I agree that the verdict was correct in that I doubt that murder could have possibly been proven. I'll go further and say that I doubt that manslaughter could have been proven, too. I even suspect that Martin's family will lose the wrongful-death suit. This is why the police never initially arrested Zimmerman (though they detained and interrogated him for five or six hours)- because they knew this was a losing case. They and the prosecutor are allowed to make that call. But instead they were pressured into prosecuting when it was very clear to almost everyone involved that it was a waste of taxpayer money. I mean, heck, the lead detective resigned and asked to be reassigned to patrol duty (!) because he felt that prosecuting with as little evidence as they had was so ridiculous and was only being done because of political pressure.
As for what actually happened? Clearly we will never know. Heck, Zimmerman might even be (*gasp!*) telling the truth. That's sort of the nature of reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman's story (and we clearly don't have Martin's side of things, but that alone does not prove wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part) is self-defense. People try make a lot of his continuing to follow Martin after his conversation with the police dispatcher, but in fact the dispatcher did NOT tell him not to follow. They said "you don't have to do that". Zimmerman then says that he lost sight of Martin, anyway, and tried to return to his car. Following someone isn't criminal, and would not excuse his being attacked. On the way back to his car Zimmerman claims that Martin approached him from behind and did exactly that- attacked him, after challenging him. Several witnesses (with one dissenting) testified that they saw Martin standing over a supine Zimmerman, and a few specified that Martin was beating him. Zimmerman did have injuries to his face and the back of his head. Zimmerman says that he then shot Martin while fearing for his life- which is not beyond reason if his story of being attacked and knocked down is true, given that Martin was an athletic 5'11" and 160-lbs while Zimmerman was a clinically obese 5'7" and 200 pounds. Martin's only injury was the single gunshot wound and a skinned pinky finger- he was not nearly as beaten up as Zimmerman. The medical examiner testified that Martin's wound was most consistent with being shot while looming over his shooter.
All of Zimmerman's testimony fit the evidence and was consistent from the first moment he spoke to the police. That adds up to at least reasonable doubt, since self-defense is a viable affirmative defense to murder and/or manslaughter. Ergo, I'm agreeing that the verdict was probably "correct." True is a different matter- who can know? Given what very little we know of the character of the individuals involved I think that one can reasonably believe any number of proposed scenarios, with either or both of them in the wrong. Zimmerman is a somewhat looney cop-wannabe and Martin was clearly not a lily-white choir-boy as his family and the media tried to present him. Both had histories of aggressive behavior, albeit tenuous in both cases.
Granted, it's very hard to wrap your brain about ANY emotional legal case when your only source is the media. We (the public who are being so vocal about this case) really have little idea what evidence was presented to the jury and how it was presented. I guess that's why we ostensibly don't try cases in the media. After all, this is the media that kept showing clearly biased photos of both men and falsified the police dispatch recording to make Zimmerman sound like a racist, undoubtedly because that would make for a juicier story that would sell more eyeballs.
Don't get me started on my loathing of the fourth estate. They are lucky that they are so important for a free society.