And again. What Zimmerman says is evidence. He stated he wasn't. So yes there is evidence.
Nor is there any account that he was the aggressor.
There is no information to even suggest such.
First of all, you are ignoring eye witness testimony from those who saw partially what was happening in between the start and the finish.
Secondly, you say that is
"the only reason", which is nothing more than a complete fabrication. His actions were justified under the law even if he had been the initial aggressor. (Which we already know he wasn't as Trayvon confronted him first in a hostile fashion.)
Secondly, had there been a witness to the initial contact between the two, you have no cause to even think they would have seen anything different than what Zimmerman said happened. None.
So can the bs.
Because nothing you have stated is intellectual or in concurrence with the evidence.
You appear to disregard the evidence which makes your assertions wrong.
That is a bias that you have displayed.
:doh
There is no that many people who believe a gun shouldn't be used for self defense.
So you are talking nonsense.
Defending himself from an aggressor is a damn good idea/opinion, whether you agree with it or not.
“That is your ****ed-up opinion”, and thereby showing your own bias.
“That is your ****ed-up opinion”, and thereby showing your own bias.
Accidentally? :lamo
No, he shot the guy who was a lethal threat to him.
I would hope that was on purpose and not accidentally.
:doh
No he didn't.
He did not ask to be attacked. That was all on Trayvon's part.
The evidence says there was no fist fight.
The evidence says that it was an unprovoked attack by someone acting out violently.
The rest of what you said in nothing more than biased bs.