It wouldn't surprise me if the jury thought he was guilty but what matters is whether the evidence says so and too much of it was circumstantial leaving room for reasonable doubt.
My thoughts on it are yes it was wrong to follow, yes it was wrong to get out of your car to communicate with him. But evidence seems to show that Trayvon was the aggressor and used force to a degree that was potentially fatal. You have to consider the grass stains, the world class forensic investigator who backed Zimmerman's story, the only eye witness who saw Trayvon brutally and relentlessly beating Zimmerman's head to the ground.
Doubt is there, and that is all that matters.
So you think Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason? He just attacks people who follow him?
When he disregarded orders NOT to follow Martin, don't you think that demonstrates intent to do harm? Also, what evidence was there to suggest that Martin was a potential criminal, besides his attire and skin colour?
Also, you clearly don't know much about expert testimony. "Experts" can essentially be bought to confirm whatever narrative you want to construct.