Originally Posted by houghtam
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.
There are no inconsistencies in his story that aren't considered natural in remembering a traumatic event. The term "ground and pound" merely makes reference to being pinned down and getting punched, more typically in a defenseless manner. His statements on the phones are irrelevant in the sense that his statements on the phone didn't put anyone's life at risk nor were they illegal or inappropriate. They do match up with someone who's interested in the security of their neighborhood. It's not a matter of believing everything of what Zimmerman states and everything to do with there being no one alive to refute it and the forensic evidence being consistence with his account.
And what Isaid was. "There is a reason this didn't go to trial in the first place." That reason is the states case is weak. Especially for murder 2. Now manslaughter is a different matter.