I posted it in response to "There's only a witness that said Zimmerman was being attacked" "There are no witnesses that say it was the other way around."
That's just not a true statement. There are more witnesses claiming Trayvon was the one being attacked.
I haven't seen anyone saying they saw Martin beating the shit out of Zimmerman.
Then you're being willfully blind. There are at least 2 witnesses reported to have SEEN Trayon top of Zimmerman. ALL the "witnesses" you cited only heard something and formed an opinion based off that.
Further, police reports cite that Zimmerman's back was wet and had grass on it, consistent with having been on his back on the ground. They also cite minor injuries and bleeding.
In the last month I prosecuted, and sent 2 young men to prison for killing a man. At the time of the crime, they tried to rob him. They had no weapons. There was 1 lookout, and 2 actual attackers. No weapons. The attack, which was caught on a grainy video, lasted less than 10 seconds, from which the victim walked away. The soon to be deceased was conscience, and walking around when police arrived. He even initially refused treatment, and wanted to finish his store closing duties, even though he had minor injuries to his face and head. His boss made him go to the hospital via ambulance. He was treated for minor injuries and released. A few hours later, he began to act strange, and became agitated and disoriented. He went to the hospital again. They released him again, and by the time his family got him home, he was unresponsive, and they returned to the hospital. His brain was swelling, and they had to literally remove the top of his skull to attempt to relieve the pressure. He later died of his injures.
The evidence suggests that one of the 3 was already at the store and had bought a cold drink, when the other 2 showed up and convinced him to help them rob the old guy.
The defendants ages at the time? 15, 16, and 16.
So, I don't want to hear any of you fuckers gawddamn shit about "just going to the store for skittles and sweet tea". That means exactly jack shit as to what happened in that minute or so of time where the incident happened, and the reason folks keep parroting it, is that if you keep on saying he was a "just kid that went to the store for candy", the mental picture you (those of you that are prone to buy in to such suggestions) get of Trayvon is more childlike. The skittles in his pocket are as irrelevant as the fact that he'd been suspended from school sometime in the past.
I'm going to go with FACTS! Not the opinions of based on what someone thinks they heard. Facts and eye witnesses. They all seem to point to the fact that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. And, No, Chizad, Trayvon couldn't claim "primal instincts" as a defense for attacking the neighborhood watch, which is completely legal. In fact, "primal instincts" are the very reason so many young idiots wind up in jail/prison for hurting killing people, or in some case wind up dead when trying to hurt or kill people.
There are still things we don't know, namely forensics. If the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account, then he's legally in the clear. If it's contradictory, then he's got a problem.