State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Zimmermans history doesn't matter.

A killer's/perpetrator's history DOES matter.

IF that is the case, Martins history must be admitted as well.
Afterall .. he could be the one that was attempting to kill ..
Martin could be the perp. Zimmerman could be the perp.
With two potential perps .. then both histories should be open.
Afterall .. we want to get to the truth .. and not withhold evidence .. right??

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Zimmerman didn't confront Martin. He followed him at a distance.
That's different.

Please cite evidence to support your assertion that gz did not confront Trayvon.

The probable cause affidavit filed in the second-degree murder case by Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey specifically states that "Zimmerman confronted Martin."

Zimmerman confronted Martin

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Zimmermans history doesn't matter.

A killer's/perpetrator's history DOES matter.

IF that is the case, Martins history must be admitted as well.
Afterall .. he could be the one that was attempting to kill ..
Martin could be the perp. Zimmerman could be the perp.
With two potential perps .. then both histories should be open.
Afterall .. we want to get to the truth .. and not withhold evidence .. right??

As I stated, the victim's prior acts can also be examined, but are typically not given the same weight as the person accused of actually committing murder.

The preponderance of the forensic evidence does not bode well for gz's case. Trayvon's DNA was NOT found on the murder weapon. How could Trayvon have been attempting to kill gz when he wasn't in possession of the gun?

It will all be adjudged in court, and I hope, fairly.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Interesting.
Was he officially on a Neighborhood Watch? Or was he on his own?
I've heard it both ways. That's something worth looking into.

My understanding is that gz was acting as a member of the neighborhood watch.

If he wasn't, then he has even less standing to have committed the acts of that night.

reply to post by shepseskaf

In every single one of the examples you noted, except for a state-ordered execution, a court could conceivably judge that the killing was a criminal act.

Likewise, in every single one of the examples noted a court could conceivably judge that the killing was NOT a criminal act. The point stands that homocide is not inherently criminal.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

In every single one of the examples you noted, except for a state-ordered execution, a court could conceivably judge that the killing was a criminal act.

Likewise, in every single one of the examples noted a court could conceivably judge that the killing was NOT a criminal act. The point stands that homocide is not inherently criminal.

Once again, understanding the proper context is key.

This is what I posted: "Killing another human being is the ultimate criminal act."

In context, it is an act from which there is no return. The other person is dead, never to return. I never stated that every killing is automatically criminal, though the vast majority undoubtedly are.

Murder or homicide is considered by many to be the ultimate crime which will likely lead to severe punishment if the accused is convicted.

Quote from Orlando Homicide Lawyer

reply to post by shepseskaf

Once gain, understanding the proper context is key.

The linguistic definition of homicide, meaning any act in which a human kills another human, is not the same as the legal definition of criminal homicide. The context of the quote that you cite is obviously referring only to criminal homicide. Zimmerman is being charged with criminal homicide. This means that a homicide certainly took place. The question being considered is whether it was a criminal act. This question is yet to be answered by a court.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

Once gain, understanding the proper context is key.

The linguistic definition of homicide, meaning any act in which a human kills another human, is not the same as the legal definition of criminal homicide. The context of the quote that you cite is obviously referring only to criminal homicide. Zimmerman is being charged with criminal homicide. This means that a homicide certainly took place. The question being considered is whether it was a criminal act. This question is yet to be answered by a court.

edit on 5/18/2013 by Slugworth because: (no reason given)

This is what I just posted:

"I never stated that every killing is automatically criminal, though the vast majority undoubtedly are."

I am therefore well aware that not every killing is criminal. The lawyer's quote was added to highlight that fact that many consider murder to be the ultimate crime.

reply to post by shepseskaf

"I never stated that every killing is automatically criminal, though the vast majority undoubtedly are."

Good! Then we agree that we should consider the possibility Zimmerman could be innoce......oops, I mean not guilty of a crime. *high-five*

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

"I never stated that every killing is automatically criminal, though the vast majority undoubtedly are."

Good! Then we agree that we should consider the possibility Zimmerman could be innoce......oops, I mean not guilty of a crime. *high-five*

Anything is possible. Look at the Casey Anthony case.

In my view, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that gz is guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin and should be convicted in a court of law, sentenced, and sent to prison.

We'll see what happens.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Hey, it's not like you don't have your own preconceptions...

The only preconception that I have is I intend to wait for the trial to make a conclusion, hence why I stated I'm on the fence about this case.

You're the one who is quick to bash any one who might sound like that they support GZ.....

I also clearly stated that I don't trust the MSM and their one-sided reporting, or rather personal views.
Will wait and see what comes out during the trial.

And I reiterate, that both men were at fault.
If you don't understand that, I'm sorry.
Guess I'm more open minded and not so easily swayed one way or another......

You are clearly for TM, which is your choice, but I am for neither just yet until I hear the facts as they come out during the trial. Not here or any where else.
That's why I emphasized the word rumor....can't depend on the media to tell the truth.

As I stated earlier, glad you won't be on the jury. You seem to already have your mind made up.
Nice to know a person can get a fair trial around people like you.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Oh wait, it's guilty until proven innocent....
My bad...

reply to post by snarky412


So, you have no opinion on which side you favour , and you only want to discuss facts revealed in the courtroom? Care to remind me why you are even in this thread if you feel any such discussion is a waste of time prior to the trial taking place?

On second thoughts, don't bother - I'm not that interested in your non-opinion, really.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

So, you have no opinion on which side you favour , and you only want to discuss facts revealed in the courtroom? Care to remind me why you are even in this thread if you feel any such discussion is a waste of time prior to the trial taking place?

Why do you favor one side?

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

So, you have no opinion on which side you favour , and you only want to discuss facts revealed in the courtroom? Care to remind me why you are even in this thread if you feel any such discussion is a waste of time prior to the trial taking place?

Why do you favor one side?

I put both names in a hat and picked one out. How does everybody else do it?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I didn't ask how you pick a side. I asked why you pick a side.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I didn't ask how you pick a side. I asked why you pick a side.

The "why?" is because I can and I'm not afraid of being wrong if evidence arises during the trial which blows my theories and assumptions out of the water. Have you not decided on a narrative for this event which reflects your perception of reality, yet?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I have not decided on a narrative, avoid assumptions, and my perception of reality is that those accused of a crime should be considered innocent until they confess or are lawfully proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I have not decided on a narrative, avoid assumptions, and my perception of reality is that those accused of a crime should be considered innocent until they confess or are lawfully proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

That's all very nice, but what exactly is wrong with forming a picture of how you think these events panned out in reality, based on the available information?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Who said it was wrong?

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Who said it was wrong?

Well, you certainly seem to be suggesting that pre-empting any jury decision is a negative trait. What aspects of this case are we allowed to discuss, prior to said jury decision? Is all speculation off the table until the trial is over?