Judge Rules Defense Can Use Trayvon Martin Tweets 848
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'?'"
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Interesting)
That's true about the defendant, but we're talking about the victim here. It's much easier to get character evidence entered about the victim than it is about the defendant.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:0, Interesting)
Yeah, because everyone who listens to hip-hop or trains MMA is a violent thug! Maybe he played some violent video games too! They should dig up his Call Of Duty account and see how many kills he has! Or maybe he has an Orc character in that satanic WoW game!
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.
What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him.
Zimmerman has always articulated from day one that he shot to stop the active attack. That he only got out of his car to give the relevant information to the 911 dispatcher of Martin's whereabouts. That Martin came back to confront ZImmerman, threw a punch and continued to beat him while he was supine on the ground. Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.
Zimmerman has never said that he shot Martin for looking suspicious. The media has latched onto speculation --as if it were fact-- that ZImmerman merely shot someone for walking around. The media has put forth the accusation that Stand Your Ground laws allow for this to happen legally when nothing could be further from the truth.
P.S. Guess which state was the first to enact a Stand Your Ground Law? California. Yes. Hardly the red state bastion of the NRA.
Here's a very informative video about what Stan Your Ground laws are really about: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/stand-ground-laws-self-defense-or-license-kill [cato.org]
Re:Miranda Rights v2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
And maybe you got rid of your best candidate because of prejudice based on what he does in his private life. You're part of the worst scum of this Earth. Fuck you.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Interesting)
A bit hyperbolic, but it touches on several essentials. The causes of Martin's suspensions have been revealed repeatedly, and they are not violence related, but some people on Slashdot are willing to post speculations that there's something beyond that. When you keep looking for the thing that bolsters your opinion, and it's just not there, just maybe it's time to question your opinon instead of doubling down on it.
Beyond that, there was a point where the police locally knew a few things and only those things, for certain. At later times, other facts came to light, and the situation became more complex, but in the first few hours after the shooting, there was a definite point where all the police had to go on were these facts:
1. They knew they had a homicide, and who did it.
2. They knew that the person who did it was claiming it was justifiable self defense.
3. They knew there were major flaws in the shooter's story - changes in the range the encounter supposedly took place at, changes in what the suspect said to dispatch, what he claimed dispatch said to him, how the deceased person had attacked him, what blows were thrown, what blows landed where, and so on. They knew that their possible murderer had repeatedly changed his story.
So why didn't they charge him right there and then?
All debate about what has been revealed weeks or months later ignores this simple question. There was a definite point where George Zimmerman was a strong suspect for a charge of 1st degree murder. Most detectives would have been willing to insist on holding him for at least the standard 24, and go before a judge to apply for a warrent to search Mr. Zimmerman's home. Many would have been willing to get the judge up at 3 AM, if needed, on the strength of what they had at that particular point. Why not in the Martin case?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hard to say? (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, if someone gets in my personal space while carrying a gun on their person, then they're fair game, right?
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:4, Interesting)
Florida has lower standards now than Tombstone.
Nonsense. Even now, Florida has something like 40 justifiable homicides [politifact.com] a year by civilians. That's roughly 1 such death per 400,000-500,000 people. It's just not significant for a problem that is supposedly "running amok".
Even at Tombstone's peak population of something like 14,000 people, that would have been a justifiable homicide every three decades.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:*walks on by* (Score:4, Interesting)
There have been at least 2 witnesses come forward and said they saw martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, and the video the police took clearly shows blood and torn skin on the BACK of Zimmerman's head. Add to this it was over 85 degrees that night yet he was bundled up in a black hoodie and the reason he was in FLA in the first place was getting kicked out of his former school for theft?
Well, first off, just because he was getting his ass kicked in no way means he did not provoke the confrontation to begin with. You don't get to start a fight and then claim self defense.
The 2 witnesses, IIRC, saw someone bashing someone else's head against the ground, and the defense has spun that to be Martin on top.
Maybe he was wearing a hoodie because it was raining. Maybe he was wearing a hoodie because it's a stupid teen fashion thing and he'd wear the same damn clothes whether it was 10 or 100 degrees. But what the hell does that have to do with whether or not Zimmerman started things? Nothing, that's what. It's a red herring meant to play on racial stereotypes.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)