Judge in Zimmerman trial bars Trayvon Martin's drug use, school suspension and fighting history

newswatcher wrote:

2seaoat wrote: But I do know that Zimmerman has been portrayed by the media as being a monster while Trayvon has been portrayed as being a sweet, innocent boy.

Had this been a rape.......you might be less willing to attack the victim, or understand why the judge has made evidence rulings which have limited introduction of things which are irrelevant to the ultimate issues at hand. I could just hear some folks who are making arguments now that introduction of the victims sexual encounters are relevant to her rape on a public street........that the clothes she was wearing attracted the rapist.....or that she fully participated in the sexual encounter.......fortunately the law is clear on the exclusion of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, and fortunately we have learned that trying the morals of rape victims to excuse the behavior of the rapists is in most circumstances simply unacceptable. Why don't we just follow the judge's lead and wait for the facts of what happened on that street that evening which resulted in the death of Martin.

This situation has been so tainted from the very beginning from the media outright 'editing' reports and false allegations to the NAACP and Black Panthers involvement ...add in the skinheads mouthing off and the truth or fairness has been the furthest things from this from the beginning...

newswatcher wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

2seaoat wrote: But I do know that Zimmerman has been portrayed by the media as being a monster while Trayvon has been portrayed as being a sweet, innocent boy.

Had this been a rape.......you might be less willing to attack the victim, or understand why the judge has made evidence rulings which have limited introduction of things which are irrelevant to the ultimate issues at hand. I could just hear some folks who are making arguments now that introduction of the victims sexual encounters are relevant to her rape on a public street........that the clothes she was wearing attracted the rapist.....or that she fully participated in the sexual encounter.......fortunately the law is clear on the exclusion of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, and fortunately we have learned that trying the morals of rape victims to excuse the behavior of the rapists is in most circumstances simply unacceptable. Why don't we just follow the judge's lead and wait for the facts of what happened on that street that evening which resulted in the death of Martin.

I didn't say I have a problem with the judge's ruling. I am not talking about the judge, I'm talking about the crap we've seen on TV. I think the judge, so far, has been fair. I don't think she ruled out all of the defense's evidence, but she will consider it as the trial progresses and the prosecution presents their case. That sounds fair to me.

So when or if Martin is portryed as a solid citizen...victim...etc., will that then open the door to his past?...Wonder if Zimmerman's past (if any) will also be excluded...

Nekochan wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

2seaoat wrote: But I do know that Zimmerman has been portrayed by the media as being a monster while Trayvon has been portrayed as being a sweet, innocent boy.

Had this been a rape.......you might be less willing to attack the victim, or understand why the judge has made evidence rulings which have limited introduction of things which are irrelevant to the ultimate issues at hand. I could just hear some folks who are making arguments now that introduction of the victims sexual encounters are relevant to her rape on a public street........that the clothes she was wearing attracted the rapist.....or that she fully participated in the sexual encounter.......fortunately the law is clear on the exclusion of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, and fortunately we have learned that trying the morals of rape victims to excuse the behavior of the rapists is in most circumstances simply unacceptable. Why don't we just follow the judge's lead and wait for the facts of what happened on that street that evening which resulted in the death of Martin.

I didn't say I have a problem with the judge's ruling. I am not talking about the judge, I'm talking about the crap we've seen on TV. I think the judge, so far, has been fair. I don't think she ruled out all of the defense's evidence, but she will consider it as the trial progresses and the prosecution presents their case. That sounds fair to me.

So when or if Martin is portryed as a solid citizen...victim...etc., will that then open the door to his past?...Wonder if Zimmerman's past (if any) will also be excluded...

If Martin is portrayed as being a sweet innocent kid then I think the defense evidence might be allowed.

Nekochan wrote:I agree that the few minutes right before Zimmerman killed Martin will determine the case. Whichever side presents the best evidence of who initiated the confrontation and then the fight.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Lurch wrote:I think they should have drawn blood from Zimmerman as soon as possible after he took a life.. it should be a standard for multiple reasons.. If your actions cause someone to lose their life you should be under a microscope.. shit like that shouldn't be so easy..

So what you are saying then is if an intruder comes into my house at 2 in the morning and starts wailing on me, I manage to get my gun and blow him away, then I should be tested for drugs or alcohol? That is preposterous.

Sal wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
I don't see it that way and I don't think the law does either. I've read the girlfriends transcript. The prosecution doesn't have anything in that. You don't have the right to kick someone's ass because they're following you. You have the right to call 911,period.

That's hilarious.

In FLA, you not only have the right to kick their ass, you have the right to shoot them in the fucking face.

If they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself if you feel your life is in danger. That's it, no ass kicking. Always has been the law.

We'll see Dreams.

I'm of the opinion that the prosecution has much more than you think they do, and the defense has been behaving in a manner that bolsters my confidence in that opinion.

Floridatexan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
I don't see it that way and I don't think the law does either. I've read the girlfriends transcript. The prosecution doesn't have anything in that. You don't have the right to kick someone's ass because they're following you. You have the right to call 911,period.

That's hilarious.

In FLA, you not only have the right to kick their ass, you have the right to shoot them in the fucking face.

If they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself if you feel your life is in danger. That's it, no ass kicking. Always has been the law.

We'll see Dreams.

I'm of the opinion that the prosecution has much more than you think they do, and the defense has been behaving in a manner that bolsters my confidence in that opinion.

The defense would like the focus on the background of Trayvon. That swings it away from Zimmerman's history...and it's really not a pretty one. Plus, right off the bat he lied about his assets to the judge. I think he's such a badass in his teensy little mind that he just couldn't help himself. I think he's deranged. Has anyone here ever tossed a woman across the room because she was drunk?

PkrBum wrote:I think Obama weighing in on an open case is one of the least professional things a president has ever done.

2seaoat wrote:Wonder if Zimmerman's past (if any) will also be excluded...


At this point of the trial, the judge has made rulings which would indicate that in fact some of Zimmerman's actions will be fair game. The lies on the bond issue it is my understanding from news reports will be admissible. This is pretty obvious because without having Martin's testimony, Zimmerman's veracity will carry a great deal of weight, or the lack thereof which raises doubts as to his version of events that evening. I believe this is going to be the prime prosecutorial move......veracity which will go to the initial confrontation.....as Sal suggested......the crime will be in the initial confrontation, or what would be considered the trigger......what follows after that trigger may not mean as much, and the affirmative defense of self defense or stand your ground may be negated. I simply do not know the Prosecutor's strategy, but a person who goes into a store and steals a pair of socks and as he is walking out........a security guard who is ill trained......decides to confront the customer that he wants to get some information and believes the customer has taken the socks and begins wrestling with the customer and being a real jerk....and the customer fearing for his life as this guard is beating his head into the concrete.....fires his gun fearing for his life........well the legal analysis goes back to that initial taking of the socks......and although the victim in this example was wrong.......the customer started a series of events which commenced with his illegal acts.

I believe the prosecution is going to concentrate on those initial confrontations with Martin by Zimmerman, and look at that within the framework that his actions were wrong.......so as Sal has implied.....the prosecutor may have a great deal more information that will frame that wrong doing such that the intervening variable of Martin's reaction may not overcome the initial wrongdoing. Felony murder is a good example.....now using our sock example.....two people go into the store......as they are leaving the security guard pulls a weapon, and the one who has the socks in his pocket fires and kills the guard.....the state files felony murder charges against his partner, yet he never fired the gun at the officer........the law bootstraps his initial wrongdoing to the ultimate issue.......it will be interesting, and I am not suggesting this initial wrongdoing will be successfully framed.....I simply do not have the facts, but understand that the prosecutor has anything but a weak case if the evidence points to lack of truth as to Zimmerman's initial confrontation.

Nekochan wrote:I agree that the few minutes right before Zimmerman killed Martin will determine the case. Whichever side presents the best evidence of who initiated the confrontation and then the fight.

2seaoat wrote:I do not even know why they would even want a trial......they just need to ask Dreams what the facts were...............LOL

I think the jury might pass on Dream's conclusions.........

For me......no dog in the fight.....happy that the parties will get a fair trial, and I look forward to some more Dream's commentary........I always say I come here to learn stuff........Heck....the prosecutors ought to come here and drop all charges....they just do not get it.....they are wasting their time.........

TEOTWAWKI wrote:THIS was an open and shut self defense case until it became a black thing and the president chipped in his idiotic BS about having a boy just like Trayvon...bullshit .bullshit .bullshit !

Sal wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:THIS was an open and shut self defense case until it became a black thing and the president chipped in his idiotic BS about having a boy just like Trayvon...bullshit .bullshit .bullshit !

Put the crack pipe down.

If you think that if it had been an unarmed white kid gunned down in the street, and there was no arrest, ...

... well, that's some powerful crack.

The problem with you crackers is that you've convicted Trayvon of the crime of being a young black man.

That doesn't fly in the 21st Century.

Sorry 'bout yer luck.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Sal wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:THIS was an open and shut self defense case until it became a black thing and the president chipped in his idiotic BS about having a boy just like Trayvon...bullshit .bullshit .bullshit !

Put the crack pipe down.

If you think that if it had been an unarmed white kid gunned down in the street, and there was no arrest, ...

... well, that's some powerful crack.

The problem with you crackers is that you've convicted Trayvon of the crime of being a young black man.

That doesn't fly in the 21st Century.

Sorry 'bout yer luck.

Your crack is showing and a lot more....He was shot sitting on Zimmerman pounding his head against the concrete...of course that wouldn't hurt you but it would have probably killed Zimmerman ...he had every right to shoot Trayvon...twice !