The prosecution concedes he was punched. The evidence supports it.
I could possibly grant this - at some point in the 45-second(ish) struggle, Martin's hand or fist probably came in contact with George's nose once.
There is zero evidence suggesting Martin punched George in the face 'at least a dozen times'.
The injuries to the back of his head support GZ's testimony.
No, they don't. Tell you what - go outside, find the nearest sidewalk, slam your head into it half a dozen times or so hard enough so that you feel like 'your head is going to explode'. Take some pictures. Also, tell us how you're feeling afterwards. Let's contrast that with the two small cuts on George's head and his nonchalant demeanour just -seconds- after the shooting.
The lower volume of the last few screams supports the GZ'stestimony ( once again persuasive testimony - given immediately after the incident)
It does? Your theory is that George's shouting would be -quieter- after Martin takes his hand of his mouth? You think George wouldn't want to shout as loud as he suddenly realizes he needs to take control of the gun?
Can I just throw in a few
The comparative injuries ( or lack thereof ) establish George as the screammer as do W6 testimony that MArtin was totally in control OF George.
That makes about as much sense as claiming that it has to be George screaming because it was the last Sunday of the month.
I think your unlucky to have invested emotional capital attempting to support such a thin soup of conjecture. Did you ever post under thr member name of PB?
I have no idea who PB is. I've never posted on this board before this Zimmerman case.
I think you're unlucky in being forced to go through extreme mental contortions and cling to amazingly illogical conclusions to maintain your belief that George didn't needlessly gun down a 17yr old unarmed kid.
My emotional investment is in the truth, and in not having 17yr old kids gunned down for the crime of being black in a hoodie while walking.