Guilt or Innocence?

Have you been paying a lot of attention to the Zimmerman trial? Just curious. I haven't watched much of it (it is broadcast on a few stations, either in part or in total) but I have paid attention to the news reports and opinion pieces about it.

The shooting occurred on February 26, 2012 and the publicity about it began within days, if not hours, of the death of the 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Public furor was whipped up in the next few days and weeks until Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder on April 11^th.

In comments in various places on the web, I have posited that Zimmerman should not have been charged with anything above voluntary manslaughter. Nothing I have read or seen in the trial has changed my opinion.

The issues are quite simple once you get past the emotional aspects of the case:

Who initiated the confrontation?
Was Zimmerman in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm?

If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation or was found not to have reasonable fear then voluntary manslaughter is the proper charge. If only one of the two issues is true (and the other, therefore, false) then involuntary manslaughter is the proper charge.

But Zimmerman was charged with murder in the second degree. So there should be a third issue:

Did Zimmerman have intent to do bodily harm that could have resulted in the death of a person?

As I said, I have not watched the trial "gavel to gavel" but have read reports about testimony and evidence. Therefore, I do not qualify as an "armchair" juror, I am operating on insufficient knowledge. I note that there are quite a number people with strong opinions about the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman commenting in various places around the web. Most (on both sides) seem to be operating primarily on emotion.

In my opinion, the prosecution has put on a very weak case. There has been virtually no evidence presented which showed Zimmerman had intended any actual physical harm to Martin prior to the confrontation. There is very little evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's version of events. Which leaves us with those two issues.

If I were pressed to offer an opinion of the prosecution's strategy, it would be this:

We do not have enough evidence to convict him of second degree murder but  maybe we can entice the jury to convict him on a lesser charge of manslaughter and win that way.

It is sad. A young man lost his life, his parents are heartbroken. Another young man is in a fight for his freedom... all because of an "unfortunate series of events."

Had Martin not gone to the store that evening, he'd be alive. If Zimmerman had not gone out to get groceries that evening, Martin would be alive. If either, or both, of them had remained reasonable when the confrontation began, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would not be on trial.

Here's how that confrontation should have gone:
"Where are you going?" or "What are you doing?" (Zimmerman to Martin)
"I am staying with my father but I can't find the building." (Martin to Zimmerman)

But that didn't happen, did it?