Mr. Zimmerman never said in the re-enactment when EXACTLY Mr. Martin walked by him.. was it before he was on the line with dispatch? Was it after? We don't know because he doesn't say. Yet you continually insist on your narrative that Mr. Zimmerman claims he was on the phone when Mr. Martin passed - this is not "scientific" it's speculation.) Another reason would be relying on definitions of words that are not definitions of the word (ie: "near" does not mean "at" and "at" does not mean "near").
Yes he does. He says specifically that he a) drove past Martin, b) dialed the non-emergency dispatch, and c) when his call went through he parked at the Clubhouse.
He's clear about this because he even says 'they asked me where I was, and I said the Clubhouse and gave them the address for the Clubhouse'.
He goes on to say that while he was at the Clubhouse Martin walked past him and turned right on TTL. This has to be while he's on the phone with the dispatcher, because according to him he parked after his call to dispatch went through.
Now - this is all obviously a lie. The dispatcher doesn't ask for Zimmerman's location at the start of the call, Zimmerman volulnteers it, with the Clubhouse as the 'best' address. The dispatch later confirms the actual Clubhouse address (1111 RVC, vs 111 RVC), and Zimmerman isn't asked a thing about his location until 3:21 in to the call - long after George is out of his truck and Martin is out of sight.
It's one little aspect of a four-minute call that seems to have little direct bearing on the case...and yet George is lying about it. I wonder why that is. If we can't ignore the little lies, why should we assume the big points aren't also lies?
Just because you're ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Take, for example, the injuries to Mr. Zimmerman - keep in mind that he didn't need injuries to claim SYG/Self-defense.
I'm not ignoring the evidence, I'm discounting it as proof that George should have been afraid for his life. A reasonable person looks at the evidence and sees signs of a scuffle that should have ended a scuffle. It should not have ended with one kid dead with a hole in his chest. Otherwise, fights in every junior high school in america should end up with one of the participants justifiably dead.
Now - as I understand it Florida does things a little bit differently from other states in terms of how self-defense is handled. It is my understanding that usually, self-defense is an affirmative defense: The defendent has to prove it was self defense. The jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense (I can't recall if it was the same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard or not).
In Florida, however, all the defendent has to do is show any single shred of evidence and claim it as evidence for self-defense, and he can then claim self-defense and now the prosecution must -disprove- the claim. So the burden shifts from the defendent to the prosecution.
Obviously this works best if the defendent has some knowledge of the laws and standards involved. Now, if we only had some evidence that George had any sort of familiarity with law enforcement....
I fully expect George to be acquitted, but only because of the way the law is in Florida, not because of a preponderance of evidence for his innocence.