There is evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Of course there is.There is no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. All we know is one of them must have started it, but we have no idea which one. Flip a coin.
As for who hit who first, there is evidence as well in support of Martin being the aggressor, the placement of the keys for one example. But you do not want to look at that. Which is fine. But you openly admitting that would never happen.
If I was making a judgement, I would of course presume innocence without concrete proof, but I am not making a judgement. I am forming an opinion. There is again a difference. However I assume you presume Zimmerman is innocent in your judgement correct?Sure. And where something is merely possible do you presume innocence as I do?
V said that it was Zimmerman hiding in the shadows. I said IT COULD BE said that Martin was hiding in the shadows. Not that he was, not that he attacked, but that IT COULD BE SAID. As in quite possible. Sorry if that was misunderstood.Actually we know that Martin did NOT jump out and attack Zimmerman. We know that they had a brief conversation first. Whoever struck first they were aware of each other for a period of time before that, as they were talking.
Neither of them jumped and attacked. One of them escalated to violence after exchanging words.