Zimmerman Stuns Court, Waives Right to 'Stand Your Ground' Hearing in Trayvon Martin Case (gun owners, laws)
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.
I used to work in a minimum security prison and the accommodations are actually pretty good - the inmates had access to a complete gym - so it might work out pretty well for him.
Better than sitting on his ass while his gullible supporters pay for his groceries.
He could come out looking better (and be healthier) than when he goes in.
It's actually a question of RELEVANCE. Did Zimmerman know Trayvon prior to seeing him that night, and did he recognize him that night when he saw him??? NO!! He did NOT.. Therefore, how would any past record regarding Trayvon in terms of a robbery several years ago be relevant in THIS CASE??? It wouldn't be. Unless Zimmerman is a psychic and could look in his crystal ball and read the school records. Or unless someone had told Z about any connection Trayvon might have to a robbery, for which he was not charged, prior to the night Zimmerman saw him.
There will be a battle over how much, if any, of that information will be allowed in the trial, and that battle will take place in pre-trial hearings.
ETA: It does NOT take an expert to know that kids today do not "Snith" on each other. So the answer is that a "typical teen" most likely would refuse to give up the name of someone who had asked them to "hold" some objects for them.
TM was killed in Feb. 2012. The jewelry incident was in 2011. So the timing wasn't 'several' years apart.
As you're fond of saying, gz's credibility is an issue. What he said in his phone call and to the cops is an issue. Whether tm's behavior that night could have aroused suspicion in a reasonable person, was he someone who'd try to avoid confrontation, throw the 1st punch, beat someone, say things gz claims he said, etc. relate to gz's credibility imo. I know the parties will battle over how much of tm's school records and other info will be allowed.
Is 'snith' slang for snitch or snitches get stitches ? I suppose if a 'typical' 16 year-old didn't have to worry about a school cop bringing in parents, or notifying the real cops, or an investigation into the jewelry, there'd be no reason other than being an honest person to snitch.
TM was killed in Feb. 2012. The jewelry incident was in 2011. So the timing wasn't 'several' years apart.
As you're fond of saying, gz's credibility is an issue. What he said in his phone call and to the cops is an issue. Whether tm's behavior that night could have aroused suspicion in a reasonable person, was he someone who'd try to avoid confrontation, throw the 1st punch, beat someone, say things gz claims he said, etc. relate to gz's credibility imo. I know the parties will battle over how much of tm's school records and other info will be allowed.
Is 'snith' slang for snitch or snitches get stitches ? I suppose if a 'typical' 16 year-old didn't have to worry about a school cop bringing in parents, or notifying the real cops, or an investigation into the jewelry, there'd be no reason other than being an honest person to snitch.
Wow! You got me! "Snith" is an unforgivable typo.
Kids today do not "snitch" on each other; that's the best way there is to be a complete outcast, and kids are very cognizant of what other kids will say about them and how they will be treated. Peer pressure is huge for teenagers.
So you think that being called in by a school authority ONE TIME and having his backpack searched and finding a screw driver and jewelry in it is an indication of whether or not he was someone who'd try to avoid confrontation, or throw the 1st punch, or beat someone? The question really is did Trayvon have a reputation for violence, was he known at school or in his community as a violent person?
May be that the pre-trial hearing regarding the admissibility of such evidence will be reported by journalists or televised and we can all get a glimpse of how much of that "evidence" is considered relevant.
90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.--
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.--Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.--
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
Kids today do not "snitch" on each other; that's the best way there is to be a complete outcast, and kids are very cognizant of what other kids will say about them and how they will be treated. Peer pressure is huge for teenagers.
So you think that being called in by a school authority ONE TIME and having his backpack searched and finding a screw driver and jewelry in it is an indication of whether or not he was someone who'd try to avoid confrontation, or throw the 1st punch, or beat someone? The question really is did Trayvon have a reputation for violence, was he known at school or in his community as a violent person?
May be that the pre-trial hearing regarding the admissibility of such evidence will be reported by journalists or televised and we can all get a glimpse of how much of that "evidence" is considered relevant.
90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.--
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.--Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.--
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
I don't make fun of typos. Because you had 'snith' in quotes, I thought it might be slang for snitches get stitches.
The jewelry itself isn't related to the 1st punch or aggressiveness. Other aspects of tm's suspensions, social media, might be relevant and admissible. Even if the judge rules none of it is before trial, testimony during trial can cause a revisit to the issue.
To be a snitch, doesn't the snitcher have to know or suspect that the snitchee did something wrong. If tm thought his friend bought the jewelry as a surprise gift for his mother, would giving the name be snitching. I think those who defend tm not 'snitching' are admitting he knew or suspected he was part of a crime.
I don't think the screwdriver in his backpack is important. Isn't that something most typical teens carry around ?
I don't make fun of typos. Because you had 'snith' in quotes, I thought it might be slang for snitches get stitches.
The jewelry itself isn't related to the 1st punch or aggressiveness. Other aspects of tm's suspensions, social media, might be relevant and admissible. Even if the judge rules none of it is before trial, testimony during trial can cause a revisit to the issue.
To be a snitch, doesn't the snitcher have to know or suspect that the snitchee did something wrong. If tm thought his friend bought the jewelry as a surprise gift for his mother, would giving the name be snitching. I think those who defend tm not 'snitching' are admitting he knew or suspected he was part of a crime.
I don't think the screwdriver in his backpack is important. Isn't that something most typical teens carry around ?
It doesn't matter what TM "thought." What he SAID was he was holding the jewelry for a friend and refused to give up that name. You can't make the kinds of assumptions you are making in court if you don't have EVIDENCE to back it up. You can't imply to the jury that TM "knew" that the friend/jewelry was involved in a crime. You must have facts, evidence, witness testimony to present to "prove" TM could have "known" what you're suggesting. And WHY would the friend come forward now and say, yes, I stole that jewelry, asked TM to hold it, and told him where I got it. The friend would then be charged with robbery or theft or something. TM is dead. You can't put "thoughts" into his head now. Also, has the owner of the stolen jewelry positively identified that jewelry as the jewelry which was stolen?
"Even if the judge rules none of it is before trial, testimony during trial can cause a revisit to the issue." Like what? Can you give an example of what could be said or what could cause the Court to reconsider the issue of the search of TM's backpack and the items in it or other information in his school records during the trial?
Also, how does someone prove what "most typical teens" do or carry in their backpacks? You can't just throw that kind of language out in a trial without at least some expert first testifying to their opinion based on studies, etc as a foundation....that language (most typical teens) is absurdly general with no basis in fact.
Again, if the defense wants to "prove" TM was a violent person and likely to attack Zimmerman, then the question goes to TM's reputation in the community. That means what people who knew him and were part of the school community as well as the community where he lived thought of him....his reputation. Did people who knew him say he was a violent person? If he had a reputation as a violent person and was known to get in fights quickly, I'd think that the school would have had a record of his violence with other students at school during school hours.
As for "social media," that's a whole can of worms which I don't think will be opened. Proving who actually said what, how much of what was said was based on hearsay, etc, etc.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 05-03-2013 at 10:50 AM..
Also, how does someone prove what "most typical teens" do or carry in their backpacks? You can't just throw that kind of language out in a trial without at least some expert first testifying to their opinion based on studies, etc as a foundation....that language (most typical teens) is absurdly general with no basis in fact.
Ironic that some choose to see something nefarious about Trayvon having a screwdriver in his backpack but others on another thread think that a kid bringing a shotgun to school was a simple mistake.
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.
Or unless someone had told Z about any connection Trayvon might have to a robbery, for which he was not charged, prior to the night Zimmerman saw him. 
The question really is did Trayvon have a reputation for violence, was he known at school or in his community as a violent person? 
