Not necessarily. She could be claiming that he had malice toward punks who case and rob apartments and then 'always get away' before the police get them, regardless of race. She could be playing on all the 911 calls he made (not as many as were reported by the media, but he did make a lot), his desire to patrol, he comments about them getting away, his desire to follow, his carrying a gun.
I see legal, reasonable, Constitutionally protected reasons for all of those, even if he called 911 a lot. She made be playing them into a 'depraved mind' and the reason for a murder.
I believe this is a dog and pony show to placate the mob and hope for a cooler heads when the charges are thrown out in the pre-trial hearing.
Unless the DA has some pretty stunning evidence, I can’t see this getting to trial.
To claim that Zimmerman was the aggressor she’d have to explain away the 911 call, the witnesses saying Trayvon was on top, and Zimmerman’s injuries though, wouldn’t she? I mean, she can try to show that Zimmerman was out to get this “punk” but unless she can refute the evidence that Trayvon was the aggressor, it doesn’t matter what Zimmerman’s intentions were. Unless she claimed that he had gotten away from Trayvon and had shot out of malice, but the screaming right up to the time the shot was heard would refute that.
Am I missing something?