You are not solely pro-white, anti-black and racist to the hilt, you are dumb. Doesn't help make your point, does it? I told you a hundred times that because Z was on the bottom and M on top, THAT DOES NOT MEAN M INSTIGATED it. And sure Zimmerman was screaming his head off, 155-lbd Martin was beating the living sh*t out of 210-lb martial arts expert Zimmerman. Again, for the, hmm, 8th or 9th time, example only : I jump, attack you. You fight back, wrestle me to the ground, on top of me (ewwww). Does that mean you aggressed me? You just don't get it, do you?<quoted text>
Okay, there are THREE points.
One, witness John saw Trayvon on top of KZ and said it was KZ who was the one screaming.
Next, recorded over a phone to 911 the SAME scream continued for 40-45 seconds and did not change voice which means the ONLY voice was GZ's.
Next, GZ had the broken nose and cuts to his head and a wet back with grass clippings while Trayvon had no injuries except to his hands and the gun shot wound. Using normal logic, GZ did not hurt himself which means Trayvon must have.
To prove that GZ did not have the right to us self defence you have to prove that GZ started the assault and there is no evidence that he did. All the evidence and eyewitness says Trayvon did!!
And Trayvon's motive, well, he didn't like creepy azz crackers (which makes it a racial hate crime on the part of Tryvon).
Assault is a crime and Trayvon created the ONLY crime that night. The jury has ruled it was self defence and the jury would not have done that if they were convinced that GZ assaulted Trayvon, get over it!!!
I repeat, fact he was on top of Z DOES NOT MEAN HE ATTACKED. Not at all. And, again, I was not there, YOU were not there. Stop saying M attacked Z because M was on top and Z was screaming. What does that prove? I don't know who aggressed who, I was not present. News for you, YOU don't know who aggressed who, YOU WERE NOT THERE.
Case I closed. I predicted he'd probably walk. He did. Why keep talking about it?