It will come to the single question of whether the act of following was done through aggression.
Yeah, theyre going to try and use that angle, but with no way of actually proving it was done in an aggressive way, (and not simply because he was trying to keep on eye on him until the cops arrived) its not going to go very far IMHO. Plus they have no evidence to back that claim up.
-I came up with these in 2 seconds.
Calling him an asshole? (Was a generalization of the people that had been burglarizing his neighborhood, and he was upset that the police never arrived fast enough to apprehend them. No real evidence of intent to harm)
Having a gun? (Zimmerman was on his way back from town, and has a CWP that an officer advised him to get. No evidence of intent to hurt someone. He didnt leave his house and go straight to the street with his gun)
Following him? (Trayvon stared weirdly for a bit, prompting the "Looks like he's on drugs", then took off. Zimmerman wondering why he suddenly took off wanted to keep an eye on him. No evidence of intent to harm there)
Description? (911 Dispatcher asked for a description, which he gave, in detail, down to something in his hands and belt, Skittles and juice. No evidence of intent to harm there)
Expect the defense to have 100x better explanations than mine. Its too easy to come up with other possible intentions for every questionable part of his 911 call. Its next to impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did, in fact, say those things with the intent of causing Trayvon bodily harm.
Without evidence to point to his story being BS, and without evidence to prove that he was out with intent to kill, there really isnt anything that cant be explained easily in context. The prosecutor is fucked and she knows it, otherwise;
A.His bail would have been sky effin high in a high profile murder case.
And
B.Bail probably would have been denied. Except the prosecutor admitted she cant prove him wrong.
