• 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.

The jewelry found in Trayvons possession. [W:242]

Fisher said:
Yeah, you are wrong. Guess what--even prostitutes can be raped and drug dealers victims of crimes. It has zero bearing on self defense.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Zimmerman has to present an affirmative defense. He killed Martin. The state doesn't have to prove that. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Zimmerman has to prove it was in self-defense. In order to do that, he must convince the jury that he was afraid for his life. Martin's character most assuredly matters.
 
justabubba said:
it does have a bearing on this case
it tends to confirm zimmerman's suspicions about the kid, observing martin's slow his walk in the rain, looking into the windows of homes he passed, may have been valid
Click to expand...

No one is going to walk 'normal' when they know they are being followed by a guy in a truck talking on his cell phone at night.
 
MaggieD said:
You are wrong. Zimmerman has to present an affirmative defense. He killed Martin. The state doesn't have to prove that. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Zimmerman has to prove it was in self-defense. In order to do that, he must convince the jury that he was afraid for his life. Martin's character most assuredly matters.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Martin stole something prior to that night would have no influence on Zimmerman's state of mind because Zimmerman did not know that he had stolen something prior to that night. The kid did not have handfuls of jewelry, he had a handful of candy when Zimmerman encountered him.
 
Fisher said:
Whether or not Martin stole something prior to that night would have no influence on Zimmerman's state of mind because Zimmerman did not know that he had stolen something prior to that night. The kid did not have handfuls of jewelry, he had a handful of candy when Zimmerman encountered him.
Click to expand...

It has to do with his character.
 
Excon said:
Well you seem to have a problem here in what you believe. Because it all flies in the face of reality.
The FBI says not racial.
The evidence says not murdered.
Click to expand...
The jury will say otherwise.
 
MaggieD said:
You are wrong. Zimmerman has to present an affirmative defense. He killed Martin. The state doesn't have to prove that. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Zimmerman has to prove it was in self-defense. In order to do that, he must convince the jury that he was afraid for his life. Martin's character most assuredly matters.
Click to expand...
Not true. Only what Zimmerman could see of Trayvon's immediate behavior, before he murdered him matters.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I think it is material to the trial. Whether it will be introduced or not is another story. But if it was immaterial, it wouldn't have been put out there.

Since George Zimmerman has to make an affirmative defense (required in self-defense cases, since he's admitted to killing him), Trayvon Martin's character is certainly an issue. If he were a street thug with a long rap sheet, as an example, GZ would have never been brought to trial.
Click to expand...
What if I were to murder a CEO of a big corporation because I hated wealthy people... Would it be material to my defense if, though I had no idea at the time, I could show that the CEO had embezzled funds from his board members?
Get real.
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
Not true. Only what Zimmerman could see of Trayvon's character before he murdered him matters.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, you're wrong. Zimmerman has to prove that Trayvon Martin attacked him. The defense will no doubt try to prove that through Zimmerman's accounting of events. He may also (if the judge allows it) try to prove it by showing that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he would do so. Character and past acts of Martin's come into play, in my opinion. (Just as Zimmerman's do.)
 
buck ewer said:
what if i were to murder a ceo of a big corporation because i hated wealthy people... Would it be material to my defense if, though i had no idea at the time, i could show that the ceo had embezzled funds from his board members?
Get real.
Click to expand...

boooooooooooom!

mind-blown.jpg
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Good kid - bad kid. Who cares? . . . His 17 year old self isn't on trial for theft.

Zimmerman is on trial for shooting an adult that he believed to have committed a crime. . . and so on.

Sorry - but what he did in high school, etc, does NOT matter. If it did - it would be admissible evidence in the current trial.
Click to expand...

Of course it matters. It goes to credibility.
 
Buck Ewer said:
What if I were to murder a CEO of a big corporation because I hated wealthy people... Would it be material to my defense if, though I had no idea at the time, I could show that the CEO had embezzled funds from his board members?
Get real.
Click to expand...

One is not the same as another. Let's switch it up. I'm suing that CEO for stealing. Does the fact that he embezzled funds have a bearing on my case? Yes, it most certainly does.

Look, I don't even know if the defense would be allowed to raise that issue. But it goes to character and the likelihood of Trayvon Martin attacking first. That's what Zimmerman's got to prove beyond reasonable doubt: that Trayvon Martin attacked first. And then he has to answer for his own actions setting the whole scenerio into motion.
 
MaggieD said:
And then he has to answer for his own actions setting the whole scenerio into motion.
Click to expand...
Well MaggieD he didn't set it into motion.
He was following to keep eye on the suspicious person. He made it clear in his call that he didn't want to make contact with the suspicious person, and there is no evidence that he attempted to do so.
Had he attempted to do so, I would agree with you.


But the evidence is, that he lost him and was returning to his vehicle after looking for an address.
Which is when Trayvon, who was in hiding came out and made contact with Zimmerman in quite a violent fashion.
That is Trayvon setting it all into motion.
 
Excon said:
Well MaggieD he didn't set it into motion.
He was following to keep eye on the suspicious person. He made it clear in his call that he didn't want to make contact with the suspicious person, and there i no evidence that he attempted to do so.
Had he attempted to do so, I would agree with you.

But the evidence is, that he lost him and was returning to his vehicle after looking for an address.
Which is when Trayvon, who was in hiding came out and made contact with Zimmerman. That is Trayvon setting it all into motion.
Click to expand...

I take what you're saying at face value, ExCon. I'm not that up on the minutia. I don't remember that he made it clear to the operator that he didn't want to engage this person. But I do remember the operator discouraged him from following. It is fairly apparent to me that he didn't listen.
 
Look, I don't even know if the defense would be allowed to raise that issue. But it goes to character and the likelihood of Trayvon Martin attacking first.
Click to expand...

Bugrlers don't attack ...
...they burgle.
That evidence may speak to Trayvon's likelihood to burgle, but has nothing to do with his likelihood to attack.
You assume that if someone is a burger that they are more likely to be violent...
... The defense wouldn't be so stupid as to assume that.
 
MaggieD said:
I take what you're saying at face value, ExCon. I'm not that up on the minutia. I don't remember that he made it clear to the operator that he didn't want to engage this person. But I do remember the operator discouraged him from following. It is fairly apparent to me that he didn't listen.
Click to expand...
Is it ?
Well he did say ok. And obviously wasn't following him anymore.
So how is it apparent?
And as it was only a suggestion, and he was not obligated to abide by anything the call-taker suggested or even told him if he had.
I mean Trayvon was hiding and let Zimmerman pass by him when he was looking for an address, and waited until he passed him again (returning to his vehicle) before he came out of hiding and approached Zimmerman from his left rear.

So where do you get this "he didn't listen" from? Because he obviously did.



But in finality, it doesn't matter as his actions were legal.



Not only that, as we already know it was only a suggestion that he was not obligated to follow, what do you make of the call-taker telling Zimmerman to let him know if the suspicious person does anything else?
That is an actual instruction.
How does one accomplish that with out keeping eyes on the suspicious person?
 
MaggieD said:
One is not the same as another. Let's switch it up. I'm suing that CEO for stealing. Does the fact that he embezzled funds have a bearing on my case? Yes, it most certainly does.

.
Click to expand...

But Zimmerman wasn't suing Trayvon for burglarizing him ... He was looking to chase him down and kill him. Zimmerman had no idea what Trayvon had done in the past so there is no relationship between what Tayvon had done and what Zimmerman did.
You make a switch on my simile and by doing so you change the relationship of the actions so that they are no longer similar.
You are getting less real.
If I had no idea what the CEO had done in the past and I killed him based only on what he looked like, embezzlement would have no bearing on my guilt or innocence. Embezzlement like burglary is in no way a violent crime. It would have no bearing on a self defense plea.
 
Excon said:
When caught they do attack.
So stop with the bs.
Click to expand...
Burglary has never been classified as a violent crime and Trayvon has never even been charged with burglary.
Just who here is making a reach with their BS? :roll:
 
MaggieD said:
In my opinion, you're wrong. Zimmerman has to prove that Trayvon Martin attacked him. The defense will no doubt try to prove that through Zimmerman's accounting of events. He may also (if the judge allows it) try to prove it by showing that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he would do so. Character and past acts of Martin's come into play, in my opinion. (Just as Zimmerman's do.)
Click to expand...

Maggie, I would disagree with this because whether or not Martin had a past history of stealing isn't relevant to whether or not Zimmerman was fearful for his life unless he can prove that Martin stole something in the complex on a prior occasion and threatened Zimmerman or let's say Martin was a black belt in karate or something like that, that would be relevant if Zimmerman could prove that Martin presented that way or told him he was - that would be relevant to how he defended himself.

Martin's character is irrelevant to the issues of the case - Martin's ability or propensity to kill would be.
 
Excon said:
Is it ?
Well he did say ok. And obviously wasn't following him anymore.
So how is it apparent?
And as it was only a suggestion, and he was not obligated to abide by anything the call-taker suggested or even told him if he had.
I mean Trayvon was hiding and let Zimmerman pass by him when he was looking for an address, and waited until he passed him again (returning to his vehicle) before he came out of hiding and approached Zimmerman from his left rear.

So where do you get this "he didn't listen" from? Because he obviously did.

But in finality, it doesn't matter as his actions were legal.

Not only that, as we already know it was only a suggestion that he was not obligated to follow, what do you make of the call-taker telling Zimmerman to let him know if the suspicious person does anything else?
That is an actual instruction.
How does one accomplish that with out keeping eyes on the suspicious person?
Click to expand...

I didn't remember the call taker telling him to "let him know...." That certainly suggests he figured GZ was going to keep an eye on him. I say that he obviously didn't listen only because he wound up out of the car...ostensibly to watch where he went. If that's not what the evidence we know about shows, then mea culpa -- because, as I said, I'm not that up on all the facts.

This is a complicated case. I will be very surprised if they don't find GZ guilty of something. I don't think it should be 2nd degree murder.
 
Buck Ewer said:
But Zimmerman wasn't suing Trayvon for burglarizing him ... He was looking to chase him down and kill him. Zimmerman had no idea what Trayvon had done in the past so there is no relationship between what Tayvon had done and what Zimmerman did.
You make a switch on my simile and by doing so you change the relationship of the actions so that they are no longer similar.
You are getting less real.
If I had no idea what the CEO had done in the past and I killed him based only on what he looked like, embezzlement would have no bearing on my guilt or innocence. Embezzlement like burglary is in no way a violent crime. It would have no bearing on a self defense plea.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal: I'm not going to carry on dialogue with someone who postulates that GZ intended to hunt down this guy and kill him.
 
Dapper Andy said:
Of course it matters. It goes to credibility.
Click to expand...
If Trayvon were on trial for honesty then this evidence would be admissible and pertinent.
Trayvon's credibility is not at issue in this trial.
Zimmerman's intent to kill is.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Burglary has never been classified as a violent crime and Trayvon has never even been charged with burglary.
Just who here is making a reach with their BS? :roll:
Click to expand...
That would still be you.
No one was talking about classification. That is you introducing that now as an absurd defense.
What I said was; When caught they do attack. Granted that is not all, some run.

But your instance that they don't was bs, as some do.

And you better brush up on your classifications, because depending on the circumstances, burglary can be a violent crime.
 
MaggieD said:
I didn't remember the call taker telling him to "let him know...." That certainly suggests he figured GZ was going to keep an eye on him. I say that he obviously didn't listen only because he wound up out of the car...ostensibly to watch where he went. If that's not what the evidence we know about shows, then mea culpa -- because, as I said, I'm not that up on all the facts.

This is a complicated case. I will be very surprised if they don't find GZ guilty of something. I don't think it should be 2nd degree murder.
Click to expand...

from the NEN transcript, page 2:

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok?

Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

Dispatcher: Yeah, we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Click to expand...

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

twice Zimmerman is told to let them know if TM does anything else. which raises the question: how is he supposed to do that if he doesn't follow TM?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom