• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Marijuana, fights, guns: Zimmerman loses key pretrial battles

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Trayvon Martin's familiarity with guns, his marijuana use, and fights he may have been in cannot be brought up in George Zimmerman's murder trial, the judge overseeing the case ruled Tuesday.At the hearing two weeks before the scheduled start of the trial, Judge Debra Nelson handed a series of victories to the prosecution when she barred the defense from introducing some information about Martin.
Defense attorneys argued that some of the evidence could prove crucial in backing up Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, depending on what the prosecution argues.
Certain evidence could ultimately be raised during the trial, however, if it is proven relevant and admissible based on what the prosecution presents, the judge decided.


Read more @: Zimmerman defense loses pretrial battles - CNN.com





The judge will not allow the defense to smear Trayvon Martin with irrelevant evidence.

Too bad, George.
 
Read more @: Zimmerman defense loses pretrial battles - CNN.com[/FONT][/COLOR]




The judge will not allow the defense to smear Trayvon Martin with irrelevant evidence.

Too bad, George.
Your reading of the facts is off.
He was not trying to smear ™, if he had been, he would not have redacted information.

And it was actually a good day for the defense as they will be getting to use that which is relevant.
 
Your reading of the facts is off.
He was not trying to smear ™, if he had been, he would not have redacted information.

And it was actually a good day for the defense as they will be getting to use that which is relevant.

Did they now? And obviously you will not clarify:lol:
 
cheerleading decisions speaks volumes about the type of people individual posters are.

if you are cheerleading decisions, you can stop pretending to care about a fair trial. you are rooting for a side. your mind has already been made up.
 
cheerleading decisions speaks volumes about the type of people individual posters are.

if you are cheerleading decisions, you can stop pretending to care about a fair trial. you are rooting for a side. your mind has already been made up.

If lets say i was killed in a situation like this would my drinking habits be at all relevant in my death?
 
If lets say i was killed in a situation like this would my drinking habits be at all relevant in my death?

I prefer to let the jury of peers determine what is useful and what isn't.
 
If lets say i was killed in a situation like this would my drinking habits be at all relevant in my death?

No, but your drug usage could be, and your propensity for violence would be.

And O'Mara never said he wanted to use all of that information that was discovered.
It was discovered and as such, releasable. That is why you got to see it. And he even redacted the parts that should be.
 
Did they now? And obviously you will not clarify
Already did. And you know it.
Strike that. Maybe you don't know it because you didn't bother to read the other thread where today's decision was being discussed, and just wanted to start one of your own. :shrug:
But you did provide some of the same information in your thread, so you should have known.

... the following are major wins.

-Martin's school records and history of fighting can be mentioned outside of opening statements.

-Marijuana in Martin's system can't be allowed in opening statements. Nelson will determine if it can be used in trial.


And as you can see, I, for the most part, stated how it would go. The only thing that is different is that of future determination for his usage that night. But in accordance with the law it should be coming in.
TMost likely the toxicology report will be admitted because it supports Zimmerman's suspicions from that night that ™ was on drugs.
The fighting most likely will be admitted because it shows ™ had a propensity for violence.

All the rest of the information will be excluded unless either side opens the door by trying to make the persons character an issue.

And if the prosecution opens the door and tries to suppose that ™ acted the way he did in attacking Zimmerman, then the defense can also suppose with evidence as to why ™ acted the way he did. His drug usage and the affects that drug usage has.

 
Martin is not on trial. Zimmerman is. Wait until the evidence shows what a whack job he was with regard to his "undercover" work.
 
Martin is not on trial.

Point?
He was obviously a violent kid.

Wait until the evidence comes out that ™ was kicked out by his mom because he threatened to kill her.
That may or may not be admissible, but it sure is relevant.




Wait until the evidence shows what a whack job he was with regard to his "undercover" work.
iLOL
Unlikely to be admissible.

But if you think it would be, how so?
 
If lets say i was killed in a situation like this would my drinking habits be at all relevant in my death?

If George Zimmerman had, hypothetically, a history of racially bigoted behavior would it be at all relevant to this trial?

Of course it would.

It would speak to Zimmerman's character, or really a lack thereof, and would inform the jury's perception of what kind of man Zimmerman is.

It might not indicate guilt in and of itself, but it might indicate the potential, or possibly a motivation, for commiting the crime he's been charged with.

Likewise, evidence that speaks to Trayvon Martin's personality and character is equally relevant.

This is especially true in light of the fact that the prosecution, the media, and the Martin family have waged a campaign of dishonestly since the night the shooting occured portraying Martin as some poor, innocent, child-like little boy, virtually the type of kid who would be afraid of his own shadow, when clearly he is anything but.

Now clearly nothing in Martin's history paints him as a hardened criminal, but when the defense's claim is that Martin instigated the fight that eventually led to his fatal shooting I think it's relevant that he quite demonstrably has a history of drug use, petty property crimes, behavior problems at school, physical altercations, gang participation (or at least giving the appearance of being a "gangsta"), and that he had recently been kicked out of his family home because of a pattern of unacceptable behavior.
 
Point?
He was obviously a violent kid.

Wait until the evidence comes out that ™ was kicked out by his mom because he threatened to kill her.
That may or may not be admissible, but it sure is relevant.





iLOL
Unlikely to be admissible.

But if you think it would be, how so?

TM didn't threaten to kill his mom ... nor was he kicked out..

He was spending his two week suspension in Sanford with his father.
 
TM didn't threaten to kill his mom ...
You do not know that sharon.
There is information that he did.
And until it is confirmed either way, you do not know that.


nor was he kicked out..
Yes sharon he was. He says so himself.
Unless you are now saying that he was a liar like his parents.
Are you?


He was spending his two week suspension in Sanford with his father.
Sent to live with him sharon. He was kicked out.
 
If George Zimmerman had, hypothetically, a history of racially bigoted behavior would it be at all relevant to this trial?

Of course it would.
So because i like to drink someone killed me based on my drinking? :roll:
 
You do not know that sharon.
There is information that he did.
And until it is confirmed either way, you do not know that.


Yes sharon he was. He says so himself.
Unless you are now saying that he was a liar like his parents.
Are you?



Sent to live with him sharon. He was kicked out.

Yeah.. he was kicked out for two weeks... to Sanford.

You should stop making up things.
 
You do not know that sharon.
There is information that he did.
And until it is confirmed either way, you do not know that.


Yes sharon he was. He says so himself.
Unless you are now saying that he was a liar like his parents.
Are you?



Sent to live with him sharon. He was kicked out.

You do not know what you assert, i.e., that Martin was kicked out of the house by his mother. Yet, you assert it here as if it is a fact.
 
Yeah.. he was kicked out for two weeks... to Sanford.
Look at you twisting what he said.
He said he was kicked out by his mom.
It doesn't just say for two weeks.

You should stop making up things.
You should follow your own advice sharon, as it is you making things up now.
He was kicked out by his mom. It doesn't say just for two weeks.
You are making that up.
Much like you made up a sealed confession, 47 feet, 300 yards, etc...
 
You do not know what you assert, i.e., that Martin was kicked out of the house by his mother. Yet, you assert it here as if it is a fact.
Just stop with your silliness.

It is fact that he said he was kicked out.
That means he was kicked out.
Do you want me to call him a liar?

Or have you not seen his text messages?

The new evidence includes text messages from Martin's phone in which he discusses smoking marijuana, fighting, being suspended from school and getting kicked out of his house by his mother.
Trayvon Martin Update: Martin family attorney says new photos, texts are "irrelevant red herrings" - Crimesider - CBS News
 
Last edited:
Look at you twisting what he said.
He said he was kicked out by his mom.
It doesn't just say for two weeks.


You should follow your own advice sharon, as it is you making things up now.
He was kicked out by his mom. It doesn't say just for two weeks.
You are making that up.
Much like you made up a sealed confession, 47 feet, 300 yards, etc...

Read the texts.. He was on the bus headed for Sanford.. and said he had been kicked out.. but after the first week.. he also texted that he only had a week to go before going home and he missed his mother.
 
Just stop with your silliness.

It is fact that he said he was kicked out.
That means he was kicked out.
Do you want me to call him a liar?

In any case, Zimmerman committed murder. Martin's past has no bearing on the facts of that night as he was not committing a crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom