Lol. When anything is possible... look up what reasonable doubt is, and which side it favors in this case.
So basically all you have, saden, is to try demonizing everything Zimmerman did. "He watched a stranger with the same demographic as previous criminals in that area! He got out of his car! He didn't identify himself! (nevermind you don't even know if this is true or not) He said everything was god's plan! Oh the horror! He's a monster! Guilty! Guilty!"
I know this will fly over your head, saden, because JoeR has explained this numerous times to you. But just for anyone else reading this:
This is a traditional self defense case. Defendant has to make a prima facie case that self-defense was possible. (on the face of things, the self defence claim is plausible). If the defense provides evidence that is the case, it's up to the prosecution to prove that it was not a case of self defense. If there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, the verdict should be not guilty, as is normal in criminal cases.
The defense in pre-trial, and the prosecution and defense in court, provide plenty of evidence that self defense was a possibility in this case. Not just "anything could happen", but for example the injuries to Zimmerman (and no injuries from fisticuffs to Martin), eyewitness accounts placing Zimmerman under Martin, Zimmerman's statements (and just look at the situation. For example: If Zimmerman wanted to shoot Martin from the get-go, why did he call 911?)
So the burden of proof is on the prosecution here, to prove manslaughter or murder. Watch the prosecution's closing statement. All they did was cast reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claims. If the burden of proof was on the defense, this would be a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And the prosecution put forward nothing that they proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Their theories are no more proven that your idea that Zimmerman ran up to Martin and pistol whipped him (after putting on a white hood, I assume), or that Martin threw the first punch on the "creepy ass cracker". Reasonable doubt means the prosecution has to prove their side more than "anything could have happened".
After Casey Anthony, OJ, the first Rodney King trial, who knows what the jury will do. But barring any new info, murder2 is a joke. Manslaughter depends on what you think of Zimmerman (and how high standard you think reasonable doubt is). A civil action (wrongful death?) is a possibility with a lower standard to prove than manslaughter.
But the comments by some people here... are more embarrassing than Martin's friend's testimony was. Seriously, can you imagine if she said in court what RGIII, saden, and gary84 have said here?