Strictly speaking, it shouldn’t matter. But since the totality of the character of the persons involved has been dragged into the dispute, then anything which would point to Martin not being a choir boy is relevant to Zimmerman’s claims about Martin’s behavior.
He was expelled for his deeds which if the media sources are correct involved theft, graffiti and drugs. If it’s true that he liked street fights then you can add that to his list of hobbies. The judge has ruled the defense is entitled to this background information.
And what of Zimmerman’s unprovoked attacks on a police officer in the past? That counts for nothing because it was expunged? I would note that if Martin had seen his 18th birthday, he would have had an expunged record as well.
Where’s the imbalance here? Martin’s a thug because he got in trouble at school (like millions of other teens) but Zimmerman’s an angel because he was really really sorry that he punched a cop in fit of rage?
The defense is officially retarded if they plan on attacking Martin’s character, sorry. That will open a can of worms so big that they might as well have Jerry Springer preside. Maury will be the baliff.
Don’t forget slapping a girlfriend, molesting a cousin, bullying an Arab coworker, maligning Mexicans on his MySpace page, and harrassing his neighbors.
It comes down, like most things discussed in this thread, to the question of proof versus doubt. Zimmerman’s previous bad character doesn’t prove him guilty. Martin’s previous bad character does cast doubt on Zimmerman’s guilt. It is, necessarily, not an even balance. Most importantly, Martin is not on trial here, so there aren’t the same rules about what can be disclosed.
Short version - if there’s any reason to doubt that Zimmerman initiated the attack, he is probably going to be found not guilty, unless the prosecution can prove he was not in enough fear to be entitled to defend himself.
Unless Martin has gotten in trouble for being irrationally violent, no it doesn’t.
I thought you didn’t accept that random people on the Internet could decide what the jury will think? Odd that you’re doing it now.
Oh, wait, it’s not odd at all, given you’ve demonstrated that you don’t care about evidence and just want your side to win despite it, or the law, or anything resembling reason or logic.
It’s rather astonishing that you offer up this insight in a thread has already had the concept of legal sufficiency of the evidence explained repeatedly and in detail.
A jury could, indeed, develop instant antipathy to Zimmerman’s face – as it appears you have – and decide he’s a murderer without hearing any evidence. But unless they also hear evidence that, as a matter of law, is sufficient to dispel reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the crime of murder, that jury’s beliefs will not create a conviction.
And even if the judge also decides to abandon his training and his oath, Zimmerman’s appeal will undoubtedly highlight the lack of legally sufficient evidence at his trial.
If the evidence is sufficient to “dispel reasonable doubt”–a thing which is decided by the jury–then it goes without saying the beliefs won’t create a conviction.
You still don’t get it. The jury cannot simply decide that evidence reaches that standard, it has to actually reach it. They are there to decide what evidence is taken into account. So, they may ignore any or all evidence, but if there is not sufficient evidence presented to them to demonstrate guilt, they may not find it. The judge can, and will, make that decision.
No.
(emphasis added)
A matter of law is NOT decided by the jury.
The jury is the finder of fact.
ywtf: do you understand the difference between a matter of law and a matter of fact?
Sigh.
Why the sigh? Do you realise that, if there’s insufficient evidence, the judge can instruct the jury to return a Not Guilty verdict, and overturn it if they refuse? And, most importantly, that this is not some obscure hypothetical but something that occurs regularly?
Translation: “I don’t quite understand this distinction, but rather than confronting my lack of knowledge and humbly endeavoring to learn, I shall adopt a long-suffering sigh, trying to convey how much above these petty concerns I am. This will simultaneously fool the casual reader and obviate any need for me to admit the lack of knowledge.”
Jeeze, where to start with your never ending list of posting stuff that’s wrong. Zimmeran never punched a cop. There was a pushing incident with an officer. He was 20 when it happened and he was charged with “resisting officer without violence” which was waived by the judge if he entered an alcohol education program. Nothing was expunged.
I posted Martin’s failings because of your nonsensical question regarding his expulsion from school. I didn’t call him a thug. You did. Now if you look at the definition of thug it’s a person who is violent. Based on the evidence there is no doubt Martin beat Zimmerman for an extended period of time. That is what is important in the trial. And as a matter of law the accused can introduce evidence in his defense. In this case the defense can present Martin’s desire to fight people if such evidence exists because Zimmerman is the one on trial and not Martin.
Ah, so Zimmerman didn’t really hurt the cop he assaulted so it doesn’t count as a point toward his anger management issues. Neither does his alcohol and rage counseling either, I suppose. Just an innocent series of ongoing mistakes by an upstanding member of society that doesn’t speak to a single thing about his character. Only things like writing on a school locker with a Sharpie is indicative of violent tendencies.
My nonsensical question about Martin’s expulsion was deliberate, because it’s nonsensical to bring up his expulsion in the first place. His expulsion didn’t happen on the night of the shooting; the only thing that he did on the night of the shooting was to walk somewhere that George didn’t want him to; and he got a bullet to the chest for his trouble. By the way, I love the way you claim that you don’t accuse Martin of being thug, followed by a explicit reason why he’s a thug. Classic.
Zimmerman was beaten for an extended period of time? Right … that’s otherwise referred to as getting into a fight that he instigated himself by confronting his unarmed victim with a gun, coupled with not being able to fight very well. I maintain that there’s no goddamned way on earth that Zimmerman would have left his vehicle if he wasn’t packing.
You’re right about one thing, though – it’s Zimmerman on trial, not Martin. What you’re engaging in is classic blaming the victim. That rationale is no different from, “Hey, she was wearing a miniskirt, she must have wanted it.”
No, it doesn’t point to any such thing. He wasn’t sent to anger management class.
no it was just nonsensical.
All I did was post what happened. He was expelled for for his actions. I accused him of nothing or called him names. I gave the facts.
Here again you post something that you have no evidence of. There’s no evidence he attempted to confront Martin. There is no evidence he tried to get into a fight. In fact, the evidence shows he avoided direct contact with Martin. He could have done both when Martin was at his truck. He could have legally shot Martin when first attacked.
Martin had all the time needed to go home. He had a phone and could have called the police if he was afraid. He did neither of these things but instead goes back to the area where Zimmerman was and deliberately confronted him. We have the testimony of both Zimmerman and DD that he instigated the conversation and nowhere during that conversation does Zimmerman threaten him. DD thought he was fighting and didn’t call the police. Why? If she thought Martin was afraid of Zimmerman that should have been her immediate response. Apparently it doesn’t seem unusual for Martin to get into fights.
The evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. That makes Zimmerman the victim.
I’m not even going to go into all the shit you’re making up and calling it undisputed truth. If we’re both being speculative, at least I admit it.
And I’d say the fact that Martin is dead and Zimmerman is on trial makes your last statement something out of bizzaro world.