State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I’m not surprised Treyvon’s criminal past won’t be admissible. Previous criminal acts really should NOT be considered when ruling on his actions the night he encountered Zimmerman. I also don’t believe Zimmerman’s past should be brought up (whatever that past might be – good or bad). The case should be judged on the actions of both parties the night of the incident. That's how the system is supposed to work.

I can’t wait to see how this plays out. It was such an overblown incident with tons of manufactured outrage. Things like this happen all the time. Why was this case special? Because Obama said so? It was simply another example of Obama sticking his nose where it didn’t belong (like the Cambridge PD incident).

S&F

edit on 15-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

So when he was suspended from school, when they found 20+ pieces of womans jewelery and a large flat head screw driver (Thug WAS breaking into houses afterall) that should not be admissible? Z's gut feeling to follow him was right... This lil punk was robbing houses..


Gs

Originally posted by GermanShep

So when he was suspended in school, when they found 20+ pieces of womans jewelery and a large flat head screw driver (Thug WAS breaking into houses afterall) that should not be admissible? Z's gut feeling to follow him was right... This lil punk was robbing houses..


Gs

Even IF he had robbed houses in the past, there is nothing in Z's own testimony that suggests TM was doing anything other than what we now know he was doing, ie, talking to somebody on the phone while heading back from the local store. There is no evidence whatsoever that TM was involved in any kind of criminal activity that night, but, even if he'd only gone out to try and score some pot, that would have been no business of George Zimmerman's.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by windword
But the prosecution can also argue "self defense" on behalf of Martin, who lost his life in the struggle.

Definately.

So if they have to use Zimmermans life outside of that night to establish a pattern of behavior (being super-renta-cop, etc) ... wouldn't that also open the door to use Martins life outside of that night (drugs, fights, theft) to establish a pattern of behavior as well??

There's a real problem with that sort of "the victim is on trial" approach -- one that got changed in the law thanks to the outrage over rape cases and abuse cases. It leads the door open to the "they were just asking for it" scenario, where (in rape trials) the woman's past sexual history is brought up.

Whether or not the victim was a felon, violent, or whatever, the question is "what was their behavior at the time of the crime?" Felons don't spend 100% of their time in criminal activity, and if they're harmed while they are sleeping or taking a shower or whatever, it shouldn't matter who and what they were. The trial should ONLY focus on "what happened during the crime?"

Martin wasn't walking around with an "I'm a felon" sign on him and wasn't running around with a bat, smashing car windows.

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.

It was a dispatcher that said not to. Not the police. And again his "past", when he was suspended from school, they found 20+ pieces of woman's jewelry and a "large flathead screw driver". So Zimmerman's gut suspicion to follow this punk was right cause he was robbing houses after all. Trayvon's past does matter in that he was followed because he was a criminal up to no good.

And to all the ones here saying it was not self defense.. Getting the back of your head smashed into a sidewalk is not really much diff than smashing someones head in with a brick. Try that on a police officer and see what he does. Yes he will fire. And lets not also forget the bogus super outdated pic the media shows. This "kid" was a 6ft+ football player at the time of the shooting. Big kid in his prime (military age) vs an overweight middle aged man, who is gonna win?

Gs

Originally posted by GermanShep
It was a dispatcher that said not to. Not the police.

Why would any genuinely concerned public member phone a NEN dispatcher if they aren't going to pay any attention at all to what they may say? A dispatcher isn't there to cheer you on while you go on a vigilante-type mission.

Originally posted by GermanShep
And again his "past", when he was suspended from school, they found 20+ pieces of woman's jewelry and a "large flathead screw driver". So Zimmerman's gut suspicion to follow this punk was right cause he was robbing houses after all. Trayvon's past does matter in that he was followed because he was a criminal up to no good.

Gs

Unless Z is claiming to be psychic and could tell all this just by looking at TM, this aspect of TM's past has no bearing on the legality of Z's actions that evening.

Originally posted by GermanShep
And to all the ones here saying it was not self defense.. Getting the back of your head smashed into a sidewalk is not really much diff than smashing someones head in with a brick. Try that on a police officer and see what he does. Yes he will fire.

If you believe the injuries on the back of Z's head were caused by it being repeatedly slammed against concrete, I can only say that you are very easily convinced.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by GermanShep

So when he was suspended in school, when they found 20+ pieces of womans jewelery and a large flat head screw driver (Thug WAS breaking into houses afterall) that should not be admissible? Z's gut feeling to follow him was right... This lil punk was robbing houses..


Gs

Even IF he had robbed houses in the past, there is nothing in Z's own testimony that suggests TM was doing anything other than what we now know he was doing, ie, talking to somebody on the phone while heading back from the local store. There is no evidence whatsoever that TM was involved in any kind of criminal activity that night, but, even if he'd only gone out to try and score some pot, that would have been no business of George Zimmerman's.

I seriously doubt he would follow a "kid" just talking on his phone.. That isn't very suspicious. And the fact that he robs houses.. I'm guessing he was doing something a lil other than just walking and talking.. Like casing maybe? That is the most rational theory but again all speculation I don't know I was not there. But I have seen all of the other evidence which points to a good shoot. 1 less piece of chit walking around our neighborhoods.

Also.. If I was minding my own business and some guy was scoping me out, at most id be like what the hell dude? I would not just attack!! That right there shows what a rabid untrained animal this "kid" was..

Gs

How is any of this relevant?
White dude kills a black dude so what?
People of every skin colour kill each other everyday and yet NOTHING is made of them, skin colour is just a medium to seperate society, as soon as we all realise we came from the same mother and are all brothers things like skin colour, religeous and political persuasion can be seen to be used to divide and conquer.
FFS get over the skin colour nonsense and simply get to the facts, past mistakes are not to be used in todays life.
Black dudes kill other black dudes, black dudes kill white dudes, white dudes kill white dudes, but its white dudes that kill black dudes which makes the news.

Originally posted by GermanShep

I seriously doubt he would follow a "kid" just talking on his phone.. That isn't very suspicious.

Originally posted by GermanShep
And the fact that he robs houses.. I'm guessing he was doing something a lil other than just walking and talking.. Like casing maybe?

You've heard the NEN call Z made, I take it? What unlawful activity does he describe TM being involved in? If he'd seen Trayvon committing the slightest transgression of his neighbourhood standards, he'd have mentioned it, but the best he has to offer is, "he looks like he's on drugs" and "there's something wrong with this fella" or words to such effect.

Originally posted by GermanShepThat is the most rational theory but again all speculation I don't know I was not there. But I have seen all of the other evidence which points to a good shoot. 1 less piece of chit walking around our neighborhoods.

Doesn't sound very rational to me.

Originally posted by GermanShep
Also.. If I was minding my own business and some guy was scoping me out, at most id be like what the hell dude? I would not just attack!! That right there shows what a rabid untrained animal this "kid" was..

Gs

edit on 16-5-2013 by GermanShep because: (no reason given)

If he'd been half the "rabid untraind animal" you are trying to paint him as, Z would have been unconscious after the first couple of head bumps and he'd have had no miraculous retrieval of his once forgotten gun to rescue him.

reply to post by DataWraith


It's relevant because, in this instance, a dude killed another dude and after a less-than-adequate investigation in which they let the one dude go home, without even knowing who the dead dude was, it then took a media #storm for Sanford PD to get their asses in gear.

Originally posted by DataWraith
White dude kills a black dude so what?.

Zimmerman is white/black/hispanic. He freely tutored city kids.
He does't fit the 'racist white guy' image that some in the press tried to say he was.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DataWraith
White dude kills a black dude so what?.

Zimmerman is white/black/hispanic. He freely tutored city kids.
He does't fit the 'racist white guy' image that some in the press tried to say he was.

What could George Zimmerman have possibly been teaching anyone? What exactly are his mentoring qualities? Common sense doesn't seem to be one of them.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
What could George Zimmerman have possibly been teaching anyone? What exactly are his mentoring qualities? Common sense doesn't seem to be one of them.

Probably reading and/or math. The usual things that adults who volunteer to tutor kids teach.
What are his 'mentoring qualities'?? You mean tutoring abilities?
He can read. He can do math. He was helping.
Common sense isn't one of his qualifies ... but then Martin didn't seem to have any either.
But that doesn't mean someone can't help kids learn to read or do math. Right?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
What could George Zimmerman have possibly been teaching anyone? What exactly are his mentoring qualities? Common sense doesn't seem to be one of them.

Probably reading and/or math. The usual things that adults who volunteer to tutor kids teach.
What are his 'mentoring qualities'?? You mean tutoring abilities?
He can read. He can do math. He was helping.
Common sense isn't one of his qualifies ... but then Martin didn't seem to have any either.
But that doesn't mean someone can't help kids learn to read or do math. Right?

Are you just guessing all this based on your impression of George, or is there actually evidence that he helped anyone on a regular basis in such a manner? If the information is readily available, can you point me towards it, please?

reply to post by shepseskaf

You're ignoring the obvious. What does a slight injury on a part of the hand mean when there is no DNA from gz on Trayvon's hands at all? The violent scenario posed by gz, in which Trayvon held his head, then put his fingers over his mouth in a very aggressive manner would have left gz's DNA all over his hands. There would be no way to avoid it.

You are looking at something as complicated as DNA forensics and assuming that its meaning is obvious to us laypeople. A wacky half-credible defense attorney is not qualified to interpret the report. Neither am I, and neither are you. In this article written by a genuine forensic scientist he states that even he is not qualified to interpret the events based only on the publicly released information: Mehul B. Anjaria, Forensic DNA Counseling

The media has made attempts at explaining and interpreting the findings, but of course DNA reports are not necessarily intuitive for laypersons. This is a rare opportunity in which an official DNA report is available for public discussion, so I thought I would weigh in and hopefully add further depth of analysis and perspective on the DNA findings.

I will offer my standard disclaimers: I am not an official expert on this case, I do not have the entire discovery that I would need to perform an official review, etc. Unfortunately the laboratory notes only pertain to a few samples, so I am left basically with just the final reports for commentary, and am taking them at face value for purposes of this discussion.

The claim that Martin's hands had no DNA is not supported by the source document. The only testing that was done of Martin's hands mentioned in the publicly released DNA analysis is exhibit ME-2, and it only refers to fingernail scrapings. His palms and fingers were not tested, only the fingernails.

DNA report
Discovery
A bunch of other case documents

reply to post by Byrd

There's a real problem with that sort of "the victim is on trial" approach -- one that got changed in the law thanks to the outrage over rape cases and abuse cases...... The trial should ONLY focus on "what happened during the crime?

The reason the victim's past behavior is relevant is because it can lend credibility to, or cast doubt upon, the claims made by the parties involved, especially in a case like this where no single witness saw the whole event and only one participant survived. If Zimmerman's claims that he was attacked are met by mountains of evidence and testimony indicating that it would have been out of character for Martin to attack someone offensively (i.e. a history and reputation for peace & non-violence) then it would cast doubt on Zimmerman's credibility. Likewise, if Martin had a history and reputation for violent attacks it lends some credibility to Zimmerman, or at the very least does not contradict his claims.

Comparing any other crime to rape is a bit of an intellectual cheap shot, like comparing a political policy to Naziism and invoking the Holocaust. Scrutinizing the claims or behavior of a victim is not the same as putting them on trial. If a victim claims that they were raped their claim is scrutinized at every level, first by the investigating police, then by the medical experts that will examine them, then by the attorney who will prosecute the case on their behalf, and finally by the jury. The premise that the past behavior of the parties involved is irrelevant is flawed even in a rape case. If a person has a history of sexual assault it is highly relevant if they are accused of rape. Likewise, if a person has a history of verifiably false rape claims connected to extortion attempts it is highly relevant if they are accusing someone of rape. It does not mean that they are lying, but it is worthy of scrutiny.

To be honest, I have not been following this case at all. It does seem to me however that the past of this person does not have anything to do with the event that occurred. What difference does it really make? But then again, in cases all over the country, one side will attempt to establish a pattern of "bad" behavior, thus decreasing the credibility of a person, and thus increasing their chances for winning their court case. It can be a witness, the person charged, or the victim. It is a shame that there are so many legal "tactics" that really have no bearing on justice in its truest sense and form.

Therefore while I understand that this person's past has no real bearing on the crime committed by the person charged in this case, the defense will attempt to establish a history of violence or bad behavior because they are going to attempt to present a case that their client was defending himself. I understand why they are doing this, but I still disagree that this person's past had anything to do with the actions of the accused. And on the same note, the prosecution is going to attack the past actions and character of the defendant. It is a legal battle, and unfortunately that is how the system works.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
is there actually evidence that he helped anyone on a regular basis in such a manner? If the information is readily available, can you point me towards it, please?

It was on the TV news that he tutored city kids on weekends.
I'll have to hunt around and see if there is anything online ....

A smiling, well dressed man approaches you on the street and politely greets you.

"Excuse me sir! I have a gift I would like to give you. I assure you that you will love it! First, you must close your eyes," he says.

You close your eyes, eagerly awaiting the gift.

He delivers a powerful kick to your groin.

"AAAHHRHARGHGHRHGAAAHAHOOOOO" you scream, doubling over in agony. "That really hurt!"

You painfully hobble home, medicate yourself with pain pills and whiskey, and ice down your nethers hoping to curb the swelling. The next day you are able to walk again, and decide to head out for another stroll. You see the same man approach you, once again smiling and polite.

"Excuse me sir! I have a gift I would like to give you. I assure you that you will love it! First, you must close your eyes," he says.

Now you have a decision to make. Do you:

A) Make a decision based only on the facts of the current situation: he said he has a gift for you and gave his assurance that you will love it.

B) Take his past actions into consideration: He has a history of promising a gift, convincing you to close your eyes, then kicking you in the groin

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Stop being lazy and google it.

Zimmerman has changed his version of events multiple times. You would know this if you read more than right wing propaganda sites.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Stop being lazy and google it.

Zimmerman has changed his version of events multiple times. You would know this if you read more than right wing propaganda sites.

oh im not being lazy , im asking you to provide proof of your outlandish statement, the burden of proof is on you, thats how it works.....

Welcome to ATS