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

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/28/judge-in-zimmerman-trial-bars-trayvon-martins-school-suspension-from-evidence/

Interesting Martin was kicked out by his mother and living w/ the father when this happened. He had a history of fighting.

How are you going to get a fair trial if you allow the facts of the case in as evidence ? Got to make the Defense attorney earn his pay...

I think the fighting is relevant to the case.

The kid was a street hood well on his way to a life of crime....wonder how many lives he would have taken in drive bys and drug deals...oh well we will never know because Zimmerman shot him dead before the kid could bust his head open on the concrete for dissing him.

I hope that the Stand...I mean laying your ground rules stands...

I had heard on the radio that the motions were certainly granted for the opening statements, but could be renewed in the case in chief. The prosecutor is going to have to be very careful going to any testimony which brings witnesses into the case which try to make him out as a saint. The defense will renew their motions and if the state has left the door open, the Judge may allow some of the evidence into the trial after the state rests.

Most of her rulings deal with relevancy. It is the judges call, but certainly the Defenses timing was to get the public discussing the character of the victim prior to jury selection. No dog in this fight as I have said all along, and I do not see any of the judge's rulings which were not correct as disclosed by the radio show and this article.

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..

shit like that shouldn't be so easy.

There is a whole conspiracy theory group who claim that the defendant's relationship with the retired judge tainted the whole process and think this trial will expose the same.....it will not, but the good news is that a jury will get a chance at this case.....it will not be settled in the backroom with LEO or a SA not allowing a jury of his peers review his actions.

Apparently, the attorney for the defense, after the judge refused to admit the "evidence" decided to broadcast it on FOX. He's trying to paint a picture of a young black thug in the minds of the jury. I would like to know which of you guys in your teen years was following the straight and narrow. Did you get into fights? Did you make good grades? Tell me all about how this kid deserved to die because he was on his way to a life of crime. Puleeeeeze, explain to me how these things are even relevant to the case.

Zimmerman's FATHER was the retired judge, Seaoat. That's a little more than "a relationship". Zimmerman's father applied pressure to get the police to release him. I wonder what Zimmerman takes on a regular basis. So do the cops, because they didn't test him (to my knowledge).

So, my real question here is, "Why do so many people want the victim to be guilty?"

It is totally warranted to murder a 17-year-old kid, whom you've been following at night after a police dispatcher told you not to, and who then kicked your ass after you confronted him, because that boy once texted pictures of a handgun, and himself with gold teeth, and marijuana, and also he got in a fight at school.

Totally relevant.

Stand your ground, motherfuckers.


Holmes could not have written a better summary.........

I think the evidence COULD be allowed during the trial, depending on what arguments the Prosecution makes. This isn't over for Zimmerman yet....

Floridatexan wrote:
Apparently, the attorney for the defense, after the judge refused to admit the "evidence" decided to broadcast it on FOX. He's trying to paint a picture of a young black thug in the minds of the jury. I would like to know which of you guys in your teen years was following the straight and narrow. Did you get into fights? Did you make good grades? Tell me all about how this kid deserved to die because he was on his way to a life of crime. Puleeeeeze, explain to me how these things are even relevant to the case.

Zimmerman's FATHER was the retired judge, Seaoat. That's a little more than "a relationship". Zimmerman's father applied pressure to get the police to release him. I wonder what Zimmerman takes on a regular basis. So do the cops, because they didn't test him (to my knowledge).

So, my real question here is, "Why do so many people want the victim to be guilty?"

“Robert J. Zimmerman served as a full-time magistrate from 2000-2006. Please be advised that in Virginia magistrates are judicial officers, but they are not considered “judges” and do not possess trial jurisdiction.

Floridatexan wrote:
Apparently, the attorney for the defense, after the judge refused to admit the "evidence" decided to broadcast it on FOX. He's trying to paint a picture of a young black thug in the minds of the jury. I would like to know which of you guys in your teen years was following the straight and narrow. Did you get into fights? Did you make good grades? Tell me all about how this kid deserved to die because he was on his way to a life of crime. Puleeeeeze, explain to me how these things are even relevant to the case.

Zimmerman's FATHER was the retired judge, Seaoat. That's a little more than "a relationship". Zimmerman's father applied pressure to get the police to release him. I wonder what Zimmerman takes on a regular basis. So do the cops, because they didn't test him (to my knowledge).

So, my real question here is, "Why do so many people want the victim to be guilty?"

“Robert J. Zimmerman served as a full-time magistrate from 2000-2006. Please be advised that in Virginia magistrates are judicial officers, but they are not considered “judges” and do not possess trial jurisdiction.

Dreamsglore wrote:I think the fighting is relevant to the case.

Of course it is. Trayvon has been pictured as an innocent little 12 year old boy from day 1, by the media. Why?

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.

It seems to be relevant that Zimmerman once had a scuffle w/ the law but not that Martin had a history of fighting or was kicked out by his mother? This was not your everday student body president who was killed. It is very possible that this kid attacked Zimmerman.The mere fact that he was 17 should not carry any weight. My previous experience in dealing w/ teenagers in the justice system affords me the right to say that. My first job out of college was at Mount Meigs in Montgomery,Al. as a counselor for adjudicated teens. They killed a counselor and stole his car during my time there and were loose for 3 days in the city w/ a gun. They can indeed be very dangerous individuals because they have no concept of consequences. I'd rather face a 6 ft. man than a 6 ft. teenager. I have some scars to back that up.

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..

...................................

No doubt....it's standard procedure. But, we have seen more than enough to know that absolutely nothing about this tangled case was handled according to SOP.

Bring on the trial.

Sal wrote:The prosecution will attempt to establish that Zimmerman targeted an unarmed Martin simply because he was a young black man, followed him after being advised not to by a police dispatcher, and provoked a violent confrontation with a loaded handgun which he was not authorized to carry in his capacity as neighborhood watchman.

None of the accusations being made about Martin's history are relevant to these allegations.

The prosecution has no idea who provoked who. The prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman attacked Martin. A neighborhood watchman has nothing to w/ any authorizations. It is a civillian led effort that doesn't require authorization. Being followed by someone doesn't give anyone just due in attacking someone. Martin could have called 911 if he felt threatened. He had a cell phone. I am not of the opinion someone who just called 911 would attack someone knowing the police were coming any minute. It's just not logical. I disagree a prior history of fighting is not relevant. It's very relevant, imo.

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.

That kid was nowhere near Zimmerman's house. Why would "stand your ground" even apply?

Stand YOUR GROUND is where ever you are attacked. You don't have to be in your house.

he Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Right, you don't have to let someone beat you to death just because you're not in your home.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Stand YOUR GROUND is where ever you are attacked. You don't have to be in your house.

he Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Does that allow an armed man to attack an unarmed 17-year-old, even when the police told him to stand down and wait for them to arrive? We don't know whether there was a real confrontation or who initiated it, unless someone is privy to information I don't have. I really find it offensive that some people seem to want Trayvon to be guilty...like every black kid is a criminal in the making. That's truly sad.

Zimmerman is also a minority. And the police didn't tell him to stand down.

FT your liberal bent is making this a social issue...You must fast forward to the time of the shooting. Zimmerman was getting his brains beat out on the sidewalk. If he had not shot Martin he would have been killed himself...the way that they wound up fighting is irrelevant if you just look at the end product...It is law that words cannot induce you to attack someone...so no matter what Zimmerman said Martin had no right to attack him.