11
   

State pushes to keep Trayvon Martin's past out of George Zimmerman trial

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 11:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Martin's state of mind that day is highly relevant...which is why coroner inquests tend to include the state of mind of the dead one in their fact finding.

You think a coroner can evaluate "state of mind"? How the hell would the coroner know what Martin was thinking or feeling that day? Toxicology reports indicate foreign substances in the body, that could influence behavior, but that's not "state of mind" in terms of the person's emotional state, thought processes, perceptions, or motivations just before they died. Martin had no significant amount of any mind-altering substance in his body at the time he was killed.

Martin had trace amounts of marijuana in his system, indicating he may have smoked pot up to 30 days before he was shot--which tells a jury next to nothing about his "state of mind" at the time he was killed, or what caused the final altercation with Zimmerman. But, if this drug-use evidence is deemed admissible during trial, it will be admitted. I don't see where it would help a jury decide if Zimmerman acted in justifiable self defense--and that's the main issue in this case.

If anyone's "state of mind" was relevant to the shooting it would be Zimmerman's. It's relevant to why he noticed Martin, why he followed him, why he got out of his vehicle, why he believed his life was in danger, etc.. Zimmerman is the one on trial--it's his state of mind that will be scrutinized.

It was evidence of Martin's past behaviors, like fights, school suspensions, etc. that the prosecution sought to block--and the judge agreed to.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 11:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
If decedent had a known chronic history
of getting into a lot of fights, if that was his MMA hobby and his way of life,
then it is relevant to whether he started his LAST fight, against the hapless Zimmy

No, Martin's past history wouldn't tell you a thing about who started that last fight, or whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified. If Zimmerman knew nothing about Martin, Martin's past history was not an influence on, or explanation for, Zimmerman's actions. It's just not relevant in this case, and that was how the judge felt.

And the "hapless Zimmy" was the pursuer in this case, and an armed pursuer, with his own past history of problems controlling his aggressive impulses.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 11:46 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Martin's state of mind that day is highly relevant...which is why coroner inquests
tend to include the state of mind of the dead one in their fact finding.
firefly wrote:
You think a coroner can evaluate "state of mind"?
Possibly; suppose there is eyewitness testimony at his inquest
(maybe supported by videotape admitted into evidence),
of decedent screaming violent threats in livid rage
as he lunges at someone and decedent is brandishing a knife,
a moment before he gets fatally shot.

Yeah, I think a coroner can evaluate his state of mind.





firefly wrote:
How the hell would the coroner know what Martin was thinking or feeling that day?
According to u,
if a lot of PCP were found in decedent's blood n brain
(taken together with expert testimony on the record
qua its known effects upon human behavior),
that is not important -- trivial ?? or irrelevant ?





David



firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 12:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Possibly; suppose there is eyewitness testimony at his inquest
(maybe supported by videotape admitted into evidence),
of decedent screaming violent threats in livid rage
as he lunges at someone and decedent is brandishing a knife,
a moment before he gets fatally shot.

Yeah, I think a coroner can evaluate his state of mind.

Your example is irrelevant--that's the sort of evidence a jury evaluates and then draws their own conclusions about "state of mind". A coroner's area of specialty is pathology/autopsy, they have no particular expertise in understanding or interpreting the behavior of living people. Their job is to determine the cause and circumstance of a person's death--not to try the criminal case.

Coroner's mainly get into "state of mind", if at all, when trying to determine if a death was a suicide.

As far as I know, there was no coroner's inquest in this case, nor was one needed. The manner and cause of death were clear-cut--it was a homicide, due to a gunshot injury. And Zimmerman admitted to doing the shooting.
Quote:
According to u,
if a lot of PCP were found in decedent's blood n brain
(taken together with expert testimony on the record
qua its known effects upon human behavior),
that is not important -- trivial ?? or irrelevant ?

But that wasn't the case in this instance. And I'm not interested in hypotheticals, I want to stick to this case, and its legalities.

And, even if Martin had PCP in his body, it still wouldn't tell you whether Zimmerman had provoked the final altercation. And knowing that Martin did have trace amounts of marijuana in his system, which can remain in the body up to 30 days, really tells you nothing about his "state of mind" or about whether Zimmerman acted in justifiable self defense.

The judge was correct in her rulings regarding the evidence and arguments that can be initially presented in this case.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 12:27 pm
It's really irrelevant to this discussion, but I heard Zimmerman's lawyer say he's gained 100-120 pounds since his arrest--he's quite obese now.

I wonder if his girth, and more imposing physical size now, will affect the jury in any way.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 12:56 pm
@firefly,
DAVID wrote:
Possibly; suppose there is eyewitness testimony at his inquest
(maybe supported by videotape admitted into evidence),
of decedent screaming violent threats in livid rage
as he lunges at someone and decedent is brandishing a knife,
a moment before he gets fatally shot.

Yeah, I think a coroner can evaluate his state of mind.

firefly wrote:
Your example is irrelevant--that's the sort of evidence a jury evaluates and then draws their own conclusions about "state of mind".
A coroner's area of specialty is pathology/autopsy, they have no particular expertise in understanding or interpreting the behavior of living people.
Their job is to determine the cause and circumstance of a person's death--not to try the criminal case.

Coroner's mainly get into "state of mind", if at all, when trying to determine if a death was a suicide.
I see; so, according to u,
a coroner never rules a death to be a homicide; thank u for that information.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 01:16 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Your example is irrelevant
It was relevant
to your question to Hawkeye of:
firefly wrote:
You think a coroner can evaluate "state of mind"?
[question cast in broad & general language,
not case specific]




How the hell would the coroner know what Martin
was thinking or feeling that day?



firefly wrote:
But that wasn't the case in this instance.
And I'm not interested in hypotheticals,
I want to stick to this case, and its legalities.
If that were true,
then u 'd not have presented the question in general terms,
rather than referring to this specific litigation.







firefly wrote:
And, even if Martin had PCP in his body,
it still wouldn't tell you whether Zimmerman had provoked the final altercation.

It is what Richardson on Evidence calls:
"some evidence" of the likelihood.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 01:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I see; so, according to u,
a coroner never rules a death to be a homicide; thank u for that information.

Stop playing games. You know I never said that, or implied that.

And the coroner's stated cause and circumstance of death, in this case, was a homicide, a gunshot wound/injury.

And Zimmerman admitted he fired the shot.

Martin's "state of mind" did not enter into the coroner's determination of the cause and circumstance of his death.

Zimmerman fired the shot that killed Martin. Now we will have a trial to determine whether he was justified in firing that shot as an act of self defense, or whether he will be held legally liable for causing that death.

I'm only interested in discussing this case, not hypotheticals, and not generalities. Play your games with someone else.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 01:56 pm
@firefly,
if this was a case where a cop killed a guy and claimed that it was a case of suicide by cop the state of mind of the dead guy would be the very first thing examined. in this case the Zimmerman defense should be allowed to look into this no matter what the case of the prosecution is.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 02:05 pm
@firefly,
DAVID wrote:
I see; so, according to u,
a coroner never rules a death to be a homicide; thank u for that information.
firefly wrote:
Stop playing games. You know I never said that, or implied that.
I exhibited what u said,
to which I replied. The record speaks for itself,
regardless of your efforts to avoid responsibility
for what u have posted.





David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 05:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
if this was a case where a cop killed a guy and claimed that it was a case of suicide by cop the state of mind of the dead guy would be the very first thing examined. in this case

When cops kill unarmed people, who are not involved in the commission of any crimes, they have to justify their actions too--in terms of justifying their use of deadly force against an unarmed person--and that's exactly what Zimmerman will have to do. And Zimmerman will have to do it by describing Martin's behavior, not his "state of mind". Zimmerman reacted to Martin on the basis of his observable behaviors.

Where did you even get the idea the defense wanted to look into Martin's "state of mind"?
Quote:
Zimmerman defense should be allowed to look into this no matter...

The Zimmerman defense can look into any matter they wish to. However, what evidence they can present in court, to the jury, is governed by the rules of evidence and the rulings of the judge. And the judge in this case has already ruled that information relating to Martin's past, like school suspensions, or fighting, or smoking pot, is not relevant to the issue of whether Zimmerman acted in justifiable self defense when he shot and killed him, because Zimmerman was unaware of such things about Martin, and was not influenced by them, when he pulled the trigger. The judge has considerably more knowledge of the law than you do.

Trying to trash the dead teen's character and reputation won't work as a defense in this case, particularly because Zimmerman was the pursuer, the teen had a right, and a legitimate reason, to be on the property, and he wasn't doing anything illegal prior to the fatal confrontation with Zimmerman. It's going to hinge on Zimmerman's credibility in describing that fatal encounter and whether the evidence supports his version of those events--and his account of those events was inconsistent.

It should be an interesting trial.



hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 08:30 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Trying to trash the dead teen's character and reputation won't work as a defense in this case
the defense is what Zimmerman claims the truth is, which is that Martin physically attacked him because he was mad. Knowing what kind of a kid this was is the only insight we have into how likely this was as there are no witnesses and no conclusive evidence.

Quote:
It's going to hinge on Zimmerman's credibility in describing that fatal encounter and whether the evidence supports his version of those events--and his account of those events was inconsistent.
because he is considered guilty until proven innocent, which is a violation of the constitution. what you should be saying is that the state has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman is lying because that is what the constitution demands , but your hostility to the freedoms granted in that particular promise is well known.


Quote:
The judge has considerably more knowledge of the law than you do.
fucked up Florida law.... maybe.

Quote:
particularly because Zimmerman was the pursuer
no jury is going to buy that malarkey that the state is selling.....Zimmerman was the well intentioned defender of his hood from the recent onslaught of hoodlums, and as such he will be given a lot of leeway.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 09:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the defense is what Zimmerman claims the truth is, which is that Martin physically attacked him because he was mad. Knowing what kind of a kid this was is the only insight we have into how likely this was as there are no witnesses and no conclusive evidence.

No, we don't have to know "what kind of a kid this was"--there is evidence in this case which will be presented to either back up, or refute, Zimmerman's account of what occurred between them. You seem unacquainted with that evidence. Hopefully, the trial will enlighten you.

Do you think that the jury should judge Zimmerman on the basis of his past legal problems with control of his aggressive impulses--the way you seem to think Martin should be judged on the basis of his past problems with things like school suspension or pot smoking? Or should the jury simply consider the events of that night and what transpired between Zimmerman and Martin prior to the shooting--the issues that are really relevant in this case?

Quote:
because he is considered guilty until proven innocent, which is a violation of the constitution...
Get off it. You don't understand the Constitution, the law, or the issues in this case.

Zimmerman is guilty, in the sense of being responsible, for the killing of an unarmed minor.
This isn't a whodunit. We know Zimmerman killed Martin. And, even if he is found to have acted in justifiable self defense, he will never be "innocent" regarding that killing, because he was the one who pulled the trigger and took the life of Trayvon Martin--he just won't be held criminally liable for doing it. This wasn't an accident, Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin.

The only issues to be decided are who provoked that final altercation, whether Martin was an attacker/aggressor or simply a frightened teen trying to defend his own life from a stranger who was menacing him, and whether Zimmerman legitimately acted in self defense under Florida law when he killed Martin.

And, since Zimmerman waived his right to a pre-trial immunity hearing, you'll have to wait for the trial to see the evidence which is actually presented by both sides, and how convincing that evidence actually is.

So far, you don't even seem to understand the legalities of the judge's pre-trial rulings, or the legal framework that organizes a trial.

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 10:35 pm
The real version of the tale:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3025240/posts

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 10:38 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Do you think that the jury should judge Zimmerman on the basis of his past legal problems with control of his aggressive impulses--the way you seem to think Martin should be judged on the basis of his past problems with things like school suspension or pot smoking?


I'd want the jury to hear about Martin punching out the school bus driver...

http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/03/did-trayvon-martin-punch-a-bus-driver.html

Quote:

"Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver," Martin's cousin wrote to him on Feb. 21.

This incident is in addition to the incidents that got Martin suspended from school on multiple occasions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobia
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 11:45 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I'd want the jury to hear about Martin punching out the school bus driver...

Do you want the jury to also hear about how Zimmerman wound up in court due to his domestic violence problems, and how he wound up in court again, after an altercation with a law enforcement officer--and that he was court-ordered to attend anger management?

How about the fact that Zimmerman was prescribed medication for control of impulsivity?

How about the fact that Zimmerman lied to his lawyer, and to the court, regarding his financial assets, at his bail hearing for this case? And he deliberately tried to conceal his assets by transferring them between accounts. Wow, that would really impress a jury regarding his credibility, wouldn't it?

This case has to be decided on the basis of what is directly relevant--and that's what transpired between these two strangers that night. Did Zimmerman recklessly provoke a deadly encounter with an innocent unarmed teen who was minding his own business? Was Martin an aggressive attacker, or was he reacting defensively to a stranger who appeared to be menacing him? Was Zimmerman legally justified in using deadly force in defending himself? Was the killing of Trayvon Martin legally justified self defense under Florida law? Are Zimmerman's accounts of the events of that night consistent and credible? Are they supported, or refuted, by the evidence directly related to the shooting?

Whether Martin ever did, or did not, take a punch at a school bus driver is not relevant in helping to determine what transpired that night between two strangers. Whether he had been suspended from school is not relevant in helping to determine what transpired that night between two strangers.

The case will be decided in court.

Wait for the trial.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 May, 2013 06:45 am
@firefly,
Quote:
It should be an interesting trial.


I don't normally watch a lot of live court cases, but your right, this one should be interesting on a lot of fronts.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 May, 2013 07:34 am
More...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/29/3422519/lawyer-zimmerman-prosecutor-withheld.html

Quote:

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken......

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/29/3422519/lawyer-zimmerman-prosecutor-withheld.html#storylink=cpy
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 May, 2013 07:37 am
The Flori-DUH legal system, if you want to call it that, is one of the more major reasons I've never wanted to live in Flori-DUH and have always told head-hunters I was not interested in jobs there. You've got one guy (Fuster) still in prison for imaginary **** related to Janet Reno's witch-craft trials and that US appeals court in Atlanta which blasted Grant Snowden out of a Flori-DUH prison after 13 years of appeals falling on deaf ears, basically called the Flori-DUH judicial system a herd of kangaroos.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 May, 2013 10:04 am
@gungasnake,
Whether the prosecutor withheld some info from the defense is a serious matter. The hearings next week, regarding this issue, will, hopefully, clarify what was done, and by whom.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/26/2019 at 04:55:49