State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   


The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.
reply to post by buster2010
 

Actually he did.
This is apparent in the fact that he did nothing illegal.
And he had the right to defend himself as well.




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   


True. But the prosecution can also argue "self defense" on behalf of Martin, who lost his life in the struggle.
reply to post by windword
 


Sorry, but you can't claim self defense when you are the attacker.
Why everyone thinks the cops, EMTs and coroners are morons, is beyond me.

I'm sure the reports will come out in court, unless the judge bans that too.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty
I'm sure the reports will come out in court, unless the judge bans that too.

I don't know how a jury can get to the truth of something ... when half the facts that pertain to the case are banned. It looks to me like the judge is trying to sway the case into a certain direction. That's my opinion at this point.

If Zimmerman acted in self defense, then it's important to know that Martin was high and had a history of violence. Likewise, if Martin was acting in self defense, it's important to know that Zimmerman had a history of violence.

I go back and forth as to if the information should be part of the trial.
At first I thought that none of it should be.
That it should only be about the events of that evening.
But I think I've changed my mind.

If someone has a history of violence and/or of drug use ... be it Zimmerman or Martin both
it could easily speak to what happened that evening and so it should be included.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




If someone has a history of violence and/or of drug use ... be it Zimmerman or Martin both it could easily speak to what happened that evening and so it should be included.

I agree.
Be it a witness, defendant, plaintiff, or any other person (deceased, or alive) all information should be used.
It is called "character", determining a persons character is important and often used in court.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty



The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.
reply to post by buster2010
 

Actually he did.
This is apparent in the fact that he did nothing illegal.
And he had the right to defend himself as well.


Well what buster means is that Zimm was in no official capacity. Which still covers little of Trayvons actions. You just cant attack someone and then blame the defender. Tons of law on the books about that. This is not the first case like this there is a ton of legal precedent.

The problems exists here in the gray areas and degrees. Was Trayvon provoked? And at what point was Zimm justified in using deadly force? The fact is even if the state could show that Zimm provoked Trayvon, provocation has so little standing legally here.

I got robbed at gun point once. A struggle ensued and I managed to get the gun......at that point the nature of the conflict changes and I could have been held responsible to some degree if I would had started busting caps into an unarmed man.....even though it was his gun. It would have depended what sort of grand jury I got if it went that far.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   


You just cant attack someone and then blame the defender. Tons of law on the books about that. This is not the first case like this there is a ton of legal precedent.
reply to post by Logarock
 

I agree 100%
And when Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman defended his life. (according to police,EMT,witnesses etc. at the time)

It does not matter that Zimmerman was following Martin and we know from the 911 recording that Zimmerman stopped following Martin before the attack.

As far as law goes, Martin broke the law by assaulting Zimmerman, regardless if Zimmerman was "following" Martin.

I'm sure, or at least hope, all the evidence will come out in the trial.

But what will happen if Zimmerman is found innocent?
Will the black panthers murder him, or pay other people too, as they had asked when they put a price on his head?
All because he is Latino and not black, they seem to ignore the black on black crime.
Will there be riots?
Is a innocent man (if he is innocent) facing more time, only to appease the masses and media that convected Zimmerman already?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


If you are talking about Martin his past does put him where he was that night. He had moved to stay with his dad after being suspended from school. I think his past and attitude are pertinent to the case the thing is the prosectution knows he was a bad kid. If he was a good kid with a perfect record they would without doubt be bringing it to court. It should have to be brought in because we are talking about a man who is innocent annd shouldn't even be on trial, fighting for his life. It should be brought up since the case is a murder trial.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I hear ya and see what you're saying. I'd wonder on this though, does it fit in trial and if so, how? Martin's past, I mean? If Trayvon Martin had committed a crime that night or if ZImmerman even knew who he was following, that would seem to be an open question for relevance. Since he didn't even know who he was following? How does it apply?

I see how it may come in for the violence of the fight which ended with the gunshot. The credibility of statements alleged to have been made during the fight, although are those admissible either? How else could it possibly play when that night is pretty narrow in scope for what happened, what each knew or saw of what was happening, as it developed and how it ended up?

I'm generally leaning toward Zimmerman's side on it being a tragic series of events that, even in hindsight, may not have been avoidable. Still....the court rules can't change to make the outcome we want more likely, right? It seems that is the primary thing Martin's past would do here. Since, again, he wasn't a criminal the night he was killed. He may have died reaching for Zimmerman's gun, intent to kill him with it.....but the whole thing started almost anonymous, right?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Zimmerman can't defend himself.


Yes he can. He's just not allowed to use unsubstantiated claims and baseless speculation.

I think Zimmerman's history of violence will be the biggest hurdle for his defence team.

Whatever the outcome of the trial, I fear we might never know why Zimmerman attacked and murdered this defenceless young man.


Well I think we do know why he killed mr. Martin.

Zimmerman for whatever reasons got into a physical altercation with Martin.

I don't believe Zimmerman outright meant to kill Martin, I do believe the fight became more than Zimmerman could handle.

And Zimmerman went to his firearm to end the fight he was probably losing.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 





And Zimmerman went to his firearm to end the fight he was probably losing.
Yes, that's called self defense.
When a person is beating your head into the cement and you are in fear of your life, stop them or be a victim .





top topics
 
19
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join