Good question. The evidence presented at the trial pretty much consisted of Zimmermans live observations of Martin being recorded on his phone call to the civilian dispatcher. Although Zimmermans statements to the dispatcher do not prove out that Martin was casing homes it does suggest that Zimmerman was truthfully conveying what he perceived. It doesn't follow that Zimmerman would invent a falsehood in advance of a fight/killing that he didn't know was going to happen. Unless of course you think its plausible that the short and stubby Zimmerman wearing jeans and hiking boots actual plan for killing the fleet of foot Martin was to actually run him down after giving him a head start! Respectfully,
What evidence do you have that he wasn't? The prosecution made the claim that Martin wasn't doing anything illegal yet made no effort to prove it or explain why it had been around 40 minutes since he left the store and what he was doing in the grass between the houses. The prosecution fail to provide any evidence that Martin wasn't casing houses.
And there's also the stolen jewelry that was found in Trayvon's backpack. Odds are, casing houses for burglary is exactly what he was doing. Good perception on the part of George Zimmerman.
For which she will now do jail time. Florida chain gangs are brutal in the 95 degree heat and 100% humidity. But she asked for it.
Generally the prosecution is claiming guilt of the defendant who is innocent until proven guilty and has no duty to prove his innocence. However, that is only the general case. The claim that Trayvon Martin wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong is not the general case. Trayvon Martin is not the defendant. In the trial of George Zimmerman he is not afforded presumption of innocence because he is not on trial. Any claim that the prosecution makes about Trayvon Martin must be a claim that can be proven. If the prosecution wants to claim that he was doing nothing illegal and therefor George Zimmerman had no reason to find Martin suspicious then they must prove it. It is not only their claim they are also using that claim as evidence of Zimmerman's guilt. If they are going to say that he was doing nothing illegal they better be able to prove it, not assume it. It had been 40 minutes since he left the store. Its not a 40 minute walk. Zimmerman spotted him standing on the grass between two houses. All of this is suspicious yet the prosecution provided no explanation. We are simply to assume that Martin was doing nothing illegal.
