It’s pretty low to make the argument that Martin deserves to be dead because he shot some homeless guys scuffling over a bicycle. (Especially since he belonged to the YouTube generation, where every unusual event must be uploaded to the internet as soon as it happens.) It’s obvious to me that O’Mara is trying to bias the jury with information he knows isn’t admissible.* But the way he’s going, it could easily turn into the kind of bias he doesn’t want.
*The mischaracterization aside, surely O’Mara knows this kind of information isn’t relevant to the trial. Right, Bricker? Is it really possible that a lawyer with O’Mara’s level of experience wouldn’t know this?
The shit the defense has tried to slander Martin with only emphasizes that depth of desperation Zimmerman’s mired in, and reflects the complete emptiness of their case.
Nothing released on the kid reveals anything except that he was a typical teenaged boy. That is why the evidence is inadmissible. Because if the defense was really going to argue that Martin posed a threat to Zimmerman because he liked guns, enjoyed organized fighting, and liked to look cool by smoking weed, then that essentially means O’Mara is labeling 99% of boys who are into these things too as probable killers. It’s as crazy as saying that because a kid wanted a BB gun on his birthday and was enrolled in a karate class at the local rec center, someone like Zimmerman is justified in killing them.
Gawking at two men fighting on the street is more in line with typical boy behavior than whatever it is Steophan and Magiver are suggesting Martin should have done. So what if the kid filmed it? Have yall seen the average stuff posted on youtube? Two homeless dudes fighting over a bike would probably count as one of the more mundane clips on that website.
Why do you continue to assert, despite having been told multiple times that you’re wrong, that Martin and Zimmerman will or should be treated equally in court?
Once again, Zimmerman is presumed innocent, so evidence that he might have committed the crime is irrelevant*. Martin is not so presumed, and evidence that he might have assaulted Zimmerman is highly relevant**, as it casts doubt on Zimmerman’s guilt, and casting doubt on it is the sole aim of the defence, and the sole requirement for him to be found not guilty.
Martin is, as you keep saying, not on trial here. I don’t think you know what that means, however. It means his innocence is not presume, as any claim of guilt can’t hurt him. Any evidence for his guilt is relevant if his guilt casts doubt on Zimmerman’s guilt, and it does not require proof to assert it.
But hey, you continue with your victim-blaming. Zimmerman was brutally attacked, but it’s his fault because his third-grade teacher didn’t like him. Gotcha.
*Except in a few, specific, situations, which have already been discussed.
**No claim is made that this particular video is evidence of that, only that, should the judge deem it to be, it is perfectly fine to use it.
It’s clear the judge vehemently disagrees with you based on her recent rulings.
If a judge kept making rulings that went against my expectations, I’d consider the possibility I don’t have a good grasp of the law. At the very least, I’d stop lecturing people like I know something they don’t.
If the judge disagrees that Zimmerman is presumed innocent, then his appeal won’t take long…
If you mean that evidence that is irrelevant is nonetheless admissible, well, yeah. That’s not the point though. Zimmerman’s past character has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise in this case. Martin’s does, to some extent - although not the extent that some people are claiming, as it can’t be decisive.
So, please cite me any ruling by the judge that contradicts what I’ve said.
OK then. A two-year-old toddler would know the prosecutions antics are unethical and ILLEGAL. The difference here is that O’Mara corrected what he said. The prosecution willfully held evidence back.
Trayvon’s beating of Zimmerman reflects his ACTUAL potential for violence. Are there pictures of Zimmerman’s wife showing he beat her?
It’s amazing that you continue to ignore the beating and the evidence that shows Martin went OUT OF HIS WAY to confront Zimmerman. When you look at his hobby of no-rules street fighting and problems in school and the need for his mother to send him to his father’s house then at some point it would sink in that Martin was a problem child with violent tendencies. There was no reason for him to confront Zimmerman. He had a cell phone in his hand and he could have done exactly what Zimmerman did and call the police regarding suspicious activity.
Ok, admit it*. Now tell me how that proves he wasn’t acting in self defence.
This case is not about whether or not Zimmerman is a nice man, or a racist, or whether he has a history of violence. It’s about whether he murdered Trayvon Martin. Your continued spouting of irrelevancies simply demonstrates that you can’t even begin to show that he did, and are putting up a smokescreen to hide that fact.
*They won’t, of course, for reasons that would be obvious if you knew anywhere near as much about the law as you claim to.
It IS the point. If it’s not admissable, it has no bearing on the case. As someone who keeps making a big deal out of his objectivity, you should understand this.
You can’t have it both ways. If Zimmerman is presumed innocent, so should all the other parties in this case. Guilt should be established based on the relevant facts and evidence. And the judge determines what this is. If I’m not allowed to hear Zimmerman’s ex-girlfriend talk about how he beat her within an inch of her life, then you shouldn’t be allowed to hear how Trayvon Martin got in trouble for smoking under the bleachers that one time in band camp.
Especially since Trayvon Martin is not the one on trial.
I hope you can now understand why I think O’Mara is acting rather incompetently, if not unethically. If someone such as yourself, possessing very limited knowledge of the law, can grasp why this kind of information is not appropriate for this case, why can’t O’Mara?
First, nobody and I mean NOBODY has said Martin deserved to die. Secondly, videotaping street fight(s), texting about fighting, and willfully engaging in the behavior as a hobby is an indication that he is drawn to the activity.
as has explained before it can’t be entered. But it can be posted for the court of public opinion. Do you have any such evidence? post it. But all we have right now is a coronor’s report that Martin wasn’t assaulted prior to the shooting and evidence that Zimmerman was assaulted.
Nope, you are flat out wrong here. The defendant is presumed innocent, as otherwise the state could wrongly punish an innocent man. There is no reason to presume anyone else innocent, as they are not under threat of punishment. I can - and indeed must - have it both ways here, if there’s any chance for justice, not only for this case, but in general.
It’s been clear from the start that you have no interest in justice, or for that matter the law, and simply want vengeance for Martin’s death, regardless of the circumstances.
The judge hasn’t allowed O’Mara to go forward with his character assassination of Trayvon Martin. Which underscores a basic fact: Trayvon Martin is not on trial here.
Which makes perfect sense to those who sincerely care about objectivity. A dead person can’t defend himself.
All that is clear is that you can’t compose a single post to me without being needlessly disrespectful. It is not that hard to post in IMHO without insulting someone’s intelligence and morality. Would you please work on this? I’d really appreciate it.
He is not on trial, he has no need to defend himself.
When someone is constantly repeating falsehoods that have been corrected, and advocating dangerous, immoral practices, why the hell shouldn’t I point that out? You have repeatedly ignored the fact that Zimmerman, not Martin, is the one who should be presumed innocent, you’ve repeatedly blamed Zimmerman for the fact that Martin attacked him, and you seem determined to find some loophole which will convict Zimmerman, law or justice, or his guilt or innocence for that matter, be damned.
If you think it’s disrespectful of me to point that out when you do it, so be it. If you take an accurate summation of your actions and views as an insult, you should reconsider them.
As a threshold matter, the information is inadmissible because Zimmerman didn’t know it. The defense can’t say, “…and as Zimmerman considered Martin’s proclivity to film fights, he thought that this didn’t bode well for his own safety…”
So the defense cannot tell the jury, in their opening statement, about this evidence.
However – if, during the course of the trial, the prosecution does something to make the evidence relevant – such as arguing that Martin was a stranger to fighting – it will then become admissible.
O’Mara has exhausted the benefit of the doubt. He knew the stuff was inadmissible the minute he looked at it, and that’s exactly why he decided to release it to the press. Not a coincidence either that he did this right after the jury summons went out. In my opinion, both he and West should be disbarred for intentionally turning this case into mockery of justice. I will be totally unsurprised if the court takes actions against them after the trial is over.
Zimmerman’s supporters probably don’t realize this, but the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has even come out against O’Mara’s conduct. There is no excuse for any of it. And the way he’s now coming out saying “oops, my bad…that video isn’t actually showing Martin’s friends beating anyone up, but Martin’s still a thug :wink wink:” not only is more proof he’s shady and insensitive, but it illustrates his carelessness as a lawyer with an image of his own to protect.
What could have possibly led him to mistake a video of two homeless men fighting over a bike as a video of multiple teenagers beating a homeless person? Surely he would have bothered to authenticate anything that looked remotely like that before declaring it as evidence, no? Is that not a reasonable expectation for lawyers in the State of Florida? That they would actually do some basic homework before leaping to conclusions about what it conveys?
In fact, “Trayvon Martin is not on trial,” is a good reason to go forward with all sorts of evidence, since the Constitutional protections associated with a criminal trial are available to a criminal defendant but not to his victim.
The judge did not admit the evidence because it lacked relevance. Since Zimmerman didn’t know it, it could not have possibly influenced his evaluation of martin’s dangerousness.
If the trial puts into issue that question, then the evidence will almost certainly become admissible.
That cite makes all the mistakes you’ve made concerning this case, and more - if that’s the sort of place you’re getting your information, it’s no wonder you’re so woefully ignorant about the law, and about what’s actually happened here.
Firstly, there’s no evidence of a racial motive at any point in this case. Secondly, it’s irrelevant whether Martin was armed. Thirdly, there’s been no breaches of the rules of evidence by the defence. Sadly, the same can’t be said for the prosecution. Fourthly, there’s no attempt to “smear” Martin. There’s been an attempt to show what sort of person he was - just the same as has been done for Zimmerman.
You need to stop lying, and focus on the facts of the case, not ridiculous speculation based on the false assumption that everyone is racist, and is out to get you. That assumption - as expressed very well in that blog - is the only genuine racism I’ve seen here.
It’s pretty bad when a colleague goes to the press and accuses you of committing one of the vilest things a lawyer can do. But this is where O’Mara is at in his career. His reputation is in the garbage now. Let’s hope Zimmerman is worth what could have otherwise been a decent legacy.