No, not "damaging punches", just punches (or other physical violence). Zimmerman may have thrown a punch that didn't land, it's just that without injury to Martin, there is no evidence of a thrown punch. You're really not comprehending what I'm saying. A little tip: I'm not trying to trick you. I mean exactly what I'm saying. Oy: 1. You mixed together physical and non-physical (probably on purpose). Only the physical matters here. I'll let you figure out which is which. 1a. There is no evidence of any physical action by Zimmerman during/starting the fight until he fired the gun. 2. "Provocations". Again, you're trying to twist the wording. We're not talking about a "provocation", we're talking about an actual fight. I see a lot of inconsistency and embellishment in your narrative, much less in Zimmerman's. No, Zimmerman's wasn't perfect but your are trying to embellish it to make it much more imperfect than it really was. There has to be some reason why you are letting your conclusion drive your logic and not the other way around (note: I did not mention racism). Zimmerman did not sustain the injuries by accident while playing a sport! You're misdirecting again. No one is saying that the injuries Zimmerman had could have been fatal. All they say is that Martin was inflicting (not threatening) bodily harm, for which Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. And given that: 1. Zimmerman could not stop the bodily harm in any other way than with his gun. 2. Zimmerman didn't know how much more bodily harm Martin would inflict, up to and possibly including killing him... Deadly force was justified in stopping the attack. You're being ridiculous. Breaking your nose hurts and people scream when on the losing end of fights all the time, whether or not they are life threatening. In addition, 37 seconds would have been an awful long time for them to have been fighting over the gun without it going off. Zimmerman's version is consistent with the events and logic. Yours is not. And again, your implication that I said Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening (or that they needed to be) is intentionally deceptive. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but I'll try to respond: If you're guilty, then lying and hoping the jury buys it may be your only way out. If you are innocent, then telling the truth is definitely the better course of action, even if the truth isn't pretty. Lying to make the story prettier, if discovered, will damage your entire credibility in defending yourself. It is a big and unnecessary risk, particularly when there is little evidence on which to convict you. I suppose you're wishing Zimmerman had told big lies and been caught in them, as it would have helped gain a conviction. You're being intentionally dense. They were not on a soccer field and there is no other reasonable explanation for Zimmerman's injuries than that they had been sustained in the fight. Clearly. I use 95% as an example, not as an exact standard. It could be 97%. It could be 90%. But it isn't likely to be less than that. But what we do know is that is is much more than 51% certainty. Reasonable doubt means eliminating unreasonable possibilities, like the possibility that Zimmerman broke his nose playing soccer right before spotting Martin. Part of the prosecution's job is to try to trick the jury into thinking the burden of proof is lower while part of the judge's job is to make sure they don't succeed. We're not bound by that. We should be smart and objective enough to see through that, since we aren't being paid to try to convict him or defend him.