Of course (insert Raul Julia gif)! "Who" it happened to usually becomes more important that "Why" it happened.J T wrote: 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.
I am not familiar with the details of the case, but here is my reading of the judge's ruling:Luke wrote: *ProfessGamer should be able to "lay down the law" on this.
Rape shield laws - rightfully - prevent this from happening any more.o.pwuaioc wrote: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."
I would agree with you, but Trayvon Martin - obviously - is not going to be taking the stand at trial. Accordingly, there is no reason to impeach his character or truthfulness unless the prosecution puts them at issue.Luke wrote: But when you ask a jury "Who do you trust?", character plays a huge part.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:I am not familiar with the details of the case, but here is my reading of the judge's ruling:Luke wrote: *ProfessGamer should be able to "lay down the law" on this.
Whether Trayvon Martin used marijuana or committed violent acts before the incident in question is not - in and of itself - relevant to whether the defendant acted in self defense. Moreover, evidence of Trayvon Martin's past criminal activity is extremely prejudicial to the prosecution. (That is, the evidence might persuade a juror to acquit the defendant based solely on his or her opinion of Trayvon Martin's character.) Accordingly, evidence of Trayvon Martin's past criminal activity probably will not be admissible into evidence at trial unless the prosecution "opens the door" for its admission. There are multiple ways that this could happen, but the most likely way would be placing Trayvon Martin's character at issue. So, for example, if a the prosecution - hoping to prove that Trayvon Martin was not the aggressor - introduced evidence or testimony regarding his gentle, law-abiding nature, the defense would be able to introduce evidence of Trayvon Martin's past criminal behavior, including the texts and photographs:
Prosecution: "How do you know that Trayvon Martin was not the aggressor?"
Prosecution Witness: "Trayvon Martin was as gentle as a lamb. He would never hurt anyone, and he never used any mind-altering substances like marijuana. It just wasn't in his nature..."
Defense: "Oh, really? Are you so sure about that? Wait until you see these..." <pulls out photographs and text messages>
(Obviously, that is not exactly how it would happen in a court of law, but you hopefully get the point.)
Opening statements, however, are made before anything is admitted into evidence, and it is unclear at that point whether the prosecution will "open the door" and whether the defense will be able to admit evidence of Trayvon Martin's past criminal activity at trial. Courts routinely do not allow the parties to discuss contested evidence during their opening statements, and I suspect that is what happened here. That is: (1) there is a dispute as to whether the defense will be allowed to admit evidence of Trayvon Martin's past criminal activity at trial; (2) the Court - wisely - deferred ruling on the evidentiary issue until it sees how the other evidence develops; but (3) until it has ruled on the evidence's admissibility, it will not allow the parties to discuss the evidence - and certainly not during their opening statements. (If the evidence is ultimately admitted at trial, however, the jurors will be allowed to view the pictures and read the texts, and the defense will be allowed to discuss it during its closing.)
Personally, I see why the defense wants to admit the evidence here, and I would try to do the same thing if I were the defense attorney. Whether Trayvon Martin used marijuana and engaged in other violent acts, however, is ultimately irrelevant to whether he was the aggressor on the night in question. (That is, the fact that he had smoked marijuana before and been in fights before does not prove that he started the fight which provoked the shooting.) Moreover, the evidence is extremely prejudicial to the prosecution's case. Accordingly, if I were the judge, I also would not put it in front of the jury unless the prosecution "opened the door" for its admission.
Rape shield laws - rightfully - prevent this from happening any more.o.pwuaioc wrote: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."
I would agree with you, but Trayvon Martin - obviously - is not going to be taking the stand at trial. Accordingly, there is no reason to impeach his character or truthfulness unless the prosecution puts them at issue.Luke wrote: But when you ask a jury "Who do you trust?", character plays a huge part.
Interestingly, past criminal activity is always relevant to prove the character or truthfulness of a witness, and for this reason, many criminal defendants do not take the stand in their own defense. If they did, the prosecution could use evidence of past criminal activity to show that they did not have good character or to persuade the jurors that they should not believe the defendants' testimony. (That said, when you introduce evidence that guy on trial for dealing drugs has been convicted of dealing drugs 20+ times in the past, the jury does not use that evidence solely to determine the veracity of the defendants' testimony.) Criminal defense attorneys view this evidence as so prejudicial - and they view the bias against people with prior convictions as so strong - that they will often discourage their clients from taking the stand in their own defense for fear that the prosecution will introduce evidence of past criminal activity.
Luke wrote: If we were still kids we would have been pen-pals. Probably the kind who would have even drawn art on the envelope with colored pencils and raced to the mailbox after school.
: no one cares I'm getting an FG180 Sorry, not sure if it's a medical condition, a part for your model plane, or an offshoot form for your 401K :/indecks wrote:
Had my Onboard Meeting at Disney today. It was at the Casting Building, which is right across the street from Downtown Disney. I left WAY too early, so I arrived about 3 hours early and just wandered around Downtown Disney for a few hours. It was so overwhelming, like in the first Harry Potter book/movie when Harry first arrived at Diagon Alley. Everything was overpriced (like the Dasani I bought for $2.75, but they listed the price AFTER taxes which means they obviously just took sales tax into account before pricing it) and I really wanted/needed a hat, but the cheapest one I found was $20. But I found out that there's a Fix-it Felix Jr machine at DisneyQuest. It's definitely a place I plan on checking out when I have a steady income and not just whatever I get from unemployment. I also have my Traditions on the 11th of June at 8 in the morning, as does my brother's girlfriend. He, on the other hand, had his training today at Epcot, where he's gonna be a third shift custodian. I'm also a custodian, albeit a seasonal one at Typhoon Lagoon, but after a while I'll be able to transfer to something else. At least I will be after Traditions.
Put some minutes on my phone. I had a promo code, where if I added a 120-minute card to it, I could get 30 extra minutes (I have double minutes, and with the promo code I ended up with 270 minutes for only $30).
Congrats on the job stuff. But is the phone section really necessary for this thread? That would be the same as me hopping on and updating the board when I paid my water bill and sent in my mortgage payment. Some stuff just isn't relevant or worthwhile to inform everyone about.REPO Man wrote:
Well, finally did it. Have been debating for a few months. We started recycling hard-core (ever since they went to "no sort") about 6 months ago, so we generally have like 3 bags of garbage. We've had the big can for so long but lately it's only been half full. After talking to my grandma about it - she suggested we drop down a size. Sure, it would save a few dollars a month for the smaller can, BUT, what if we had a heavy flow one week? Where would the extra trash go? Would we have to double-up the next week? What if that was a heavy week as well? 
So yeah, we did it, but sure enough, an hour later and they still haven't come reclaimed the larger can. What can am I being charged for right now? The large can or the small can? I have the large can, yes, however, i've made it clear that we want the smaller can. The bill better be timestamped and charged out accurately. I have an email confirmation of the whole ordeal, so I should be covered.
I only have 2 minutes left of internet usage for the month and I wasted it typing this post, so now I can't get that email. Grrr!
