Remember that line from 'Training Day?' . . . 'It's not what you know, it's what you can prove'

[JDPriestly]

7. But the witness's impression that Trayvon had the upper hand

only means that he was defending himself against an unknown assailant with a gun.

What is missing is any explanation for why Zimmerman was following Trayvon or questioning in the first place. For what reason?

Was Trayvon threatening someone? Stealing? What had he done to raise a suspicion.

Zimmerman's defense is self-defense or defense of others. Did Trayvon attack Zimmerman out of the blue? That is did Trayvon attack a man with a weapon? Trayvon did not have a weapon.

So far I haven't heard any claim that Trayvon was stealing anything. If he was "on top" for a time, it may have simply been because he was defending himself while black.

So the witness's testimony, if all of it is presented in that article, does not answer the most crucial questions.

No one, not even a Neighborhood Watch representative, has the right to simply chase someone down because they are walking around. Zimmerman may have thought that Trayvon was an intruder, but even if that was true, unless Zimmerman could have credibly believed that Trayvon really was an imminent danger to himself or others, Zimmerman should have called the police.

This will have to go to a jury in my opinion. There are too many judgment calls.

And this is the problem with that crazy Florida law. Who gets to judge whether there is an imminent danger.