George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[Rage Against the McKee]

the trial is one thing. the investigation. the outcry. what happened and how it is possibly legal. the fact that it CAN happen possibly legally. it really draws attention to what our prosthetic dick gun culture and laws have allowed. people who have no control or power in their lives suddenly have physical power with no effort or work and have a desire to use it to show that they are not losers.

Yeah, incidents like this are exactly why I don't agree with concealed (or open)  carry.

I honestly don't have a problem at all with open carry, as long as you aren't carrying on private property where the owner doesn't mind it. I just don't support concealed carry at all, though.

[Headinjun]

I bet you don't have a problem with lil buckaroos in your podunk Kansas town posing with their rifles after hunter safety.

Not sure what is wrong with this?

Nothing. I was comparing it to KSUs comment about Martin posing with a gun and how that somehow makes him a bad citizen..

I don't think judging Trayvons citizenship is relevant to the case..

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I bet you don't have a problem with lil buckaroos in your podunk Kansas town posing with their rifles after hunter safety.

Not sure what is wrong with this?

Nothing. I was comparing it to KSUs comment about Martin posing with a gun and how that somehow makes him a bad citizen..

I don't think judging Trayvons citizenship is relevant to the case..

I don't think I ever said anything of the sort. In fact, I specifically said that this kind of stuff is irrelevant.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

you're really cheering for the defense huh. weird.

Nope. I do think the defense has the stronger case from a legal standpoint, but I just think this trial, with the witnesses, evidence, and strategies of the state and defense, is very interesting. The people who think I'm a racist just because I don't think GZ is necessarily a racist murderer based on the evidence presented, well 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Did you seriously watch the trial today and think that was the most interesting stuff?  I refuse to believe it.  The State's medical examiner was the weirdest thing of the trial by far.  You don't even mention him?

Also, the judge providing analysis for the decision to not grant a summary judgement?  What in the world?  Did you think she was going to go all Nancy Grace HLN style and break it down with four segments and commercial breaks?

I only saw part of Bao. What i saw was really boring, but I agree the dude was strange.

And re the judge, I would like at least a little analysis, with at least minimal reference to the evidence presented, but again, it was not a surprise.

[Trim]

K-S-U-Wildcats! opted against PAK'n yesterday. Suspicious?

[Headinjun]

I bet you don't have a problem with lil buckaroos in your podunk Kansas town posing with their rifles after hunter safety.

Not sure what is wrong with this?

Nothing. I was comparing it to KSUs comment about Martin posing with a gun and how that somehow makes him a bad citizen..

I don't think judging Trayvons citizenship is relevant to the case..

I don't think I ever said anything of the sort. In fact, I specifically said that this kind of stuff is irrelevant.

Uh no. You brought it up on the previous page to counteract the claims against GZ having a predisposition to violence which is relevant in this case.

You then backtracked a lil and used a Fox News tactic by saying "some have inferred".

I see right through it. 

[michigancat]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

Yeah, it was a weird trial.

[Kat Kid]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

May have been ruled out or they may have not wanted to bring up character because then it cuts both ways.

[michigancat]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

May have been ruled out or they may have not wanted to bring up character because then it cuts both ways.

you think the prosecution won't try to drag TM's name through the mud more than they already have?

it just seems strange that his criminal/hothead history was never discussed.

[Kat Kid]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

May have been ruled out or they may have not wanted to bring up character because then it cuts both ways.

you think the prosecution won't try to drag TM's name through the mud more than they already have?

it just seems strange that his criminal/hothead history was never discussed.

wut?  I don't think the defense will say anything about Trayvon's past and I don't think it has come up at trial.  Not sure if the judge ruled about that or both just decided to not try and muddy up the case with endless character witnesses.

[star seed 7]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

May have been ruled out or they may have not wanted to bring up character because then it cuts both ways.

you think the prosecution won't try to drag TM's name through the mud more than they already have?

it just seems strange that his criminal/hothead history was never discussed.

wut?  I don't think the defense will say anything about Trayvon's past and I don't think it has come up at trial.  Not sure if the judge ruled about that or both just decided to not try and muddy up the case with endless character witnesses.

Judge ruled it before the trial.

[Trim]

If I remember right, Florida evidence law had some unique wrinkles (especially when the rough ridin' bar prep books one gets sometimes have a "not" missing from a sentence here and there and stuff like that), but yeah, generally you can only get in evidence of the defendant's past bad acts if they show a pattern or habit or things like that towards the specific crime and situation that's being charged.  And the defendant has to be careful how much they get into character stuff on the victim because that can open up that door to get character assassinated themselves when otherwise it'd have been disallowed.

[star seed 7]

With respect to martin I mean.  Zimmerman is open season I believe.

[michigancat]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

May have been ruled out or they may have not wanted to bring up character because then it cuts both ways.

you think the prosecution won't try to drag TM's name through the mud more than they already have?

it just seems strange that his criminal/hothead history was never discussed.

wut?  I don't think the defense will say anything about Trayvon's past and I don't think it has come up at trial.  Not sure if the judge ruled about that or both just decided to not try and muddy up the case with endless character witnesses.

The defense released crap on their website that probably won't be admissable, such as a video from TM's of homeless men fighting. (the defense said it was TM's friends beating up a homeless guy and later apologized.)

I mistyped and should have said defense instead of prosecution. In a way, this as much about TM being on trial for attacking GZ unprovoked as anything, since that is really all that is on dispute. so things easily get jumbled.

[michigancat]

If I remember right, Florida evidence law had some unique wrinkles (especially when the rough ridin' bar prep books one gets sometimes have a "not" missing from a sentence here and there and stuff like that), but yeah, generally you can only get in evidence of the defendant's past bad acts if they show a pattern or habit or things like that towards the specific crime and situation that's being charged.  And the defendant has to be careful how much they get into character stuff on the victim because that can open up that door to get character assassinated themselves when otherwise it'd have been disallowed.

So he would have to have a history if shooting people for character issues to be considered relevant? I guess he doesn't have that, so it would make more sense. He isn't on trial for being a hot-headed bad person.

[Kat Kid]

Did the prosecution ever discuss Zimmerman's past during the trial? It's like they weren't even trying.

May have been ruled out or they may have not wanted to bring up character because then it cuts both ways.

you think the prosecution won't try to drag TM's name through the mud more than they already have?

it just seems strange that his criminal/hothead history was never discussed.

wut?  I don't think the defense will say anything about Trayvon's past and I don't think it has come up at trial.  Not sure if the judge ruled about that or both just decided to not try and muddy up the case with endless character witnesses.

The defense released crap on their website that probably won't be admissable, such as a video from TM's of homeless men fighting. (the defense said it was TM's friends beating up a homeless guy and later apologized.)

I mistyped and should have said defense instead of prosecution. In a way, this as much about TM being on trial for attacking GZ unprovoked as anything, since that is really all that is on dispute. so things easily get jumbled.

Yeah, that isn't really relevant at all.  I mean that may make them a-holes, but it has zero relevance to where we are now.

[michigancat]

Yeah, that isn't really relevant at all.  I mean that may make them a-holes, but it has zero relevance to where we are now.

But it lets the prosecution know the defense will probably do whatever they can to make TM look bad, so you might as well try to make Zimmerman look like as big an bad person as possible.

[Trim]

So he would have to have a history if shooting people for character issues to be considered relevant? I guess he doesn't have that, so it would make more sense. He isn't on trial for being a hot-headed bad person.

I don't know if it'd have to be full-on shooting somebody, but you get the idea.  Here's the basics of Kansas' rules as an example.  There's a number of other qualifiers, but this would give you the idea of what I'm talking about.  And again, I think Florida's got some pretty big differences in their criminal evidence rules; I can't remember without digging out some books at home if this would be one of them.

(a) Subject to K.S.A. 60-447, and amendments thereto, evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove such person's disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that the person committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion.

(b)   Subject to K.S.A. 60-445 and 60-448, and amendments thereto, such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.

(c)   Subject to K.S.A. 60-445 and 60-448, and amendments thereto, in any criminal action other than a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sex offense under articles 34, 35 or 36 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, such evidence is admissible to show the modus operandi or general method used by a defendant to perpetrate similar but totally unrelated crimes when the method of committing the prior acts is so similar to that utilized in the current case before the court that it is reasonable to conclude the same individual committed both acts.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I bet you don't have a problem with lil buckaroos in your podunk Kansas town posing with their rifles after hunter safety.

Not sure what is wrong with this?

Nothing. I was comparing it to KSUs comment about Martin posing with a gun and how that somehow makes him a bad citizen..

I don't think judging Trayvons citizenship is relevant to the case..

I don't think I ever said anything of the sort. In fact, I specifically said that this kind of stuff is irrelevant.

Uh no. You brought it up on the previous page to counteract the claims against GZ having a predisposition to violence which is relevant in this case.

You then backtracked a lil and used a Fox News tactic by saying "some have inferred".

I see right through it.

Uh oh, you saw right through my FOX NEWS TACTICS!

Anyway, as others have already said, it ain't relevant or admissible for either side unless they open the door, and neither is likely to do that.

Also, I wasn't aware of the fighting homeless people video. Wtf? The thing I heard about was a video of TM "refereeing" a fight between two friends, which he then posted on his YouTube page. Golly, "some might infer" that TM was a big fan of fighting. (Now now, settle down...)

[Dugout DickStone]

It was a fight between 2 people.  He wasn't refereeing.  The defense literally released it to taint the pool.  Dirt bags

[Pendergast]

All physical acts, statements, interests, hobbies, blah blah blah speak to one's personality, their thought patterns, and therefore their possible actions, if nothing more than odds of them committing a certain act.  I find it odd that such things are so heavily restricted in a court of law.  As if knowingly admitting that the average juror is incredibly gullible and incapable of logic and reason.  At that point, the whole system is worthless.

[Unruly]

All physical acts, statements, interests, hobbies, blah blah blah speak to one's personality, their thought patterns, and therefore their possible actions, if nothing more than odds of them committing a certain act.  I find it odd that such things are so heavily restricted in a court of law.  As if knowingly admitting that the average juror is incredibly gullible and incapable of logic and reason.  At that point, the whole system is worthless.

You really want the jury to sit through 15 different people for each side saying each person is bad/good and citing this one time they saw him hold a door/not hold a door for a lady?

This would bog down the legal system wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy harder than it already is.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It was a fight between 2 people.  He wasn't refereeing.  The defense literally released it to taint the pool.  Dirt bags

They also released all the texts on TMs phone. Lots of texts about TM being involved in fights in the months leading up to the shooting, including street fights with "rounds." Miami Herald: Weed, Fights, and Guns - Trayvon Martin's Text Messages Released.