1. Information shared with his client;
2. Information shared with the court system; and
3. Information shared with the public/media.

If he can’t win all three, he will have a helluva time coming out of this victorious in any way. He’s using whatever he has, including raw emotion. So should the “other side.” Prosecution can’t do it, though — if they did, they would deny defendant his constitutional rights. That’s where WE come in.

“A logical question is, why would GZ leave the safety of his truck and run after a person who he thought was on drugs? Does looking “high” give anyone the right to stalk and kill you?”

I doubt the trial court will permit Zimmerman to introduce any evidence about TM’s alleged drug use since the toxicology report established that he was not under the influence of or affected by drugs when Zimmerman attacked him. He also did not possess any drugs and the Purple Drank theory is just speculation without the codeine or whatever constitutes the giddy-up that makes the drink special.

In other words, all of this stuff is irrelevant and inadmissible.

The two mutually exclusive exceptions are:

(1) If he was known to be an aggressive bully who started fights without provocation that character trait would be admissible in support of Zimmerman’s claim that TM was the aggressor.

(2) If he was known as a peaceful non-violent person, that character trait would be admissible to show that he was not the aggressor.

As far as I know, TM was known as a peaceful non-violent person and the prosecution should be able to get that into evidence, if it decides to do so.

However, juries usually don’t place much weight on character evidence, so they might decide not to use it.

A logical question is, why would GZ leave the safety of his truck and run after a person who he thought was on drugs? Does looking “high” give anyone the right to stalk and kill you?

Since Zimmerman is a good guy and Trayvon Martin was a bad guy, this was a “good shoot” and Zim is innocent.

First of all, that has nothing to do with the crime of Murder-2 as defined by Florida law. Florida law says that the accused had ill will toward the victim. It does NOT say that he had ill will which was undeserved! He could have had ill will for all the best reasons in the world, and if he exercised that ill will by killing the victim he’s guilty of Murder-2.

Second of all, Florida law says that the accused acted on his ill will with a depraved mind, and killed the victim. It does not say that his depraved mind had to be the result of certain circumstances (such as innocent depravity-engendering motivations such as the desire to protect his wife, community, and all things bright and beautiful) or had to be the result of certain social conditions (such as the prevalence of crime committed by a certain demographic in a certain geographical area in a certain time frame). Just plain depraved mind, plus ill will, plus the actual killing, is enough.

If Trayvon Martin AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY and his whole race were to have deserved — unquestionably — irrevocably — provably — George Zimmerman’s ill will and still, were George to have followed and killed Trayvon with a depraved mind DEPRAVED BY THE TERRIBLE CONDUCT OF ALL THESE BAD PEOPLE, it would still be Murder-2 under Florida law.

Correct me if I am wrong.

If a correctional officer fatally shot a guy on death row one day before the execution was scheduled, it would be Murder-2, unless the officer had premeditated it, in which case it would be Murder-1, unless the convict somehow actually put the officer in fear for his life, which would be pretty hard to prove, considering. And the convict’s school records wouldn’t change that, either.

Self-Defense, Battered Wives, Reasonableness, and the Imminent Danger Doctrine