State pushes to keep Trayvon Martin's past out of George Zimmerman trial

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Murder Two is the charge, and it is appropriate, given Zimmerman's history as a depraved individual that beats up drunk women and does not like people like Martin walking through his neighborhood. A mentally derandged person like that should never have owned a firearm, let alone have a concealed carry permit. Thanks NRA!

Edited May 14, 2013 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He brought rape into the conversation. I was addressing that.

But TM has not made any false claim of being murdered much less established a history of such.

[Karee 4,191]

But TM has not made any false claim of being murdered much less established a history of such.

I guess you didn't read all of the posts. Try that first and then respond.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess you didn't read all of the posts. Try that first and then respond.

Oh, I read the posts. Don't know why a parallel is being drawn to accusers that have a history of lying about crimes that have been perpetrated against them. TM doesn't have such history. At least not that I'm aware of.

[SMR 368]

Oh, I read the posts. Don't know why a parallel is being drawn to accusers that have a history of lying about crimes that have been perpetrated against them. TM doesn't have such history. At least not that I'm aware of.

You see the problem is that you assume that Martin has a crime perpetrated against him. This is what the prosecution is trying to prove. But if you take it as a given before the trial starts, obviously anything the defense does will seem baseless because you already know the answer.

It's not about a history of having crimes perpetrated against him. It's about a history of violently attacking people (I'm not sure if it exists, but think it would be relevant if it did).

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

So the fact that black youths are often profiled and killed means that we should make sure not to look into the specific history of this particular black youth? Wouldn't a desire to avoid profiling mean that we should look into specifics of this case in order to make sure we know who Trayvon Martin was, beyond being a young black kid? What if he was an honor student with a spotless record and no one could say anything bad about him or his behavior? Wouldn't that be relevant if we wanted to know the likelihood of Zimmerman's story that Martin knocked him down, jumped on top, and started beating him?

Obviously this is a complex issue with lots of tangents we can go down, particularly with the wide array of information and misinformation available on this particular case as well as the large number of unknowns. The question put forward in this thread is simply whether or not Martin's recent history, including potential violence and drug use, is relevant to determining what happened. I'm not saying we should assume Martin was a thug stoner because he was black. Quite the opposite. I'm saying let's see if there is evidence that this particular person had a history of drug use and violence. And if it turns out that no one can say anything bad about Martin's past, I think that's relevant, too.

What I am trying to say is, take the color out of it. GZ didn't know anything about TM, other than he was a black teenager walking home. What does his past have to do with it? So what we are saying is, if your past is less than impeccable, then you are more likely to do something wrong, so GZ was justified in acting the way he did, because at some point TM would have become a criminal? That's why it a problem with racial profiling, in America you supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, like those who say wait for the trial. But if you're black, you're guilty off the jump, cause GZ didn't wait for the cops to determine if he was guilty or not. He just knew this kid was up to no good, or was going to do something wrong. And some folks on here really believe a pot smoking BLACK teenager is more of a threat than a guy with priors dealing with domestic VIOLENCE and assault of a police officer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You see the problem is that you assume that Martin has a crime perpetrated against him. This is what the prosecution is trying to prove. But if you take it as a given before the trial starts, obviously anything the defense does will seem baseless because you already know the answer.

There is a case that is being prosecuted which means that there is enough intial evidence that a crime was perpetrated. That's not taking guilt as a given but there is a good amount of evidence that indicates that GZ murdered TM - hence the charge he is facing. Don't sit there pretending that they pick up just any person off the street and put them in front of a jury for murder.

[SMR 368]

What I am trying to say is, take the color out of it. GZ didn't know anything about TM, other than he was a black teenager walking home. What does his past have to do with it? So what we are saying is, if your past is less than impeccable, then you are more likely to do something wrong, so GZ was justified in acting the way he did, because at some point TM would have become a criminal? That's why it a problem with racial profiling, in America you supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, like those who say wait for the trial. But if you're black, you're guilty off the jump, cause GZ didn't wait for the cops to determine if he was guilty or not. He just knew this kid was up to no good, or was going to do something wrong. And some folks on here really believe a pot smoking BLACK teenager is more of a threat than a guy with priors dealing with domestic VIOLENCE and assault of a police officer.

First, you're the one who brought color into this. It seems you've got a chip on your shoulder about people stopping you and you assuming it's because you're black. As I said before, I've been stopped by police. I've also been stopped by others, as a teenager walking home. I'm guessing it wasn't because I'm black. GZ was within his rights to approach TM. It doesn't matter why. What matters is what happened after that.

The problem is you're making certain assumptions about what happened when TM and GZ met. There are dozens of scenarios as to how it went down. Some of those scenarios would imply GZ's guilt while others would indicate that he acted within his rights, was attacked, and defended himself. The real point is that somehow the jury should make a best judgment as to what actually happened. Background is relevant because it helps a reasonable person judge how the people involved would or could have reacted in that situation.

Edited May 14, 2013 by SMR

[Karee 4,191]

There is a case that is being prosecuted which means that there is enough intial evidence that a crime was perpetrated. That's not taking guilt as a given but there is a good amount of evidence that indicates that GZ murdered TM - hence the charge he is facing. Don't sit there pretending that they pick up just any person off the street and put them in front of a jury for murder.

Remember the initially GZ wasn't charged with anything. He was let go. Then a special prosecutor was appointed. So you can't really apply the "any person" standard to this case. Don't forget Obama felt the need to comment on it as well. So this isn't a case of just picking anyone up off the street. Far from it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Remember the initially GZ wasn't charged with anything. He was let go. Then a special prosecutor was appointed. So you can't really apply the "any person" standard to this case. Don't forget Obama felt the need to comment on it as well. So this isn't a case of just picking anyone up off the street. Far from it.

Yes, remember also that this happened where the police departments employ officers that think it's appropriate to use "Trayvon Martin" targets at the shooting range. Not hard to see how they might take it easy on a guy that took care of one of those thugs.

But sure, let us focus on the charade that is occuring because the Kenyan said somebody has to be held accountable. And this poor, law-abiding dude is now being railroded because he had the audacity to defend himself and the neighborhood for this "up to no good black yute".

Edited May 14, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

First, you're the one who brought color into this. It seems you've got a chip on your shoulder about people stopping you and you assuming it's because you're black. As I said before, I've been stopped by police. I've also been stopped by others, as a teenager walking home. I'm guessing it wasn't because I'm black. GZ was within his rights to approach TM. It doesn't matter why. What matters is what happened after that.

The problem is you're making certain assumptions about what happened when TM and GZ met. There are dozens of scenarios as to how it went down. Some of those scenarios would imply GZ's guilt while others would indicate that he acted within his rights, was attacked, and defended himself. The real point is that somehow the jury should make a best judgment as to what actually happened. Background is relevant because it helps a reasonable person judge how the people involved would or could have reacted in that situation.

First, if GZ was within his rights to approach TM, why isn't TM within his rights to defend himself? I mean, GZ was chasing him, with a gun, after calling the police on a unarmed kid walking home from the store. Who wouldn't feel threatend?

As for a chip on the shoulder, do me a favor, google how many white teenagers get profiled, shot and killed. Then compare that number to that of black/hispanic teens. You don't understand it because you have no idea what it feels like to be treated like an animal. It's hurtful as hell when the assumption is if you're black you're up to no good automatically. And what's worse is, no matter what you do, it's stuck to you. People love to say, just do right and you have no issues, that's BS. I know well dressed educated men and women of color who when asked if they've ever been profiled, they all say yes, not 15 years ago, but last week. We have to be beyond perfect to just be considered normal. And its a damn shame this kid's life was taken from him, and all folks can do is assume he was in the wrong for attacking a stranger who broke his neck trying to have a confrontation with him.

[decocker 7,198]

I know well dressed educated men and women of color who when asked if they've ever been profiled, they all say yes, not 15 years ago, but last week. We have to be beyond perfect to just be considered normal. And its a damn shame this kid's life was taken from him, and all folks can do is assume he was in the wrong for attacking a stranger who broke his neck trying to have a confrontation with him.

come on marvin, you know damn well that the only reason they all say yes, not 15 years ago, but last week, is cause they have the same chip on their shoulder as you do.

you need to ask your white friends if they've ever experienced racial profiling, because only white people can provide an unbiased assesment of the black experience.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Black people aren't the only people who get profiled.

Other minorities do too, as well as anyone who looks like "white trash".

[decocker 7,198]

Black people aren't the only people who get profiled.

Other minorities do too, as well as anyone who looks like "white trash".

your chip is showing.

[mota bhai 2,675]

your chip is showing.

*zip* there, happy now?