George Zimmerman's Lawyer Wants Jurors To See Photos Of Handgun, Pot Plants Found On Trayvon Martin's Cell Phone

[SMOKE 1,426]

From the article linked...

If TM is actually heard saying that, then it's going to be very tough to defend Zimmerman. A murder conviction would seem easy at that point.

until the defense asks how alan reich determined he heard that. he didn't include that in his report. the defense audio expert says its zimmerman & does explain how he reached that determination.

[decocker 7,198]

TM may not be on trial, but his actions that night are very much central to the case, and showing that he had a history of violent behavior is just as pertinent as showing GZ had a history of doing what he did .

is anybody saying that gz has a history of murder? i hadn't noticed anyone bringing that up..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The question is whether or not GZ shot TM in cold blood or in an attempt to save his own life. One way or another, TM had a role in this and the jury will have to determine each person's intent no?

So you won't answer the question at hand. That's all you have to say.

[B_J 2,752]

until the defense asks how alan reich determined he heard that. he didn't include that in his report. the defense audio expert says its zimmerman & does explain how he reached that determination.

Okay. I was curious why they had to determine whether Reich used scientifically-accepted techniques? If it's Zimmerman, then i't's' easier to see self-defense work.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

TM may not be on trial, but his actions that night are very much central to the case, and showing that he had a history of violent behavior is just as pertinent as showing GZ had a history of doing what he did .

The judge has ruled on that. Trayvon Martin may not be smeared by the defense of the man who killed him. I know you're burning to trample on the dead kid's grave just as much as Zimmerman's defense team does but the judge said NO.

[GandD 5,966]

So you won't answer the question at hand. That's all you have to say.

Ugh.

You didn't answer my question

For real though, is anyone against TM's past being used as a character reference but for GZ's past being used as a character reference?

What's TM on trial for? I guess he's partially on trial for maybe threatening GZ's life? I don't understand how you can look at this trial and a possible defense for GZ that wouldn't include TM's intentions during the confrontation they had. I'm not trying to lead a racial/political charge on the issue but I suppose its expected.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Okay. I was curious why they had to determine whether Reich used scientifically-accepted techniques? If it's Zimmerman, then i't's' easier to see self-defense work.

its going to be a typical expert discrediting the other expert's opinion. i really don't think its going to matter either way. once the prosecution introduces GZ's history into the trial, the defense will object & will be allowed to introduce TM's history. if not. mistrial. besides, its not like every juror won't see boths history all over the news anyway. the jury isn't going to be sequestered. if they currently live under a rock & don't know now...they will once the trial starts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's TM on trial for? I guess he's partially on trial for maybe threatening GZ's life?

Is he? When was he indicted? Has his trial date been set yet?

As to your question: For real though, is anyone against TM's past being used as a character reference but for GZ's past being used as a character reference?

Yes, I am against that. Why? Well, for starters, I am against that because Trayvon Martin is accused of being a thug andTrayvon Martin has no opportunity to speak in his own defense and cannot provide his side of the story because, thanks to one George Zimmerman, he's six feet under. It would the the same as trying George Zimmerman without granting him the opportunity to defend himself.

[GandD 5,966]

Is he? When was he indicted? Has his trial date been set yet?

Whether or not he's specifically on trial, he still has a role in the situation and therefore the trial.

Take away all preconceived notions of what happened. If GZ asked TM to stop where he was and TM ran to him, beat him to to the point to where GZ had to use a gun to save his life, I would imagine the charge/verdict would be different than if GZ ran after TM ordered him to stop and then shot him in cold blood.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

is anybody saying that gz has a history of murder? i hadn't noticed anyone bringing that up..

Sigh! No , but everything else he does is under scrutiny and rightfully so. If he had a history of violent racist behavior it is very pertinent to the case. Same thing with TM, If TM had a history of violant behavior, drug use, theft, then as mush as you may hate it, it is pertinent to the case.

I have no idea what happened that night. TM was not the innocent little cherry faced 13 year sipping tea and eating skittles. GZ was not minding his own business and jumped from behind. The truth will come out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Whether or not he's specifically on trial, he still has a role in the situation and therefore the trial.

He does indeed have a role in the situation - that of the dead victim. Therefore the trial against his killer. I think we have sufficiently established that Trayvon martin is indeed not on trial. You can't seem to get yourself to say it so said it for you.

[GandD 5,966]

He does indeed have a role in the situation - that of the dead victim. Therefore the trial against his killer. I think we have sufficiently established that Trayvon martin is indeed not on trial. You can't seem to get yourself to say it so said it for you.

He wouldn't be a victim if his intent was to kill GZ for following him.

I really don't get the TM is not on trial deal. The trial is whether or not GZ fired a gun in self defense (TM isn't a victim) or in cold blood (TM is the victim). Again, TM's intentions and GZs intentions are the entire point of this case. How can you have a fair trial without looking directly at both?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If GZ asked TM to stop where he was and TM ran to him, beat him to to the point to where GZ had to use a gun to save his life, I would imagine ...

...that George Zimmerman would have prevented his being on trial for murder altogether by claiming immunity under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statue.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He wouldn't be a victim if his intent was to kill GZ for following him.

How do you know that? How do you know that his intent was to kill George Zimmerman? There's no evidence to support that. There's also no evidence that he wouldn't be a dead victim had he simply been minding his own business.

I really don't get the TM is not on trial deal.

What's not to get? He's not on trial. It's a simple fact.

[Karee 4,191]

So I guess if some guy beats me within an inch of my life, and I shoot him dead, the dead person's history should not come into play at all. Even if the dead person had 50 prior convictions for strong armed robbery. I think I get the logic now.