Hi clo,
In order to 'claim' self defense, Z does need to prove he was in fear for his life. [Not so. Once again, you have inverted the burden of proof. The prosecution must demonstrate Z's claim that he reasonably believed he needed to defend himself is false. It has clearly failed to do so. Indeed, like you, it has just ignored the evidence that doesn't fit its theory.]
Since Z's gun was loaded & he decided to trail T, against the 911 operators advice, its difficult to see why Z was in fear of his life. [There is no evidence Z decided to trail M after the police told him not to. This is supposition. But I agree that M probably thought he was being followed. Z asserts the meeting was accidental. M appeared from the bushes as he was returning to his car. But since they ended up in a fight and M continued beating Z up using MMA methods, the prelude is irrelevant. He was in fear for his life during the fight, rather than before it. This is not hard to understand. Surely you are being obtuse.]
His injuries were NOT life threatening. [This is just a post hoc assertion and I guess you would be satisfied only if he actually had a brain injury as opposed to nearly getting one. Anyway whether the injuries were life threatening is not the standard. The standard is whether he reasonably believed his life was in danger. The broken nose, the inferior position he was in, the fact M continued to beat him for 30-40seconds, the welts and cuts, his cries for help demonstrate Z might reasonably believe his life was in danger. Those injuries make proving that he had no reasonable fear for his life almost unproveable.
No marks on T's right hand. Proves he wasn't punching Z to a pulp. [Once again, this is hopeless evidence as we have the much better evidence of Z's head. Your repetitions that Z only had two cuts only demonstrate that you are ignoring his broken and swollen nose and the numerous lumps and abrasions on his head. They are still the key facts of the case.]
He shot T directly in the heart. No way would he doubt the shot went 'wide.' [Supposition and totally irrelevant. It demonstrates nothing about his motive beforehand that afterwards he initially thought he had missed.]
Z actually said in the video he thought the shot went wide & 'claimed' he didn't know T was dead until the female officer told him as she interviewed him. [Is there some relevance to this because I can't see it?]
He showed NO remorse for the event, let alone the death of T while being interviewed with his attorney on Hannity's show. He even claimed it was the will of God..... [You are just repeating the same points you've made previously that are easily dispatched. Z thinks his actions were reasonable in the circumstances. Why should he regret them if he is innocent? Some guy jumps him, beats him up, he defends himself. Christian folks often believe in predestination. They say such and such is God's will eg recently after a tornado in which a survivor was asked by Wolf Blitzer to thank God for their survival when many others had died. I think it is nonsensical response in nearly all circumstances. But it is not remarkable that someone said it.]
Depraved indifference is reached in my eyes with that. [No sign of depravity in Z's responses. It is sad that M died. But he should not have beaten Z up which he demonstrably did. In Z's shoes, few would regret surviving at the expense of the aggressor.]
Trayvon was the UNarmed teenager, that's why I label him by his first name. [M was the aggressor who beat Z up and was armed with his fists. He is not on trial because he is dead. Otherwise he would likely be on trial for his assault on Z.]
Zimmerman, the armed adult, labeled T the 'suspect' & many other derogatory names, that's why I label him as such. [You convict people on strange grounds. To Z, M was the bad guy. The guy who assaulted him. To him, he was the suspect in a crime against himself. He'd just been beaten up by him. He's expected to show reverence for the guy who just tried to kill him?]
A witness testified she saw Z hitting his head after the event. That might have created some lumps. [Not even the prosecution is arguing this point. So I am not going to.]
Z didn't need to defend himself with his rigorous training in MMA, (3x a week) he had a loaded gun. [You've outdone yourself. Why on earth did he let himself get beaten up, allow M to break his nose, get into a dominant position, smash his head on the ground and then wait to shoot M since he was so skilled at MMA?
I hope the jury is actually addressing the evidence rather than inventing a fantasy in which Z broke his own nose, whacked his head so as to get numerous welts on it, jumped onto the concrete to create two bloody cuts on the back of his head, cut himself behind the ear and scraped his scalp to create abrasions everywhere - having just shot M with malice aforethought.
This is your case. Rather than admit M acted in self-defence against a 17 year-old who was angry and had the poor judgement of a person who had fairly recently smoked weed.
But even if you have your theory, you would need to prove that Z's defence was implausible. And you haven't even tried. Innocent unless proven guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is an absurd prosecution. Z should not be on trial. It's obviously a political decision that he is in the dock.
| 
