Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

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

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 5]

Guest


Guest
Should Darrel Issa's background and the charges that have swirled around his sheltered ass be allowed in the debate over his vendetta to nail Obama for being born...?

I love selective outrage.

Guest


Guest
Floridatexan wrote:
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.


You have determined Zimmerman attacked Martin.The press has put that in people's minds. There is no evidence of that. I don't see this as a black/white issue.If the kid were white, I would still feel the same way. I think Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, if it went down the way he said it did. What the police told him doesn't have anything to do w/ what the issue is.

Guest


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

You don't have to let someone beat you to death period, black, white or pink. It's been made a racial issue w/ no evidence of race being a factor. If that were a hispanic kid would there be so much outrage? Probably not.

Sal

Sal
Dreamsglore wrote:

There is no evidence of that.


You sure about that?

The prosecutor wouldn't have brought the charges she did unless she was holding some cards.

I think the testimony of Martin's girlfriend who was on the line when the confrontation occurred will be key.

Guest


Guest
Sal wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:

There is no evidence of that.


You sure about that?

The prosecutor wouldn't have brought the charges she did unless she was holding some cards.

I think the testimony of Martin's girlfriend who was on the line when the confrontation occurred will be key.

There is no evidence this was racially motivated. The conversation w/ the girlfriend holds no evidence of that. The prosecutor brought the charges due to public outcry. The prosecution most certainly does bring charges based on theories... not facts. People start believing things and justify it in their minds. In the OJ trial, Mark Furman became a detested racist who planted evidence because he once used the "N" word and the jury believed it despite trace evidence to the contrary.

Sal

Sal
Dreamsglore wrote:
The prosecution has no idea who provoked who. The prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman attacked Martin.

Sure about that?

A tneighborhood watchman has nothing to w/ any authorizations. It is a civillian led effort that doesn't require authorization.

I shouldn't have used "authorized". Zimmerman wasnt following guidelines.

I disagree a prior history of fighting is not relevant. It's very relevant, imo.

Nope.

Floridatexan

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

Yes, they did. Check your facts. They told him not to pursue.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
TEOTWAWKI wrote: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.

If that happened, you don't know what precipitated it. It is absolutely NOT IRRELEVANT if he initiated the confrontation, and you don't know who initiated the attack, or even if Zimmerman didn't bang his head against the wall after shooting Martin...you really don't.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
Sal wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
The prosecution has no idea who provoked who. The prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman attacked Martin.

Sure about that?

A tneighborhood watchman has nothing to w/ any authorizations. It is a civillian led effort that doesn't require authorization.

I shouldn't have used "authorized". Zimmerman wasnt following guidelines.

I disagree a prior history of fighting is not relevant. It's very relevant, imo.

Nope.

Neighborhood watchmen aren't supposed to be armed. They're supposed to report suspicious activity to police. That's why the police told Zimmerman not to pursue, but to wait for police to arrive on the scene.

Nekochan

Nekochan
I remember reading up on this case last year. I believe that Zimmerman talked to a dispatcher, not to a police officer. And he was on his way to go shopping and had a permit to carry a gun. There was nothing illegal or wrong about him having a weapon.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
Actually we don't live in a fully authoritarian society yet despite you liberals fondest desire to do so. Unless I am breaking the law or directly interfering in an investigation I am still a free man. Besides it was a 911 operator that told him not the police... You may get your fascist state in full bloom soon enough...it's trials like this that march us further towards it...The taking away of our right to self-defense is well underway...It used to be if a policeman was arresting you falsely you had the right to resist... that's gone. Then they had to have a reason to shoot you, BESIDES officer safety but that's gone.. so you will be showing your papers or being shot soon .

Guest


Guest
Nekochan wrote:I remember reading up on this case last year. I believe that Zimmerman talked to a dispatcher, not to a police officer. And he was on his way to go shopping and had a permit to carry a gun. There was nothing illegal or wrong about him having a weapon.

Correct. In my thinking, if Zimmerman planned to go after Martin then why did he call the police? It's not logical he attacked him after calling the police. He didn't have a reason to. He would risk getting arrested for assault.

Guest


Guest
Sal wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
The prosecution has no idea who provoked who. The prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman attacked Martin.

Sure about that?

A tneighborhood watchman has nothing to w/ any authorizations. It is a civillian led effort that doesn't require authorization.

I shouldn't have used "authorized". Zimmerman wasnt following guidelines.

I disagree a prior history of fighting is not relevant. It's very relevant, imo.

Nope.

What evidence do they have Zimmerman attacked Martin? Do you know something I don't?

Even if Zimmerman wasn't following guidelines how does that justify being attacked?

Nekochan

Nekochan
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:I remember reading up on this case last year. I believe that Zimmerman talked to a dispatcher, not to a police officer. And he was on his way to go shopping and had a permit to carry a gun. There was nothing illegal or wrong about him having a weapon.

Correct. In my thinking, if Zimmerman planned to go after Martin then why did he call the police? It's not logical he attacked him after calling the police. He didn't have a reason to. He would risk getting arrested for assault.

If he was "going after" Trayvon I think it was to keep track of his whereabouts until the police arrived. I agree with you, I don't think he would have called the police if he planned to confront or attack Trayvon. In fact, I don't even know if it's been established that Zimmerman kept following Trayvon after he talked to the dispatcher.

Sal

Sal
Dreamsglore wrote:

What evidence do they have Zimmerman attacked Martin? Do you know something I don't?

I suspect the prosecution knows something you don't know.

I suspect it is the testimony of the girlfriend.

I could be wrong.

We shall see.


Even if Zimmerman wasn't following guidelines how does that justify being attacked?

When a person stalks another for no good reason with a loaded gun against a police dispatcher's advice and Sheriff's office guidelines, and provokes a violent confrontation, if he then gets his ass kicked as a direct result of the confrontation he provoked, he has no right to pull his gun and shoot the stalkee in the chest at point blank range.

Guest


Guest
Sal wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:

What evidence do they have Zimmerman attacked Martin? Do you know something I don't?

I suspect the prosecution knows something you don't know.

I suspect it is the testimony of the girlfriend.

I could be wrong.

We shall see.


Even if Zimmerman wasn't following guidelines how does that justify being attacked?

When a person stalks another for no good reason with a loaded gun against a police dispatcher's advice and Sheriff's office guidelines, and provokes a violent confrontation, if he then gets his ass kicked as a direct result of the confrontation he provoked, he has no right to pull his gun and shoot the stalkee in the chest at point blank range.

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. 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.

Sal

Sal
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.

Guest


Guest
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.

Not that I know of. If the prosecution comes up w/ more than they have I may change my mind. I'm looking at this a case as what a normal person would do. Zimmerman may not be normal and did something but I would have shot the kid too if I was in that situation.

Sal

Sal
Dreamsglore wrote:

Zimmerman may not be normal and did something but I would have shot the kid too if I was in that situation.

Why would you have been following him?

2seaoat


I suspect the prosecution knows something you don't know.

An understatement. What utter banter about nothing. How about letting some evidence be introduced at trial before folks on this forum tell the world what the evidence is.........I have no dog in this fight......I am simply happy that there will be a trial......but I am amused by the assumptions of those who have not even a scintilla of an idea what the scope of the prosecution's case will be.......pure amusement for me at this point, and I think Sal is correct when he says we do not know the content of all the witness statements, the geometry of the shots, what if any admissions may have been heard by a police officer, gunpowder analysis, etc.........this trial will hinge on veracity, and the judge is going to allow into evidence the untruthful nature of the bond proceeding..........I also have been arguing since the inception of this case as to whether the defense will allow Martin to take the stand.......there simply are too many unknowns for everybody to be so certain.

Nekochan

Nekochan
The truth is, we don't know all the evidence from either side. You would think that the prosecution has something or they wouldn't be going this far with it. But we've seen weak cases before.
It's true that I don't know what happened that night, I can only guess. 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.

2seaoat


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.

Nekochan

Nekochan
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 (read my first post!). That sounds fair to me.



Last edited by Nekochan on 5/30/2013, 10:25 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest
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...

Guest


Guest
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...

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum