Another bloody citizen with a gun story.  The headline offers a nice summary.

United States district court judge Liam O'Grady said he didn't know if "we are ever going to have a trial in this matter" after being told Dotcom's file-sharing company had never been formally served with criminal papers by the US.

1. she went to a bar and there were signs posted at the bar indicating that she may be filmed in various ways;
   
2. a contractor for GGW pulled down or up her shirt exposing her breasts, but as it was happening, she was saying no;
   
3. there was a first trial and the jury sided with the defense;
   
4. the judge then ordered a new trial on the basis that the first jury verdict didn't reflect the facts;
   
5. the attn for the defense withdraws and it is not clear if he let the defendants know;
   
6. there is a 2nd trial and no defense representation;
   
7. plaintiff wins at 2nd trial;
   
8. ggw now says that they didn't know that they had no defense at the 2nd trial.

I've been looking into the legal implications of such action.

In Florida kidnapping, Fla. Stat. § 787.01, is unlawful detention for one of four purposes. Roughly, these are ransom or other use of the victim as a hostage, facilitation of another felony, harming/terrorizing the victim or another person, or interfering with government functions.

Holding a person for police interrogation wouldn't seem to fit any of the four. Unlawful detention for any other purpose (except some special categories which also don't apply) is 'false imprisonment', Fla. Stat. § 787.02.

Mary 2012:

In this particular case of "cornered", ABC might've used the term for economy of words. IOW, it might be Zimmerman stood between Trayvon and Ms. Green's home, i.e., blocked his path.

I never saw the segment myself

I linked it in the parent post. Here it is again.

Do you know how Dee Dee actually described/ recounted this part of what happened?

Prosecution investigator O'Steen took a statement from Dee Dee. The probable cause affidavit presumably reflects what Dee Dee told him. The word used there is 'confronted'.

O'Steen's partner was asked about 'confronted' in the bond hearing. CNN's 'dirty words' is probably an error for 'thirty words'.

O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty [sic] words.

O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.

GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?

GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish.

O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you?

GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question.

  * * *

DE LA RIONDA: And sir, you were asked about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what "confronted" means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible), wouldn't you consider that a confrontation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct?

O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence.

LESTER: What's the objection?

O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness.

LESTER: Sustained.

DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word "confronted" sir?

GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses.

DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding his own business? Is that correct?

O'MARA: Again, your honor, we point to -- and this is not in evidence and he cannot present it that way to the witness.

LESTER: Sustained.