Trayvon Martin Case (Zimmerman charged; 2nd deg. murder)

[Kamakazie Sith]

Look you fucking retard: There are numerous known witnesses that contradict the account of this single anonymous source. Of the three male witnesses listed, one of them might be John, or they might be three completely different people. Further, there is no way to determine if the person the News interviewed well after the fact was even there. Where did the news crew find him? Did they contact him or did he contact them? Was it a phone call or did someone actually go out to the location in question? Until John testifies in court to what he saw, is willing to come forward in the media, or until someone can produce a fucking police report with statements echoing those of John then the accounts from the news source should be regarded with skepticism.

Sorry, Hammer. The fact that this witness is unknown doesn't convince me of your position. I thought I made that clear? Repeating yourself isn't going to change that position.

Lets look at some other evidence detectives. From the news account, "John" doesn't explicitly state, but he infers that he called 911 and the news account claims he "contacted authorities". Since all the tapes were released maybe we can find some clues. Aside from Zimmerman, there is only one male caller. From the link, it is second from the top. Unfortunately the tape has blank spots on the audio which is annoying, but the assumption is that is to protect identifying information. As all other callers were female, this would seem to be the best candidate for "John". He specifically describes two men wrestling behind his house. Later in the call he is asked "So you hear someone yelling for help?" and he immediately responds "I think the guy is dead". A logical interpretation would seem to conclude that he meant the person yelling for help was dead. So would seem to differ significantly from the description later given by "John" last name "Doe". If you don't find any of this the least bit questionable then you are either in denial or incredibly dense.

It is logical to conclude that this caller is John. Statements made to dispatch while a tense situation is evolving can be disjointed and unclear. This is why we have people sit down and write out statements so they can clear their mind and think of what they saw. Furthermore, nothing of what he said contradicts the information given to the media.

The bottom line is there is nothing unreasonable about you wanting to see the full report. Your position becomes unreasonable because you take the word of one witness over another simply because that witness did not provide his name.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This video given to ABCNews has been making rounds on the internet. The video shows Zimmerman at the police station with no physical marks on his face. No marks on the back of his head, no bandages indicative of a broken nose.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-z ... e-16024475

Sorry Aniron. I missed this. The video quality isn't remarkable but it isn't bad either. It is standard police procedure for all injured persons being taken into police custody to be medically cleared. This includes being cleaned up so the video isn't conclusive. However, Zimmerman's condition should have been documented prior to this. I understand an officer did take a photograph of Zimmerman with his injuries but so far that hasn't been released to the media. It would be a serious failing of the department if those injuries weren't documented in a manner other than officer say so.

[Dalton]

There is no evidence of blood on the shirt. Does the medical cleanup include a change of clothing if necessary?

[Aniron]

There is no evidence of blood on the shirt. Does the medical cleanup include a change of clothing if necessary?

There's also no bandage over his broken nose.

[TheHammer]

Look you fucking retard: There are numerous known witnesses that contradict the account of this single anonymous source. Of the three male witnesses listed, one of them might be John, or they might be three completely different people. Further, there is no way to determine if the person the News interviewed well after the fact was even there. Where did the news crew find him? Did they contact him or did he contact them? Was it a phone call or did someone actually go out to the location in question? Until John testifies in court to what he saw, is willing to come forward in the media, or until someone can produce a fucking police report with statements echoing those of John then the accounts from the news source should be regarded with skepticism.

Sorry, Hammer. The fact that this witness is unknown doesn't convince me of your position. I thought I made that clear? Repeating yourself isn't going to change that position.

You are free to cling to whatever illogical belief that you wish. The fact that he is unknown in and of itself is not the core issue. At issue is the fact that he is unknown and contradicted by other witnesses. At issue is that the circumstances by which the media obtained the statements is completely unknown as well.

Lets look at some other evidence detectives. From the news account, "John" doesn't explicitly state, but he infers that he called 911 and the news account claims he "contacted authorities". Since all the tapes were released maybe we can find some clues. Aside from Zimmerman, there is only one male caller. From the link, it is second from the top. Unfortunately the tape has blank spots on the audio which is annoying, but the assumption is that is to protect identifying information. As all other callers were female, this would seem to be the best candidate for "John". He specifically describes two men wrestling behind his house. Later in the call he is asked "So you hear someone yelling for help?" and he immediately responds "I think the guy is dead". A logical interpretation would seem to conclude that he meant the person yelling for help was dead. So would seem to differ significantly from the description later given by "John" last name "Doe". If you don't find any of this the least bit questionable then you are either in denial or incredibly dense.

It is logical to conclude that this caller is John. Statements made to dispatch while a tense situation is evolving can be disjointed and unclear. This is why we have people sit down and write out statements so they can clear their mind and think of what they saw. Furthermore, nothing of what he said contradicts the information given to the media

The language used on the 911 call was so starkly different than the statements "John" made that if not for the fact that this is the only male caller on the 911 tapes you would likely conclude that it was a different person. I'm aware that in a tense situation things can be disjointed and unclear, but generally speaking if you see two men trading blows you would NOT describe it as "wrestling". You would describe it as a fight, a brawl etc.

The bottom line is there is nothing unreasonable about you wanting to see the full report. Your position becomes unreasonable because you take the word of one witness over another simply because that witness did not provide his name.

Interesting... so as a Police Officer, you would weigh the statements of an anonymous source the exact same as a named source when those two contradict?

The reason I don't take the word of the "witness" at face value is because statements to the news media don't carry any penalty for not telling the truth. As an unknown there is no way to vett his credibility, nor is there a way to call him out should he be determined not to be telling the truth. In fact there is no way to know if he even really exists.

If those statements attributed to "john" appear in a police report somewhere then they will carry more weight because we will then know that there IS someone who will stand behind those words even if we don't know his name. But in the news media? "John's" statements may as well be those of a random blogger on the internet.

[Simon_Jester]

It is logical to conclude that this caller is John. Statements made to dispatch while a tense situation is evolving can be disjointed and unclear. This is why we have people sit down and write out statements so they can clear their mind and think of what they saw. Furthermore, nothing of what he said contradicts the information given to the media

The language used on the 911 call was so starkly different than the statements "John" made that if not for the fact that this is the only male caller on the 911 tapes you would likely conclude that it was a different person. I'm aware that in a tense situation things can be disjointed and unclear, but generally speaking if you see two men trading blows you would NOT describe it as "wrestling". You would describe it as a fight, a brawl etc

Looking at this, I think you're taking your conclusions a little far.

Personally, I don't assign any weight to "John's" statements to the media because I can't gauge the odds that he's reporting events honestly. He might be the only eyewitness to the killing- but then again, he might be a random friend of Zimmerman's trying to get him out of trouble. I don't know and can't find out from the information I have. And because the physical evidence I'm aware of doesn't support the idea that Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin, or that he was locked in a struggle with Martin when he shot Martin.

However, I think you're being a little unreasonable by dwelling on the difference between "trading blows" and "wrestling." Two men fighting in no-holds-barred unarmed combat aren't going to square off like they were in a boxing ring, or a wrestling ring for that matter: they're going to go at each other however seems best to them, and they probably won't have any single trained, preferred style. One moment they may be punching and kicking ('trading blows'). The next they might be pushing and shoving, or grappling with each other on the ground ('wrestling.') If I saw two ordinary men fighting barehanded outside my house, I might call it "wrestling" or "trading blows" or whatever, and it wouldn't prove a damn thing one way or the other. Both terms might be accurate, talking about different bits of the same fight five or ten seconds apart.

[TheHammer]

It is logical to conclude that this caller is John. Statements made to dispatch while a tense situation is evolving can be disjointed and unclear. This is why we have people sit down and write out statements so they can clear their mind and think of what they saw. Furthermore, nothing of what he said contradicts the information given to the media

The language used on the 911 call was so starkly different than the statements "John" made that if not for the fact that this is the only male caller on the 911 tapes you would likely conclude that it was a different person. I'm aware that in a tense situation things can be disjointed and unclear, but generally speaking if you see two men trading blows you would NOT describe it as "wrestling". You would describe it as a fight, a brawl etc

Looking at this, I think you're taking your conclusions a little far.

Personally, I don't assign any weight to "John's" statements to the media because I can't gauge the odds that he's reporting events honestly. He might be the only eyewitness to the killing- but then again, he might be a random friend of Zimmerman's trying to get him out of trouble. I don't know and can't find out from the information I have. And because the physical evidence I'm aware of doesn't support the idea that Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin, or that he was locked in a struggle with Martin when he shot Martin.

That's the key point to take away. "John" could be just about anybody. Its possible he's totally legit, and equally possible he's full of shit. I just find it mind bogglingly stupid that KS feels that anonymous sources should be given the same weight as a named source when the two contradict.

However, I think you're being a little unreasonable by dwelling on the difference between "trading blows" and "wrestling." Two men fighting in no-holds-barred unarmed combat aren't going to square off like they were in a boxing ring, or a wrestling ring for that matter: they're going to go at each other however seems best to them, and they probably won't have any single trained, preferred style. One moment they may be punching and kicking ('trading blows'). The next they might be pushing and shoving, or grappling with each other on the ground ('wrestling.') If I saw two ordinary men fighting barehanded outside my house, I might call it "wrestling" or "trading blows" or whatever, and it wouldn't prove a damn thing one way or the other. Both terms might be accurate, talking about different bits of the same fight five or ten seconds apart.

You are correct he could have meant a variety of things by "wrestling". But if you say two people are "wrestling" that is a bit more specific than saying they are simply "fighting". Generally speaking I don't think you'd describe the sort of encounter that George Zimmerman claims took place as "wrestling". However my statement is not meant to be conclusive, simply pointing at what would be more likely.

[SirNitram]

Didn't see this posted, but I think it raises an important question. Link

It wasn’t until Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, called to file a missing-persons report on Feb. 27 that police went to his fiancee’s house with pictures of his son’s dead body. News reports have said that Trayvon’s body was tagged as a John Doe. But the “Partial Report Only” that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon’s full name, city of birth, address and phone number. How did police get that information? Was Trayvon carrying identification? Did police try to contact that home number?

This is looking less and less like police work and more and more like Keystone Kops. What the hell happened?

EDIT: Fixed link

[The Yosemite Bear]

well one COULD possibly load up google earth and get a sat view of the streets in the gated community since we now have the convient address.....

that and the police CCTV of the night are looking pretty damning against the claim of self defense I was getting my head bashed in by zimmy...

[Kamakazie Sith]

There is no evidence of blood on the shirt. Does the medical cleanup include a change of clothing if necessary?

What do you think?

[Gil Hamilton]

Well, the video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station supposedly has him wearing the same clothing the incident happened in, or so the news said. It didn't look like there was dried blood on it to me, not did he look like he had received first aid for a broken nose, nor did it look like the back of his head was messed up. Of course, the video wasn't exactly the best quality.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You are free to cling to whatever illogical belief that you wish. The fact that he is unknown in and of itself is not the core issue. At issue is the fact that he is unknown and contradicted by other witnesses. At issue is that the circumstances by which the media obtained the statements is completely unknown as well.

Again, how can a witness that freely admits she didn't see anything contradict one that claims he did? How is that logical to you?

The language used on the 911 call was so starkly different than the statements "John" made that if not for the fact that this is the only male caller on the 911 tapes you would likely conclude that it was a different person. I'm aware that in a tense situation things can be disjointed and unclear, but generally speaking if you see two men trading blows you would NOT describe it as "wrestling". You would describe it as a fight, a brawl etc.

Semantics.

Interesting... so as a Police Officer, you would weigh the statements of an anonymous source the exact same as a named source when those two contradict?

When it is just his name being withheld from the public and the reason for doing so makes sense. Yes.

The reason I don't take the word of the "witness" at face value is because statements to the news media don't carry any penalty for not telling the truth. As an unknown there is no way to vett his credibility, nor is there a way to call him out should he be determined not to be telling the truth. In fact there is no way to know if he even really exists.

That's fine. However, you seem to be assigning value to the word of the witnesses that identified themselves. This lack of penalty is true for those witnesses as well. The rest of your sentence appears like conspiracy theory nonsense. "Does he even exist?!!?" Really? How do we know that the two women aren't paid actors? Come on.

If those statements attributed to "john" appear in a police report somewhere then they will carry more weight because we will then know that there IS someone who will stand behind those words even if we don't know his name. But in the news media? "John's" statements may as well be those of a random blogger on the internet.

Then assign this same value to the two identified witnesses. You haven't seen their statements either.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, the video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station supposedly has him wearing the same clothing the incident happened in, or so the news said. It didn't look like there was dried blood on it to me, not did he look like he had received first aid for a broken nose, nor did it look like the back of his head was messed up. Of course, the video wasn't exactly the best quality.

I think we would need to ask an EMT what is standard for treating injuries to draw any conclusions. The only reason I hold the position that I do is because I've seen people with injuries have the blood cleaned up and then a bandage applied if the injury is still bleeding but a bandage is not always applied. The reason for blood not being visible on his clothing could have many explanations.

SirNitram - Police reports are amended when a person is identified.

[Gil Hamilton]

The treatment for a broken nose, assuming it's not a bad enough fracture to be taken to the hospital, is to apply a cold pack multiple times over the course of several days to reduce swelling, because broken noses tend to have enormous amounts of swelling and bruising.They also bleed like a bitch; if you have a broken nose at all, there is going to be more than a little blood loss. Zimmerman was handcuffed and being walked around, so obviously he or the cops wouldn't have a cold compress on his face, his face would have been a mess even if they had cleaned him up, just from the bruising and swelling that automatically comes with a broken nose, particularly if the bone was displaced.

As for the blood on his clothing, what "many reasons" do you have in mind? Blood dries dark brown, it should be more than visible on a red sweater. I'm not sure it's reasonable to claim that the police went ahead and laundered his clothing for him, and even if they did, blood doesn't come out in a normal wash so well, which is why you have to apply peroxide to it. That doesn't seem like something the cops would reasonable do.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah, the more I see and the more physical evidence that shows up the more it looks bad for zimmy and his protectors

[SVPD]

That video really doesn't help much. For one thing, it sucks. For another "ABC News Exclusive" is hanging over Zimmerman for much of it (thanks, fuckheads). For another, we can see an officer inspecting the back of Zimmerman's head, so evidently they were looking at something.

As for the broken nose, it could be that it was initially thought to be broken and turned out not to be. I am not a medic, but I did break my nose once and it wasn't bandaged. It also didn't swell or bruise all that badly and I broke the hell out of it (rode straight into the back of a parked car on my bike when I was 12; don't ask why).

As for the idea that dried blood ought to show up really easily on a red sweater maybe, but maybe not.

It certainly is not looking any worse for Zimmerman because of that video. It's worse if we make a lot of assumptions, but that's it. On the other hand, it certianly makes the situation no better for him either. It's simply too poor to tell.

[Gil Hamilton]

I saw it on CNN's website, where there was no logos or anything covering Zimmerman at all. For one thing, the video quality wasn't that bad and for another, Zimmerman didn't look like he had been injured and received first aid. His face didn't look like he had been through a nose-busting beating That could be a function of the imperfect quality of the video, but handwaving it also isn't something you should just do.

I'm curious why both you and KS both claim there are "many reasons" why dried blood wouldn't show up on a bright red sweater, but neither have said what those reasons are. Blood dries a dark brown color and tends to stain fabric permanently unless chemically treated. Why wouldn't blood be visible on his clothing? It's not like bright red would hide the stains any. Maybe he didn't get any on him, but I'm somewhat incredulous of that if his nose had been broken in a melee. I'm not giving you the business, but you seem to have a reason why it wouldn't be visible even if it was there.

[Simon_Jester]

You are correct he could have meant a variety of things by "wrestling". But if you say two people are "wrestling" that is a bit more specific than saying they are simply "fighting". Generally speaking I don't think you'd describe the sort of encounter that George Zimmerman claims took place as "wrestling". However my statement is not meant to be conclusive, simply pointing at what would be more likely.

I often use less-than-precise words to describe events in the heat of the moment. So I think this is being unreasonably pedantic- if you want to concentrate on John's identity, then do concentrate on it, don't keep bringing this is. That's my advice.

The reason I don't take the word of the "witness" at face value is because statements to the news media don't carry any penalty for not telling the truth. As an unknown there is no way to vett his credibility, nor is there a way to call him out should he be determined not to be telling the truth. In fact there is no way to know if he even really exists.

That's fine. However, you seem to be assigning value to the word of the witnesses that identified themselves. This lack of penalty is true for those witnesses as well. The rest of your sentence appears like conspiracy theory nonsense. "Does he even exist?!!?" Really? How do we know that the two women aren't paid actors? Come on.

If those statements attributed to "john" appear in a police report somewhere then they will carry more weight because we will then know that there IS someone who will stand behind those words even if we don't know his name. But in the news media? "John's" statements may as well be those of a random blogger on the internet.

Then assign this same value to the two identified witnesses. You haven't seen their statements either.

The identified witnesses are at least putting their reputation on the line, potentially- if it is proven that they were lying, they might face some ramifications at some point in their lives. For the anonymous witness, this is not the case.

Also, the identified witnesses' testimony is... less important to the case, I think. If the two women are revealed to be paid actresses, it knocks out one line of evidence of multiple ones. If the one man is revealed to be a friend of Zimmerman's trying to make him look good by lying to the media, then as far as I can tell, the only evidence we have for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is his own word... and his word is at least questionable in light of the absence of evidence for his injuries.

It certainly is not looking any worse for Zimmerman because of that video. It's worse if we make a lot of assumptions, but that's it. On the other hand, it certianly makes the situation no better for him either. It's simply too poor to tell.

SVPD, I think that yes it makes Zimmerman look worse.

I mean come on, for Christ's sake. Person A claims to have gotten into a desperate grappling fight with Person B. They wrestle, Person B is pounding Person A against the ground and generally mauling him, Person A pulls out a gun and shoots Person B.

What would we expect to see? If I asked you "what does Person A look like five minutes after the shooting," what would you say?

We would expect to see signs that A had been injured- scrapes, bruises, swelling. If he had indeed shot a man in the chest while literally being grappled by that man, we would expect to see some of B's blood on A.

If A doesn't have a single damned mark on him or his clothing, doesn't this call into question his claim to have been in a fight? I don't know about you, but if someone jumped me from behind and started beating me into the ground and I wrestled with him for a minute and then pulled out my gun and shot him in the chest while he was sitting on top of me punching me in the face, I know I'd be pretty thoroughly mussed.

It's one thing to presume innocence. It's another thing to ignore holes in an alibi because the alibi must by default be assumed to be true.

[Thanas]

It certainly is not looking any worse for Zimmerman because of that video. It's worse if we make a lot of assumptions, but that's it. On the other hand, it certianly makes the situation no better for him either. It's simply too poor to tell.

SVPD, I think that yes it makes Zimmerman look worse.

I mean come on, for Christ's sake. Person A claims to have gotten into a desperate grappling fight with Person B. They wrestle, Person B is pounding Person A against the ground and generally mauling him, Person A pulls out a gun and shoots Person B.

What would we expect to see? If I asked you "what does Person A look like five minutes after the shooting," what would you say?

We would expect to see signs that A had been injured- scrapes, bruises, swelling. If he had indeed shot a man in the chest while literally being grappled by that man, we would expect to see some of B's blood on A.

If A doesn't have a single damned mark on him or his clothing, doesn't this call into question his claim to have been in a fight? I don't know about you, but if someone jumped me from behind and started beating me into the ground and I wrestled with him for a minute and then pulled out my gun and shot him in the chest while he was sitting on top of me punching me in the face, I know I'd be pretty thoroughly mussed.

It's one thing to presume innocence. It's another thing to ignore holes in an alibi because the alibi must by default be assumed to be true.

Indeed. Especially considering how easily a face bruises up and how hard blood is to clean off. This makes the whole thing completely suspicious or at the very least raises doubt as to Zimmermann's side of the story.

[PeZook]

Anyone who hangs on the precise words used by witnesses to describe the fight is a fucking idiot and should shut up, because he's doing the exact same thing as idiot conspiracy theorists and racists wondering OMG WHY WAS HE WEARING A HOODIE IS HE A GANGSTA?!

It's a chaotic situation that the witness is describing in the spur of the moment, the fact this particular person did not use words YOU think should be used is meaningless and harping on it is one of the dumbest things people do in cases like these,because it's a tiny, pointless fucking detail.

EDIT: Also, I would EXPECT the cops confiscated any of the blood-stained clothes Zimmerman might've had on him. In Martin was indeed on top of Zimmerman, the fact there's Martin's blood on Zimmerman's clothes would corroborate his story, so even if they're racist douchebag cops, they should've confiscated and secured his clothes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I saw it on CNN's website, where there was no logos or anything covering Zimmerman at all. For one thing, the video quality wasn't that bad and for another, Zimmerman didn't look like he had been injured and received first aid. His face didn't look like he had been through a nose-busting beating That could be a function of the imperfect quality of the video, but handwaving it also isn't something you should just do.

I'm curious why both you and KS both claim there are "many reasons" why dried blood wouldn't show up on a bright red sweater, but neither have said what those reasons are. Blood dries a dark brown color and tends to stain fabric permanently unless chemically treated. Why wouldn't blood be visible on his clothing? It's not like bright red would hide the stains any. Maybe he didn't get any on him, but I'm somewhat incredulous of that if his nose had been broken in a melee. I'm not giving you the business, but you seem to have a reason why it wouldn't be visible even if it was there.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not dismissing the video. The video isn't clear and because it isn't clear is why I was speculating because our imaginations have made us think of what his condition was based off his story. You may have been picturing Zimmerman with a serious nose bleed.

However, you're right other explanations of why the blood isn't visible or why we can't see injuries is speculation. Consider that conceded. If the police didn't take his clothing and/or document his injuries close up then this video is good evidence that Martin might not be telling the truth.

[Aaron MkII]

Would whoever treated him at the scene have been required to file a report?

[Kamakazie Sith]

The identified witnesses are at least putting their reputation on the line, potentially- if it is proven that they were lying, they might face some ramifications at some point in their lives. For the anonymous witness, this is not the case.

I'm not sure what those ramifications would be. I'm not aware of any ramifications for a witness that is mistaken about what they saw. Get my drift?

Also, the identified witnesses' testimony is... less important to the case, I think. If the two women are revealed to be paid actresses, it knocks out one line of evidence of multiple ones. If the one man is revealed to be a friend of Zimmerman's trying to make him look good by lying to the media, then as far as I can tell, the only evidence we have for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is his own word... and his word is at least questionable in light of the absence of evidence for his injuries.

The paid actresses was not a serious statement. I was poking fun at Hammer's "does he even exist" comment. I agree, if it is only Zimmerman's word and he has no injuries then his claim is very suspect..

SVPD, I think that yes it makes Zimmerman look worse.

I mean come on, for Christ's sake. Person A claims to have gotten into a desperate grappling fight with Person B. They wrestle, Person B is pounding Person A against the ground and generally mauling him, Person A pulls out a gun and shoots Person B.

What would we expect to see? If I asked you "what does Person A look like five minutes after the shooting," what would you say?

We would expect to see signs that A had been injured- scrapes, bruises, swelling. If he had indeed shot a man in the chest while literally being grappled by that man, we would expect to see some of B's blood on A.

If A doesn't have a single damned mark on him or his clothing, doesn't this call into question his claim to have been in a fight? I don't know about you, but if someone jumped me from behind and started beating me into the ground and I wrestled with him for a minute and then pulled out my gun and shot him in the chest while he was sitting on top of me punching me in the face, I know I'd be pretty thoroughly mussed.

It's one thing to presume innocence. It's another thing to ignore holes in an alibi because the alibi must by default be assumed to be true

I think SVPD means...what do you expect to see from a video of that quality?

[aerius]

Would whoever treated him at the scene have been required to file a report?

I don't know about a formal report being filed by the EMT or whoever it was that treated him, but the person(s) who treated him at the scene would get interviewed by police at some point regarding the injuries. Whether they do it at the scene right after things are taken care of or sometime later I don't know, but it will get done and that information goes into the police report on the case.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not dismissing the video. The video isn't clear and because it isn't clear is why I was speculating because our imaginations have made us think of what his condition was based off his story. You may have been picturing Zimmerman with a serious nose bleed.

However, you're right other explanations of why the blood isn't visible or why we can't see injuries is speculation. Consider that conceded. If the police didn't take his clothing and/or document his injuries close up then this video is good evidence that Martin might not be telling the truth.

What I'm trying to imagine is someone who a couple hours before apparently had a 17 year old throw him to the ground, mount him, and beat him so badly that his life was in danger that he shot the kid from that position, while the kid was on top of him. That's Zimmerman's story, right?