Trayvon Martin's Gun and Pot photos

Back to the subject.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...man-trial?lite

So this Judge does not believe that the Jury should hear about Travon being a Pot Smoking Thug.
That is what I would call a 18 year old kid who smokes pot, brags about fighting, and jumps a guy for no other reason than he ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood.

Back to the subject.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...man-trial?lite

So this Judge does not believe that the Jury should hear about Travon being a Pot Smoking Thug.
That is what I would call a 18 year old kid who smokes pot, brags about fighting, and jumps a guy for no other reason than he ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Jackie, how do you know what happened between those two? We know Zimmerman version. All you seem to have done is repeat that as fact. Kinda like Johnnie Cochran did with OJ's version of facts!

Back to the subject.

So this Judge does not believe that the Jury should hear about Travon being a Pot Smoking Thug. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That's not my understanding of her ruling. She was ruling on comments during jury voir dire ONLY ... in the presentation of the attorneys to the jury. The judge is withholding her ruling on the admissibility of the evidence until the trial to see what evidence has actually been introduced.

Oh, and thank you for getting back on topic.

Jackie, how do you know what happened between those two? We know Zimmerman version. All you seem to have done is repeat that as fact. Kinda like Johnnie Cochran did with OJ's version of facts! Originally Posted by WTF

You do know the defendant walked in that case, don't you? That means Zimmerman walks.

So this Judge does not believe that the Jury should hear about Travon being a Pot Smoking Thug.
That is what I would call a 18 year old kid who smokes pot, brags about fighting, and jumps a guy for no other reason than he ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The texts and photos become relevant - and therefore admissible - if the DA tries to paint Trayvon as a nice, law-abiding, non-violent kid. It is rebuttal evidence.

It the DA never tries to make that case - if he or she never tries puts on character witness who say that Trayvon was peaceful, law-abiding, and incapable of attacking Zimmerman, then the defense has no grounds for introducing the gun, the texts, or the drug use.

I'm still trying to figure out where being a "thug" is a capital offense. I guess that it's comforting to think that real life is like a movie with Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood in it but the adults of you in here know better.

Don't rule out teenage male bullshit, either. Unless it can be proven that he was a gang member there's a good chance that some/much of the cell phone "evidence" can be shown to be the bragging of a teen male trying to impress his buddies.

Who knows, maybe someday someone will make a few of the "law'n'order" gurus around here eat their words (maybe coated with a little something extra).

Florida Evidence 90-404:
(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.--"(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity."

NYer is partially correct, but Florida is similar to many jurisdictions, including the Feds, allowing extraneous matters prior to the alleged crime to be introduced ... and commonly used to prove "intent" or "mental state of mind" which nudges right up to "propensity" that is prohibited under Florida law.

That opportunity goes both ways ... prosecution or the defense, but if the defense "opens that door" they can rebut with what a "good boy" Martin was and what a "hot head" is Zimmerman.

Furthermore, contrary to some assertions on here, there should have been a lot of "science" from Martin's body and clothes that would "tell a story" of what happened "out there" ... more than one might think would be available, if he and his belongings were properly processed with the evidence properly perserved .. which was not the case in OJ's case.

Don't rule out teenage male bullshit, either. Unless it can be proven that he was a gang member there's a good chance that some/much of the cell phone "evidence" can be shown to be the bragging of a teen male trying to impress his buddies.
Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Texting, face pages, and emails are often difficult to chew or swallow, but the challenge is to prove "who" actually published them and the validity of the copy actually published. The "data" is the evidence and the screen shot is a copy. It is not as easy as one thinks, and not nearly as easy as professed on TV.

I'm still trying to figure out where being a "thug" is a capital offense. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

I don't think there is a "capital offense" involved in the Zimmerman case. He is charged with 2nd degree murder, and in Florida I think that is a possible life sentence.

You do know the defendant walked in that case, don't you? That means Zimmerman walks. Originally Posted by ExNYer

OJ walked so that means Zimmerman walks? I guess in a few years Zimmerman will go to Vegas and get 10-30 years like OJ! What it means is that Zimmerman better shit his pants if he has a mostly black jury is wtf it means.

What it means is that Zimmerman better shit his pants if he has a mostly black jury is wtf it means. Originally Posted by WTF

for sure on that.

.....but his lawyers wouldn't allow that in jury selection.

Of course, race is a part of life. But race does not play a roll in every decision in life, nor does race play a part in each of life's events.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

Question for everyone, which has probably been asked or brought up before -- would Zimmerman have followed Martin and made a 911 call if Martin had been a white boy in a polo shirt? Doubtful, to say the least. Does this qualify Zimmerman as a racist? Also doubtful in my opinion. Was he guilty of stereotyping Martin? Guilty, for what that's worth.

I'd be willing to bet that I've followed the case more closely than you have. Exactly what "facts", in your opinion, do I have incorrect? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Go back and look at the statements you made in the post that I quoted. He wasn't drinking Gatorade. He had Arizona Ice Tea. The picture I saw of the can looked unopened. I don't believe he ate the Skittles either.

Then go listen to the Zim's 911 tape and figure out your other errors.

...

Unless someone can prove that Zimmerman made a verbal threat or brandished the gun he is in the clear. Using the gun is a matter of degree. If Zimmerman had killed Trayvon with a bottle, a knife, a rock, his bare hands, or the gun against an attack by Trayvon makes no difference to the outcome. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I've also heard that even if all that worked in Trayvon's favor, if he was beating Zimmerman up and Zimmerman had yelled for help FOURTEEN times, Trayvon was obligated get off him and stop his attack. And that him not stopping and escalating the beatdown but bashing Zim's head on the pavement was justification enough for Zimmerman to protect himself with deadly force.

But I'm not an attorney.

Of course, race is a part of life. But race does not play a roll in every decision in life, nor does race play a part in each of life's events.

In typical WTF fashion you make a statement that is sufficiently general enough to prevent credible dispute and pretend (or proffer) your statement in a lame-ass effort to prove your point ... like you know what the fuck you are talking about.
.....

One who tries to label others in order to mask his own fatal flaws or divert attention from your own prejudices. Originally Posted by LexusLover

What you are seeing is a WTF handtied by a mod and not able to call people who disagree with him "racists."

LL, so the judges ruling is that Trayvon's drug use can't be brought up in the Voir Dire and not the trial? Why would a judge do that? I would think it would be both or none.

What you are seeing is a WTF handtied by a mod and not able to call people who disagree with him "racists."

. Originally Posted by gnadfly

No I can still call you racist fuckers racist.

But I should be more selective with my word selection when making fun of you Latent racist. Mel Brooks humor is no longer politically correct in this day and age.

No damn wonder you are having trouble with this case, you can't even read between the written word worth a flip!