Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Communications Social Networks The Courts Your Rights Online

Judge Rules Defense Can Use Trayvon Martin Tweets 848

Posted by timothy
from the if-you-cannot-or-will-not-afford-an-attorney dept.
theodp writes "The NY Times reports a judge in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman has ruled that Trayvon Martin's school and social media records should be provided to the defense. Judge Debra S. Nelson said Martin's Twitter, Facebook and school records were relevant in the self-defense case. In those instances, showing whether a victim 'had an alleged propensity to violence' or aggression is germane, the judge said. The defense also got permission for access to the social media postings of a Miami girl who said she was on the phone with Martin just before the shooting. Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules Defense Can Use Trayvon Martin Tweets

Comments Filter:
  • by Mr_DW (894313) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @02:50PM (#41715923) Homepage
    Okay so you say "Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"' And FTFH "Judge Debra S. Nelson said Martin's Twitter, Facebook and school records were relevant in the self-defense case." Miranda is for the accused. Basically your snide comment makes your headline look dumb.
  • by Pinhedd (1661735) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @02:50PM (#41715931)

    The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.

  • by porges (58715) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @02:55PM (#41715951) Homepage

    That refers to statements you make to the police after being arrested, not to previous statements.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20, 2012 @03:05PM (#41716023)

    This is definately a "blame the victim" move... Pretty low for the courts.

    I don't see what good it would do? Unless the kid was bragging about breaking into houses or getting into fights, there's not much gonna clear the guy. In fact, if the kid tweets about being followed once before, even if he's upset about it, then it's only going to backfire.

    But he was bragging. Bragging about punching bus drivers in the face. He was also seen in YouTube videos refereeing Fight Club style fights.

    You can read some of his tweets here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/

    And if you think someone if blaming the victim, you're right. They are blaming Zimmerman for defending himself. Read the NYT article carefully. Every article from the NYT and most media outlets always make reference to Trayvon being unarmed as if that means you should never be shot or be the recipient of deadly force. The also say Trayvon "hurt" Zimmerman's head. Hurt? Hurt is when you trip and skid your knee. Hurt is not what happens when someone is slamming your head into a concrete pavement.

    The courts have *long* recognized that deadly force can be used against unarmed attacker(s) under certain conditions.

    Again, all part of the narrative put for by most media outlets --especially the anti-gun NYT-- that despise guns in the hands of civilians and those who use them for self defense.

  • by Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @03:14PM (#41716079)
    Trayvon isn't on trial, therefore his speech is not being used against him, so miranda rights are pointless
  • by Americano (920576) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @03:39PM (#41716261)

    But the jury isn't being asked to decide whether an "assault with a deadly weapon" has occurred. They're being asked to decide whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was an act of self defense (and thus unfortunate, but legal under Florida law), or an act of 2nd degree murder (and thus illegal, and carrying with it a stiff prison sentence).

    Since all we have is one side of the story, past patterns of behavior on the part of Martin & Zimmerman may be very relevant in assessing the evidence. *IF* Martin has a history of breaking into houses, getting into fights, etc. etc., then it makes Zimmerman's story - that he was standing there when Martin approached him and assaulted him - somewhat more believable. If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable. Just as past patterns of behavior on Zimmerman's part are relevant - does he have a history of racism? does he have a history of assault? does he have a history of waving his gun around like a maniac? All of these things would make his story LESS believable.

    It's all relevant, because there simply aren't many facts beyond "deceased young black male, shot at close range" and the defendant's claim that "I was jumped, and acted in self defense." What a jury is being asked to decide is - is Zimmerman's story reasonable?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20, 2012 @03:39PM (#41716263)

    Fact, the young man (17 years old) was shot in the back

    Nope, shot in the chest, from the front

    and the evidence suggests he was shot at some distance, apparently trying to run for his life.

    Nope. Estimated distance was 24 to 36 inches, about arms length for someone his height.

    Their has never been a single bit of corroborating evidence that Mr. Zimmerman was in any way assaulted.

    Nope. His face and head showed signs of a severe beating and Martin's knuckles were bruised in a way consistent with punching someone in the face and head.

  • by Belial6 (794905) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @05:54PM (#41717145)
    You have it backwards. It isn't an attempt to make white people afraid of blacks, it is an attempt to get blacks outraged against whites. If it was an attempt to scare white people, they would not have misreported Trayvon as a young child. They would have made shown him as being as big and menacing as possible. Instead, the media has portrayed Martin as being a lose cannon, and Trayvon as being a defenseless child. The fact that you call him a child shows that you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. The media even went so far as to splice the audio tapes together in a way to try and vilify Martin.

    Which ever one is the aggressor (could even be both), it is clear that the media is not trying to rally white people up against blacks.
  • by redmid17 (1217076) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @06:27PM (#41717397)
    Your posts are laughable
  • by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@gmail. c o m> on Saturday October 20, 2012 @07:07PM (#41717639) Homepage

    You mean the one that *was* him, and only showed up in rightwing blogs and news. Because the media had a narrative to carry? Just like the GP said. How funny that is huh. So, has the grand parts of the media let you in on about his use of codeine, dxm, and various rounds of theft yet? Or are you still waiting for them to tell you.

  • by russotto (537200) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @07:14PM (#41717705) Journal

    Injuries do take time to show. The copious amounts of blood that should end up on you when you shoot someone directly above you while you are lying on the ground show up right away, however. This tends to lend credence to the idea that Martin was essentially executed rather than being killed in the heat of combat.

    The copious amounts of blood from a shooting tend to come out the exit wound (and there was none in this case). You get some from the entry wound, but not nearly as much. Zimmerman's jacket had four bloodstains containing Martin's DNA, so there's your blood.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @08:10PM (#41717997)

    Let's not forget this event happened several months before it was mysteriously chosen, out of hundreds of other homicide cases, to be dragged out into the national spotlight by the media, complete with misleading and inflammatory pictures and storyline.

    No it wasn't. It happened Feb 26th 2012. The national media coverage started that same day and ran almost continually for weeks.

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Saturday October 20, 2012 @09:36PM (#41718523)

    This case has always been much more about media bias than about a mexican shooting a black.

    What's rarely brought up is Zimmerman's history of violence. The guy stalked a kid and the evidence points to him chasing him and jumping him. So he chases an unarmed kid carrying an ice tea and Skittles and attacks then shoots the kid and you're only worried about the attacker? Sounds like there's a lot of bias on your side. Zimmerman has been treated more than fairly. The guy lied about how much money he had so he had a way to skip the country but they foiled his plain by making him wear an ankle bracelet. He was carrying a gun which wasn't allowed for their neighborhood watch. He wasn't scheduled to work then after the police told him not to pursue the kid he chases him and attacks him. He'll probably get off and there will be no justice because it appears he murdered the kid because he assumed a black kid in that neighborhood was up to no good. It's disgusting where they are being allowed dig through his personal e-mail to find dirt on the kid. The judge should be ashamed!

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern

Working...