There was a person who called 911 because they heard screaming, and someone could be heard yelling "help" before the gunshot on an audio recording of the 911 call.  Multiple witnesses testified the voice of the person who was screaming was Zimmerman.  Martin's father testified that it was not Martin's voice.

Zimmerman's story was that he began following Martin, and that Martin turned and attacked him.  According to Zimmerman, Martin was on top of him, repeatedly slamming the back of Zimmerman's head into the concrete.  Zimmerman said that he feared for his life, pulled his gun, and shot Martin at near point blank range.  

Expert witnesses testified that Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his story.  Also, gunshot residue and forensic evidence showed that Martin's injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's story.  And physical evidence from the crime scene also favored Zimmerman.

Originally Zimmerman was not charged because the DA did not feel they could prove that Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin in self defense.  In response to widespread protests, a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the case, and ultimately Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder, but it was a weak case.

In fact, it was such a weak case that CNN's panel of legal experts unanimously predicted an aquittal, and Chrisopher Darden, the African American prosecutor who prosecuted OJ Simpson stated "Just about everything the prosecution has asserted in this case has been addressed by the defense and refuted.  You have to wonder if you're a juror sitting on this case, why was this prosecution brought in the first place?...There are just huge, huge holes in the prosecution's case."

So big differences between the George Floyd case and the Martin case.  

The Martin verdict stings because the confrontation would not have happened if Zimmerman hadn't racially profiled Martin, and started following him (against police instructions) in the first place.  But legally, it was the correct decision.  Zimmerman did not commit a crime by following Martin.  If Zimmerman was the one who started the physical altercation, you could convict him, but there is simply no evidence to prove that is what happened, because there were no witnesses. 

Not the case.  Simply following someone is not an act of violence.  Zimmerman's story was that Martin physically attacked him, climbed on top of him, and started smashing his head into the concrete.  If that is what happened, then Zimmerman was allowed to defend himself.  

You may not believe Zimmerman's account, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion.  The issue is whether you can prove he was lying, and prosecutors couldn't.  They had no evidence.

George Floyd's case is completely different.  There is an abundance of evidence; the video tape, numerous eye witnesses, medical evidence, etc.   

"And I don't see why anything about Floyd has any bearing on what happened to him"  

It has nothing to do with whether the officers' actions were justified.  It may be relevant to the question of Chauvin's motive.  Clearly, there is nothing on the tape that suggests Floyd was a threat to the officers.  However, if Chauvin perceived Floyd as a threat because of things he already knew about Floyd's background as a result of their relationship with each other, then Chauvin's knowledge of Floyd could be relevant.  

That doesn't mean the defense will be allowed to assassinate Floyd's character.  A good judge will be very careful about what evidence they let in, and will balance the relevance of the evidence against the likelihood that it will prejudice the jury.

———

As far as I know, second degree murder in Canada requires proving intent. Don’t act all high and mighty there. Also don’t act like Canada is any better with racism.

At least one of the jurors has stated that she thought that Zimmerman got away with murder, but she had to vote to acquit because the evidence wasn’t there. That’s how it should work, even though it can result in injustices. Otherwise, juries could decide that someone is guilty based on beliefs not in evidence (which probably happens), and this would also adversely affect POC.

I know some, if not all, police officers have to fight their way out of a chokehold as part of their training (one of my aunts is a retired detective and had to do that when she was at the police academy). Maybe they also need to have their necks kneeled on until they tap out, as well, so they can see why the move shouldn't be used at all. 

And I hope to never hear George Zimmerman's name in the news again, unless its a situation that's bad for him (ie, convicted of a crime or dead). I do understand why he got away with it, but it doesn't make him any less guilty because he instigated the situation himself. And his actions post-trial more than proved that he's a world class waste of oyxgen.

———

Kneeling on someone’s neck for nine and a half minutes while bystanders freak out because they think he’s going to die speaks for itself.