In this country, the prosecution has to PROVE a crime happened BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Citizens do not have to PROVE they DID NOT commit a crime.
The whole issue of "following" is a red herring. The prosecution conceded they do not have evidence that Zimmerman was not going back to his car at the time of the assault. But it does NOT MATTER.
The issue of "following" is being raised by the prosecution solely for public relations purposes. There seems to be a mentality among the public (and maybe here on FR) that if you follow a suspicious black youth in your neighborhood to see what he is up to, you deserve the beat-down you get.
Even if Zimmerman was following Martin at the time of the assault, SO WHAT? If you follow me down the street, does that give me the right to plant my fist on your face, and pound the crap out of you and try to crack your head open on the sidewalk?
The "profiling" matter is also a red herring (the prosecution conceded they were not talking about RACIAL profiling when they used that word in the affidavit). Both the "profiling" and the "following" are red herrings and have no legal signficance, if the prosecution has no evidence that it was racial profiling or that Zimmerman assaulted Martin, as appears clear from the bond hearing.
If you follow me down the street and I turn around and tell you to f off neither of us has done anything illegal or that would justify either of us assaulting the other.
The only relevant thing is WHO physically attacked the other and what was the nature of the physical attack.
If Martin assaulted Zimmerman as he stated in his police statement, he is justified in defending himself.
If Martin tried to smother him or tried to crack open his skull, as Zimmerman stated, then Martin is justified in using deadly force.
From the face of the charging affidavit and the concessions made at the bond hearing, the prosecution does not have evidence to support the charge made.
Your post said nothinf about the legal burden of proof.
You took the leap from 'there is no evidence that martin didn't jump zimmerman' to 'martin doubled-back and attacked'.
Exactly when did lack of evidence that something "didn't" happen come to equal proof that it did?
And, if that is the case in your world then how about this...
"There is no proof that Zimmerman didn't follow Martin and confront him, gun in hand - Martin fought to keep from being shot"...by your standard that is equally true.
It is noted that you ignored the fact that, by your own map, zimmerman could not have been walking directly to his car since the fight happened off that track.