Most of the protesters, I'll assume, don't really want an investigation. They want a conviction. Their minds are made up. Don't have all the facts but are assuming.

I imagine she'll be asked to take a lie detector test?

Also, if there was head pounding which drew blood, certainly the police collected samples ASAP (it was drizzling, right?) and have tested it?

§ 776.041.  Use of force by aggressor

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

So even assuming Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, which is not yet known, if Martin attacked him, broke his nose and was beating on him, causing him to believe he was danger of great imminent bodily harm, he'd be able to claim self-defense.

In addition, that instruction is only given when the person claiming self-defense is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State,  831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). They give this fact pattern:

Defendant and the victim got into a fight while playing poker. The victim threw a beer bottle at defendant, but missed. Defendant hit the victim in the mouth with a brick. The appellate court held that the trial court's wording of the self-defense jury instruction was misleading and required reversal. The instruction given improperly told the jury that the very act defendant sought to justify precluded a finding of justification.

Thus, even if the jury found that defendant's act of aggravated battery was committed in self-defense, the use of force was not justifiable because the act itself was a forcible felony. That reading was erroneous because the proper test for determining the applicability of the instruction was whether, at the time of the self-defense, the accused was engaged in a separate forcible felonious act. Defendant was not engaged in a separate felonious act at the time of the alleged aggravated battery and so the instruction was inapplicable. At the very least, the instruction given was circular and confusing to the jury such that it basically negated defendant's defense.

Zimmerman hadn't committed a felonious act and the state law states the use of the gun to kill the victim is not an independent forcible crime.

If didn't have my own briefs to write tomorrow, I'd write one on this.

If you have Lexis access, look up the IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES - REPORT NO. 2009-01.,No. SC09-622,SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, 27 So. 3d 640; 2010 Fla. LEXIS 2; 35 Fla. L. Weekly S 1, January 7, 2010, Decided.

It revises the self-defense jury instructions based on the various old and new laws. If you don't have access, let me know and I'll upload them to TalkLeft.

Isn't what you are saying the same attitude that says "don't drop a dime" to report a crime?

If someone has you on the ground and is bashing your head on the ground you are not allowed to make him stop? Zimmerman says that Martin attacked him after Zimmerman turned around and was leaving.
But even if that is not true, anyone is allowed to try and protect themselves from lethal harm.

There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Finally, out of frustration two weeks ago, she approached WESH-TV in Orlando with her story, and only then did the police finally follow up and interview her and her roommate, Selma Lamilla, about what they saw and heard. Cutcher described hearing what she thought was a young person in distress, just before they heard the gunshot that killed Martin:

"It sounded young. It didn't sound like a grown man is my point. It sounded to me like someone was in distress and it wasn't like a crying, sobbing boo-hoo, it was a definite whine."

And Ms. Lamilla said that she saw Zimmerman over Martin on the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and that Martin was face first to the ground, with Zimmerman pressing him down, making no attempt to provide first aid.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman by his SUV, as Zimmerman has alleged to the police, and knocked him to the ground and repeatedly slammed his head against the sidewalk, then how did they end up some length away in the back yard commons of Lamilla's and Cutcher's condominium? And why did the police never question these two women in detail until prodded by the Orlando media?

I think what's clear, Jim, is that the Sanford police grossly violated established protocol in conducting a homicide investigation, and have thus seriously compromised this case. At this point, because of their failure on so many fronts, I think that justice delayed might well end up becoming justice denied.

Further, I'd think the shoddy police work renders it very difficult for George Zimmerman to even receive a fair hearing and trial, should it come to that. He might walk away from this legally unscathed, but not morally. A cloud will be over his head for the rest of his days, because he would have no real opportunity through legal due process to clear his name to anyone's satisfaction.

I'll try to find the original WESH interview with Mary Cutcher, and post a link to it when I do.

I find it terribly ironic that the police at the scene may have initially thought at the time that they were doing Zimmerman a favor in letting him go home -- with the weapon used in the shooting, no less! -- only to subsequently discover to their chagrin that not only did they compromise the department's reputation, they may have also precluded any possibility of Zimmerman ever being able to clear his name to anyone's real satisfaction.

It may well be that the only justice to be derived in this horrific affair is of the poetic variety.

So what is truly distinctive about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law? It is this: while self-defense conventionally is just that -- a defense, to be raised at trial -- self-defense under the Florida law acts as an immunity from prosecution or even arrest. Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes provides that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." This odd provision means that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense cannot be tried, even though the highly fact-intensive question of whether the person acted in self-defense is usually hashed out at trial. The law thus creates a paradox: the State must make a highly complex factual determination before being permitted to avail itself of the forum necessary to make such a determination.

Not only that, Section 776.032 provides immunity from arrest unless the police have "probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." Again, the law creates a Catch-22: police cannot arrest the suspect unless they have probable cause, not just to believe there was a killing, but also that the killing was not in self-defense; and where, as is often the case, the defendant is the only living witness to the alleged crime, the police likely will not be able to form probable cause without interrogating the suspect.