those are trellises not fence posts and they have been there for a long time. It is a natural shortcut and not some “he climbed over the wall” entrance like you claimed.
As usual you are being selective in your choice of information.
Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed Martin because he thought the dispatcher was telling him to do that . The dispatcher realized his mistake and corrected himself and Zimmerman stopped following him. When he lost visual contact with Zimmerman he got out and tried to reacquire him. He never said he was following Martin. He just didn’t correct the Dispatcher with a more accurate term. Zimmerman never turned South on the T and actually followed Martin.
When you are trying to see somebody, that doesn’t mean you are trying to catch them. Chasing means you are trying to catch somebody, which Zimmerman wasn’t
Why did he lie about his intentions in his written and interview statements if he was following dispatches command?
It is over 600 feet from the dog waste bin if you measure on google maps,
It’s a gated community. you can see the wall all the way around it. we agree he cut through at this point. Beyond the fact that he was standing on someone’s property and it looked suspicious to Zimmerman, what possible point can you be making?
No, there is a wall on the arterial roads, there is some fence and some non fenced areas around the rest of the property.
Zimmerman didn’t see him cut through though, I was just proving your prior claim was false.
And it was false.
Does anyone know what model cell phones Martin and Zimmerman were using? It’s VERY possible that the prosecution could have geospatial data (date and timestamped) collected from those phones which contradicts Zimmerman’s account of each persons movements.
Because he doesn’t have an Eidetic memory? He was obviously confused by trying to answer all the questions from the dispatcher. I doubt you would do as well under similar circumstances.
So you admit his testimony is not reliable?
If he can not remember or fabricates reasons for the fact that he left his car in order to follow Martin how can we use it as evidence Martin did not have a right to self defense?
Speculation about the various types of holsters that are available, while interesting, doesn’t say anything about the specific holster Zimmerman was using. You speculated that, while running, Zimmerman would have had to physically prevent Zimmerman’s weapon from sliding out of Zimmerman’s holster. If we knew the model of Zimmerman’s holster, we would know if it had any special design features.
Martin had a right to self defense. It appears that Martin left Zimmerman’s line of sight for several minutes. Martin then approached Zimmerman. Not exactly the actions of someone who was afraid.
Could Martin expect a jury to believe that he was so afraid of being mugged, robbed, or murdered that he decided to approach a complete stranger who didn’t know where Martin was, ask the stranger what he was doing in the area, and then attempt to kill the stranger for asking the same questions Martin was asking?
If Zimmerman hadn’t cried out to his neighbors for help, would anyone have witnessed any part of this event to back up Martin’s story of why he felt he had to kill Zimmerman?
Or actually run home. Or run past his home. Or run to a neighbors for help. Or bang on as many windows and doors as possible asking them for help or hoping they’ll call the police. Or he could have call 9-1-1 himself. Or he could have shouted for help. Martin had lot of choices.
What Martin did do was approach Zimmerman.
Who is supposed to represent the jury in this threads make-believe scenerio?
I never said Zimmerman saw him cut through. He saw him trespassing in front of the house.
For the people who believe every word of Zimmerman’s story, I’ve got a bridge and some oceanfront property to sell you. Low rates, baby. Easy financing.
Who has said they believe every word of Zimmerman’s story? I’m sure that he has forgotten and/or embellished some details but the more information that comes out leads me to believe that he was in the right. If the state keeps releasing more “evidence” against him, I might actually donate some money to his defense fund if it won’t increase his bond or get his wife arrested.
Does it have a nice view? I’ve always wanted an oceanfront bridge with a nice view.
I don’t believe anyone believes every word of Zimmerman’s story. It doesn’t appear that anyone is reading from a script. I notice that some of the eyewitness stories have changed from their original statements to the Sanford PD to their latest statements to the State Police investigators. The blond lady that kept publically insisting that the police were ignoring her statement still says that she didn’t see anyone approach anyone, didn’t see the 2nd confrontation, didn’t see anyone hitting anyone, and didn’t see the shot being fired but insists that Zimmerman is guilty because she saw Zimmerman standing next to Martin’s body. She’ll make a fine witness for the prosecution. 
The SA still has to convince a judge or jury that their version of what happened is what actually happened or is most likely what happened. AND Corey has to prove 2nd degree murder. Not manslaughter. She didn’t charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. (She can always change the charges up to the point jury selection begins or the first witness is sworn in.)
I just checked it in Google Earth and came up with 327 feet.
Neither of you is likely to be correct, if you are measuring on a map you need use an equidistant projection.
Quick question: When the judge “revoked” his bond, does that mean that Zimmerman’s loses his $150k or is it revoked in the sense that “turn yourself in, we give the money back” status quo ante situation?
I know that if you don’t show for trial, you forfeit your money, but is it the same thing on a bond revocation?