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'?'"
Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:3, Insightful)
This case has always been much more about media bias than about a mexican shooting a black.
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't recall a single story in the mainstream media that had a picture of the victim as anything other than a kid of 11 or so. They're obviously trying to generate outrage for attrcting clicks or purchases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah when the recent photos of Treyvon became available the media ignored it.
Let's face it - the reason this story even became national news was to push a gun control agenda, and to outrage blacks.
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the black person wasn't a child, and the white guy was Mexican.
Actually, the white guy is half Peruvian, and half white. Since he was described as a "white Hispanic" I guess we should describe 0bama as a "white African-American". ;-)
Who was the aggressor is hard to say, but what is clear is that this wasn't an attempt to rally white folks against blacks.
Right, instead it was an attempt to railroad Zimmerman and derail "stand your ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws. Fortunately all that looks to have backfired. I'm hopeful that Zimmerman will walk after the first "stand your ground" review, if in fact the evidence that TM initiated violence continues to be supported.
"Stand your ground" is a very reasonable doctrine, it simply allows self-defense without retreating first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It appears to be interpreted by the gun lobby as allowing killing someone after deliberately advancing towards potential harm.
If you think about it (a high standard, apparently) you will find a ton of gray area in that. There are a lot of legal, and quite responsible actions, that fall under "advancing towards potential harm".
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now a national shame is a cause celebrée and the shootist a modern day Alfred Drefus? Does that make right-wing pundits the equivalent of the intellectual circle which was rallied behind the words "J'accuse"?
Monsieur Zola, I presume?
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Zimmerman is a red herring. This would never have become a major news case if the police had done a proper investigation instead of questioning the killer for some hours and letting him go, like he'd been caught nabbing candy.
The question is why a murder case, claimed self-defence or not, was given about as much diligence as your average shoplifting.
Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be less slanted of you to say "the homicide" than "the murder."
I have followed all sorts of stuff about this case and have found two serious problems colliding here. The first is a person who was clearly frustrated with his neighborhood and the crime going on all around there generally committed by "not middle-aged white females" if you get my drift... also a person who had his own issues of self-importance and lack of good personality control. Not an ideal condition on Zimmerman's side of things. The second is a community which supports and defends all young black males with blind faith against anything and everything. (Check this story to see some obvious parallels: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/black-mob-picks-the-wrong-guy/ [wnd.com]) It does not matter to them that the deceased was a person with behavior problems of his own or that he had a documented past of similar behaviors to the ones being alleged as the cause leading to his death. The media fell into place siding with the religious support of a young black male and has blocked every attempt to update the story with truth or facts.
At the end of the day, it should be the truth and the facts which SHOULD bring a conclusion to the case. Unfortunately, other factors are in the way.
Tweeting, and posting on facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Tweeting, and posting on facebook or other social sites are forms of speech, speech is protected by the first amendment but that said it can also be used against you in any court of law. 'Anything you say can and will be used against you' so I think the current miranda rights cover that.
So nothing really ground breaking here as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook (Score:5, Informative)
That refers to statements you make to the police after being arrested, not to previous statements.
Re: (Score:3)
Miranda rights are there to protect you from self incrimination to the police. Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.
Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.
Not really. They are still subject to the rules of evidence, and can be excluded for numerous reasons.
Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
But generally not on self-incrimination grounds, which is the protection the Miranda warning about "anything you say" is about.
Re: (Score:3)
Tweeting and posting Facebook are protected free speech in the US. They are also generally public speech and can certainly be used against you as a defendant in criminal court if the content suggests illegal activity. The First Amendment protection is only against being prosecuted for the speech itself. The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination doesn't apply to such public, voluntary statements.
But, ultimately that doesn't apply here since Trayvon isn't the defendant. This is about the u
Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Just how much tweeting did Martin do after he was dead? And at what point did the police read Martin his Miranda rights? Before or after he was dead? Wait....what are you even talking about?
I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Public vs Private and Expectations (Score:3)
Re:Public vs Private and Expectations (Score:5, Insightful)
they wont see it that way... let me counter that with a different medium but similar concept..
I am hanging around a campfire with 5 of my buddies, we are all drinking. I make the comment that I cant stand my boss and I'm probably going to kill him one day. A week later he is found murdered in his home. One of my buddies drops an anonymous tip about my drunken outburst to the cops. The cops go gather witness statements from a couple of these buddies and collect enough evidence for grand jury indictment. Later all 5 people are brought into court, sworn in under oath, and made to testify as to the accounts of that night.
I cannot claim that just because I didnt get on live TV and make the announcement, I had some expectation of privacy. If these twitter and facebook posts as well as school records create a pattern of violence and other criminal activity, it garners support of the defendants claim:
"during the physical altercation with Travon Martin, Travon found the gun lodged in the waistband of George's belt and grabbed for it while saying 'you're going to die tonight mother fucker!'. During the struggle for George's life, the gun discharged once into the chest of Travon at point-blank range".
This is a statement of account that has no eye witness. The defense claims that the intent was just to detain one of the people that has been constantly breaking into the homes of the neighborhood and Travon jumped him, resulting in a struggle for life. Some of these breakins have even been home invasions while residents were home. For weeks cops have gotten there 30min too late to catch them. Many times even called in by George to come grab them. This again gives a story of a man simply trying to slow people down just enough for the cops to arrive. Its a good story. Nobody will ever know what really happened besides George and Travon. Dead people obviously cant testify.
Meanwhile the media, and the victim's family, are painting Travon as this completely innocent angel, an honor roll student, that's only crime in life was being black. So if these records show:
1. travon was a C and D student
2. Travon had a poor attendance recorc
3. Suspensions and records of disciplinary action for extreme violence
4. tweets bragging about breaking into homes
5. facebook posts bragging about, or pictures showing, stolen goods
Then although they, by themselves, do not prove travon grabbed the gun and tried to murder George; still accomplish character assasination. "If they lied about these things, then they're probably lying about everything else too, just to avoid public record of their son being a criminal". Once that opinion gets formed with the jury it will be harder to get a conviction for sure. The evidence to decide on is not whether George shot and killed Travon, he clearly did. The question is whether George's life was actually in immanent danger, justifying self defense.
Re:Public vs Private and Expectations (Score:4, Insightful)
And evidence that Trayvon was in a fight club would give credence to the zimmermans statements that trayvon was winning a physical fight with him and travon beating the hell out of him.
A fit 6'2 17 year old who fist fought for sport could credibly get an out of shape heavier man afraid for his life.
If you look at the 911 calls and peg the locations to the maps- Travon- was last seen over a minute only 300' from his house. It takes about 20 seconds to cover that distance.
Zimmerman continues talking to 911 for about a minute after last seeing Travon with no evidence he had seen Travon again yet.
Travon didn't go home. It's possible he got pissed off and returned to the scene.
The main scenario where Zimmerman could be guilty and culpable is if Travon had been hiding and zimmerman spots him and goes over and puts his hands on travon to attempt to detain him.
If on the other hand Travon got pissed that Zimmerman was following him, they exchanged heated words and travon attacked first- then zimmer man killed in self defense. You don't hit other people. You don't key their cars. If there is a problem, you call the police. Travon could have called the police and said someone was following him.
17 year olds are unfortunately adults in body but unwise children in temperament and logical thinking.
This situation is tragic but if I were on the jury, based on the evidence I've seen so far, I'd have reasonable doubt. And in america, you have to prove people are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials.
Re:Public vs Private and Expectations (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Travon didn't go home. It's possible he got pissed off and returned to the scene.
It's more likely that he was hiding because some crazy person was chasing him.
Re:Public vs Private and Expectations (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem:
You do not go on neighborhood watch with a gun. You do not attempt to apprehend people while on neighborhood watch. You are neighborhood WATCH, not a sworn and trained officer of the law.
Everything about this sounds like Martin was a fucking idiot kid who liked to shoot off his mouth and Zimmerman imagined himself to be some kind of law dog who was going to bust this thing wide open.
Zimmerman also is putting tons of words into Martins mouth, and many of those words sound to me like bullshit - like a very, very bad script writer tried to write a part for scary black thug #2 or something.
I don't know what happened that night - I'm actually not even sure Zimmerman knows what happened that night at this point. I do know that Zimmerman is not helping himself and has not been helping himself this entire time.
I also know that it's good that this has been investigated and is going to trial rather than just being waved off as it initially was. A man is dead at the hands of another man, under unclear circumstances, and that Deserves an investigation and trial. If Zimmerman really was acting in self-defense (or at least is found to have been acting so) then he'll be fine. If not, he will be punished according to the law. Isn't that what should happen?
I am not a gun person, though I am somewhat realistic about guns and gun culture in the US. I don't think it is unreasonable for a man who used a gun to shoot another man to stand trial for that. I don't care about the racial noise, I don't care about the politics. I just want people who kill other people to be held accountable for their actions.
I actually am somewhat surprised at the number of people who post here and seem to be pro-gun and simultaneously bothered that Zimmerman is being tried. You would think responsible gun owners would be glad that we live in a nation of laws and that a man who shot another man under incredibly unclear circumstances wouldn't just be left free to walk on his own say-so. I mean, what if things had gone differently and Martin shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun? Wouldn't people want that to be investigated and tried also?
did you forget who the defendant was? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:did you forget who the defendant was? (Score:4, Insightful)
It also only relates to the rights of the accused while in custody.
Awful analysis by OP (Score:5, Insightful)
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'?
Sorry but courts allow emails to be introduced as evidence so long as authenticity can be established. Why shouldn't this hold true for tweets and facebook posts? This has absolutely nothing to do with Miranda.
Re: (Score:3)
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'?
Sorry but courts allow emails to be introduced as evidence so long as authenticity can be established. Why shouldn't this hold true for tweets and facebook posts? This has absolutely nothing to do with Miranda.
Someone must have a screenshot. That's incontrovertible evidence, right?
Nothing new under the sun. (Score:4, Insightful)
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'?'"
In 1912, instant messaging meant sending a telegram or mailing a postcard. "Ten words or less." In 2012, you tweet. That changes nothing. Evidence that is relevant to an issue in dispute is admissible unless there is a compelling legal reason to exclude it.
A Miranda warning is required only when you are about to be interrogated by the police, with damn few exceptions, what you expose to others has always been fair game.
"Anything you Tweet can be held against you" (Score:3)
Mr. Martin is not on trial. He's dead. Mr. Zimmerman is on trial. If the prosecution could find any "Tweets" or FaceBook postings of his that they could use against him the court would permit it.
History of violence from wteet and facebook = bull (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook == Truthiness (Score:3)
Yes yes, we all know teenagers are EXACTLY who they pretend to be on Facebook. No one ever exaggerates or role-plays online.
Just look at the posts on this thread: all the self-righteous self-defenders who talk so goddamn tough about how they've trained to Rambo their way out of any conflict. There was a reply post a few weeks ago about some kid who was bullied so badly that he now has an arsenal of guns and makes his own body armor, or rather that's what he claims because, y'know, internet.
The defense should have access to this data, but any rational person knows it's a kid pretending to be bad ass. Now, getting thrown out of school for starting fights is more accurate, tangible info compared to web bragging from an overinflated sense of self-worth: aka, teenagers.
This is a good example that anything you say online is fair game, and is eternal. Same goes for pictures and dumb youtube videos. I kinda feel bad for all the young girls who post risque vids of themselves the end up on porn aggregators, that shit's out there forever. Note: I said "kinda", I'd also like to thank them from the bottom of my .. uh .. heart.
Re: (Score:3)
In most criminal trials they can't bring up what a scumbag the guy has been in the past. Wonder whats going on here.
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:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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?
Re: (Score:3)
The court should not be putting George Zimmerman in a position where he is forced to prove his innocence. Material which is relevant to proving his guilt can be admitted as long as it meets the standard of evidence but it is generally easier to get character evidence about the victim admitted than it is to get character evidence about the defendant admitted. Courts look down on putting the victim on trial but when there's a lack of witnesses there's not much of a choice.
Please remember that it is the prosec
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:4, Insightful)
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. What they're actually almost definitely after is information that they can use to drag Martin's name through the mud to try to convince the jury that Martin's life was not worth protecting under the law.
I watched a defense attorney try this exact move while I was sitting on a jury. The defendant had been accused of smashing a brick over the victim's head, making her smoke crack, dragging her into a house, and then cutting up her face with a knife. The defense counsel offered no defense except to insinuate as much as he could get away with that the victim had entered the house voluntarily and traded the use of her car for the drugs. The jury realized very quickly that this didn't matter at all, because the available evidence made it quite clear that defendant had still taken a knife to the victim, and we were only asked to decide whether an assault with a deadly weapon had occurred. It was plain to me that the point of the "defense" was not to suggest that the defendant was innocent, but to suggest that the victim was a worthless human being so we wouldn't care what the defendant had done.
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: (Score:3)
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.
being in such a situation isn't going to give you much opportunity to draw a weapon and fire it, let alone do much else.
I guess the facts of the case are too tied up in partisan opinion and vested interest to make a good verdict happen.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Insightful)
being in such a situation isn't going to give you much opportunity to draw a weapon and fire it, let alone do much else.
Nice blanket assumption. Ever been in that exact situation?
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Insightful)
Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense.
There are times that deadly force MUST sometimes be used in self defense, if you intend to survive.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Insightful)
Your life is no more important than anyone else's, to assume so is extremely arrogant and selfish.
??? Do you not understand the notion of "social contract"? You can say that our lives have equal worth, OK, fine. You don't attack me and I won't attack you. However, if you do attack me, you give up the right to not be attacked. You get that, right?
So if I have to kill you to stop the attack, I damn sure will, and that's one of the most fundamental human rights there is.
Re: (Score:3)
So flip a coin? If my life supposedly isn't any more important than anyone else's, why are you assuming *his* is?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If Zimmerman outwieghed Martin by 70 pounds, it was obviously not 70 pounds of muscle. So, yeah, it's quite possible the pudgy guy got knocked to the ground. The video you refer to wasn't very good. Other pictures clearly show injuries. One thing everyone wants to ignore is that injuries take time to show. I took a very hard blow to the back that left a tiny scratch. Two days later I had an impressive bruise 15" or more across.
IMO, there's no arguing that Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted Martin. M
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Nifty piece of information on Zimmerman's background as a bouncer: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/31/1079454/-Zimmerman-was-Fired-from-Security-Job-after-he-Snapped [dailykos.com]. Yeah, it's dailykos, but that story was pretty broadly distributed. Feel free to find your own link.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, "Turning around and swinging at someone who's annoying you," is not a proper response to any sort provocation, short of actual self defense against a physical assault, and the law in Florida makes no allowance for whether or not you were "provoked" into assaulting someone.
The "appropriate" response to someone following and harassing you is to call the police, and report the incident, and ask for a police officer to come and assist you. Not to turn around and coldcock your harasser.
According
Re: (Score:3)
Actually thats not true. This is the part of the florida stand your ground law that deals with provocation. The problem is not that the stand your ground law has no clause on provocation. The problem is section 2 (a) and (b) have such big loopholes that they are meaningless. The right limit to this law would be to prohibit aggressors from claiming protection under stand your ground...period. Someone who is defending themselves after provoking a fight can still use a traditional claim of self-defense and mak
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah so my point still stands. Next time save yourself the time and effort in posting.
I completely disagree. He offered relevant information and clarified what the law says. Even if it doesn't invalidate your point, it's a good post.
Discussion is not about winning arguments, it's about exchanging ideas to better understand things.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:4, Insightful)
The *killing* is unfortunate. In the final analysis, a 17 year old kid is dead, regardless of the reasons. I consider that unfortunate, and I can still be sorry to hear of his death, even if it was a completely warranted act of self defense on Zimmerman's part.
If the shooting was self defense, I'd never suggest that Zimmerman shouldn't have defended himself... but the outcome is still tragic.
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.
You are misunderstanding what this is about. This is not "there's a 17 year old, tall, strong kid looking at me. If he's never done anything wrong, then he is harmless. If he has a history of fights, then I look for my gun". This is a case "The guy shooting the 17 year old claims it was self defence. There are no witnesses. Do we believe him? If the 17 year old has never been in trouble, then the guy is likely lying. If the 17 year old has a history of fights, then it is quite possible that the story is true".
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Police didn't tell him shit, a 911 dispatcher did (hint, you are under no legal obligation to do a damn thing that a dispatcher tells you), his only response was "Ok". In 2 different posts you've made up completely different quotes of his, you can't even keep your false statements consistent even minutes apart.
Following someone isn't stalking them, it isn't hunting them down, stop using loaded phrases. If he suspects someone of illegal doing, he can legally follow them, if someone else initiates a physical
Re: (Score:3)
They are not police except in the cases where it's an actual officer is acting as dispatcher and there is still zero legal obligation to do what a dispatcher tells you to do. They aren't there, they don't have all the facts and have no legal or moral authority to give you orders that you must adhere to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:4)
Re:Blame the victim much (Score:5, Insightful)
It's important that all relevant facts are disclosed. The court is meant to consider these facts impartially. If the court can't be impartial, and we need to hide factual information from the jury, then we have bigger problems than this specific decision.
You think he's guilty. That's fair enough. So do I. The court is acting on the presumption that he's innocent, and that's how it should be.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree 100%.. once you post it publicly, there is no taking it back. You can't un-ring that bell. Think in terms of the novel 1984. The only thing safe from tampering is your thoughts. In that novel they convinced the populous that they had thought police to even spy on that.
Re: (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:Miranda Rights v2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
So you declined an interview to a qualified applicant because they partied in college?
I hate to break it to you, but almost all your other interviewee's did too. What we need to do - as a society - is recognize certain social norms. We already do to an extent, but its the silent code that its all ok until you get caught.
Having just read RA Salvatore's Homeland it reminds me of the Drow society - everyone attacking each other and scheming and its fine if you get away with it but if you get caught society punished you to the utmost.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is to be used for the defense, not for the prosecutor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:zimmerman is innocent (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:zimmerman is innocent (Score:5, Insightful)
He shot and killed a man.
True.
He deliberately went out with a weapon to kill someone.
False. You're attributing intent where none has been proven. Carrying a gun does not equal intent to kill anymore than wearing your seat belt indicates an intention to get into a car wreck.
How is that not murder?
See above.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you can cite the Florida law requiring persons to obey the instructions of 911 operators, and which further provide that self-defense is rules out if that law is broken?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:zimmerman is innocent (Score:5, Insightful)
A fist fight can easily end in the death of one of the parties. If you didn't start the fight, is your only option supposed to be lay there and take it? Hope you don't end up dead by the time the attacker stops?
Non-lethal self defense training or not, you pull a knife and get close to an officer, you're getting shot and rightfully so.
Re: (Score:3)
If you didn't start the fight, is your only option supposed to be lay there and take it? Hope you don't end up dead by the time the attacker stops?
That's what the judge told me back in high school. ``You can't fight back unless your life is in danger! Here is a 400$ fine, don't do it again.''
Re:zimmerman is innocent (Score:4, Insightful)
Possibly.
The legal standard in most states for the use of deadly force is belief of imminent severe bodily injury or death. Essentially, would a reasonable person believe they might die or be severely injured and that use of deadly force would prevent it? States differ on what other avenues must be attempted prior to the use of deadly force, such as trying to run away, etc.
You can die in a fist fight. You can certainly sustain severe bodily injury.
There's another issue here. In most states, the initiator of the use or threat of force can't claim self defense. So if I punch you and we start fighting, you could then claim self defense if you shot me, but I couldn't if I shot you. The same if I pulled a knife and threatened to stab you.
And thirdly, there's the difference between what's moral and legal. There are probably situations where I'd think the person's choice to shoot was morally despicable but should be legal under the general principles of self defense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But since defending yourself with your body against someone attacking you with a gun is also not excessive force, there's a bit of a problem here. Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened by Zimmerman. So, you have two people committing an act of self-defence against each other. So, then you have to ask how the heck this situation happened and could it have been foreseen. I think that a violent confrontation is a foreseeable conseque
Re:zimmerman is innocent (Score:4, Insightful)
Exerting your freedom and going where you are legally allowed to go even if you know you may be attacked, whilst taking precautions to defend yourself in case you are attacked, is hardly negligence.
Re:zimmerman is innocent (Score:5, Insightful)
Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened
That is not a fair way to describe what happened. A neighborhood watchman following what he considers a "suspicious" looking person is not "hunting them down with a gun". Sure he may have been overzealous and it is not pleasant to be followed around and considered a criminal when you are not, but that's not enough of a reason to jump on the guy and start pounding his head against the concrete (saw the pictures?). On the other hand, once that happened, Zimmerman WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself. It's a shitty deal for Trayvon but this case should never have been brought to trial and it wouldn't have been if it wasn't so politicized.
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they need to have prior knowledge?
In an fairly extreme example: if I post on FB about my martial arts hobby that I'm going to go out and beat some random guy on the street up. Then I'm shot dead out on the street. Then the shooter is prosecuted for shooting innocent me with wide reporting of how innocuous I was. Then it's certainly reasonable to use my prior statements displaying bad intent to call that description of me into question and of my martial arts training to suggest capabilities beyond what might normally be expected of someone my age and appearance.
I don't know all the details of this case and almost certainly neither do you. But it's ludicrous to suggest prior statements are only relevant if the defendant knew about them beforehand or can't be used in this situation under some misunderstanding of the constitutional protections of free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
If they exist, you sure would. You do realize that the "defense" in this case refers to George Zimmerman's legal team, defending him against the charge of 2nd degree murder - of which he is innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... right?
If those tweets exist, they'd certainly be used. Just like if Zimmerman tweeted, "BRB GONNA GO MURDER A BLACK KID IN A HOODIE," the prosecution w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:*walks on by* (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only tragic if the kid was completely innocent and did not attack zimmer first.
These things seem severely in doubt.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. The evidence points strongly to Zimmerman stalking and harassing Martin. What happened after that, we don't know for sure, and never will. But it is pretty obvious that Zimmerman engaged in some level of provocation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:*walks on by* (Score:4, Insightful)
So person A was walking home doing nothing wrong.
Person B creates a situation, and gets a few minor injuries while killing Person A (inflicted by Person A, a bit upset about the whole being attacked/killed thing.)
Person A was in Florida because he was kicked out of school.
I'm sure you have doubt in your mind. Justifying the idea of killing the weak because they fought back a little before dying is hard.
So you sit in your armchair, drink your drink, and pontificate on the ifs and buts. And with enough words said, you sort of convince yourself that those people had it coming and the world is just.
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:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All death is tragedy you sociopathic fuck.
Death of innocents is double tradgedy.
Re:*walks on by* (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we need an assault Skittles ban.
Re:Clairvoyance time again! (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll be pretty much the same.
The few people who are actually capable of putting together coherent descriptions of what should reasonably happen given certain assumptions will be shouted down by whoever has decided they know what happened. Regardless of how the case turns out, there will be a large group of people who believe that justice was perverted for political purposes, and the result is more proof that there is a vast left-wing/right-wing conspiracy to destroy group X.
We'll have lots of basement legal experts claim hundreds of completely illogical and irrational things about how the law works, and in general the discussion will devolve to how big a given person's e-peen is.