Quote:
Originally Posted by NJblue
There is no proof that Zimmerman was still following Martin, but even if there were, that is not against the law and given the type of questions being asked by dispatch, it would be understandable if he tried to keep an eye on where Martin was going. This is especially understandable if your community has been hit by a series of crimes and you have taken a leadership role in trying put a stop to it.
There is no crime in using an expletive, nor is there a crime in thinking that someone who is walking between houses on a dark, rainy night is up to no good.
There is no crime in having a loaded pistol in a firing position, nor does it in any way indicate the state of mind of Zimmerman, since it was clearly in that mode while he was on his way to Target.
There is no crime in using "police jargon" when describing a police event. One tends to talk in the jargon one knows and one which the audience is pressumed to use. A doctor, when talking to another doctor will likely use medical terminology. A lawyer will use lawyer talk, etc. Zimmerman had some course in criminal justice and at one time perhaps wanted to be a cop. Since when is having aspirations to help society the basis for guilt?
.
|
None of those events are individually "crimes" but they obviously show his state of mind and begin to show a pattern. They become circumstantial evidence which can be of great value, for instance, in highlighting inconsistencies between Zimm's behavior and his allegations, thereby "filling in the blanks" of a crime scenario. It will be up to the jury to weigh all this evidence and decide if it is conclusive. Unfortunately, most criminal cases aren't black and white as far as DNA evidence and "smoking guns". Circumstantial evidence is often key. Look at the Scott Peterson trial. There was never any physical evidence they could tie to him, but the jury found him guilty based on his extramarital affairs and his demeanor.