Quote :

" I don't think it's racist to expect young people from comfortable, nonviolent homes to avoid carrying illegal firearms. I'm not suggesting he was a "bad" kid. I am saying that if this is a thing--kids carrying guns for no reason--I am not okay with it, and I'm surprised people are being so dismissive about it. The kids are going too far."

It's bad in its own right, but based on what's known so far, it's not really relevant to zimmerman's case.

5/30/2013 12:04:27 AM

So is he just a poser or does this demonstrate he might be a confrontational little punk?

Not that it matters. It all got thrown out didnt it?

Just an honest hypothetical question-

5/30/2013 12:14:02 AM

he is prolly just a poser. Most of us would have taken the same photo when we were in high school

5/30/2013 1:21:55 AM

Some of you backwoods dumbasses would have, no doubt.

5/30/2013 8:21:45 AM

The pivotal event this coming trial rests on is whether Trayvon was the aggressor or not. There is no direct evidence either way, aside from Zimmerman's testimony, and the girlfriend's account of the phone conversation (which wouldn't prove much even if true).

Am I wrong? Did BanjoMan or moron see something in the facts of the case that mrfrog was not savvy to?

So, in light of that, let's take a moment to appreciate just how bonkers this statement is, in reference to Trayvon "carrying illegal firearms":

Quote :

"It's bad in its own right, but based on what's known so far, it's not really relevant to zimmerman's case."

5/30/2013 8:25:26 AM

I knew no one that had illegal guns in HS, and the people who I knew of who supposedly had guns were always pretty nice to me.

^ i guess trying to rely on jurors racial biases juxtaposed with a kid with a gun is zimmermans best option, but Martin neither had a gun on him, nor did Zimmerman know that he maybe owned a gun. And by zimmermans own admission, he followed Martin around on nothing but a hunch, and killed him steps from his own house. How exactly is Martin having held a gun at some point in his life relevant here? Anything that it means is pure baseless speculation without knowing something about martins life.

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 12:37 AM. Reason : ]

5/31/2013 12:29:52 AM

You know that the gun in the picture is illegal?

5/31/2013 7:03:12 AM

Quote :

"I knew no one that had illegal guns in HS,"

shit, I didn't know anyone who had the internet or cell phones in HS.

5/31/2013 10:03:40 AM

Quote :

"i guess trying to rely on jurors racial biases juxtaposed with a kid with a gun is zimmermans best option, but Martin neither had a gun on him, nor did Zimmerman know that he maybe owned a gun."

Is it a plausible situation that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman? In your world is this even a possibility? Is that what we're discussing or is it not?

You seem terribly confused about what Zimmerman's best defense is. His best defense is that Trayvon attacked him after he confronted the guy (which he admits was not smart). His head was shoved into the ground, Trayvon was very good at fighting, and it was a logical conclusion that it was "shoot or be killed".

Are you just playing stupid or something? This is the defense. How would you argue that defense? Put yourself in the role of Zimmerman's lawyer. Is there really no valid defense in the absence of racism? Your attitude is outraging to me. It's like you can't see anything other than the skin color of two.

5/31/2013 10:13:48 AM

Quote :

"Is it a plausible situation that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman? In your world is this even a possibility?"

I think you've been around here long enough to know the answer to that question.

5/31/2013 11:16:27 AM

Quote :

"A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Now, even if we completely assume that Trayvon was the aggressor, I still don't think it's 100% an open and shut case. There's still a lot of jury discretion, and this is what a lot of the valid discussion has been about.

But if someone was implying that it's obvious that Zimmerman was the aggressor, then it's clear they got that conclusion without consulting the evidence. That makes you a hack.

5/31/2013 12:11:54 PM

How does anything in the ^^^ post address this quote?

Quote :

"... Martin neither had a gun on him, nor did Zimmerman know that he maybe owned a gun... How exactly is Martin having held a gun at some point in his life relevant here?"

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2013 12:53:01 PM

I SAY YOU HE STILL DEAD

5/31/2013 1:02:37 PM

Quote :

"How does anything in the ^^^ post address this quote?"

I've already made the point: because the defense argues that Trayvon threw the first punch.

The pictures show Trayvon was around, not just marijuana, but the growing of it. In the very same set, it shows he was around guns. If you knew this about someone, would you believe they are more likely to throw a punch in an encounter? The jury would, and Zimmerman has a constitutional right to make the case in court.

I've said this before - the entire question comes down who the jury believes is likely to have started the fight. If that wasn't the question I would agree with you. But as it is, anything relevant to that question must be allowed as a matter of legitimacy of the trial. Zimmerman's ex-wife's accusation of domestic is going to be admitted. That is material to the question. If I knew a guy had beat his wife, then I would be more likely to believe that he punched someone else. Those pictures are also material to the question for at least some jurors.

You're not arguing that it's irrelevant. You're arguing that it is so obviously irrelevant that it shouldn't be presented to the jury. That's just not true.

Quote :

"How exactly is Martin having held a gun at some point in his life relevant here?"

hmm.... I don't think this is just "at some point in his life". The more accurate statement is "at some point in the life of his cell phone". My understanding could be wrong, but I thought those were from the cell phone on his dead body. Logically we would expect the court to see dates on them, but as far as we know they would have been from days before.

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 1:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2013 1:15:19 PM

but Zimmerman couldn't have known that

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM. Reason : and there is nothing criminal or illegal about taking a picture with a gun]

5/31/2013 1:27:04 PM

It's not established that Trayvon was the original physical aggressor. The pictures would further convince some member of the jury that Trayvon's character fit the profile of someone who would be the aggressor.

Nothing to do with what Zimmerman knew.

5/31/2013 1:42:17 PM

Quote :

"The pictures would further convince some member of the jury that Trayvon's character fit the profile of someone who would be the aggressor. "

... because they are prejudicial and inflammatory

taking a picture with a gun or marijuana does not actually make you more likely to be the aggressor, it would be playing on people's prejudices and not based in fact. the pictures are inflammatory and prejudicial.

5/31/2013 1:44:24 PM

I was waiting for someone to get to this point with me. Here's your problem:

guns and marijuana have nothing to do with race. Black Americans don't even use drugs anymore than the average. So where's the prejudice you speak of? Toward gun owners? Toward drug users? How about toward drug dealers? Are you going to argue that drug dealers are no more prone to violence than the rest of the population?

We're not talking about a picture of a gun or a picture of a marijuana plant. We're talking about them both left on his phone together. Is this relevant for the defense building a case? Obviously it is. It's willful ignorance to say otherwise.

---
You're also ignoring Zimmerman's account of the events:

Quote :

"Martin saw his gun and said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker!" Martin grabbed for the gun, but Zimmerman grabbed it first."

He did enter this into the facts of the case before knowing anything about what was on Trayvon's phone. These are two independent facts that point to the same reality: the kid knew his way around handguns.

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2013 2:04:30 PM

they are not prejudicial and inflammatory because he is black, and I never claimed that. they would be prejudicial and inflammatory if he were white.

they are prejudicial and inflammatory because:

Quote :

"taking a picture with a gun or marijuana does not actually make you more likely to be the aggressor, it would be playing on people's prejudices and not based in fact. the pictures are inflammatory and prejudicial."

and sense Zimmerman hadn't seen these photos, they can't be used to demonstrate that he felt threatened. so the only other reason to show them would to be prejudicial.

Evidence has to be relevant to be considered, and prejudicial evidence is not relevant and is not allowed per Rule 403.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403

Quote :

"The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

the probative value is minimal (on account of Zimmerman not having seen the photos), and there is a very high danger of unfair prejudice

(prejudice =/= racist)

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM. Reason : sense=since, whatever]

5/31/2013 2:11:51 PM

I can hear the defense case now:

Trayvon didn't attack. There's no reason to think he threw the first punch, and the evidence isn't even clear if he fought back. He certainly didn't grab for the gun during the altercation. He wouldn't have known what to do with the gun if he got it, listen to the testimony of his mother, he's never been around the things.

and you'd allow that. The shooting was an injustice, because it didn't have to happen. But when a case then goes into the hands of society, it does no good to trump it with further injustices. No one has addressed the concern I've expressed, and it sounds like most people are fine with that.

Will this rule 403 be used to exclude the facts of Zimmerman's past arrests?

5/31/2013 2:25:27 PM

Quote :

"and you'd allow that"

a picture of a gun or marijuana does not address or refute any of those things, it has no probative value.

Zimmerman's arrest history does have probative value.

5/31/2013 2:31:51 PM

also, we have absolutely zero context in regards to the pictures, and context in regards to the arrest records

not that difficult

5/31/2013 2:34:17 PM

so does Trayvon's school expulsion history have any value?

Please help me paint the correct picture of how our court system should function here. The victim of the shooting should be a faceless and arbitrary person?

That doesn't make any sense to me in a trial arguing over self-defense where there's no hard record of the fight. You're asking the jury to decide what happened in the fight. There's no way around that. So what kind of consistent picture can you possibly have about how to conduct the trial? You're giving the jury details:

Person A, killed
- life: ?

Person B, shooter in the end
- infraction x/x/xxx ...
- ...
- ...

Question: who started it?

Does that make sense to you? Why? I don't understand.

5/31/2013 2:38:41 PM

Quote :

"Please help me paint the correct picture of how our court system should function here."

okay, start here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

^expulsion records would at least be more relevant, if they were for aggression and not unrelated infractions. no idea what kinds of laws there are for those records for minors though.

Quote :

"You're asking the jury to decide what happened in the fight. There's no way around that. "

right, and that decision should be based on evidence where the probative value outweighs the risk of prejudicing the jury. the picture of marijuana and gun have no probative value, they are not related. they are prejudicial and inflammatory.

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2013 2:43:04 PM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_405

Quote :

"(b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct."

5/31/2013 2:57:59 PM

those pictures do not demonstrate a character trait of being aggressive

that's why that i made the distinction that suspensions for aggression would

5/31/2013 2:59:54 PM

Is that then the criteria on Zimmerman's record? My protests are because of unequal rules for the representation of the two parties, which would have a very specific effect of producing a bad judgement on the matter of the fight.

If you wanted to get super reductionist, it wouldn't necessarily to be unfair to strip almost all information about both sides. Ideologically, less information should result in fewer convictions, although that's probably not reality.

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2013 3:06:12 PM

only one of them is on trial for murder

the other is not

5/31/2013 3:14:11 PM

Quote :

"Is that then the criteria on Zimmerman's record?"

it has to meet the same criteria, has to have probative value. those pictures do not, I don't know enough about his arrests to say that they do or do not.

Quote :

"If you wanted to get super reductionist, it wouldn't necessarily to be unfair to strip almost all information about both sides. Ideologically, less information should result in fewer convictions, although that's probably not reality."

except that I'm not making my point based on being reductionist, I'm pointing out that the photos have no probative value because they don't respond to the claims. they can only prejudice the jury.

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 3:16 PM. Reason : its the same rules for both]

5/31/2013 3:15:10 PM

The jury will know Zimmerman is a gun guy

they will not know Trayvon was a gun guy

If someone in the jury links being a "gun guy" to propensity to violence (which is almost certain), then you've just set up an unfair decision - about who threw the first punch. That creates an unfair trial.

Hope I cleared up any confusion now.

5/31/2013 3:26:32 PM

its not relevant that zimmerman is a "gun guy", its relevant that he had a gun

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 3:37 PM. Reason : and trayvon did not]

5/31/2013 3:36:41 PM

Quote :

"its not relevant that zimmerman is a "gun guy""

but that determination is out of the hands of the court. Some average citizen reading this thread likely thinks that concealed carry people are fucking maniacs. From the very outset that shapes their opinion of Zimmerman.

Of course I don't think every detail of every plaintiff's and defendant's life should be put into the courtroom. If nothing else, there's a cost constraint for drawing out the trials.

If it was brass knuckles and not a gun, would that be relevant? Trayvon's punching power (and more specifically, his propensity to punch) is certainly at issue with the trial.

5/31/2013 3:47:01 PM

your logic doesn't make sense

5/31/2013 3:48:37 PM

do you think a gun reflects someone's propensity to brawl?

5/31/2013 4:21:32 PM

no

5/31/2013 9:12:33 PM

You two should argue about the judge's ruling on this very matter, since she attempts to address both of your concerns.

6/1/2013 1:35:19 AM

Quote :

"Is it a plausible situation that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman? In your world is this even a possibility? Is that what we're discussing or is it not? You seem terribly confused about what Zimmerman's best defense is. His best defense is that Trayvon attacked him after he confronted the guy (which he admits was not smart). His head was shoved into the ground, Trayvon was very good at fighting, and it was a logical conclusion that it was "shoot or be killed". Are you just playing stupid or something? This is the defense. How would you argue that defense? Put yourself in the role of Zimmerman's lawyer. Is there really no valid defense in the absence of racism? Your attitude is outraging to me. It's like you can't see anything other than the skin color of two."

You realize that the reality of our justice system is that blacks get treated more harshly no matter the situation? I was just pointing out this known fact, it wasn't a commentary on this case specifically. Any good component of zimmermans legal strategy will unfortunately include playing up Trayvons blackness, which is exactly why people bring up the pot and show pics of the fake fronts, etc.

I'm curious why you think Trayvon was very good at fighting though, we have arrest records that show Zimmerman had been in fights, and clearly he was the kind to go seeking them out.

And I can already tell you that the scenario you described as zimmermans best defense is not feasible, if you listen to any of the witnesses 911 recordings. I can't see Zimmerman getting less than manslaughter, based on what's been released so far.

6/1/2013 8:52:35 AM

Quote :

"I'm curious why you think Trayvon was very good at fighting though, we have arrest records that show Zimmerman had been in fights, and clearly he was the kind to go seeking them out. "

Maybe you haven't read the release? That seems to be the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defense-releases-photos-texts-of-trayvon-martin-ahead-of-neighborhood-watch-volunteers-trial/2013/05/23/07002bdc-c3c6-11e2-9642-a56177f1cdf7_story.html

Quote :

"Data released Thursday by the defense from slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin’s cellphone includes texts with a friend about fighting, smoking pot and being forced to move out of his mother’s house because of trouble at school, as well as photos of a gun and what looks to be a potted marijuana plant."

I assumed that no one was arguing about that. I had assumed that everyone had agreed that the fighting was relevant. On the other side of the issue, I do agree that the pictures of him smoking are possibly the most dubious as to the relevance. The one of him looking at the camera and derping don't have any merit at all.

Maybe the prosecution will try to enter the selfie and argue that his hat is a gang sign. Then I'll agree that they're playing up blackness.

6/1/2013 10:41:03 AM

I can't seriously believe any reasonable person would make brash judgements based on a few text messages. I've never been in a fight with anyone outside my family, yet i've texted about fighting people before. You can't judge people based on a few text messages; that's completely idiotic. Even if it was somewhat reasonable for Zimmerman to feel like his life was in danger after picking a fight with someone who could beat him up, it's far more likely that Martin had no intention of killing him or even hurting him that badly. Maybe bruise his face up, but that's what you get for starting fights.

What you can judge people on are arrest records for violence, and in this case, only 1 of the 2 people has a credible history of violence... guess who that is.

It would be mass chaos if people could go around instigating conflicts, then react with deadly force if things don't go their way. You have a right to not feel intimidated if you're going about your own business, you don't have a right to not feel intimidated, if you go around trying to intimidate others.

6/2/2013 12:45:40 PM

How do you know Trayvon didn't start the fight? How do you know he wasn't going to kill Zimmerman?

Wasn't he suspended from school for fighting? Wasn't he kicked out of his home because of his activities? You may think that this is immaterial because Zimmerman is on trial. But Zimmerman is using self defense as his defense. That mean he should be allowed to bring in the character of the deceased to argue that he was capable of putting Zimmerman's life in jeopardy, and that it is plausible for Trayvon to have thrown the first swing.

The texts alone may not be enough to go towards Trayvon's character, but in conjunction with his own records, it goes to solidify the argument that Trayvon was an aggressive person with a propensity for violence.

As far as the gun goes, if they can find the background on the gun (which I doubt the police will try to do now that they're going to throw Zimmerman under a bus to save their own ass), it may show something about Trayvon. But the picture alone doesn't add up anything without knowing the background of the picture.

6/2/2013 1:51:09 PM

Quote :

"What you can judge people on are arrest records for violence, and in this case, only 1 of the 2 people has a credible history of violence... guess who that is."

Zimmerman has two very damming things from his past coming at him, those being a charge of assaulting a police officer and accusation of domestic violence. You probably won't care (although you should), but the charges were dropped. It's anyone's guess what the situation with the ex-wife was, and she'll probably go on the stand anyway.

Quote :

"Wasn't he suspended from school for fighting? Wasn't he kicked out of his home because of his activities?"

I believe it was vandalism, as per my Wikipedia knowledge. But that may be incomplete.

Quote :

"I can't seriously believe any reasonable person would make brash judgements based on a few text messages. I've never been in a fight with anyone outside my family, yet i've texted about fighting people before."

This is the worst argument I've seen in a long while.

I've never texted about being in a fight before. Never. I've never emailed about it, or posted on TWW. My "mrfrog versus ..." threads were probably interpreted in the correct light.

There's a difference between a high schooler in context saying "I'll kick that fag's ass!" about his friend who said something, and actually having a fighting ring. All our information is from secondary sources, of course, but the way I read it was the former.

6/2/2013 3:55:03 PM

Quote :

"How do you know Trayvon didn't start the fight? How do you know he wasn't going to kill Zimmerman? "

Because Zimmerman was the one that called the popo and told them he was following someone without provocation or any real reason in general?

^
Point is that you're not a 17 year old kid. You're interpreting his usage of technology in a way that you would use technology, without recognizing that a handful of text messages out of thousands don't mean anything without some context, and certainly mean far less than zimmermans legally recorded history with aggression.

6/2/2013 6:42:11 PM

Quote :

"Zimmerman has two very damming things from his past coming at him, those being a charge of assaulting a police officer and accusation of domestic violence. You probably won't care (although you should), but the charges were dropped."

It is worth noting that these charges were dropped because Zimmerman agreed to enter a pre-trial diversion program.

6/2/2013 7:51:22 PM

This has been bothering me:

Why would you throw a punch when you're carrying heat? My god, if I was carrying, I would keep as much of a distance as I possibly could. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but AFIK, any amount of approaching someone would further compromise your (advantageous) position.

Come CC person, plz to comment.

6/2/2013 9:28:17 PM

I figured the first post was gonna say:

"Still dead."

6/3/2013 9:42:50 PM

Quote :

"Why would you throw a punch when you're carrying heat?"

Why would Trayvon flee from Zimmerman then suddenly decide to attack him instead? It doesn't make much sense unless he was more or less cornered and fearing for his life, say because someone was brandishing something that threatened his life...

[Edited on June 4, 2013 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2013 11:30:57 AM

^to hide from him and then sneak up on him, which is apparently what happened

unless you believe he had the gun drawn, walked up to trayvon, somehow started bleeding, then laid on his back and shot him

6/4/2013 12:06:22 PM

Quote :

"Because Zimmerman was the one that called the popo and told them he was following someone without provocation or any real reason in general?"

Which isn't indicative of Zimmerman throwing the first punch, nor is it illegal. Also, are you saying that because Zimmerman threw the first punch, that gives Trayvon the right to bash his skull in. Did Trayvon even know Zimmerman had a gun, considering it was concealed? And if Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon, why would he get into a physical altercation resulting Trayvon bashing his head in?

[Edited on June 4, 2013 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2013 1:05:51 PM

I forget, was Zimmerman drunk at the time? His actions would make a lot more sense that way.

6/4/2013 1:42:42 PM

Quote :

"Because Zimmerman was the one that called the popo and told them he was following someone without provocation or any real reason in general?"

Zimmerman on the 911 call:

Quote :

"Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy, uh [near] Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

Trayvon left the 7-11 at 6:29. Zimmerman called 911 at 7:09, with Trayvon being only a 10-minute walk from the 7-11.

Lots of break-ins in the previous year (by people matching Trayvons description), and times of events that are consistent with Trayvon 'walking around, looking about.' Zimmerman's written statement says that he was "casually walking in the rain looking into homes."

But hey, looking back, why would we believe this guy when he only has timestamps in his favor? And we have no indication that Trayvon was ever involved with burglary. It's not like an officer at his school ever found him with a screwdriver and 12 pieces of women's jewelry or anything.

6/4/2013 1:47:23 PM