Here are the undisputed facts:Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>There is no speculation. That's your opinion trying to trump the facts.
Obviously she does. She's been explaining that over and over and over to no avail. She's also been explaining that the trial will deal with facts, not opinions, again to no avail.
Zim called 911 to report a suspicious male not familiar to him
After the attack, witnesses told police it was Martin on top of Zimmerman who was screaming for help.
Autopsy reports show no evidence of physical altercations on Martins' body outside of the bullet wound.
Paramedic reports show that they treated a wound in the back of Zim's head, a broken nose and both eyes.
Martin's doctor confirmed those wounds.
Self-defense is described as protecting yourself from an attacker--not beating your attacker after he was unable to further attack. Beating your supposed attacker the way Martin did was beyond self-defense. It was physical assault.
There are absolutely no witnesses that can state they seen Zim attack Martin.
Now. The rest of the story has to be nurtured from the facts presented above. It's all here-say from that point. There were only two witnesses that can say what actually happened behind the houses during the attack, and one of those witnesses is dead.
It's apparent who suffered the most physical injuries before the gunshot. It's documented. It's proof. There is no possible way for a prosecutor to convince a jury that the event took place in reverse of the undisputed evidence. Again, in our country, a person charged with a crime is innocent unless a prosecutor can provide real evidence (not assumptions) that the person charged with the crime is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.