What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[Luke]

Frown:

AP: Circuit Judge Debra Nelson ruled Tuesday that Zimmerman's attorney won't be able to mention Trayvon Martin's marijuana use, his suspension from school and his past fighting during opening statements.

The judge also ruled that some of the Martin's texts and other social media statements won't be allowed in opening statements, though some of his personal material could be allowed later depending on how the case progresses.

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, told the judge that Martin's marijuana use and past fighting was central to the argument that Zimmerman used self-defense when he confronted Martin last year at a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty.

"We have a lot of evidence that marijuana use had something to do with the event," O'Mara said. "It could have affected his behavior."


___________________________________________________________

All I want is justice to be served, but ^ kind of ticked me off. I was unaware a judge could say "Nah. I don't want you using evidence in your opening statements, in court". Granted, a judge can basically do whatever he/she wants, but common sense says evidence needs to be addressed in opening statements.

AP also reports that the judge said jurors will not be able to view pictures of the scene of incident, or "scene of the murder" as AP reports.

Why does it seem the public thinks Zimmerman is guilty of murder when no one knows what transpired that day? Why does race even have to play a role in this case?

Eff the media. For all I know Zimmerman was a racist guy with a blood lust, or, Martin could have been up to no good and Zimmerman practiced self defense. WE DON'T KNOW. So how can sweeping evidence under the rug help? I mean if the kid had a previous record of violence, we should know right? Kid could have been stoned, paranoid, and flipped out on an authority figure.

The key word is "Could". I'd like to know.

[dsheinem]

how is any of that information from phone/social media "evidence" of what happened that night?

[alienjesus]

Ticked: My girlfriend borrowed my keys and managed to lose them. It's not TOO big a deal except for the fact that I had a key for a small safe on there where I've been keeping my DS cartridges.

Smile: Apparently lockpicking a safe isn't nearly as difficult as I'd imagined. Kinda worrying how easy it is tbh.

[Retrodude]

how is any of that information from phone/social media "evidence" of what happened that night?

Exactly. None of that is relevant so it shouldn't be included. It wouldn't matter what the case was or who killed who, defending one man by demonizing his victim is wrong period. Now if the defense had solid evidence that Trayvon Martin was drunk/stoned/whatever on the night he was killed, that would be relevant, but as far as I know, they don't.

[Luke]

how is any of that information from phone/social media "evidence" of what happened that night?

The basis of any hearing is based on building a case**. Social media activity is well monitored and is becoming a standard in building a case. Even when you get pulled over the officer is trained to build his case.

If Zimmerman did so much as make a bad decision, I say he's guilty.

If it was in self defense, I'd need to hear a well established case for why Zimmerman shot the kid. Their case of defense is that Trayvon was the aggressor, and the social media that would count as evidence of past aggression would include tweets like "lol just broke sum niggaz nose". That is relevant and can change the course of a trial.

I'm fairly certain that specific evidence will come to light during the trial*, and I want the jurors to be as well informed as possible.


*ProfessGamer should be able to "lay down the law" on this.

**I use the word "case" way too much in this post.

[o.pwuaioc]

If it was in self defense, I'd need to hear a well established case for why Zimmerman shot the kid. Their case of defense is that Trayvon was the aggressor, and the social media that would count as evidence of past aggression would include tweets like "lol just broke sum niggaz nose". That is relevant and can change the course of a trial.

I'm fairly certain that specific evidence will come to light during the trial*, and I want the jurors to be as well informed as possible.

Profess should be able to "lay down the law" on this.

The judge sees all this evidence beforehand, so if there was anything in there that indicated that he was aggressive, he would have allowed it. Unfortunately, all the evidence mentioned so far by the defense is entirely irrelevant. Smoking pot does not indicate aggression. Getting bad grades does not indicate aggression. Even fighting in general does not indicate aggression. And none of that justifies the use of lethal force.

[Luke]

And none of that justifies the use of lethal force.

Agree 100%.

Past fights or a history of drug use shouldn't issue you a death warrant, but if you feel that your life is in danger you do what is necessary. I don't know if what Zimmerman did was necessary. I'm just asking for some answers.

[indecks]

Kinda sorta frown but not really: Sold my PS3 this weekend, and will likely sell my Xbox 360 today or tomorrow.

Smile: I sold the PS3 for money to pay for one of these:



Sorry for it being upside down. All of the other image links were blocked here at work. If anyone knows anything about the Yamaha FG-180 red label guitar, you'll see why I'm happy. The FG-180 red label (made from 1960 to 1974) has one of the best sounds of any guitar anywhere. It is an amazing accomplishment for an 'entry level' guitar. I believe they were sold for about $150 or so back in the day. I *cannot wait* to get this thing delivered.

[J T]

I was unaware a judge could say "Nah. I don't want you using evidence in your opening statements, in court". Granted, a judge can basically do whatever he/she wants, but common sense says evidence needs to be addressed in opening statements.

This is just the judge doing something up front to prevent the defense from trying to slam Trayvon's character rather than focus on what happened that night. You know that's what is ultimately going to happen. They will drag his name through the mud and obfuscate the important facts. "Focus on how our story makes you feel, not on the facts actually related to the events of that night." The defense wants to make Trayvon out to be a bad kid so that the juror's feel less sympathy for him. It pulls away from the facts and tries to manipulate based on emotions so that people think "well maybe he was only armed with a bag of Skittles that night, but he was a bad kid and it's a just world so he must have deserved it."

[o.pwuaioc]

The same crap is pulled with women and rape. "Oh, look, she has sex with different people, therefore she's a slut and must have wanted it."