The Eye witness accounts, 911 tapes (including the snippet you say has an epithet in it that I don't hear), and what has been released about Zimmerman's account don't jibe with the MSM story at all.
I guess it depends on who you WANT to believe more... I'm still siding with the guy cleared by local police that had several defensive wounds.
I disagree that this is a matter of what one WANTS(sic) to believe.
There is nothing at all to indicate that Martin was doing anything other than walking back from buying candy.
It is known that Martin was unarmed.
It is known that during the time frame that he was being followed by Zimmerman he was talking on the phone to his friend, who says that he knew he was being followed.
It is known that Zimmerman has a history of seeing monsters under the bed and of confronting individuals on the street. His suspiscions are based on his prejudices (coons/punks remark - 'they' get away with it remark). His 'account' (where did you read it?) would be self-serving at best, and based on his history and actions, not to be accepted at face value.
The entire question is simple...given what we know about Zimmerman's history and actions...along with the utter lack of any hint (beyond Zimmerman's call) of any nefarious action by the kid he shot to death...what is there to make you WANT to believe that Martin assaulted Zimmerman? What was his motive?
As I wrote earlier...if any one of my kids were accosted by any stranger, especially one who was as hyped as Zimmerman clearly was (his voice, word choice, actions) I would expect them to defend themselves as if their life depended on it --- which, as in this case, Martin's did.