Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your second paragraph in particular is pure speculation. While you may want this to be true, there is no evidence of such.
I would think, one of the key questions for the defense to answer is if Martin was the type of personality to attack someone if followed. However, am not sure the judge would allow evidence, if any, of past wrongdoings to try and show this to the jury. From a common sense perspective, it makes sense she would allow it, much as she allowed the evidence of Zimmerman's previous calls about suspicious persons and his application to be a police officer. The prosecution, by using that, was trying to show motive. Same thing for the defense, I think, would be to show the motive for Martin to attack Zimmerman.
If it's not allowed to bring in Zimmerman's actual documented history of violence, why in the world would it be allowed to bring in Trayvon's undocumented history of violence, assuming he even had any? Watching MMA fights on Youtube is not the same as attending MMA classes, or assaulting a police officer (who Zimmerman claimed hit him first, lol) . Zimmerman is on trial, not Trayvon, you guys just don't get it.
Zimmerman is on trial, not Trayvon, you guys just don't get it.
Zimmerman is on trial for murder because he killed someone. He claims that it was in self defense and the state of FL claims that it was murder. Zimmerman is claiming that shooting TM was justified due to the actions of Trayvon Martin and the state disagrees.
This might be GZ on trial but this case involves Trayvon's actions just as much as it does Zimmerman's actions. In order to prove their case the defense is bringing into question the actions of Trayvon Martin just like the state is bringing up the actions of Zimmerman. Acting like this trial has nothing to do with Trayvon's actions is ignorant to say the least.
Absolutely true. Never let your mouth get your body in trouble. I suspect that night it was two mouths that never let their brains intercede. Come to think about it, isn't that how most fights start? There are many people that are easily enraged over a quick glance. I know if someone asked me the same questions, I'd be polite and non confrontational, at least initially. But if the person continued and even shoved me, he'd most surely regret it. But then, if allowed, I'd walk away. It's after that that the other party gets to decide how this will end.
How many teenage boys have really good control over their emotions?
On the other hand Zimmerman was a grown man and a member of Neighborhood Watch, who had created the situation.
No matter how many times and ways you say it, no matter how many posts are made, it most definitely IS a crime to assault someone. Trayvon assaulted George and paid for it.
The penalty for assault, especially for a juvenile, is not death, in any court of law.
The penalty for assault, especially for a juvenile, is not death, in any court of law.
The legal penalty for assault isn't death but the use of lethal force is perfectly justifiable when you're being attacked and you are in fear for your life.
As I've said multiple times: Trayvon Martin was not engaged in anything illegal when he was killed by George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman had no idea what was or wasn't on Trayvon's Youtube feed, what had happened at his school that week, whether or not he would have passed a blood test. Whether he was a punk kid calling white people "crackers" or a perfect angel walking back from 7-11 with a study snack is irrelevant because he was confronted by an aggressive Zimmerman, who created a confrontation where there was none and killed someone who wasn't committing a crime.
Conversely, the fact that George Zimmerman had received training in how to navigate Florida's definiton of "self defense," had attempted to become proficient in MMA, was aiming to get a degree in criminal justice, his request to ride along in a patrol car, his obsessive overzealousness as a neighborhood watchman, etc are all absolutely relevant as they illustrate an escalating pattern of his desire to dole out punishment to those that he deemed criminals, which culminated in him confronting, chasing, and ultimately shooting a person who was not committing any crimes.
If you can't understand this utterly basic premise, then... yeah.
A very good synopsis of the actions of George Zimmerman, and the terrible consequences to Trayvon and his family.
If it's not allowed to bring in Zimmerman's actual documented history of violence, why in the world would it be allowed to bring in Trayvon's undocumented history of violence, assuming he even had any? Watching MMA fights on Youtube is not the same as attending MMA classes, or assaulting a police officer (who Zimmerman claimed hit him first, lol) . Zimmerman is on trial, not Trayvon, you guys just don't get it.
Assume for a second TM does have a documented [via video and texts and school reports] non-criminal history of violence over the 6 months prior to his death. Say it's documented that a video showed him in a fight getting bloodied in the 1st round, then bloodying his opponent later in the fight. What if his school has reports of tm getting into trouble for fighting.
Your answer is No to the question of Would that be relevant for a jury; mine is Yes.
This has nothing to do with gold teeth, giving the finger in pics, that sort of stuff. IF the defense has a confirmed record of fights, however, different story.
Yes, we should not expect black Haitians to meet bare minimum levels of achievement.
Well, now that FF has established that we must expect black Haitians to be stupid let us get on with the debate.
Stupid just means you are stupid, has no effect on honesty. Of course people can be stupid and a liar.
Clever people make the best liars. I don't know if Rachel is smart or average or not so smart. I don't know if she has a learning disability or has gone to a series of really bad schools <<< the more likely scenario. But in terms of the trial it's irrelevant.
I do think that Rachel's lack of sophistication and "savvy" about the legal system adds to her credibility, that andd the fact that she was a very reluctant witness, and did not come rushing forward with her story.
Assume for a second TM does have a documented [via video and texts and school reports] non-criminal history of violence over the 6 months prior to his death. Say it's documented that a video showed him in a fight getting bloodied in the 1st round, then bloodying his opponent later in the fight. What if his school has reports of tm getting into trouble for fighting.
Your answer is No to the question of Would that be relevant for a jury; mine is Yes.
This has nothing to do with gold teeth, giving the finger in pics, that sort of stuff. IF the defense has a confirmed record of fights, however, different story.
His school has reported no history of fighting for Trayvon. He was suspended for non-fighting infractions.
Many teenage boys fight---would you deny that? It doesn't mean they are all thugs or doomed to a life of crime.
It's irrelevant if he won or lost a fight against another unarmed boy---his purpose in going to the store that night was not to get in a fight with a 200 lb armed cop wannabe.
You're grasping at straws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
