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

[GandD 5,966]

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 don't know that. I said, if. If TM's intent was to kill GZ for following him and GZ was only able to avoid being beat to death by shooting TM, then he wouldn't be the victim. Stop focusing on what you think I'm alluding to and focus on the possible scenarios leading to TM's death based on facts we know. I'm not saying it happened one way or the other.

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

But that doesn't have anything to do with anything. The trial is about whether or not GZ killed TM to save his life. Am I wrong about this?

[GandD 5,966]

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

Unless that law didn't cover him after it was clear that he initiated the confrontation maybe? I dunno, I'm not an expert on this nor do I know the specifics of why he wasn't able to use this statue but still claim self defense in a hearing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

Who's been suggesting any such thing? Have you been reading a different thread?

[Karee 4,191]

Who's been suggesting any such thing? Have you been reading a different thread?

Oops. Yes I was reading a different thread. No one in this thread has suggested that TMs history is relevant.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Karee

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But that doesn't have anything to do with anything. The trial is about whether or not GZ killed TM to save his life. Am I wrong about this?

Yes you are. The trial is about whether George Zimmerman is guilty of murder in the 2nd degree or any of the lesser included charges.

[GandD 5,966]

Yes you are. The trial is about whether George Zimmerman is guilty of murder in the 2nd degree or any of the lesser included charges.

And what would make it not 2nd degree murder if not self defense?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And what would make it not 2nd degree murder if not self defense?

That's what Zimmerman's defense is about not what the trial is about. Zimmerman should not be allowed to smear his victim in that trial as part of his defense. His victim can't defend himself against any accusations. Zimmerman made sure of that.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[GandD 5,966]

That's what Zimmerman's defense is about not what the trial is about. Zimmerman should not be allowed to speam his victim in that trial as part of his defense. His victim can't defend himself against any accusations. Zimmerman made sure of that.

These are statements in the context of it being a fact that GZ did not have to shoot TM to save his life. You don't know that. All I'm saying is that its a possibility it might have happened. And I didn't say TM's past should come into play. I just wanted to see who would say it shouldn't but that GZ's should.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

These are statements in the context of it being a fact that GZ did not have to shoot TM to save his life. You don't know that. All I'm saying is that its a possibility it might have happened. And I didn't say TM's past should come into play. I just wanted to see who would say it shouldn't but that GZ's should.

These are simple statements of fact. The fact that Travon Martin cannot defend himself against any accusatuion made against him and the fact that this is due to George Zimmerman having killed him. These are simple, undisputed facts. Not sure why you see that as controversial.

If a person claims to have killed out of self-defense, that claim has got to hold up to scrutiny. A person with a history of violence, paranoia or any other condition that may have a bearing on the claim made by that person in their own defense deserves to be disclosed to a jury asked to make a judgement as to the credibility of that claim. George Zimmerman's past is relevant because of the defense that he is pursuing.

Trayvon Martin isn't pursuing any defense because a) he's dead and b) he's not on trial. Trayvon Martin also does not have a crimnal record. His past is thus not relevant to the proceedings. Not becasue I say so but because the judge said so.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I am in awe of Big Dog's patience.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Isn't GZ claiming self defense?

TM's past behavior is relevant if it demonstrates that he had a tendency to be violently aggressive toward others. The judge so far has not seen any evidence that supports that.

Also, GZ didn't know TM that night, but said some very troubling things to the police dispatcher, like jumping to conclusions about TM without any substantial evidence. He failed to recognize that TM running was a reaction to GZ's odd behavior that night. His biggest failure that night was to pretend he was Miami Vice out to nab a neighborhood thug and not realize that TV shows are quite far from reality. I wonder if GZ is developmentally disabled? He certainly 'looks' like it.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[GandD 5,966]

These are simple statements of fact. The fact that Travon Martin cannot defend himself against any accusatuion made against him and the fact that this is due to George Zimmerman having killed him. These are simple, undisputed facts. Not sure why you see that as controversial.

If a person claims to have killed out of self-defense, that claim has got to hold up to scrutiny. A person with a history of violence, paranoia or any other condition that may have a bearing on the claim made by that person in their own defense deserves to be disclosed to a jury asked to make a judgement as to the credibility of that claim. George Zimmerman's past is relevant because of the defense that he is pursuing.

Trayvon Martin isn't pursuing any defense because a) he's dead and b) he's not on trial. Trayvon Martin also does not have a crimnal record. His past is thus not relevant to the proceedings. Not becasue I say so but because the judge said so.

Trayvon Martin being a murder victim is not a fact.

If GZ gets acquitted of murder by a jury that buys the self defense claim, TM will go from victim to aggressor in the legal world.

Once again, I didn't say TM's past should come into play. As you said, the judge has ruled on this. I wanted to discuss the implications of allowing GZ's history to come into play after said ruling. Trying (albeit unsuccessfully) to stay out of what we think happend and discuss the direction of the trial going forward. I think you're ruling out the possibility that TM planned to kill GZ for following him.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Trayvon Martin being a murder victim is not a fact.

If GZ gets acquitted of murder by a jury that buys the self defense claim, TM will go from victim to aggressor in the legal world.

Once again, I didn't say TM's past should come into play. As you said, the judge has ruled on this. I wanted to discuss the implications of allowing GZ's history to come into play after said ruling. Trying (albeit unsuccessfully) to stay out of what we think happend and discuss the direction of the trial going forward. I think you're ruling out the possibility that TM planned to kill GZ for following him.

But the trouble with taking the position that "we don't know what happened that night" is that it is not true. There's GZ's phone call to the police, TM's phone call to his gf, eye witnesses and physical evidence that contradicts GZ's version of events. It's kinda like having a video footage of two cars before they collided with one another, but the collision happened under a dark bridge. If one car was swerving in and out of their lane, and driving aggressively (tailgating for example), it's a reasonable conclusion who was culpable for the collision. Is it possible that GZ acted out of self defense? Sure, but not plausible - at least not in the context of all the evidence I mentioned above.

[decocker 7,198]

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.

how does a history of violent behaivior, drug use, and theft have any effect on tm's murder?

gz should have stayed in his car in order to avoid any sort of confrontation with such a hardened thug, huh. not a smart guy, that gz...

[GandD 5,966]

But the trouble with taking the position that "we don't know what happened that night" is that it is not true. There's GZ's phone call to the police, TM's phone call to his gf, eye witnesses and physical evidence that contradicts GZ's version of events. It's kinda like having a video footage of two cars before they collided with one another, but the collision happened under a dark bridge. If one car was swerving in and out of their lane, and driving aggressively (tailgating for example), it's a reasonable conclusion who was culpable for the collision. Is it possible that GZ acted out of self defense? Sure, but not plausible - at least not in the context of all the evidence I mentioned above.

I agree.