Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Frazzled

They aren't going to put Z on the stand. Why risk it when the prosecutions case is so flimsy.

It looks very bad to the jury if he doesn't.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Frazzled

They aren't going to put Z on the stand. Why risk it when the prosecutions case is so flimsy.

It looks very bad to the jury if he doesn't.

True... I honestly think Z will take the stand, not that he has to.

I caught a bit of the testimony from another prosecution witness, the Army Capt. who is an instructor on justifiable use of force, or something like that. It was cross examination, and the few minutes I got to see showed him seemingly giving more cred to Z in this scenario. I didn't see any of what the prosecution asked him, so I don't know what reason they brought him up for, but the defense seemed to have his number.

Edit: Ok, I see why the prosecution called him. They were attempting to refute Z's claim that he wasn't familiar with the states self defense law.

 djones520 wrote:
I caught a bit of the testimony from another prosecution witness, the Army Capt. who is an instructor on justifiable use of force, or something like that. It was cross examination, and the few minutes I got to see showed him seemingly giving more cred to Z in this scenario. I didn't see any of what the prosecution asked him, so I don't know what reason they brought him up for, but the defense seemed to have his number.

Edit: Ok, I see why the prosecution called him. They were attempting to refute Z's claim that he wasn't familiar with the states self defense law.

Which at least to me doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose, especially since the course he took was (presumably) a few years prior.

My question is, if they are allowing Zimmerman's history in court, why don't they allow Martin's?

EDIT: Grammar

Because Martin isn't on trial. Zimmerman's past establishes zimmerman's motives. Martin's past isn't useful because martin isn't on trial.

If martin had survived and was being tried for attacking zimmerman, his past would be relevant to that trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, if zimmerman and martin had a past together or something, then Martin's past would become relevant as it would become a part of what zimmerman knew at the time.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Because Martin isn't on trial. Zimmerman's past establishes zimmerman's motives. Martin's past isn't useful because martin isn't on trial.

If martin had survived and was being tried for attacking zimmerman, his past would be relevant to that trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, if zimmerman and martin had a past together or something, then Martin's past would become relevant as it would become a part of what zimmerman knew at the time.

He is actually. It would lead to evidence of his mental state and likely actions as there is no evidence otherwise.

 xole wrote:
Which at least to me doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose, especially since the course he took was (presumably) a few years prior.

My question is, if they are allowing Zimmerman's history in court, why don't they allow Martin's?

EDIT: Grammar

As Rented Tritium said, Zimmerman is on trial and not Martin. However if the Prosecution try to bring in Trayvon's character then that would allow the Defense an opportunity for rebuttal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
He is actually. It would lead to evidence of his mental state and likely actions as there is no evidence otherwise.

Well the "creepy ass cracker" comment likely didn't help the Prosecution's case

Knowing someone's past is actually not enough to establish what they did when nobody was looking. To allow it is asking for hearsay and weird blamegames. If the prosecution wanted to allow it, the judge would probably ok it for everyone.

The relevant thing in this trial is what zimmerman saw and knew, none of which is changed by martin's past.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Knowing someone's past is actually not enough to establish what they did when nobody was looking. To allow it is asking for hearsay and weird blamegames. If the prosecution wanted to allow it, the judge would probably ok it for everyone.

The relevant thing in this trial is what zimmerman saw and knew, none of which is changed by martin's past.

Yet that is exactly what is occurring on the prosecution side.

We'll see what comes in. If I were Z I'd start right off with "yea I saw gangster with what I thought was a burglary tool casing houses. It couldn't be a child though, they'd have to be suspended from school or something. "

"yes when he got near me he smelled of weed."

Prosecution disputes, and it gets interesting on what comes in.

To me, to establish a case for self defense, you would want to show that there was something to defend from. Michael McAverage attacking* someone for no reason doesn't make any sense. We know Martin attacked* Zimmerman, but we don't know any potential reasons why without his history.

I mean, it won't be needed. Zimmerman is going to walk and an unfortunately large number of people haven't figured that out yet. It would have been nice to have, though.

*Attack in this case meaning: on top of, causing bodily harm to

Evidently you've never been around thugs and gangster wannabees.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently you've never been around thugs and gangster wannabees.

I have, they are by far the biggest example of all bark and no bite. They try to go after people who cannot defends themselves.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently you've never been around thugs and gangster wannabees.

But the jury doesn't know he is that without his history.

And I have been around thug and gangster wannabes. I've been around thugs and gangsters without the wannabe part.

That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.

Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly, if I defend myself against your grandmother, the fact that she's really nice doesn't matter. All that matters is what a reasonable person would have thought at the moment. If your grandmother pins me down and punches me, I get to shoot her. My determination of shooting her is based on her actions at that time and how a reasonable person would fear for their life, etc etc, not who she was in the past.

Basically, you can be completely wrong about how dangerous someone was, as long as your fear for your safety was reasonable based on what you knew right then.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.

Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly, if I defend myself against your grandmother, the fact that she's really nice doesn't matter. All that matters is what a reasonable person would have thought at the moment. If your grandmother pins me down and punches me, I get to shoot her. My determination of shooting her is based on her actions at that time, not who she was in the past.

Well... isn't that the point for the Defense? If you convince that jury that M has volient, gang-life, thug tendencies... wouldn't that help Z's cause?

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.

Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly, if I defend myself against your grandmother, the fact that she's really nice doesn't matter. All that matters is what a reasonable person would have thought at the moment. If your grandmother pins me down and punches me, I get to shoot her. My determination of shooting her is based on her actions at that time, not who she was in the past.

Well... isn't that the point for the Defense? If you convince that jury that M has volient, gang-life, thug tendencies... wouldn't that help Z's cause?

The "he had it coming" defense is not valid. Judges disallow that kind of evidence unless there's a CLEAR connection and relevance specifically to avoid it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like I said before, if zimmerman actually KNEW about martin and KNEW his past and used that to form his fear for his safety, then sure that would be admissible, but martin was a complete unknown to zimmerman, so deciding if zimmerman was reasonably scared for his life only includes information that zimmerman could reasonably have known.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martin could have been a mass murderer, but if Zimmerman didn't actually KNOW that, then it's not relevant to the question of "was Zimmerman justified in his use of force?". Justification is based on the reasonable perception of the user of the force.

So...it doesn't help the story to come together? It doesn't show, say, who would have been more likely to do the provoking?

That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, by the way. Good style on that one.

EDIT:Wrong tag

 xole wrote:
So...it doesn't help the story to come together? It doesn't show, say, who would have been more likely to do the provoking?

That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, by the way. Good style on that one.

EDIT:Wrong tag

 xole wrote:
To me, to establish a case for self defense, you would want to show that there was something to defend from. Michael McAverage attacking* someone for no reason doesn't make any sense. We know Martin attacked* Zimmerman, but we don't know any potential reasons why without his history.

You said it right here. If we already know that martin attacked zimmerman, why doesn't matter. Self defense is based only on what zimmerman percieved and if we think it was reasonable. Why martin attacked doesn't change whether or not zimmerman was reasonable in defending himself.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.

Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.

Incorrect. It points to what TM actually did.
Almost not needed at this point as the State hasn't come close to proving Murder 2.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.

Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.

Incorrect. It points to what TM actually did.
Almost not needed at this point as the State hasn't come close to proving Murder 2.

No, it doesn't.

Your past doesn't actually determine your actions, your actions determine your actions. The "type" of person you are is not valid evidence for what you did on a particular night. This is like justice system 101.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's the same principle behind not allowing the defense to talk about how many sex partners a rape victim had before the incident. They could have had a million, it doesn't actually establish their actions on THAT night.

Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.

 Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.

In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.

Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.

So the character of people involved with a possible crime doesn't matter at all? Interesting...

 Hulksmash wrote:
So the character of people involved with a possible crime doesn't matter at all? Interesting...

If by "doesn't matter at all" you mean "doesn't matter to this case", yes. It's not like I've already explained some circumstances in which this evidence WOULD be admissible or anything.

But by all means, take something I said and act like it's my entire driving philosophy.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.

In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.

Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.

Thats your strawman not mine. I'm arging its an indicator, just like the prosecutor is doing RIGHT NOW but calling up his former professors, kindergarten teachers and that little girl he once bought lemonade from...

Remember guys, if John Wayne Gacy is coming at you and you bust a cap in his ass with your neener, his serial killing ways can't be admitted under the RT rule...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.

In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.

Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.

Thats your strawman not mine. I'm arging its an indicator, just like the prosecutor is doing RIGHT NOW but calling up his former professors, kindergarten teachers and that little girl he once bought lemonade from...

I already explained why zimmerman's past is important and martin's past is not to this particular case and why the judge in this case barred martin history. You seem to have decided to just ignore all of that. That's fine, but don't keep poking at it asking for an explanation if you're just going to ignore the ones I give.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, the judge in this case barred that evidence. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want, but you're going to have to explain what you know that the judge doesn't.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
So the character of people involved with a possible crime doesn't matter at all? Interesting...

If by "doesn't matter at all" you mean "doesn't matter to this case", yes. It's not like I've already explained some circumstances in which this evidence WOULD be admissible or anything.

But by all means, take something I said and act like it's my entire driving philosophy.

Alternately, before we consider locking a guy up for 30 years (even with an aggravated manslaughter conviction vice Murder 2), the defense showing that Martin had a tendency to address certain situations a certain way could help explain why the situation was the way it was the night Zimmerman capped him. The defense needs to show Zimmerman had a legitimate reason to fear severe injury or death to prove self defense. Since there are no eye witnesses to the actual start of the scuffle except Zimmerman, showing a pattern of behavior on Martin's part could very well help Zimmerman.

I strongly suspect if Martin had been captain of the chess club and volunteered at the local homeless shelter and attended religious services 3 times a week and had NEVER been in any confrontation in his life, the Prosecution would have wanted to show that in order to cast doubt on ZImmerman's story of how the altercation began.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.

In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.

Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.

Thats your strawman not mine. I'm arging its an indicator, just like the prosecutor is doing RIGHT NOW but calling up his former professors, kindergarten teachers and that little girl he once bought lemonade from...

I already explained why zimmerman's past is important and martin's past is not to this particular case and why the judge in this case barred martin history. You seem to have decided to just ignore all of that. That's fine, but don't keep poking at it asking for an explanation if you're just going to ignore the ones I give.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, the judge in this case barred that evidence. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want, but you're going to have to explain what you know that the judge doesn't.

NO. The judge only barred it in opening comments. To Quote Merlin in Excalibur: "You'll have to do better than that. "

 Frazzled wrote:

NO. The judge only barred it in opening comments.

Are you kidding me?

This whole conversation started when someone asked why they were being barred from talking about martin's past.

If your answer was "they aren't", you should have dropped that PAGES ago instead of wasting our time.

Sorry if you're not up to speed on the latest hep cat gossip there RT...