of me. I wouldn’t be as polite as Trayvon. I’d be screaming as loud as possible and it would be unbelievably nasty stuff (been there, done that; words I had never, ever before used). If that didn’t cause him to back off, I’d probably do an aggressive grab for testicles or a “heel of the hand” to the back of his head through his jaw with a followup to the testicles. No one who follows like that is up to any good.
davidm, ” The evidence has been put forward to the jury that Martin crossed that line, physically attacking Zimmerman. He put Zimmerman into a position where Zimmerman could not retreat, and he threatened him that he was going to take his life. At that point, Zimmerman was justified to use lethal force to protect his own life. It was not only his right, but his duty to do so. We should commend George Zimmerman for his actions, not punish him.”
Well, not really. That’s the defendant’s self-serving story. A story put together based on *his knowledge of the SYG law of FL and how to put together a story for trial* ( *in evidence).
We also have, in evidence, the testimony of Trayvon’s friend Rachel whose conversation indicates that the creepy guy followed Trayvon in his car, Trayvon was scared and he ran, then T. lost the creepy guy, but there he is again! Trayvon says, “what you following me for?” Heavy breathin’ man says, “what you doin’ round here?” followed by a hit to Trayvon’s mike and Trayvon saying, “get off, get off.”
We also have in evidence the testimony of four women who say the man who got up and was walking around after the shot was fired was the one who was on top.
Was there wrestling? a scuffle? most likely. But with none of the defendant’s DNA on Trayvon’s hands or the sleeves of his hoody (in evidence), I don’t see how he could have had his hands on the defendant’s head or nose or mouth.
You seem to be forming your opinions based on the defense lawyer’s interviews which are so full of bs that I’m surprised your own bs detector didn’t ring.
BettyKath wrote: “Well, not really. That’s the defendant’s self-serving story.”
Are you saying that what the defendant says happened is not evidence? It is evidence, and we then need to decide whether we believe his testimony or not. However, to claim that his account is not evidence in this case is dishonest.
In regards to the prosecution’s witness Rachel, she also must be judged as to whether she is telling the truth, and she is expected to be biased in favor of convicting Zimmerman in the same way that Zimmerman is expected to be biased for acquittal. From her testimony, we can surmise that words were exchanged, but we really cannot discern whether Martin approached Zimmerman or Zimmerman approached Martin. Rachel admits on the stand that she does not know who hit who first. You refer to Zimmerman as the “heavy breathin man” apparently to bias the reader, but the testimony of Zimmerman is that it was rainy and windy, and that it is the wind heard in the mic of the phone, not his heavy breathing. Heavy breathing might suggest Zimmerman was running after Martin, but it would not prove that he was beyond a reasonable doubt. We have Martin possibly saying “get off, get off” which means, what? Stop following me? Get off me physically? Most likely it means get out of here, stop following me, and it very likely was followed up with a punch to Zimmerman’s face, as evidenced by Zimmerman’s broken nose. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman’s account. Zimmerman has injuries to his face and back of his head. Martin has no facial injuries. It certainly is possible that Zimmerman threw the first punch which was so ineffective that no injury resulted, but such is only speculation. The physical evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman suffered a beating from Martin.
The testimony of Rachel supports Zimmerman’s account also by the fact that she is saying they were exchanging words. If Zimmerman was running after Martin and surprised him with a punch, we would not hear that dialogue. Furthermore, such would be stupid on Zimmerman’s part because we know that he just called the police and were expecting police to show up at any moment. Zimmerman knows that if he hits Martin, he will go to jail when the police get there. In addition, Zimmerman made many calls like this one that never resulted in a physical altercation. Logic leads us to conclude that Martin threw the first punch against Zimmerman and caught Zimmerman by surprise.
You refer to four women who say that the man on top was Zimmerman. Such confirms Zimmerman’s account, that after he shot Martin, he got on top of him and restrained him, and he also asked others there to help him restrain Martin. John Good’s testimony also confirms Zimmerman’s account, that initially Zimmerman was on bottom and being hurt by Martin who was on top.
No DNA from Zimmerman on Martin? Such is proof of nothing. It was raining, and there are various explanations for why DNA might not be able to be found. The expert witness admitted on the stand that the rain could have broken up and degraded the amount of DNA needed to detect it. Not being able to find DNA is not proof of anything. It is not at all surprising that Zimmerman’s DNA was not recovered from Martin’s clothing.
I agree that following someone, whether in a car or walking, can be very provocative. Calling the police to come investigate someone is provocative too. Accusing someone of a crime or of not having a right to walk around outside is provocative. That is the point, that Zimmerman’s actions provoked Martin into punching him. However, such behavior by Zimmerman is not illegal, and it is not justification for Martin punching Zimmerman.
Even after Martin punched Zimmerman and gave him a good beating, if Martin had left it at that, he only would have been guilty of battery. However, apparently Martin then threatened to kill Zimmerman. If that happened, if Zimmerman believed that he was about to be killed by Martin, then he would be justified to defend himself. Considering all the evidence and the physical injuries to Zimmerman, I believe this happened.
The fact that you would commit battery on a person for following you reveals why you are so eager to convict Zimmerman. If something like what you described happened with you, I would say that you should be put in jail for battery on another person. I am somewhat shocked that you would admit your criminal nature in this forum.
In cases like this, we have to separate what is legal from what is illegal. What actions are a crime and which are not a crime. Following a person is not illegal, even if the police say they don’t need you to do that. Talking to a person is not illegal. Asking them what they are doing there is not illegal. Calling the police to come investigate is not illegal. What crosses the line is physically attacking someone, and also telling someone that you are going to kill them. Unfortunately in this case, Zimmerman was apparently pinned under Martin, getting the crap beat out of him, and he believed that he was about to be killed and so he defended himself.