So you are ceding the “bigger man” point? Or just moving the goalposts?
For approximately the seven billionth time “more likely” won’t cut it.
Find a witness who saw them, identified them, and said Zimmerman looked bigger (shouldn’t be hard if it’s as obvious as you claim) or drop it.
The jury has seen the 7-11 video. They have been told that the clerk in the video is 5-10". They will be told by the defense that Zimmerman is 5-8". That video will be played again, you can be sure, to demonstrate to the jury who “the bigger man” was.
Yes, it will. You can give the jury all the instructions you want, they will come to conclusions about who is guilty without giving you any clue why, that could be used to mount an appeal. You are simply not operating in the real world if you think otherwise.
Bigger is not taller.
If your prosecution strategy is “hope the jury ignore the law” then, well, there’s no real argument possible. I’m hopeful that at least one juror will do it properly, though, and remember that, if they don’t know what happened, he’s not guilty.
In the video, it is immediately apparent that Martin is “bigger” than the clerk. And the jury will be told that the clerk is 5-10" whereas Zimmernam is 5-8". Good luck trying to convince the jury Zimmerman was “bigger”.
Good luck trying to get the prosecution to forget to point out that neither man was standing, so “bigger” could not refer to their relative height.
Don’t care what the prosecution thinks. It will be a great argument from prosecution: “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
According to friend Steophan, unless there is direct testimony identifying Martin as the “bigger man”, the jury is acting illegally to infer it from other evidence. Are you saying he is mistaken?
Sigh. Please learn to read what’s actually written. It would be illegal for them to convict if they had reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Your claim that the only valid inference is that, when the witness said “bigger” he meant “fatter”, not “taller” is false.
Most of the residential witnesses put Zimmerman on top immediately before and after the shooting. John Good is the only who says he saw Martin on top, but then again, he didn’t see who was on top when the gun went off. So it is indeed in dispute whether Martin was on top.
No it isn’t. If the witness never saw them standing, he could not be talking about who was taller. That is excluded as a valid inference
Two witnesses can be claimed to have seen Zimmerman on top. One is looney-tunes who also claims that Zimmerman shot Martin in the back. The other one bases her observation on the pictures that she saw of Trayvon Martin when he was 12.
Why do you keep saying that? It’s nonsense. One isn’t suddenly unable to see a significant height difference if people aren’t standing.
Of course one is. It doesn’t make it so just because you stamp your foot and insist otherwise.
You might as well say you couldn’t tell which one was fatter because you only saw them from the side… It’s absurd, and wrong, and an utterly foolish thing to insist on.
Says you. When one of the two men in question is on his back, with the other straddling him, there is no way to tell which is taller when there is only three inches difference to begin with. Bigger means fatter in this case, and the jury can safely conclude that and use it in their judgement.
Can I remind everyone throwing around the 185-lb weight for Zimmerman that he weighed in at about 205 at his doctor’s appointment the day after the shooting? So, the weight difference between the two was more like 40 pounds.
I have to say I’m really blown away by the size debate. Wow.