3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Exactly. Which is in diametrical opposition to the cherubic picture of him they almost exclusively show. That's why if there are any screw ups by the prosecuters that allow TM's past deeds to be brought up, even a jury full of five-year olds would find for GZ. If Rachel The Hut was truly their star witness, the prosecution should be the next ones indicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 So, if Charles Manson shows up at your house, and you end up killing him, his character had nothing to do with it? His reputation would be relevant, not to show that he had a propensity for killing, but to show that you were reasonable in fearing for your safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 How the hell does a 19-year-old not know how to read cursive? How the hell does anyone not know how to read a letter they "wrote?" This is one serious train wreck of a prosecution. They're making LA county look competent...and they couldn't frame a guilty man or convict a pedophile with an open confession. That's why if there are any screw ups by the prosecuters that allow TM's past deeds to be brought up, And if that happens, I want to see Obama called to the stand. "Mr. Obama, if you had a son, would he act just like Treyvon Martin?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Holy schnikes! Look at the cans on that bimbo! And, she needs an interpreter. She'd be perfect for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Ryan, how is this fair to the legal system? Jeante’s statement was not taken by de la Rioida at the Jacksonville State Prosecutor’s office, where he had his own office worked, nor at any Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) facility, nor the Sanford Police Department, nor even Jeantel’s home, nor some other neutral location. Instead, Jeantel was picked up at a friends house by a two-car caravan consisting of de la Rionda, a State prosecutor’s office investigator, Sabrina Fulton, and Crump (this last in allegedly the alternative vehicle to the car in which Jeantel was riding). They travelled together in this way to sit in the living room of the home of Sabrina Fulton, the very home in which Trayvon Martin had lived until his mother had recently sent the troubled and troublesome youth to go live with his father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 You can't really say that you were in fear of your life based upon information you had no way of knowing at the time. Martin's character is irrelevant to the current trial, just as Zimmerman's character issues -which Martin would have no way of knowing - would be irrelevant if Martin had been the one to survive the encounter and be on trial for Zimmerman's murder (assuming he asserted a justification defense). Of course, regardless of who is being tried, you can only go so far into character/propensity evidence unless the defendant opens the door. I see what you are saying but we are talking about different things here. I say that TM's background is relevant to GZ's narrative that TM attacked him. At this time it's a moot point, but a slip of the tongue by the prosecution and it could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Holy schnikes! Look at the cans on that bimbo! There are some shoops on the internet of her in adult images that are just plain hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 How the hell does anyone not know how to read a letter they "wrote?" This is one serious train wreck of a prosecution. They're making LA county look competent...and they couldn't frame a guilty man or convict a pedophile with an open confession. It truly amazes me how incompetent prosecutors can be. Their job isn't *that* hard. Hell, the statutes point out exactly what they need to prove. There's no excuse for having done no prep work and being made to look like fools by a witness who cannot read what is supposed to be her own letter. These guys are screwing the pooch in the Zimmerman trial, the prosecutors were incompetent in the Casey Anthony trial, the first Blagojevich trial were simply incompetent, the OJ prosecutors were more interested in playing to the cameras than proving their case, the idiots who did the Corisanti trial in Buffalo were more interested in class warfare than proving their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I see what you are saying but we are talking about different things here. I say that TM's background is relevant to GZ's narrative that TM attacked him. At this time it's a moot point, but a slip of the tongue by the prosecution and it could happen. If the prosecution uses evidence of TM's good character to show that he wouldn't have been the initial aggressor, the defense can present evidence of his character to show otherwise. I don't see that happening though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 There are some shoops on the internet of her in adult images that are just plain hilarious. I was watching when she was on the stand and she mentioned her former husband........So, she's available!..........I like the Lauer chick better, though..........And, there are some hotties in the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I see what you are saying but we are talking about different things here. I say that TM's background is relevant to GZ's narrative that TM attacked him. At this time it's a moot point, but a slip of the tongue by the prosecution and it could happen. There's really only so far they can go into Zimmerman's character as well. They should not be able to go into the whole lying about the passport/money thing (unless he testifies), they can't really go into uncharged crimes, prior bad acts, etc. on their direct case without seriously prejudicing him. However, as he is asserting a justification defense, some level of proof into his character is warranted to show that his actions that night did not meet the relevant standard of reasonableness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 So, if Charles Manson shows up at your house, and you end up killing him, his character had nothing to do with it? Still haven't found the cohones to admit you were wrong, eh? Now who's the jackass? Here Sue: http://en.wiktionary...iki/dismissable dismissable Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary Jump to: navigation, search English[edit] Etymology[edit] dismiss + -able Adjective[edit] dismissable (comparative more dismissable, superlative most dismissable) Capable of being dismissed. Most of their arguments were dismissable as obvious fallacies. Holy Christ. Wiktionary? I must hold true to my former statement. You are a jackass. Now please go !@#$ yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 If the prosecution uses evidence of TM's good character to show that he wouldn't have been the initial aggressor, the defense can present evidence of his character to show otherwise. I don't see that happening though. If the prosecutors did that (and they would be stupid to do so), then I would agree that the defense has the right to show he was a hoodlum in rebuttal. Though I think that Martin's 'good character' is just as irrelevant as his 'bad character', as Zimmerman had no knowledge of either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 If the prosecution uses evidence of TM's good character to show that he wouldn't have been the initial aggressor, the defense can present evidence of his character to show otherwise. I don't see that happening though. From my extensive viewing of Law and Order I've determined that if the prosecution slips up just a little bit, cherubic Trayvon gets "outed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Zimmerman Trial Day 4 – End-of-Day Analysis & Video of State’s Witnesses Once again, it was simply not a very good day at all for the prosecution. The primary State witnesses today were Rachel Jeantel, Jenna Lauer, and Selma Mora. The first had her credibility substantively destroyed, the second was powerfully–almost humiliatingly–co-opted by the defense, and the third provided testimony entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense. (Details and opinion at link) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 From my extensive viewing of Law and Order I've determined that if the prosecution slips up just a little bit, cherubic Trayvon gets "outed". Yeah... don't take your legal advice from Law & Order. Or CSI. All joking aside, I can't watch that show anymore. It pisses me off how often the writers screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Holy Christ. Wiktionary? I must hold true to my former statement. You are a jackass. Now please go !@#$ yourself. That limb you are walking out on is getting thinner and thinner: http://www.wordnik.com/words/dismissable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 That limb you are walking out on is getting thinner and thinner: http://www.wordnik.c...rds/dismissable It's not a word. It's a misspelling of "dismissible." And !@#$ you for making me side with BF-squared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 If the prosecutors did that (and they would be stupid to do so), then I would agree that the defense has the right to show he was a hoodlum in rebuttal. Though I think that Martin's 'good character' is just as irrelevant as his 'bad character', as Zimmerman had no knowledge of either. If only one thought beyond zimmermqn a motivations and into projecting martins reactions (or possibly aggressive actions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 And, she needs an interpreter. She'd be perfect for you! I speak enough Spanish to get in, er, by. And I can safely predict right now that GZ will NOT take the stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts