But the question wasn’t “who is taller,” the question was whether a skinny 17-year-old with a one-inch height advantage on the 7-11 clerk was “towering over” the clerk.
Look at the video.
Zimmerman is the bigger man, Martin was the taller man. Glad to clear that up for you.
Yes, I know that whenever you see a video with a black person and a white person in it you see menace. You don’t need to provide any further evidence of that. But I place a lot more credence in the objective fact that one person was one inch taller than the other, weighed less, and was doing nothing but paying for his goods and not looming over him.
SO, bigger always means heavier, not taller, and witnesses can always tell weight exactly by looking at someone? Bullshit. Stop changing facts to fit your narrative. We simply can’t tell from the relative sizes of them who was on top just because someone said it was the bigger one.
Fortunately, we can from the description of the darker skinned person in clothes that matched Martin’s on top, and the lighter skinned person with clothes that matched Zimmerman’s on bottom. Not a lot of room for doubt there.
I see. So you are looking 50-60’ away in the dark at a 6" 158lb man sitting on top of a 5’-8" 185lb man. Do you think it is possible to say who’s bigger?
I notice you’re both ignoring your mistake in comprehending my post…
“menace” is in your fantasies. But the video shows Martin as bigger than the clerk.
One inch taller, not particularly bigger, and not doing anything threatening. What on Earth do you think “towering over” means?
Meaning one is much bigger than the other.
Your post is attempting to counteract the point about height and looming by meandering into a different area about eyewitness reliability that’s not particularly relevant.
My point is that Team Zimmerman is delusional in their insistence that a one-inch height difference in the 7-11 video constitutes “towering over” to the point that we need to doubt the coroner’s report of height and believe that only Martin could possibly have been the “bigger man” seen by any witness. Your point is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Well, no shit. The eyewitnesses already provide four different accounts of what happened in this case, in case anyone didn’t already know going in how unreliable such testimony is.
We know they weren’t talking about the taller man, because neither was standing when the witnesses saw them. So the man who looked fatter was the bigger man.
OK, I don’t think that having a one inch height advantage on someone who is stockier than you constitutes being “much bigger.” I think I’m in line with how normal people use English.
A four inch height advantage over someone who is also heavier than you MIGHT constitute “much bigger” to a reasonable person, but we’re talking about the clerk, not Zimmerman.
Look at the video. You are studiously ignoring it. Martin is much bigger than the clerk in the video.
But after the video stopped, he shrunk in the rain, which is how he ended up only one inch taller than the clerk according to actual measurements.
Is there something other than their objective, physical height that I should be looking at to determine who is more physically intimidating in your perception?
So, which man looked fatter at the time?
The man who weighed more, yet was three inches shorter. We are making real progress here! 
Oh, how do you know he looked fatter? Have you witnesses who saw them both and said that? Don’t forget, baggy clothes can hide a skinny frame much easier that a height difference.
I am confident that a jury, presented with the facts that Zimmerman was 20 pounds heavier yet three inches shorter than Martin, will conclude that Zimmerman is more likely to be perceived as the bigger man, especially when neither man is standing. The fact that Zimmerman has gained 100 pounds since he was arrested certainly isn’t helping him as the jury wrestles with who was the bigger man. Perhaps they shouldn’t reach conclusions based on his current appearance, but you will have a hard time unringing that bell.
The fact that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker” (repeated in loud voice by “DeeDee” in the courtroom half a dozen times) certainly isn’t helping the prosecution as the jury (mostly of “crackers”) wrestles with who was the racist. Perhaps they shouldn’t reach conclusions based on that utterance (or maybe they should) but you will have a hard time unringing that bell.