State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by FlyersFan


Zimmerman is on trial, not Martin.

This is akin to saying a rape victim was a slut in the past, so she deserved it.

reply to post by FlyersFan

When a rape victim is in court, many times the defense will try to bring up her sexual history.
It is irrelevant to the rape that happened. It can't be used in court.

Your statement assumes that the rape actually happened. It is uncomfortable to consider, but even an accused rapist must be assumed innocent until proven guilty in court. "Sexual history" is an ambiguous term, and can include all sorts of things. For example, it could include a history of rape accusations that were proven false, or other acts of false accusation or perjury that are peripherally related to sex such as attempts to blackmail someone with proof of adultery. If the defense is simply claiming that the woman enjoyed sex and therefore the man was correct to assume his advances were welcomed then, of course, that is not relevant to the rape accusation.

In the example of rape, if both parties are still alive then both of their histories are worth considering when seeking the truth. If Martin had survived the attack he likely would have been charged with crimes right along with Zimmerman, and his past would have been relevant in determining his guilt. Martin's guilt, however, is a moot point because he was killed.

There is a huge elephant in the room and no one is addressing it. The only reason zimmerman is going to court is because he killed a black guy "sorry 17 is not a kid imho" and also because the recently passed stand your ground law was a thorn in the side of alot of political activists. If they thought zimmerman was actually guilty he would of been in court a loooong time ago. However with the black activists and political activists ignoring reality and calling for his head on a platter the state must do somthing or risk severe backlash.

Also if i feel a stranger is in my neighborhood especially after so many robberys i would follow him as well. If he attacks me then what happens to him is on him.

reply to post by oasisjack

That just sounds like you're admitting that you are also unable to recognise the difference between a real suspiciously acting person(ie. the types who, in ALL Z's previous experience, had ran the minute he started glowering at them) and a person talking on the phone and minding his own business. Don't volunteer as a neighbourhoodwatch captain, or you're also likely to get yourself in deep trouble.

reply to post by oasisjack

The only reason zimmerman is going to court is because he killed a black guy "sorry 17 is not a kid imho" and also because the recently passed stand your ground law was a thorn in the side of alot of political activists.

No, he is going to court because that is what happens to almost anyone who shoots someone, even in most cases of self defense. If the police show up and there is a dead guy on your own lawn and a gun in your hand it deserves scrutiny. The police and the DA can't just say "oh well, he said it was self defense, nothing to see here!" without thoroughly examining the facts.

Originally posted by flobot
This is akin to saying a rape victim was a slut in the past, so she deserved it.

That's pretty much what I said on the bottom of page one.

If Martins (alleged) bad attitude and thefts and fights can't be admitted (and I don't think they should be), then Martin's team shouldn't be able to use anything about Zimmerman that isn't specifically of that night either.

Zimmerman is on trial.
But so is Martins behavior that night since that is Zimmermans defense.

If Martins team wants to keep Martins (alleged) bad behavior out ... then Zimmermans has to be out as well. Either it's all about the events of THAT NIGHT or it'll turn into the same thing that used to happen at rape trials ...bringing in a rape victims sexual behavior that has nothing to do with the night of the rape.

reply to post by buster2010

The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt. The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.

That's pretty much the bottom line isn't it?

As much as the kid was a punk, and I'll cry no tears for him....Zimmerman was NOT protected under the "Stand Your Ground" law as claimed, and therefore committed murder at worst, manslaughter at best.

Originally posted by Slugworth
In the example of rape, if both parties are still alive then both of their histories are worth considering when seeking the truth.

I totally disagree. The only thing that matters is the event on trial. Did a woman say 'yes' or not? If yes .. then no rape. If she said 'no' .. then it's rape. That's it. Who either party had sex with in the past, or how many partners, is irrelevant.

reply to post by Gazrok

They aren't going for a 'stand your ground' defense.
He's going for self defense.
At least that's what I heard last week.

reply to post by FlyersFan


That's going to be hard to prove...as, if I recall correctly, he pursued the victim....despite being told by the police not to.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

That's going to be hard to prove...as, if I recall correctly, he pursued the victim....despite being told by the police not to.

According to witnesses Zimmerman tried to get into his vehicle and was attacked by Martin. He pursued until Martin turned around. At that point Zimmerman became the target. Who struck who? Martin had no marks aside from the gunshot wound which occured while he was ON TOP OF Zimmerman.

Self Defense!

reply to post by FlyersFan

I totally disagree. The only thing that matters is the event on trial. Did a woman say 'yes' or not? If yes .. then no rape. If she said 'no' .. then it's rape. That's it. Who either party had sex with in the past, or how many partners, is irrelevant.

The testimony of the victim in a rape trial does not carry any more or less weight then the testimony of the suspect, unless there is a history on the part of either to lie about such things. I agree that the victims sexual history or number of partners is irrelevant, but their entire life history is not. If they have a history of false accusations, perjury, or blackmail attempts that is relevant to the question of how much faith we should put in her testimony that she said no. It doesn't mean she is lying, but it is worth considering. Likewise, if the suspect has a history of sexual assault but claims consensuality it is worth considering his history when trying to determine if he is guilty.

The alternative is to assume, in cases where its her word against his, that the woman is always telling the truth. That would seem to me like a clear gender bias, no better than the opposite circumstance of always assuming the man is telling the truth.

The fact that Martin's history is irrelevant does not mean that Zimmerman's history is irrelevant. One has nothing to do with the other.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by flobot
This is akin to saying a rape victim was a slut in the past, so she deserved it.

That's pretty much what I said on the bottom of page one.

If Martins (alleged) bad attitude and thefts and fights can't be admitted (and I don't think they should be), then Martin's team shouldn't be able to use anything about Zimmerman that isn't specifically of that night either.

Zimmerman is on trial.
But so is Martins behavior that night since that is Zimmermans defense.

If Martins team wants to keep Martins (alleged) bad behavior out ... then Zimmermans has to be out as well. Either it's all about the events of THAT NIGHT or it'll turn into the same thing that used to happen at rape trials ...bringing in a rape victims sexual behavior that has nothing to do with the night of the rape.

But you seem to be contradicting yourself.

A rape victims sexual past shouldn't be brought up because it doesn't matter, it seems like we are agreed on that part. Martin in this case is the "victim", so logically his past shouldn't be brought up because it still doesn't matter.

Howerver, in a rape trial...the accused rapists past is often brought up especially if they have committed other relevant sex crimes. So logically in this case, Zimmerman's past SHOULD be brought up to show the jury his pattern of behavior.

Originally posted by buster2010
The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt. The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.

Even if true, at the point Martin decided to use force for any reason he made himself the subject of self defense.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by buster2010
The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt. The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.

I believe the trial process is to establish whether he did or did not have that legal right of defense in this case.

Nice to see the 'innocent until proven guilty' approach is still alive and well, though. :shk:

He wanted to try the stand your ground law but the people who wrote the law says it will not cover him. He was not employed as a law officer and had no legal right to chase down and confront a person walking through a neighborhood.

Its called the Kennedy Rule of evidence, in Florida, you cannot use the 'victim's' past against them in defense

IMHO Martin's past is irrelevant, if it happens to make a dent in the case, then its shameful as no matter what he did in the past, everyone he encountered, whether in a good way or a negative is still alive, Zimmerman had a run in, and now Martin is dead, that is where the focus should be and should stay.

Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by buster2010
The classic defense if the victim can't defend themselves drag their name through the dirt. The fact remains Zimmerman had no legal right to do anything thing he did that night.

Even if true, at the point Martin decided to use force for any reason he made himself the subject of self defense.

Wrong if anyone would be able to use self defense it's Martin. Zimmerman started all of this had he not been playing neighborhood watchman that night Martin would still be alive.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

That's going to be hard to prove...as, if I recall correctly, he pursued the victim....despite being told by the police not to.

Thats where the jury will convict him, the prosecution will play that 911 tape, show that Z was told NOT TO PURSUE, he took it upon himself to do so, thats how they will find him guilty

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

That's going to be hard to prove...as, if I recall correctly, he pursued the victim....despite being told by the police not to.

According to witnesses Zimmerman tried to get into his vehicle and was attacked by Martin. He pursued until Martin turned around. At that point Zimmerman became the target. Who struck who? Martin had no marks aside from the gunshot wound which occured while he was ON TOP OF Zimmerman.

Self Defense!

"According to witnesses"? Care to point out which ones specifically back up his CLAIM that he was heading back to his vehicle immediately after finishing his phone call to the NEN operative?