Id like to declare you the winner of this here debate lol GUD SHOW, GUD SHOW!!!!Eye witness reports are conflicting, as well as not highly regarded in court. The evidence is that he killed Martin. I have already said that by Affirmative Defense, Zimmerman must himself prove that it was justifiable.
A neighborhood watchman (which was not known by Martin) who was told by dispatch not to follow him, but he did so while armed with a gun. His path (assumed path, if true) was clearly confrontational (he cut him off) thus making him the instigator.
If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, and eventually took a path that cut him off and instigated a conflict. We know that Martin was unarmed, headed to his Father's girlfriends house. We know that Zimmerman was armed, and that he had prior prejudice toward Martin when he said "They always get away with it" (obvious proof that he had already labeled him a criminal). We know that, while Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete, they were in the grass. We know that Martin was face down.
We have: Intent (He followed him while armed) and motive ("They always get away with it"). We have the murder weapon, and the admitted shooter. You have conflicting eyewitness (Using 'eye' loosely) reports and a story with gaping holes.
I'd say if I were a prosecutor, while it may be tough, I could see conviction.