As usual RKM your reading dysfunction issues have kicked in again and you are seeing all sorts of things that were not said. If that is not the case, then your intentional disingenuousness becomes quite tiresome after awhile.
As usual you just can't have a discussion without insulting and urinating on anyone that questions your statements.
Well I can promise you that if you intentionally misrepresent what I have posted and/or intend with my post, you will be called on it. Pretty much count on that. If you see calling you on it as insulting and urination, so be it.
Now you can either acknowledge that you did mispresent my post and that I have showed you the evidence that you did and apologize, or not. Your choice.
Meanwhile, the evidence presented so far clearly comes down on the side of George Zimmerman's version of the facts and not what those who want GZ to hang have manufactured as the facts.
You questioned, "[h]ow can anybody assume that Zimmerman was the one who physically assaulted Martin?" My response to your question was:
Just to make sure I understand what you are trying to say. Shooting someone in the chest and killing them is not assault. But having one scratch on your hand is assault if someone sees you on top of the person who killed you?
Instead of answering the question you went off on a rant. Clearly by your own admission, you are firmly in the GZ camp, based on what? GZ's testimony? Goodmans's testimony?