RJ: "he was right by his daddy's house"

There really isn't any room for misunderstanding the testimony of the witnesses, of the police that interviewed Zimmerman, or the rest. There's no misinterpreting Martin's father's initial (honest) reaction to the recording he heard. Understanding the trial is about understanding the motivations of the people who put it on in reaction to craven political pressure. Understanding the facts is also very straightforward.

He never went in the house. But he was talking on the phone as he walked up to the back of the house (the same conversation during which he used the racist epithet). This according to his friend, who testified to that. The "drivel" part is you really, really wishing that he hadn't, because that takes all the fun out of your narrative.

OK, so you ARE saying that the prosecution and their star witness are lying about Martin's return to and arrival at dad's girlfriend's house. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nonsense. Dispatchers - in almost every jurisdiction - are civilians trained in handling such calls and performing dispatch duties. Union rules and contracts very often prevent even injured cops from booking time as dispatchers, as those are not law enforcement positions.

I know people in this line of work in half a dozen local jurisdictions surrounding a major metro area. In no cases do dispatch employees have any legal authority of any kind, and cannot direct people to do anything - medical or otherwise. In fact they are required to ask people if they would do this or that to help an injured person, and always say "please" because the are, essentially, asking a favor of the caller. They can't make them provide CPR (or anything else) and people who can't or won't do what a dispatch employee suggests face no consequences because they absolutely are not acting with legal authority of any kind.

All of which you know, so it's kind of mysterious that you're pretending it's otherwise, unless your understanding is limited to your own county or city where they perhaps don't do what they do most everywhere else. Regardless, the Martin/Zimmerman case does not involve a copy giving orders to Zimmerman. The dispatcher said, "OK. We don't need you to do that." And testified that it wasn't an order, meant to me one, or coming from anyone who could give one.

Which part? The part where he was at his dad's girlfriend's house? The prosecution's star witness quoted Martin himself as saying he was. Are you saying that the prosecution and their witness are lying? Interesting.

Or are you referring to the part where he referred to him as a "cracker?" That's the prosecution and their witness saying that.

Or are you referring to the part where Martin was beating on Zimmerman? Because there are eye-witness reports of that. He was seen doing so.

No need to. The prosecution's own witness established that Martin had already returned to his dad's girlfriend's house. For him to have been beating on Zimmerman where the attack occurred, he would have to have turned around and chosen to go back and go at him. The evidence backs this up exactly, even the evidence provided by a witness the prosecution chose.

You mean the guy who stopped his own murder from happening? That guy?

No, otherwise I'd have to believe some of the nonsense that the prosecution tried to trot out (like the BS voice analysis the judge very rightly kept out of the trial).

This is not true. The dispatcher testified to the fact that mentioning to Zimmerman on the call that they didn't "need" him to follow Martin was not instruction to Zimmerman.

You're very confused about this, aren't you? When you call 911 and ask them for help with a medical emergency, their advice to you to do CPR is not the same as being told by a police officer what to do. Are you really that obtuse?

What are you talking about? Your lie is that doing so is a confrontation. Zimmerman was walking peacefully back to his truck, and Martin had made it to his dad's house. You are clear on that, right? Because if you say you're not, you're lying. Martin, instead of going into the house, decided to turn around, and run back to dish out a beating on the "cracker" in question. What's your agenda, in leaving out the most important detail, here?

Choices? Zimmerman chose to participate in the Neighborhood Watch Program.

Right. Because he was tired of crime in his neighborhood. A perfectly normal reaction, and not only legal, but actively supported by law enforcement.

Right - such civic groups do not want to be sued into oblivion if a member has an accident while participating. So they take the policy stand that it's not them, but the members themselves that make that decision.

Which doesn't in any way reduce Martin's responsibility for doubling back from his dad's house in order to attack Zimmerman, and then actually committing that assault.

Right. Because he didn't recognize the person taking an unusual route through the private community while hiding his face. Thought he'd call the police to report it, and take a moment to see where the person was going. Again, a perfectly reasonable response, and in no way illegal.

See, now you're just lying. Why? The only time he spoke to police was once they arrived on the scene. On his phone call, he was talking to a dispatcher. A dispatcher has no authority to tell anyone to do (or not do) anything, and the dispatcher in question has already testified that no such instructions were given. You've obviously heard the transcript, so you know that the dispatcher remarked that they didn't "need" Zimmerman to follow the suspicious person. The transcript shows no instruction, the dispatcher - who has no authority either way - said that no instructions were given or intended as such.

Right - to see where the person was going. Which he did, and then he turned around and walked back towards his truck.

And it did not get out of control. He observed, he talked to the dispatch on the phone, and he walked back to his truck. Do you consider that to be out of control? The next situation had nothing to do with him - because it involved Martin leaving his destination, and deliberately coming up from behind, having decided he wanted to dish out a beating. That situation had nothing to do with Zimmerman, who was walking the opposite direction.

Which in what way caused Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?

Which is you characterization, and appears to be false (in terms of his motivation) by all reports. Regardless, how did his interest in slowing down the rate of crimes in his neighborhood cause Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?

By turning his back on they guy and walking back to his truck?

No, faced with a punch in the face, a broken nose, and having his head pounded against the sidewalk and being told he was going to die, use his gun once. I supposed you'd have preferred that he allowed Martin to continued bashing his head against the pavement?

No, that was the end result of Martin's choice to - having already made it to his dad's house - turn around, make his way back to Zimmerman, and begin a physical assault.

What? How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself? Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.

Other than the part where his account is completely consistent with the evidence, and with actual eyewitness accounts. Other than that part.

For the same reason he was thrown out of his house (for being violent)? For the same reason he tweeted about hitting people, showing off a gun and drugs, and generally cultivating his gangster/thug persona? For the same reason that he was the only person involved who used a racial epithet to describe someone? His friend on the phone (the prosecution's witness) was the one that provided the evidence that Martin was already back the house when he turned around to go and assault the "cracker" he was beating on.

No, she didn't dispute any of his claiims. When asked, she admitted that she had no idea what happened because Martin ended his phone call before he started beating on Zimmerman.

No, this isn't true. The only demographic among which that mis-use is common is the group that has no idea what they're talking about. The millions and millions of people who've been in the military or who personally own and use firearms, and pretty much anybody literate who's ever read a coherent sentence on the subject, would never make that stupid mistake.

It's sort of like how "the web" and "the internet" aren't the same thing.

And of course, she said that was not able to say anything about how the fight started, only that Martin was at his Dad's house. Which means that Martin turned around and ran back to do the assault.

Are you making a reference to the Martin/Zimmerman case? Because it may have been dark when Martin attacked, but that really doesn't have much to do with the "being shot" part. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman, having already run up behind him to attack, punched him in the face and broken his nose, and was proceeding to bash his head into the sidewalk. He was shot while on top of him and throwing more punches. A six-foot guy, continuing to beat up the guy he'd turned around and gone back to attack.