Even after watching the video, the most important point to stress is that there were only two direct eye witnesses to the beginning of the incident - Zimmerman and Martin. That's it. Every other witness brought into the case either did not directly see the beginning of the incident or was a character witness.
It's entirely possible that Zimmerman attacked first and that Martin could have been standing his ground. The thing is that Martin couldn't have mounted such a defence in court, owing to the fact that he is dead. However, no charges were brought against Marton because he is dead.
I still stand behind what I said in the first thread.
It was Mark O'Mara who summed up the crux of this the most succinctly:
Zimmerman jurors suspend deliberations until Saturday - CNN.com
"How many 'coulda beens' have you heard from the state in this case, How many 'what ifs' have you heard from the state in this case?"
- via CNN, 12th July 2013
"Onus probandi" of the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and because this was a criminal and not a civil case, 'coulda beens' and 'what ifs' although they might be reasonable where the standard is only on balance of probabilities, they are most certainly not in this case.
Personally I think that the law in question is stupid and the fact that there even was a gun probably added to the temperature of the climate of the incident but the law is as it stands and courts must apply laws as they stand, nothing more and nothing less.
