If the 911 call was 38 seconds how long do you think the fight was and how many blows would be delivered in that time frame? If Martin took his time he would easily exceed 25 punches in 38 seconds and we know the fight lasted longer.
But what does that imply, exactly, about his broken nose and the trauma to the back of his head? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding or I missed this, and I’m not trying to be difficult. But that’s the part of your syllogism I’m missing. You find him “not credible,” and…what? He didn’t get his ass kicked? What does your assessment of his credibility lead you to conclude with regard to his injuries?
Because no matter how I speculate about anything else, I am still left with the fact that Martin put a beat-down on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin, the guy who was kicking his ass.
you have yet to establish a single lie. Why don’t you prove one first and then build on your premise.
But remember, you are not permitted, by Team Zimmerman Special Rules, to use your own reason and experience of life to examine the various facts and compare them to your understanding of how the world operates and conclude that Zimmerman lied to begin with. You are supposed to justify why you don’t think he’s just “misremembering”, because it appears that by Team Zimmerman Special Rules, the default is to give him the benefit of the doubt and your failure to do so must be explained, even though it’s been explained dozens of times. And you must cite evidence that has been cited dozens of times. And you must connect the dots of your reasoning even though the connections between the dots have been drawn dozens of times. And you know, start over and do it again. Because no answer other than “holy shit, you’re right and I’m wrong, thank you for the enlightenment, Wise Ones!” will ever be considered an acceptable response.
Fortunately, whether they do or don’t, the jury is not required to decide whether GZ has lied by applying Team Zimmerman Special Rules, just by using their good sense and life experience.
As Stratocaster stated up thread. What exactly does establishing that Zimmerman isn’t credible get you?
The only problem Stoid, is that you have to PROVE someone lied in order to INFER IT.
Why do you keep quoting California caselaw?
Cause it’s all the same amirite? 
Ahem…Magiver ol’ pal… if something is proved, no inference is necessary.
Because California is a huge state with a ginormous population and therefore boatloads of caselaw that comes up on searches for general topics in law that are common across jurisdictions.
Ok, but what does Zimmerman’s lack of credibility lead to?
what lie has been proved?
If I were on the jury I wouldn’t want to try to reconstruct the scene by myself from the confusing witnesses. I’d expect the prosecution to present their version. It wouldn’t have to be definite; for example they could say “We’re not sure which of the two was on top at the beginning, but Zimmerman was on top after the shot was fired.” or “We’re not sure, but it must have been either [scenario 1] or [scenario 2].”
In the absence of such, I’d probably end up feeling compelled to acquit.
… Unless, that is, I decided to go with “jury nullification”. :smack: :smack: “Yeah, the wannabe is technically innocent by virtue of self-defense, but I’m going to send a message…” 
(As I mentioned earlier, I’d never be allowed to sit on a jury.)
Just because a topic is common across jurisdictions doesn’t mean the law is - either statute law or caselaw.
Exactly. There still seems to be confusion about what happens if the jury disbelieves a witness. They may not infer anything from the fact that his testimony is unreliable, they may simply disregard his testimony. They cannot decide that, because Zimmerman claimed he acted in self defence, and they don’t believe him, that he did not act in self defence, they can only decide that they don’t know. Other evidence is required to show that he did not.
Evidence that is, so far, lacking in this case.
That’s hilarious.
“What are you doing looking around under the light here?”
“Looking for my wallet.”
“Where did you lose it?”
“Over there - a 100 ft away or so.”
“So why are you looking for it here?”
“Because it’s dark over there.”
Stratocaster asked of COndescending Robot:
I am not Condescending Robot, and I directed the following post to him:
I think focusing on the injuries is stupid and misses the bigger picture entirely.
So not only do I not quite understand why you are directing the question to me as though I have the same issues about the injuries as C.R, but also I have answered the question about what his lack of credibility says to me: the fact that you (GZ) have lied about so many material things tells me you have something to hide, and it tells me that in any instance where we have no corroborating evidence for your version of events, it’s entirely likely that your version is not truthful. But since your version is the only human version, we have to look hard at all the evidence to see what other story might be told.
Are you (the man who thinks that benefit of the doubt means reasonable doubt) under the impression that there is a huge difference in how “inference” is defined in Florida, vs. California, vs. Massachusetts vs. in Federal Court? Do you think that Blacks Law Dictionary puts out separate editions for every state? Do you think that the jury’s function to determine credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence is radically different in Louisiana vs. New York? And if you believe that, why are you going on about reasonable doubt? Don’t you have to check Florida statues specifically to determine if, in Florida, juries have to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe in Florida they only have to find guilt beyond outrageous doubts, no doubts, all doubts?
Case law quotes from varying locations are offered to illustrate very basic legal concepts common to all states and the Federal government. To the extent that any differences exist, they do not have any meaningful impact on the concepts I was illustrating. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to show me how.
Lots, but that has nothing to do with what you said, which was that inferences have to be proved. And proof obviates the need for inference.
Ok…
Do you think it likely that omitting all of Zimmerman’s story leaves evidence worthy of conviction under California or Florida law?
I suspect you think we are all dullards for not seeing what is so clearly evident to you. However your opening response to my question (omitted for brevity) showed a clear inability to filter for the important details.
No. The “beyond reasonable doubt” standard favors the defendant WAY more than the “benefit of the doubt” one.