Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco
It's not a descriptor that changes anything. A punch is a punch.
You are clearly neither watching the trial not familiar enough with the legal system to realize how wrong you are. The use of that term and the prosecution's connection of that with the fact that he trained in MMA three times a week is very important to their case and could definitely influence the jury's understanding of the altercation.
Your responses in bold are nothing but repeated flailing attempts to defend the guy without paying attention to the actual case. What about the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story? What about his statements on the phone calls? What about his statement about there being bushes when there were no bushes there?
For someone with "no dog in this race", you're sure taking a pretty one-sided stance on this, from claiming it shouldn't go to trial in the first place to believing everything Zimmerman said, ignoring the inconsistencies in his story and everyone else's testimony.
You're so impartial.