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 3 of 5]

Nekochan

Nekochan
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...

YES! It's the media that has so badly mangled the evidence. I don't have a problem with the judge...yet....if ever.

Nekochan

Nekochan
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.

Guest


Guest
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.

Well they are portraying him as an innocent victim in this matter...the defense could always use the Hillary statement.....At this point in time does it really matter?...If it works for those at the top why not for other citizens....This happened a long time ago....

Nekochan

Nekochan
Well, also, Seaoat, I don't think this is anything like a rape case. In rape, the defendant can't really have the defense of "she was trying to rape me, so I defended myself and raped her."

2seaoat


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

Nekochan
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.

Sal

Sal
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.

And, that is why the girlfriend's testimony will be crucial.

She reportedly was on the line when the confrontation occurred.

Guest


Guest
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's about the dumbest thing ever...investigate the victim in that scenerio?...If you're a criminal and you act like a criminal then you deserve the outcome for being a criminal...Defending your life the lives of others should certainly be 'easy' to explain and come to a conclusion of innocence...

Guest


Guest
I never heard of a person with a gun cryin for help..

2seaoat



I never heard of a person with a gun cryin for help..

Dick Cheney? ........or his hunting buddy may have been doing the crying.....

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
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?

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni
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?


The prosecution would like to focus on the background of Zimmerman. That swings it away from Trayvon's history...and it's really not a pretty one.

Why does the media continue to show pictures of an innocent looking 12 year old Trayvon rather than a 17 year old 6 footer with a grill. Which Trayvon looks like he could be Obama's son?

Guest


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

Joanimaroni

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

He did the same thing in the Boston case involving his friend that was drunk.

Guest


Guest
It's almost as bad as using our military to get even w/ a dictator, and invading his fiefdom to topple him and punish a nation which had nothing to do with the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the world, while his buddies escaped back to their Kingdom of oil.

No doubt about it, Obama is a POS.

Sal

Sal
Obama's comments regarding this incident were perfectly appropriate.

He described his personal reaction to this tragedy and called for a full investigation and examination of the facts.

Guest


Guest
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.

WTF! Who was doing an illegal act,Seaoat? Where do you get this crap from? Zimmerman called the police because he thought the kid looked suspicious and there were burglaries in the apt. complex. He was in his car watching him until the police arrived. The kid disappeared into a building and Zimmerman got out to look for him and that is when the dispatcher said not to follow him. He walked to the corner to tell the police where he was when Martin jumped out. Do you really think Zimmerman went up to Martin and started wailing on him knowing the police were coming? He was on the damn phone w/ the police while Martin was on the phone w/ his girlfriend. She never saw anything and can't testify to what happened because she doesn't know.

Guest


Guest
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.

We'll never know that because no one was there except Zimmerman. This is why I think Martin's history of aggression is as important as Zimmerman's. It shows Martin could have also initiated the fight also.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
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 !

2seaoat


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.........

Guest


Guest
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.........

Razz Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

Sal

Sal
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.

Guest


Guest
I heard he was blowing up mailboxes with dry ice and a water bottle when he was just 5 years old.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
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 !

Sal

Sal
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 !

Don't provoke a fight if you can't finish it, panty waste.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 5]

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

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