I agree with a lot of what you've stated above... in general. It would be hard for me (5"9' 200lb, trained in Muay Thai) to claim self-defense when all I suffered was a broken nose and a few scrapes on my scalp. Zimmerman was a bouncers wasn't he? Doesn't that weaken his claim to self-defense, same as it would us?
Here's a question... when does the defendants claim generate doubt for you? What would have to be proven false for you to doubt Zimmerman's claims to how the events took place?
He claimed the fight took place somewhere it could not have. Martin has none of Zimmerman's DNA on him. Zimmerman has no defensive wounds. Half a dozen witness and no one saw Martin "raining punches MMA style". Is that not enough to doubt Zimmerman's claim of how the encounter took place?
Just to note, no defensive wounds and the only damage Zimmerman's face really sustained was a broken nose after have more than a dozen punches coming down on his face. As someone who's been in a lot of fights, you must admit that doesn't jive. No additional swelling? No where? Really? The kid broke his nose with one punch, but couldn't even swell up his eye or bust his lip with more than dozen uncontested punches from a full mount? Come on bro...
The early media twisted things as much as possible. GZ was never a bouncer. He was a guy who stood at the door at a couple block parties.
The line "no defense wounds?" I don't even know what that means. Few men I broke up would had any "defensive" wounds. I think the facts show that from the start of slamming him into the nose knocking him down, from that point TM continued to kick GZ's ass.
You are sort of new in here so what I write is redundant. Before any autopsy or forensics, I speculated that by the injuries TM was not slugging GZ, but slamming him with the palm of his hand and that in wrestling with GZ on the ground his head hitting the ground would lead him to believe he was hit, when he mabye wasn't.
I'm not just arguing to argue. Not since my youth - that was more violent and in ways that no one would likely even believe - did anyone ever get me on the ground and on top of me. If anyone ever had, was was still on me, were I to have a gun I absolutely would have shot because I would know that person truly powerful enough to kill me and quickly do so.
It is an interesting question you ask, though. Really. "What fact would convince me GZ was guilty?" I suppose I should then ask you want "fact" would convince you there is not enough evidence for a guilty verdict?
Within known facts? I suppose if it could be shown that TM was shouting "let me go!" and GZ was holding his shirt while going for his gun. While there IS some evidence to suggest something like that may have happened, there is no evidence that it certainly did. IF that evidence existed, I would go with manslaughter, not murder, as I would figure GZ acted in emotional panic defensively not to really kill. But that action would fall outside of reasonableness.
IF it could be shown, with the above proven too, that GZ also threw the first punch, then M2.
Again, you're new so this a repeat statement and perspective:
I've seen SO much unlimited and sadistic motivated violence against totally innocent victims by every measure and fully helpless and targets for that violent only for sadistic reasons, that I've often stated that if two men (and I count TM as a "man") both deliberately or stupidly proactively walk into potential conflict that then evolves to a fight - and somehow a gun enters that picture legally - it now is entirely between them. However it ends, it ends. I won't cry for either. Such is how it is between men. I would feel the same way about this if with the same known facts TM had gotten the gun and shot GZ. The few moments before that, it all but certain one or the other would be shot. Just a question of who. That is a lofty way for me to say by the time it reached that point, I don't give a damn if either or both died because it was just between them - and BOTH of them could have avoided it by just going on their way.
To spend millions and millions of dollars to try to micro figure what happened when TMs, GZs, nor anyone elses brain operates at that micro calculations level particularly in the extreme stress of violence is absurd in that doing so is fully detached from the realities of what it is to be human.
"Dead men tell no tales." That's just how it is. All the pscyho-analysis, proving GZ's memory isn't as accurate as a video camera, or that he's hedging his story to cover his ass - which virtually every person on earth would do in my opinion - does not change the fact that we don't know what happened. I think facts show a plausible - thus beyond reasonable doubt - claim of self defense. Therefore, that should lead to a verdict of not-guilty because there is not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is. Would that mean a murderer walks? Very possibly. That's how it works. A finding of not-guilty does not prove he's not guilty at all, just that it could not be proven he is.
I acknowledge that my indifferent to the outcome of violent conflicts between men who proactively entered into that conflict may taint my analysis. If as a man you enter into a conflict that may lead to violence, don't cry for others sympathy if it doesn't go your way. That's just how I "feel" about it.
I appreciate the reasoning of your messages, though in disagreement. They are thoughtful and real - increasingly rare on these topics.