Comment: No No

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "There is absolutely ZERO (see in situ)

No No

So you are going to judge the man based on anecdotal evidence?

"1. Zimmerman has broken bloody nose. Trayvon had ZERO marks except gun shot."
-Even if that is true, so what....Is there a rule that says the aggressor or person who threatens cannot receive a scratch? Key word is "threaten" - actually Zimmerman could have initiated the aggression with words only.

"2. Zimmerman's flashlight was dropped by the T-Path when he said he got sucker punched, which is consistent with his story."
-A flashlight on the ground is not evidence of aggression or non-aggression.

"3. If Zimmerman was the aggressor why not just shoot Trayvon right there? Why wait for Tray to hit him?"
-That is not evidence but the simple answer could be that zimmerman did not want to kill him.

4. If Trayvon didn't start the fight, how did it start? Because Trayvon has no marks on him indicating that Zimmerman did not hit him.
-Lack of explanation is not evidence one way or the other.

"5. According to Rachel's testimony Tay was almost at his dad's house when Zimmerman was talking to 9/11, which was 100s ft away from where the fight took place, so Tray had to have gone BACK to meet Zimmerman."
-Again, lack of explanation is not evidence of aggression. One simple answer could have been that his brother (?) was home alone and he did not want zimmerman finding out where he lives.

So in general, lack of imagination or perspective should not be used to render judgement