07-09-2013, 02:05 PM
I think that the state can/should try to counter the "Georgie was a pussy and his efforts/fear were reasonable in context with his limited abilities" argument by focusing on Zimmerman's gross exaggeration of the beating.
Zimmerman lied. He wasn't confused. He didn't miscount swings. He lied. IMO.
The state would be smarter to focus on George's credibility than on his reasonableness (which is more subjective).
If George Zimmerman lied about the beating, what else did he lie about? Demonstrating that Zimmerman lied doesn't prove that he is a murderer, but might convince the jury that since he lied about the beating to make himself look more helpless/justified, he might not have felt helpless at all in confronting the teen. He felt strong knowing that he always had his gun for back-up. Anyway, that's where I think I'd go were I de la Rionda.
Zimmerman lied. He wasn't confused. He didn't miscount swings. He lied. IMO.
The state would be smarter to focus on George's credibility than on his reasonableness (which is more subjective).
If George Zimmerman lied about the beating, what else did he lie about? Demonstrating that Zimmerman lied doesn't prove that he is a murderer, but might convince the jury that since he lied about the beating to make himself look more helpless/justified, he might not have felt helpless at all in confronting the teen. He felt strong knowing that he always had his gun for back-up. Anyway, that's where I think I'd go were I de la Rionda.