IF that’s true I just lost any sympathy I might have had for Trayvon.
The street fighting is excluded, the film of the homeless man being beaten will come into evidence.
Judge agrees to inquire whether Prosecutors buried evidence. A surprise witness at the hearing exposed a conspiracy to conceal discovery by the Prosecution. By the way, apparently Trayvon was into kiddie porn from the naked picture on his cellphone.
I’d appreciate a link. I have this: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/05/28/live-blog-zimmermans-last-pre-trial-battle
9:25 a.m. ET: Judge Nelson granted the prosecution’s motion to bar evidence that Martin had been in fights during opening statements, but she said it may be admissible if it becomes relevant, if the defense can authenticate it, and can overcome hearsay.
9:22 a.m. ET: The attorneys are arguing over whether the jury will hear evidence about how Martin engaged in multiple fights.
So.. if he had won, I assume you’d argue that this showed his fighting prowess. But he lost, so you argue that it shows his opportunity to learn and use the loss to his future advantage.
When either outcome supports your case, you ought to question the value of your evidence.
Don’t know if it’ll come into trial, but it will come into evidence, and be decided upon later.
A bit off topic,one thing is fairly certain, Trayvon Martin was on top, grass stains on his knees. George Zimmerman had no grass stains on his knees, so it’s unlikely he was on top. The grass stains were on the back of Z’s coat and pants.
It’s starting to look even more open and shut now than it did before. The way the media initially reported the case bordered on malpractice.
It doesn’t seem that way to me. Win or lose, Martin gets experience in street-fighting, which puts him at an advantage over Zimmerman, who lacked such experience.
I learned any number of techniques by having them used on me and losing. I learned hikkomi-gaeshi by being taken over with it (and pinned). I have a scar on my lip from being shown how you can hook off the jab without winding up.
You are comparing the wrong things. It isn’t that winning or losing both prove the outcome; it is that experience is better than no experience.
Regards,
Shodan
All I’m going to say is that America is minus one less thug and future prison inmate. Zimmerman probably saved the state thousands of dollars in taking care of illegitimate children and prison expenses. I’m going to laugh when the '92 LA riots are repeated after Zimmerman walks.
Also, had Traygone been white and Zimmerman been black, it would have never even made the news.
a predisposition toward violence against other people for no reason.
Those are very ugly sentiments, and are entirely unrelated to the question of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.
And we know this because there was such an incident in Arizona shortly after. Daniel Adkins, also Hispanic, was shot in self-defense by an African-American man. It did make some news, but only as a brief comparison case and it has since dropped out of the news completely.
What Shodan said plus what I said earlier. Street fighting is his HOBBY. If it’s true that he filmed his friends beating up a homeless man then for all intents and purposes he participated in the act. You can advice how that works into evidence since he wasn’t convicted of it.
But they are not unrelated to the political decision to take the case to trial. Alan Dershowitz went so far as to call it prosecutorial misconduct.
Probably so, but references to future illegitimate children and “Traygone” are going way too far in the other direction, that Zimmerman ought to be acquitted because of the type of person he shot, not because he’s innocent of the charges. It’s the same biased thinking that motivates those who demand that Zimmerman be convicted because of the racial characteristics of he and Martin, and not because he is actually guilty.
While I agree with this 100% I also see the need for a dissemination of information by the media and not just in the court system. Zimmerman was tarred and feathered before any information came out. This was made worse by people like Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton who turned it into a racial issue and thus created a dangerous situation beyond the court room.
The media’s coverage was shameful, as it often is when they see a chance to craft a good vs. evil narrative out of events. The early photos of Zimmerman and Martin that were used, NBC’s editing of the transcript, and ABC’s claim that no wounds were visible on Zimmerman’s head were all indicative of the media’s approach: distort coverage to serve that narrative.
And now the victim of the crime for which Zimmerman is being charged is being tarred and feathered, encouraging people like our new member, Jamie Gillis (how’s that porn career going?) gleefully cackling that a black kid is dead. All the while, I might add, whitewashing the criminal defendent’s past making him out to be some guardian angel, and not a ego-inflated cop-wannabe who thought he had carte blanche to confront whoever the fuck he wants to because he as a gun to back him up.
And that’s wrong, too, except when it’s strictly a matter of reporting the facts. One can’t be tarred and feathered with the truth.
What evidence suggests that it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin, and not vice versa?