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

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.

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

Dreamsglore wrote:

There is no evidence of that.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Dreamsglore wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.