All except #3 are irrelevant and admitting those into evidence would confirm the court was corrupt.
#3 is false on may levels and you know it. He wasn't just punched in the face. The EMT has already stated Zimmerman had serious injuries. The EMT is not the expert anyway, that is just 100% nonsense. His doctor is the expert. The EMT has testified/stated Zimmerman had blood over 45% of his head. That is all the EMT can testify to. He isn't a doctor.
Nor does it matter if his injuries were serious. It only mattered if he believed he faces imminent serious injury. He didn't have to be injured at all. A woman doesn't have to already be being raped to fight or shoot a rapist. But your logic claims she would because until she is actually being violently raped she hasn't been seriously injured. You view of it. And it is contrary to law.
You always want to point to everything that isn't law and isn't legitimate evidence. And the reasons obvious.
If you were on trial, they could call me to the stand to testify that on dozens and dozens of occasions you make race-baiting statements in which you evaluated and judged people based upon their race. According to you, that would be entirely relevant evidence.
The forum administrator and moderators could then testify that many, many times you broke forum rules over and, indicating that you won't follow rules or laws. Since you wont' follow rules of the forum, obviously you break rules of law.
It is on that type basis you think Zimmerman should be tried and judged. That is as grossly unjust and wrong as I can imagine.
I'm NOT flaming or poking at you. I'm pointing out how wrong your analysis is in terms of relevancy. Zimmerman could be a person who tells N-jokes and sent a F-U! letter to the NW Association, and it would have no relevancy as to whether or not he committed murder. Doesn't matter what an ex-girlfriend thinks of him, whether more co-workers liked or disliked him or any of that.
When there is a good case to prosecute, the prosecution sticks directly to the incident. Because you have to turn away from law trying to replace it with NW Association rules and rather than the incident have to try to slander Zimmerman by digging into his life to try to generate hatred of him, means you really don't have a legitimate case. But, then, this isn't a legitimate case. It is a political case that serves your guy Obama. And that is what this all about.
How many forum members could the call to testify, swearing that you aren't truthful? Thus, no one should believe anything you say in court? That also seems your logic.
So it really isn't that I'm pointing at you, Thunder, under your logic I could be summarily found guilty of any and all possible violent crimes of any kind (except sexual) based upon other people's opinion of me and events in my past.
I mean, really, at least 25 times you have expressed it can be presented that a person was arrested for something, even if never convicted. How extreme a police state do you want? The police can arrest anyone for anything at any time. Arrests are NEVER admissable with out conviction. But it appears you truly believe in a presumption of guilty unless literally proven innocent in trial. The mere arrest proves guilt in your view or so it seems.
A person isn't guilty in the present because of things of their past. Criminal cases - legitimate ones - have to stay directly on point. They don't and can't call in everyone to give their recount or view of every bad or good thing a person ever did in their life. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, this trial would have minimally 3000 witnesses.