Still speculation, you want a jury to convict on that? Did she hear Trayvon say 'get off' while he was holding the phone, or had he dropped it and jumped on Zimmerman and she actually heard Zimmerman? Is there any way to prove this beyond doubt based on one person's testomony of a cell phone call? Is it possible for her to determine 100% who's voice she heard when voice experts could not? She's also not an eyewitness, only hearing distorted sound over a phone (yes, a phone distorts sound by definition when it compresses it for digital cellular transmission). I don't think you're understanding what reasonable doubt is, and that there was a ton of reasonable doubt, as well as physical evidence and an eyewitness that Zimmerman was being beaten before he fired. Obviously nobody can say 100% whether she heard Trayvon or Zimmerman, which is, by definition, reasonable doubt.

plenty of people would fight.  there's a seriously negative connotation with stalking.  muggers do it, rapists, pedophiles, crazed lover, etc.... Zimmerman's  got to be a naive tool to think stalking wouldn't illicit a negative reaction.  maybe women wouldn't try and beat your ass but men would, especially at night.  is it okay to fight your stalker? it depends... but regardless, you antagonize someone enough, then fists will be flying whether you like it or not.  and yes stalking is a form of harassment.  thats why you listen to the cops because they know the outcome of these confrontations.  and why this tool have a gun in public in the first place.  guns give you a sense of invincibility... and make you do dumb things you normally wouldn't do.

antagonize someone into fighting you, then you can shoot him.  one way to avoid murder charges

A Hispanic Man who wanted to be a police officer and worked for a neighorhood watch before saw a Black teenager walking through his neighborhood in a black hoody after a recent string of breakins by people in black hoodies.

He called the police and reported a suspious individual, asked if he should follow him, and when told it wouldn't be a good idea he did otherwise.

Trayvon Martin Noticed Zimmerman following him

The next part is unclear.

Somehow Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman punching him.  Zimmerman then shot Martin.  (Witnesses saw this part)

Zimmerman is the only suspect and he admitted to shooting martin and claimed that he lost martin, and that martin then double backed and confronted Zimmerman starting a fight and shot him.

The ruling makes sense because there is no way to ascertain who started the physical altercation.  The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove he committed a crime.  They could not prove Zimmerman did not act in self defense.  They could not break his story.

Tell me when i said that i wanted the jury to do that.

I said that this was what i thought happened and that we could only go by speculation of who really started the scuffle. She said she heard "TRAYVON" say it and i would believe her because she knows his voice and was talking to him. I would also believe someone who talk and knew personally than voice experts who didn't know Trayvon.

That reasonable doubt on this part seems to be more of you just reaching lol

I said that this was what i thought happened and that we could only go by speculation of who really started the scuffle. She said she heard "TRAYVON" say it and i would believe her because she knows his voice and was talking to him. I would also believe someone who talk and knew personally than voice experts who didn't know Trayvon.

That reasonable doubt on this part seems to be more of you just reaching lol

You have to remember that Zimmerman supposedly identifies his self as being white.

But he is hispanic and white though

Pschologically speaking, she's going to have a built-in bias to see Trayvon in the best light since he's her friend, so she's going to believe that he wasn't the agressor based on that bias. Because of this, she's less credible on this front in a court of law than a voice expert in the mind of a jury. There are very clear arguments to be made that she couldn't have identified the voice 100% over a cell phone, especially since trained experts could not, there's really no qustion about that. I understand why YOU came to that conclusion, and you're entitled to your opinion for sure, but that's not how it works in a trial. Please go and do a little reading about how our justice system works in relation to reasonable doubt, it might help you to understand why the jury could not convict Zimmerman.

Nice, so in your world, I could just beat the shit out of (and maybe kill) anybody and just claim they were following me? What if you think they're following you, but you're just going to the same place? Oops. Interesting world you live in. You can't legally beat somebody into the ground just because they're following you, but good luck with that mindset. It'll get you far in life. On the other hand, it's legal to use deadly force if you are being beaten (which Zimmerman was). All the speculation about what led to the confrontation is not evidence, and not something a jury can use to convict. The verdict was correct based on the EVIDENCE. That doesn't make Trayvon's death less of a tragedy, but it is what it is.

By the way, there was no evidence presented, nor any argument made that Zimmerman 'antagonized' Martin. Everybody on your side of the argument keeps doing the same thing, using a ton of speculation, and making nutty statements that don't line up with law or what is actually admissible in a trial, and somehow speculation and arguments based on emotion are the core reason for what you see as a need to convict. So, because your personal opinion is that it's ok to beat somebody up for following you, that means Zimmerman should have been convicted? You either don't understand the legal system and jury instructions, or you don't care to.