State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by buster2010

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.

No sorry. Things change when you start throwing punches. Its a legal thing. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, which wasn't much, when Martin attacked the whole thing changed. Martin nor Zimmerman were in a condition where either of them could legally initiate the use of force.

Originally posted by flobot
Martin in this case is the "victim.

Is he? Or is he a 'perp' that attacked the wrong person?
He may be dead. But that doesn't automatically make him a victim.

Originally posted by Gazrok
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.

If Zimmerman was attacked while going after Martin, then they could possibly claim Martin acted in self defense. If Zimmerman was attacked when he went back to his vehicle and wasn't following Martin, then Zimmerman is the victim. Since the media has screwed around with the facts and spun and spun .. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the real facts are when the trial starts.

reply to post by FlyersFan

He may be dead. But that doesn't automatically make him a victim.

Actually it does. Not only does it make him a victim, but it makes him the type of victim that cannot defend themselves in court, or deal with the penalty he would have had to face if Zimmerman would have allowed the police to do their jobs.

Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by Slugworth
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.

I maintain that either they both are irrelevant or they both get admitted.

Zimmermans defense counts on the admittance of the (alleged) facts that Martin has a history of assault and theft and drug use. Martins prosecution counts on being able to paint Zimmerman as a racist rouge-rent-a-cop. Both parties are counting on using information that had nothing to do with finding out if zimmerman attacked martin or if martin attacked zimmerman.

Does it all have to be admitted to find the truth?
Or does it all have to be blocked to find the truth?
Either way .. the only fair thing to do is to have it same/same ...
IMHO

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by buster2010

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.

No sorry. Things change when you start throwing punches. Its a legal thing. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, which wasn't much, when Martin attacked the whole thing changed. Martin nor Zimmerman were in a condition where either of them could legally initiate the use of force.

Seeing how Zimmerman was chasing him around and confronted him that made Zimmerman the aggressor here not Martin. And there is no proof of who attacked who first. And Zimmerman's past shows who is more violent of the two.

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

He may be dead. But that doesn't automatically make him a victim.

Actually it does. .

So every person who dies while commiting a crime is now a victim? Every suicide bomber who blows up innocent people are a victim and not a perp? Every rapist who falls dead because the rape victim fights back with lethal force is now a victim and not a perp? I'm not buying that ....

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

He may be dead. But that doesn't automatically make him a victim.

Actually it does. Not only does it make him a victim, but it makes him the type of victim that cannot defend themselves in court, or deal with the penalty he would have had to face if Zimmerman would have allowed the police to do their jobs.

Peace, NRE.

You may not know it but you are saying that Zimmerman would have been a better victim.

Originally posted by buster2010
Seeing how Zimmerman was chasing him around and confronted him that made Zimmerman the aggressor here not Martin.

At one point Zimmerman was aggressive in following Martin.
But that isn't an excuse for Martin to attack Zimmerman.
And Zimmerman made no physical contact with Martin.
However .. later it was Martin who witness' say attacked Zimmerman
And that was when Zimmerman was no longer following Martin.
So it does indeed look like Martin is the aggressor.

And there is no proof of who attacked who first.

If the witness' are correct ... there IS proof.
But we'll have to see when the trial starts.

And Zimmerman's past shows who is more violent of the two.

Um ... no. Martin has a violent past. What exactly is Zimmermans violent past?

If you are going to bring up Zimmerman's alleged violent past (which I haven't heard of)
then you have to acknowledge Martins violent past .. and his drug use that evening ..
and his record of theft ...

To be HONEST in the conversation .. you can't just point to one persons history
and not the other. It doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Logarock


No sorry. Things change when you start throwing punches. Its a legal thing. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, which wasn't much, when Martin attacked the whole thing changed. Martin nor Zimmerman were in a condition where either of them could legally initiate the use of force.

Seeing how Zimmerman was chasing him around and confronted him that made Zimmerman the aggressor here not Martin. And there is no proof of who attacked who first. And Zimmerman's past shows who is more violent of the two.

Well an there we have it. All Zimmerman should have to show is that he was assaulted first and its a matter of self defense. Even very worse case its hard to see how the prosecution could expect anything beyond a manslaughter conviction. And that would depend on Zimmerman pulling one of these "hot coffee" juries.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Zimmermans defense counts on the admittance of the (alleged) facts that Martin has a history of assault and theft and drug use. Martins prosecution counts on being able to paint Zimmerman as a racist rouge-rent-a-cop.

I have to admit that your post made me reconsider the relevance of Martin's past. Zimmerman's defense needs to establish that Martin was the aggressor. Because nobody witnessed the entire event they will want to establish that Martin had a history of violence in order to lend credibility to the notion that Zimmerman is telling the truth about what happened. I can't help but think that a history of violence is relevant in that light. Zimmerman's behavior, before and during the event, is unquestionably relevant for the prosecution to establish his guilt. The intent of the killer is the only thing that is really being questioned. He is not denying shooting Martin. He is arguing that he was justified in doing so because he feared for his life. The question being explored by the court is about whether this fear was justified. If he had a history of overstepping the limits of what a civilian is allowed to do in the name of the law it is relevant to determining his intent when confronting Martin and eventually shooting him.

reply to post by Logarock


Actually I am saying that if you want to break the law you have to deal with the penalty, but when you want to be the law the same consequences apply.


Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


At some point, when Trayvon attacked, he was taking the law into his own hands......that is giving him a wide berth here that he felt he had reason, which we don't know.

Originally posted by Logarock
No sorry. Things change when you start throwing punches. Its a legal thing. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, which wasn't much,

Well, apart from mistaking a teen talking to a gf on his phone, for someone who was on drugs and had something wrong with him, and then being too dumb to realise his mistake and putting himself in a situation where he had to shoot him, that is.

Originally posted by Logarock
when Martin attacked

Not proven. IF he'd been attacked in the way he describes, he'd have had far worse injuries, especially considering how little effort he put into defending himself, prior to remembering he was carrying a gun that might come in handy.

Originally posted by Logarock
the whole thing changed.

The whole dynamic changed when Z decided that the safety of his vehicle wasn't a suitable place to continue following his suspect from and he followed someone he had previously implied might be dangerous into a darkened area.

Originally posted by Logarock
Martin nor Zimmerman were in a condition where either of them could legally initiate the use of force.

TM should have had every right to hit Z fast and hard if Zimmerman put himself within reach of a pre-emptive strike. But, you continue to believe that Z allowed TM to catch him unawares, when all the indications are that Z was doing the following and targeting, and not TM.

reply to post by buster2010


Employed as a Law Officer? When did Zimmerman pass and receive certification from a Florida POST Academy? He never did that I'm aware of. I understand he was a volunteer with a neighborhood watch group...although even that seems to have debate associated with it's accuracy at this point.

Did 'Stand your ground' apply? I have no idea. Missouri's law is fashioned after Florida's law. Our law becomes invalid for protection if someone pursues or initiates the contact which led to the shooting, in any way. Defense is just that, defense. Now what happened here? Again.. I don't know. No one does yet, for certain. Such is the purpose of a Trial with people finally giving ONE version of events, under Oath and for the record to show equally to all who ever want to read it later.

Until I hear all who have something to say on this case, say their bit in that trial? I'm still a bit out for a solid opinion. I lean toward Zimmerman for a variety of reasons. Some personal and some medical/evidence based. Much of it would look quite similar if this wasn't legitimate though, so again, I'm out for a solid view until the trial we all just need a little patience for.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

He may be dead. But that doesn't automatically make him a victim.

Actually it does. .

So every person who dies while commiting a crime is now a victim? Every suicide bomber who blows up innocent people are a victim and not a perp? Every rapist who falls dead because the rape victim fights back with lethal force is now a victim and not a perp? I'm not buying that ....

I dont think that your other examples apply to this. This is more or less a scenario where a single man thought of himself as a law within himself, knowing that he was warned to allow police to do their jobs, he was not intervening in a crime in progress, he turned a call to 911 of a suspicious person into a murder scene.

Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

The whole dynamic changed when Z decided that the safety of his vehicle wasn't a suitable place to continue following his suspect from and he followed someone he had previously implied might be dangerous into a darkened area.

Zs got the right to use the public sidewalk and put himself into harms way if he feels like it. None of this is justification for provoking Trevons use of primitive force.....if that is how it happened.

And any lawyer will tell you "primitive force" is a whole different bird than pulling a weapon on someone attacking you.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

The whole dynamic changed when Z decided that the safety of his vehicle wasn't a suitable place to continue following his suspect from and he followed someone he had previously implied might be dangerous into a darkened area.

Zs got the right to use the public sidewalk and put himself into harms way if he feels like it. None of this is justification for provoking Trevons use of primitive force.....if that is how it happened.

And any lawyer will tell you "primitive force" is a whole different bird than pulling a weapon on someone attacking you.

What's the situation when all you have to rely on is "primitive force," say, because you aren't old enough to carry a concealed weapon?

That whole thing was a political joke.

Zimmermann wasn't arrested because he wasn't charged, he would still have had to go to court.

Then the liberals got wind of it, and it become a horrible race crime, Zimmermann was screwed from the start, innocent or not.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

The whole dynamic changed when Z decided that the safety of his vehicle wasn't a suitable place to continue following his suspect from and he followed someone he had previously implied might be dangerous into a darkened area.

Zs got the right to use the public sidewalk and put himself into harms way if he feels like it. None of this is justification for provoking Trevons use of primitive force.....if that is how it happened.

And any lawyer will tell you "primitive force" is a whole different bird than pulling a weapon on someone attacking you.

What's the situation when all you have to rely on is "primitive force," say, because you aren't old enough to carry a concealed weapon?

That's a good question.....even if he didn't know Z had a weapon.

I will tell you this, if you know someone is packing but as yet upholstered you better have dam good reason to go for that gun.

And when you use preemption the burden is on you ten fold.