DescentBB

If you are on trial for self defense/murder and the guy you claim you shot in self defense tested positive for drugs shouldn't you be able to present that information to the jury as an indicator of the state of mind and character of the alleged assailant?

Just off-hand I would think, as long as the drug is illegal, it should be viewed as an indicator of character. And any drug that is mind-altering should be considered an indicator of their state of mind.

I agree you should be able. Most illegal drugs (hard ones) alter your state of mind and some to the point that you really have no clue what you are doing.

I’d say yes…but, I don’t see how being legal or not, would make any difference, if you’re under the influence you’re under the influence.

if the drug in question was proven to cause behavior that would be clearly threatening, sure, but I suspect you are talking about the Zimmerman case, in which case the drug in question was cannibis, hardly a contributor to dangerous actions or behaviors that I'm aware of. Further, to Thornes comment, character of a victim is irrelevant, you can't kill people because they are of suspect character. They have to be an immediate lethal threat.

callmeslick wrote:if the drug in question was proven to cause behavior that would be clearly threatening, sure, but I suspect you are talking about the Zimmerman case, in which case the drug in question was cannibis, hardly a contributor to dangerous actions or behaviors that I'm aware of. Further, to Thornes comment, character of a victim is irrelevant, you can't kill people because they are of suspect character. They have to be an immediate lethal threat.

Should Zimmerman be forced to let assertions that Martin was an innocent little boy who never broke the law or engaged in violence go unchallenged?

The debate as to whether Martin was an imminent threat will largely be decided by the evidence presented. Of course you have the head wound to the back of Zimmerman's skull and broken nose and testimony of the police who say those wounds are consistent with Zimmerman's claims that Martin was on top of him and pounding his head into the cement at one point.
But if it was me I'd find it very unfair that physical evidence...toxicology report showing he was a law breaking drug user....and a prior incident of Martin going off and initiating an attack by punching unsuspecting victim in the face...evidence that challenges the inevitable portrayal of Martin as a 'nice young man just trying to get home with candy for his little brother'.

I don't follow how that evidence can be predetermined to be not allowed by the judge when the judge can't know if the prosecution's case will make those events relevant. It strikes me as a very biased preemptive move by the judge.

Forget what you personally think happened in this particular case because that has a bias all it's own.
Think simply that you are Zimmerman, you told the truth and now the truth about your attacker is being suppressed.
That is the way the judge should be thinking when deciding on the admissibility of those factors yet it seems he has decided Martins state of mind and prior violence is not pertinent! I don't see how it cant be allowed without denying Zimmerman a fair trial. It allows the prosecution to make assertions, appealing to the emotions of the jury, presenting fiction as truth without the defense being able to counter that attack with Martins actual history that shows the other side of him.

Will Robinson wrote:
Should Zimmerman be forced to let assertions that Martin was an innocent little boy who never broke the law or engaged in violence go unchallenged?

such assertions are every bit as irrelevant to his guilt or innocence as those aimed at running down Martin's character. Once again, the issue isn't the character of the victim, it is whether Zimmerman acted legally and responsibly in using deadly force. That hinges on the level of threat that Martin posed, in real terms, and the ability of Zimmerman to escape harm. In his favor, the threshold, by Florida precedent, is pretty low for justifiable cause, so I suspect he gets off. In regards to the rest of your statement, Will, it, again, isn't relevant nor would it have possibly been known in advance by Zimmerman as regards prior behavior by Martin, so, yes, such 'evidence' is irrelevant. The judge did well to throw it out, as any use of such so-called evidence would be easy grounds for a request for mistrial.

The point isn't that Zimmerman 'believed Martin was a thug' therefore Martin is more of a threat. The point is there are no witnesses so the whole trial rests largely on the believability of Zimmerman. If the prosecution is allowed to promote Martin as some wonderful little cherub then it becomes increasingly difficult to believe Zimmermans story...

The way the judge has set it up the prosecution will be able to create, out of thin air, the concept that Martin was an innocent victim. A fine outstanding young man, etc. etc. and the defense, even though they have actual evidence to counter such fiction, will not be allowed to show it.

Think about that for a minute. If you were Zimmerman you would feel the judge was against you, not impartial.

The trial may well hinge on motive.
Was Zimmerman motivated to profile the black guy, provoke him and shoot him?
Or, was Martin motivated to attack Zimmerman for profiling him forcing Zimmerman to defend himself?
Each side will want to plant the appropriate scenario in the mind of the jury

Right now the prosecution is allowed to imply Zimmerman is a murderous profiling racist in any way they can.
The defense is not allowed to portray Martin in any way.

I have always found the suppression of evidence by judges a very dubious thing at best.

In this particular case, the “character” of the victim may just ‘be’ relevant to the case…if the prosecution is also using it. That is to say, if part of the prosecution’s case is the character of the victim…then by all means, the defense has the right to attack that.

But I must say…making a character case against the victim, where he was a pot smoker, probably won’t get very far anyway.

In this case, it's probably a better tactic to get at his state of mind instead of character. I have seen some people get very aggressive when smoking pot…just the opposite of what you might expect…especially the paranoia aspect.

Pot mellows out most people…but, there are always the exceptions.

A different report says it is in the opening statements that the judge barred certain evidence from being brought up. So if that is the case my faith in humanity is slightly restored.
Hopefully if the character and history of Martin is raised by he prosecution during the trial then the same issue can be addressed by the defense....

Just curious about opinions here:

What of the "character" evidence about Zimmerman (previous assault charges, restraining order, etc.)? Should those be equally allowable in opening statements, or in general?

callmeslick wrote:Further, to Thornes comment, character of a victim is irrelevant, you can't kill people because they are of suspect character. They have to be an immediate lethal threat.

I think character, in this case, obviously has more to do with judging the truth of the allegations underlying the self-defense plea. It's ridiculous to assume that we're talking about justifying self-defense based on character alone... Wake up, Slick.

Foil wrote:Just curious about opinions here:

What of the "character" evidence about Zimmerman (previous assault charges, restraining order, etc.)? Should those be equally allowable in opening statements, or in general?

I think anything they have on Zimmerman they will use.
As to opening statements, I think if either side, defense or prosecution, want to build their case on something they know about either party then they should be able to express that in their opening statements. Why not as long as it is relevant?
If the judge finds it to be irrelevant he can instruct the jury to ignore it.

Of course lawyers like to plant seeds in the mind of jurors and then they willingly take the judges wrath for doing so because we all know once the seed is planted the judges words can't remove it...to the lawyer it is well worth taking the heat for having said something he knew the judge would strike from the record.

But however tight a stranglehold the judge wants to put on the process it needs to be equally applied or else there is no justice.
It is looking like the judge wants to handicap the defense.

Will Robinson wrote:The point isn't that Zimmerman 'believed Martin was a thug' therefore Martin is more of a threat. The point is there are no witnesses so the whole trial rests largely on the believability of Zimmerman. If the prosecution is allowed to promote Martin as some wonderful little cherub then it becomes increasingly difficult to believe Zimmermans story..

he'd better come up with something a bit better(even in Fla) than 'I believed he was a thug', as there is no legal right to kill folks who appear thuggish..

The way the judge has set it up the prosecution will be able to create, out of thin air, the concept that Martin was an innocent victim. A fine outstanding young man, etc. etc. and the defense, even though they have actual evidence to counter such fiction, will not be allowed to show it.

you keep on confusing personal character with threat level. It doesn't matter if he was a degenerate junkie and unrepentant hater of white people, if he is merely walking down a street with a can of soda and a candy bar, he doesn't pose a viable threat.

Think about that for a minute. If you were Zimmerman you would feel the judge was against you, not impartial.

but, I'm not. I'm an IMPARTIAL party, and to me, the judge is clearly being VERY IMPARTIAL, as it should be. The purpose of the law, and the judiciary isn't to make George Zimmerman feel better, it is to seek justice.

The trial may well hinge on motive.
Was Zimmerman motivated to profile the black guy, provoke him and shoot him?
Or, was Martin motivated to attack Zimmerman for profiling him forcing Zimmerman to defend himself?
Each side will want to plant the appropriate scenario in the mind of the jury

and the marijuana use of the deceased sheds light on this, how?

Right now the prosecution is allowed to imply Zimmerman is a murderous profiling racist in any way they can.
The defense is not allowed to portray Martin in any way.

Martin gets that little break because, and only because..........wait for it, now......HE'S FREAKING DEAD. Geez,the trial is not about the victim, unless, and only unless, Zimmerman can show or suggest convincingly, that he was in DIRE THREAT of his life. Otherwise, he is guilty, unless he can at least show a probability that he was threatened.

Well, the police and hospital reports should shed some light on that one.

slick, I think you are being purposefully obtuse with regard to the point I'm making. We all know that, in textbook self defense law, what you describe is all that matters. But I don't believe for a minute that you think this, or any other case, adheres to textbook implimentation of the law!!

In case you have forgotten, Zimmerman was released after the shooting because all the evidence supported his claims of self defense. He showed more than just the probability that he was threatened...he showed the evidence that he was attacked! His description of what happened was supported by numerous pieces of evidence.

Some of the more compelling evidence was then purposefully left out of the prosecutor's affidavit to enable her to get the murder indictment that came long after the police had decided Zimmerman was acting in self defense. That omission of fact in her filing was described as borderline perjury by Alan Dershowitz who knows a thing or two about law and is certainly no right wing gun nut!!

That prosecutor acted after the Obama Justice department came down on the Florida prosecutors office demanding that murder charges be filed against Zimmerman. Based on what? Of course you aren't going to get a straight answer out of Eric Holder on that even if the media has now finally grown enough of a ballsac to ask it...

So you can drop the act and quit quoting statute like some kind of weird Pollyannaish cheerleader-for-the-prosecution!

This trial is about a lot more than Zimmerman shooting a guy who was beating his head into the sidewalk.

The facts in this case have been shoved out of the way and replaced with pure agenda from the beginning! It has been re-made into the 'Here goes another black guy getting killed by the white guy'.
From Obama saying Trayvon looks like he could be his son and then his Justice Department pressuring the Florida department to reopen the case...to ABC editing the footage to hide the head injury and busted nose Zimmerman sustained in the attack...to NBC editing the 911 call Zimmerman made to completely change the context of the words he spoke to suggest he cited Martins race as the reason Zimmerman thought he was up to something bad in the neighborhood!!

Zimmerman is in for the ride of his life, literally, only this time he doesn't get to pull a pistol out and defend himself!

callmeslick wrote:
he'd better come up with something a bit better(even in Fla) than 'I believed he was a thug', as there is no legal right to kill folks who appear thuggish..

callmeslick wrote: Martin gets that little break because, and only because..........wait for it, now......HE'S FREAKING DEAD. Geez,the trial is not about the victim, unless, and only unless, Zimmerman can show or suggest convincingly, that he was in DIRE THREAT of his life. Otherwise, he is guilty, unless he can at least show a probability that he was threatened.

Your observations of the case are specious at best (but then that is what you are good at). Someone who attacks another person to the point where they are smashing the guys head into the pavement, in your view, should be permitted to keep doing so until the attacker either gets too tired to continue or kills the the guy he is attacking. In slicks world one should wait in the hopes someone has called the cops and the attacker is arrested. Never should one defend oneself. To slick a broken nose and the back of ones head being bloodied is clearly no evidence of dire threat. I suspect if Zimmerman had shot a pit bull attacking him Slick would of called PETA and pressed animal cruelty charges.

< tangent >

Here's what strikes me as bizarre: From what I'm seeing, people are taking sides on this case along party lines.

Why? Is there something inherently political about the case, or is it the Obama connection (i.e. his early statements when the news was breaking)?

< /tangent >

My take is complex
I think most likely Zimmerman was over zealous but within the law, that Martin brought his fists to what turned out to be a gunfight and the police recognized this and released him sensing there was no conviction in it for them.

Then the new Black Panthers and Al Sharpton, celebrity loudmouths, et al created what Obama saw as a political opportunity and they set out to harvest some political capital at the expense of justice. In this case justice for a guy who barely escaped with justification under the law but became a target for jackals that feed on innocents with no concern for their victims because they are the most powerful self righteous group in America's history.

The way most Americans were initially told about the events was extremely dishonest, full of misrepresentations that made it sound completely different than it was. It's no wonder politics has surfaced in the debate, it was severely politicized by the President, Hollywood and the mainstream media in a fashion reminiscent of a KGB propaganda campaign!

Foil, pretty much what Will says but let me add this.Zimmerman is half Latino yet the racist mongering press in support of Obama's statement that "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," tried to make Zimmerman into a white boy and thus turn the racist dogs like Sharpton loose on the incident. Maybe this may sound racist but when it comes to murder black people are worthless...until of course it is a white person doing the murdering. In Martins case, if Zimmerman was straight latino then we would of never heard about the case but since he is half white, now the race mongers have something to rally around. With Obama entering the fray (when's the last time you heard about Obama saying anything about a nice young black man being killed by other black men or if a white man is killed by a black man?) now it has become not only political but also racist.

So if it appears that we on this board are taking political sides, we conservatives are looking at the case as a ginned up scenario that has no real basis in law but since Obama got involved then it escalated to:

" The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have opened an investigation into the "facts and circumstances" surrounding the killing of Trayvon Martin"

Without this push no charges would of ever been levied against Zimmerman and furthermore, if Zimmerman was black you would of never even heard about the case. In the end what we have is a racist President entering his opinion into a case that then became political. Those on this board who think Obama can do no wrong are going to say Zimmerman murdered a sweet young defenseless boy. Those of us not sucked into the Obama love fest see the case for what it really is...a blatant attempt to show the black voters of America that the Democrats are in power and on their side. Sadly only the gullible believe this.

If all you conservatives don't think "race" and "preconception" have a significant bearing this case other than that part about Obama jumping on the band wagon making it a race issue, think again. Here's yet another example. Black teenagers can't even give police dirty looks without being jumped on. Last I heard, a person should be able to give the police a dirty look. We're not a police state....yet.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... humanizing

The comment made by the president in this case will prejudges any jury, so I wonder how this guy can get a fair trial at this point.

Yea, of course it’s political…how can the president get involved in something totally out of the federal government’s jurisdiction, without being political. (murder is a state crime)

Foil wrote:< tangent >

Here's what strikes me as bizarre: From what I'm seeing, people are taking sides on this case along party lines.

Why? Is there something inherently political about the case, or is it the Obama connection (i.e. his early statements when the news was breaking)?

< /tangent >

they shouldn't be....there is nothing inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative' here.....it's a defense in a murder/aggravated homicide case. Pretty basic stuff, and I agree with the point Spidey makes. Zimmerman's point of view rests on what HIS medical reports show, not the deceased. I also agree with Will...my take is that, under Florida law, Zimmerman was overzealous but marginally legal. As for Woody getting personal and calling my points 'specious', I leave it for others to compare what I've brought to the thread versus himself.

Spidey wrote:The comment made by the president in this case will prejudges any jury, so I wonder how this guy can get a fair trial at this point.

Yea, of course it’s political…how can the president get involved in something totally out of the federal government’s jurisdiction, without being political. (murder is a state crime)

seriously? That little prejudices a jury in Florida? Come on now, and how long ago was that, to boot?

Foil wrote:< tangent >

Here's what strikes me as bizarre: From what I'm seeing, people are taking sides on this case along party lines.

Why? Is there something inherently political about the case, or is it the Obama connection (i.e. his early statements when the news was breaking)?

< /tangent >

As people have said, because prominent people out there have made it that way.

Here's the key question: Should Zimmerman been in fear of his life? The answer to that will probably decide the case.

One side will say no, he only reacted that way because he profiled Martin and jumped to conclusions. The other side (which I tend to agree with) will say yes, when you've had your nose broken and your face smashed against the side you should be in fear of your life. Justification of Zimmerman's fear can quickly become a very political matter...

callmeslick wrote:seriously? That little prejudices a jury in Florida? Come on now, and how long ago was that, to boot?

Sounds like the Zimmerman defense team has been leaking all sorts of sensational false and questionable evidence treads just to taint the jury pool. Slimy tactics to say the least.

http://news.yahoo.com/no-trayvon-martin ... 43328.html

You expect the lawyers to be slimy…what is the media’s excuse?

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:seriously? That little prejudices a jury in Florida? Come on now, and how long ago was that, to boot?

Sounds like the Zimmerman defense team has been leaking all sorts of sensational false and questionable evidence treads just to taint the jury pool. Slimy tactics to say the least.

http://news.yahoo.com/no-trayvon-martin ... 43328.html

Also sounds like the prosecution has been withholding info:

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.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/29/3 ... hheld.html

Spidey wrote:You expect the lawyers to be slimy…what is the media’s excuse?

None. They're just as slimy in spreading all the speculation in the first place.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:You expect the lawyers to be slimy…what is the media’s excuse?

None. They're just as slimy in spreading all the speculation in the first place.

The big difference is, lawyers are paid to protect only their client from the law or anything else.
The media is supposed to be the public's protection from the law gone rogue and everything else.

So in this case only one of them has stabbed us in the back....