put them together. anytime there's a fight and you have zero witnesses, you have to look at the CIRCUMSTANCES and EVIDENCE.
No witness saw trayvon nor zimm start the fight.
The only physical and eyewitness evidence is "Zimm was losing the fight".
So you look at circumstances. If X pursued Y, and I"m a juror, I'd say there's a greater chance X was the aggressor. - (Except X called the cops and was trying to keep tabs on him until they arrived, then told 911 HE GAVE UP and was headed back to his truck. Wheres your evidence that wasnt EXACTLY what he did?)
if X lived on other side of park, and Y lived here on this street, I'd wonder what the hell X is doing on this street and assign greater probability to X being aggressor. - (Dude was neighborhood watch, not like he was a stranger in the neighborhood you fucking idiot, why do you think he called TM in? Cause he was in some random neighborhood and saw a black dude so he needed to save a completely different neighborhood? Moron)
if X was packing a 9mm and Y was unarmed, I'd guess X felt way more cocky and aggressive and confident of a win. - (supposition, no way to prove HOW he was feeling, wheres your proof thats how he was feeling?)
What was trayvon doing to 'act like' the aggressor, besides winning the fucking fight once they were on the ground? - (Again, supposition, no way to prove Trayvon wasnt the aggressor, no way for you to prove that he wasnt attacked, no way to disprove that he was on the ground because Trayvon jumped him. Waiting for your evidence to show he WASNT attacked. Cause thats what the court is going to want.)
he was walking home, unarmed, with the destination on that street. (He was. And then, according to the guy that has to be proven wrong, he turned around and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him. Prove this wrong. Ill wait.) If you think the signs point to zimm being an innocent bystander, I dunno what to tell you. I think jurors will disagree.
again, please prove me wrong - NO EYEWITNESSES SAW WHO STARTED THE FIGHT. - (Its not on us to prove you wrong you fucking dunce, its on you to prove Zimmerman wrong. Why do you keep ignoring that and acting like your suppositions based on absolutley no evidence is somehow the defenses job to prove wrong. I could claim that because you talked about being aggressive with people in the past that you are always aggressive and always ready to attack people in your neighborhood, but it doesnt make it true, does it? Its the same as your claims, we both have the same amount of evidence. Youre argument is literally "This man clearly felt this way because of these 3 things I cherry picked out, and there is no other possibilities. It makes you sound like a fucking idiot.)
Except that X told 911 he had given up and was heading back to his truck, and X has parts of his story that CAN be proven true, and you have ZERO evidence to prove him false.
And since X's story has to be proven FALSE to be guilty, and you cant prove ANYTHING, let alone provide evidence of anything you claim (because its all supposition, you have nothing to back any of it up)
So, there we go. He has evidence supporting parts of his story, and you have ZERO evidence to disprove his story. Good job.
Or, heres another one, since you keep saying that he pursued him, provide me with evidence that he didnt turn around and head back to his truck, since thats what he told 911 he was doing. Ill wait. Oh, you cant? Good job.
Oh, heres the kicker, waiting for you to provide evidence that he WASNT attacked by Zimmerman. Like I said above, your obviously taking the side of the prosecution, so wheres the evidence he's lying? Wheres your evidence that he attacked Travyon? Oh, wait, you cant prove him wrong? Oh, really? Good job. Innocent until proven guilty, bitch.
Zimmerman can prove parts of his story. He can prove he was in a scuffle. He can PROVE his head was being smashed into the concrete. He can PROVE he had reasonable fear of his life to use deadly force. He can PROVE that Travyon was on top of him. He can PROVE most of his 911 call. He can PROVE where he parked his truck. He can PROVE his description of Trayvon was accurate.
Waiting for ANYTHING that you can disprove of his story. No more "Well I think he was thinking this and thats why he's lying". I want actual PROOF things didnt go down exactly as he said they did, cause thats what the judge and jury is going to want. The court cannot convict ANYONE because the prosecution "thinks" he's lying.