Well, if you consider a burglary as a petty crime that's okay - the issue however is that it still IS a crime but since he was in the black youth protection scheme the Chief had drawn up, that crime couldn't be placed in the records where it should have been.
If it had been - instead of you asking if Zimmerman had a violent past - would you ask yourself if maybe Martin was looking in those windows to burgle the homes? Maybe not.
By the way, there is a small issue that you are overlooking here. If the burglary took place and the police took that evidence, which is the jewellery and didn't return it to the owners (because they would have had to report his robbery as a crime with the police criminal division) then I kind of think thats illegal as well. You know - hiding evidence relating to a crime..all that good stuff that I'm sure the personal insurance department is also probably interested in now.
As for Zimmerman. No, the judge declared those two little incidents which were by the way, recorded and read and discussed at the trial, as not relevant. The first with the 'cop' ..was dismissed entirely and never made it anywhere after all the facts came out. The second never went anywhere because it was a tit for tat argument apparently that again was never entered as a criminal issue on his record. So nope....nothing there..sammieswife