Trayvon Martin's Gun and Pot photos

Hello SSOB, calling other people racist are we? Tsk! Tsk! You have balls, I'll give you that. Not much in the way of penis but you have balls.

That choice between a black kid in a hoodie or a white kid in a polo shirt is a Hobson's choice. Only two choices that are both extremes. Now it was trying to rain so the polo shirt is out. How about a white kid in a hoodie? Would he have seemed suspicious? How about a black kid in a sports coat? We can't leave out an Asian kid in an.......Hawaiian shirt or a Hispanic kid in a speedo. I'll ask our expert on all things race if I left anyone out. Did I, SSOB?

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. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Without KNOWING what direct evidence there is of "drug use" and without knowing what countering evidence there may be (like toxicology reports from the autopsy on Martin) ... there are predicate requirements for the admissability of certain evidence (which that is) ... that must be satisfied ... typically at trial ... a judge will excuse the Jury from the courtroom and have a hearing on that evidence, and at that time the Judge already has heard evidence on other aspects of the situation as a back drop.

In the meantime the Judge says: I don't want to hear anything about it from the lawyers or witnesses until I have heard the evidence I want to hear on the issue... aka "judicial economy"!

The most common area is criminal histories. There are certain requirements that must be met to prove up prior convictions. Sometimes they turn on extremely "technical" grounds. Whoever has the burden of proof must satisfy those requirements to the Judge before the convictions are admissible, so in the meantime the Judge orders everyone to "shut up" about it. To do so is a ground for mistrial ... and probably will be reversed on appeal if not granted.

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1052949996] That choice between a black kid in a hoodie ... QUOTE]

.. I'm not arguing with what you are saying ....

Most of this crap about black vs. white was CREATED by a news organization re-creating a tape of a 911 call with the dispatcher and dropping out part of the conversation in the tape to make it sound like Zimmerman was "profiling" ....

he was in reality answering questions asked by the dispatcher, which are asked 1000's of times a day .... the POINT IS .. the FACT that the dispatcher HAD TO ASK indicates that Zimmerman WAS NOT PROFILING ... otherwise she would have already known his RACE! Remember, the dispatcher was going to send a unit to the location .... the dispatcher has to have a physical description of the "suspicious" person .. and that description NECESSARILY involves skin color ..and even "tone", along with dress ... the description procedurally begins from the top (hair) down to the shoes ... and ... is the arriving officer looking for a male or female or black person or white person ... clothes, etc.

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. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Wow!! What a huge error!! Arizona Ice Tea instead of Gatorade!! Please forgive me.

If that is what you want to focus on you've totally missed the point.

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1052950031]

he was in reality answering questions asked by the dispatcher, which are asked 1000's of times a day .... the POINT IS .. the FACT that the dispatcher HAD TO ASK indicates that Zimmerman WAS NOT PROFILING ... otherwise she would have already known his RACE! Remember, the dispatcher was going to send a unit to the location .... the dispatcher has to have a physical description of the "suspicious" person .. and that description NECESSARILY involves skin color ..and even "tone", along with dress ... the description procedurally begins from the top (hair) down to the shoes ... and ... is the arriving officer looking for a male or female or black person or white person ... clothes, etc. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I have no idea how you jumped from the fact that Zimmerman did not mention Martin was black to the dispatcher to the conclusion that therefore Zimmerman did not single out Martin because he was a tall black kid in a hoodie. There is no way to know what Zimmerman was thinking at the time.

I am a white guy living in a predominantly white neighborhood and if I saw a person such as Martin in the neighborhood in the middle of the night, I might do a double-take more so than if it was a white kid. Would not call 911 however, or follow him.

From what I have gathered from the various leaked tidbits, there is only one thing that really matters in this entire episode. That is, after Zimmerman turned away and headed back to his truck, did Travon jump him, take him down, and commence to beat his head into the concrete.

Every thing that preceded this, (if that is the way it went down), is a moot point.

If the Defense can place a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind concerning this one thing, then Zimmerman will be found Not Guilty.

And whether we like it or not, Travon will be put on trial as well. The defense will try to portray him as a young punk who see's beating someone's head in because he got "bumped". They will also plant that idea in the Juror's heads that Travon was indeed casing the neighborhood for later activities.

Regardless, if Zimmerman is found Not Guilty, it will be Rodney King all over again.

I wonder who will get the brick in the head this time?

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! Originally Posted by WTF

Considering you called Trayvon a "darkie" perhaps you are the racist?

From what I have gathered from the various leaked tidbits, there is only one thing that really matters in this entire episode. That is, after Zimmerman turned away and headed back to his truck, did Travon jump him, take him down, and commence to beat his head into the concrete.

Every thing that preceded this, (if that is the way it went down), is a moot point.

If the Defense can place a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind concerning this one thing, then Zimmerman will be found Not Guilty.

And whether we like it or not, Travon will be put on trial as well. The defense will try to portray him as a young punk who see's beating someone's head in because he got "bumped". They will also plant that idea in the Juror's heads that Travon was indeed casing the neighborhood for later activities.

Regardless, if Zimmerman is found Not Guilty, it will be Rodney King all over again.

I wonder who will get the brick in the head this time? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Any proof besides Zimmerman's statement he was still not in pursuit of Martian ? Bullies don't usually give up on their target.

I have no idea how you jumped from the fact that Zimmerman did not mention Martin was black to the dispatcher to the conclusion that therefore Zimmerman did not single out Martin because he was a tall black kid in a hoodie. There is no way to know what Zimmerman was thinking at the time.

I am a white guy living in a predominantly white neighborhood and if I saw a person such as Martin in the neighborhood in the middle of the night, I might do a double-take more so than if it was a white kid. Would not call 911 however, or follow him. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So, what?

Every day in trials in this country one's mental state is being proven ... in fact it is MANDATORY in criminal trials, because the prosecution must prove some level of mental state for the defendant to be found guilty of a crime and they do it 99% of the time by circumstantial evidence (which is describing the actions and reactions) ...

the same applies to self-defense ... or protection of third-parties ... the defense must prove a "state of mind" in both actors in that scenario ...

It's easy for me to make the connection based on an UNEDITTED 911 recording ...

... as for your distorted version of the events ...

.."that therefore Zimmerman did not single out Martin because he was a tall black kid in a hoodie."

In REALITY ... Martin singled himself out ... by ... apparently being the only one walking around in the complex at night (there is no report of anyone else walking around in the vicinity at least .. or they would be a witness near the incident) AND he was wearing a "hoodie" ....

... if YOU cannot know what ZIMMERMAN was thinking ... and if you are correct ....

... then NEITHER YOU nor ANYONE ELSE can say Zimmerman had racial motives.

In my opinion based on listening to MANY 911 calls on recordings ... had Zimmerman been "singling out a Black man" ... he would have initially called in informing the dispatcher that there was a "Black guy" (or something similar) walking suspiciously through an apartment complex. He didn't do that. And the dispatcher had to ask him whether he were black or white. That is some evidence he wasn't "profiling" black people. (Note: from all that has been reported there was only Martin walking around.)

Identification of race to a dispatcher who will be DISPATCHING officers to a scene is critical for the efficient handling of the incident as the officer is arriving ... also critical is gender, hair color, cap/hood/hat cover, clothing, and shoes....height, weight, blah, blah. Otherwise the arriving officer would have NO CLUE who he was supposed to be contacting as the complainant and who the complainant was identifying as the actor that was behaving suspiciously ... and if upon arriving the officer saw someone running from the scene ... he would not know if that person was involved in the incident ... or just a scared bystander. ...

You mean they didn't teach you that in Graduate school?

"I am a white guy living in a predominantly white neighborhood and if I saw a person such as Martin in the neighborhood in the middle of the night, ..." and

IF you were a "black guy" living in a predominantly Black neighborhood and if YOU saw a person such as Zimmerman in the neighborhood in the middle of the night, ... you might do a double take also .... right? ..... or

IF you were a "black guy" living in a predominantly Black neighborhood and if YOU saw a WHITE person in the neighborhood in the middle of the night, ... you might do a double take also .... right? .... OR

IF you were a "black guy" living in a predominantly Black neighborhood and if YOU saw a BLACK person walking around in the neighborhood in the middle of the night, ... you might do a double take also .... right? ... BECAUSE ...

statistically (%) there is more Black on Black crime than Black on White crime or White on Black crime ... right?

You mean they didn't teach you that in Graduate school?

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

But the toxicology report from the autopsy is part of the evidence that will be introduced.

Without KNOWING what direct evidence there is of "drug use" and without knowing what countering evidence there may be (like toxicology reports from the autopsy on Martin) ... there are predicate requirements for the admissability of certain evidence (which that is) ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1

Let me pose a hypothesis; at what point would Trayvon had committed a crime if he was the one that was armed and Martin was not.

An armed Martin is walking around in a neighborhood that he does not live in and has bought a drink and candy. No crime committed.
Zimmerman is following a young man who he thinks is acting suspicious. No crime committed.
Zimmerman decides to call the police operator and tells her about the suspicious person in his neighborhood. The operator tells him (with the force of an suggestion) not to follow that person any more and a car will be dispatched. No crime has been committed.
Zimmerman follows Trayvon on foot. Trayvon notices that he is being followed by someone. No crime committed.
Trayvon turns around and approaches Martin demanding to know why he (Zimmerman) is following him. Zimmerman announces he is part of the neighborhood watch (open to debate whether he was or wasn't but essentially what happened) and would like to know what Trayvon is up to and where does he live. No crimes have been committed.
Trayvon now has a choice as does Zimmerman. Trayvon could say none of your business, turn around, and goes home. Trayvon could be respectful of the "nieghborhood watch" and answer the questions and tell Martin that he is going home. Trayvon could become hostile at either the prospect of being approached or of getting caught. He could attack Martin with either his fists or his voice. A crime has now been committed Trayvon.
Before Trayvon answers, Martin could try to "apprehend" Trayvon by laying hands on him. This is not within the perview of the neighborhood watch and Martin has committed a crime.

The point made is this; no crime was committed by either party until someone either laid hands on someone else or issued a realistic threat. The gun has no bearing at this point. From the evidence that we have been privvy to Trayvon first put his hands on George Zimmerman. Trayvon is the offender and Zimmerman is the defender. It would be expected, but not known, that Trayvon offered a threat of physical force which is also a crime. Zimmerman following is not a crime, Zimmerman saying he was part of the neighborhood watch is not a crime, Zimmerman not following the suggestions of the police operator is not a crime, and Zimmerman approaching Trayvon (other than making a threat) is not a crime.

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

+1 Exactly!!!!

Ida Bell you sluggard You keep on pretending my family is the same as yours. Living in the past when your (hole) family was a gang bang every night. The accumulative IQ of your group is 120. Your fat ass has been handed around so much they have to fist it so you can get any pleasure from it anymore. A sad example of a boy from Chicago. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Just sayin’, Ekim the Inbred, if you don’t locate your mama/sister/cousin/wife before she pulls a “Junction City Train” with the Big Red One stationed at Fort Riley, she’ll have a “big red one.” After the Big Red One, your dumb-hayseed, genetically-defective, inbred-ass will forever be “number two,” Ekim the Inbred!

Considering you called Trayvon a "darkie" perhaps you are the racist? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Perhaps you do not understand Mel Brooks use of the 'n' word in Blazing Saddles. He was making fun of Latent racist, such as yourself.

I have already said somewhere in this thread that we all are racist to a degree, I included myself in that.

So what gnadfly and now you are having trouble with is the Latent part.

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

If there can be a scientifically determined causal relationship and/or connection between "pot smoking" and the alleged events then I would say the "pot smoking" is relevant .... the presence of any other chemicals would have to be equally related before it would be admissible ...

in other words ... if someone has medical/scientific evidence that "pot smoking" causes aggression and/or a loss of self-control to the point of being unable to restrain one from taking aggressive or violent actions ... then I can see it being admitted.

My understanding is that such evidence does not exist in the medical/scientific disciplines .. and any such "evidence" if it currently exists would have to be based on statistics as opposed to some anatomically identifiable function of the body affected by chemicals that would "cause" such a reaction in Martin.

That is essentially the basis for polygraphs NOT being admitted.

Hello SSOB, calling other people racist are we?
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I've called folks that think they aren't racist, latent racist. Just like I've called you a latent homosexual.

Tsk! Tsk! You have balls, I'll give you that. Not much in the way of penis but you have balls.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yet another attempt to see another man's junk JD?

If there can be a scientifically determined causal relationship and/or connection between "pot smoking" and the alleged events then I would say the "pot smoking" is relevant .... the presence of any other chemicals would have to be equally related before it would be admissible ...

in other words ... if someone has medical/scientific evidence that "pot smoking" causes aggression and/or a loss of self-control to the point of being unable to restrain one from taking aggressive or violent actions ... then I can see it being admitted.

My understanding is that such evidence does not exist in the medical/scientific disciplines .. and any such "evidence" if it currently exists would have to be based on statistics as opposed to some anatomically identifiable function of the body affected by chemicals that would "cause" such a reaction in Martin.

That is essentially the basis for polygraphs NOT being admitted. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It does show a proclivity to violate established laws.

Anybody want to debate that jury selection is going to be kinda important? Or do ya'll think the jury will just read this thread in the Sandbox and then make up their mind?