Fly4Fun;1467540 wrote:but generally you can't use past actions to prove that someone acted in that particular way in this instance.
How is it different? GZ's past may have caused him to act in a particular manner. They can use that, but not TM's past showing his thuggish behavior? The judge wants it one way, but not the other.Fly4Fun;1467540 wrote:how it affected his frame of mind, which is different.
For the Liberal Socialist Minded ... Community Organized Watch Program Volunteersherm03;1467342 wrote:It may be illogical, but that's how I see it happening. In my mind, the exchange was a little different...
GZ: Hey...stop!
TM: Who are you?
GZ: (pulls back his coat to show his gun) That's who I am.
Fight ensues. GZ fires his weapon.
But we'll never know if that's how it happened.
If he wasn't looking to get into a fight...why follow the guy in the first place?
Like I said, I'm not intimately familiar with this case nor the arguments made. But from the article it sounds as if the proffered reason for getting in GZ's "past" was to establish a knowledge and frame of mind which is different from establishing a propensity to act in a certain way.TedSheckler;1467557 wrote:How is it different? GZ's past may have caused him to act in a particular manner. They can use that, but not TM's past showing his thuggish behavior? The judge wants it one way, but not the other.
I cannot deny this. I definitely agree with you.Pick6;1467530 wrote:Last page made me realize sherm is a little out there
Would love to hear how my response had anything to do with Obama/Democrats...Belly35;1467559 wrote:For the Liberal Socialist Minded ... Community Organized Watch Program Volunteer
That's an emotional argument, not a legal one. The issue with the judge is about the rules of evidence.TedSheckler;1467579 wrote:But the guns, drugs, and assaults in TM's past are irrelevant.
He was just a child....
That's what they want you to remember.
It doesn't, but Belly always has to get his "shots" in.sherm03;1467587 wrote: Would love to hear how my response had anything to do with Obama/Democrats...
Wait is TM on trial? Get your heart off of your sleeve dude.TedSheckler;1467579 wrote:But the guns, drugs, and assaults in TM's past are irrelevant.
He was just a child....
That's what they want you to remember.
He essentially is......rmolin73;1467621 wrote:Wait is TM on trial? Get your heart off of your sleeve dude.
Care to rethink this statement? So you honestly think that anyone that has been or will be shot dead their actions were part of the problem? Come on dude even you can't be that stupid.ccrunner609;1467754 wrote:he should be, you don't get shot dead unless your actions weren't part of the problem. Everyone involved in this case knows that a wannabe thug met up with a wannabe cop.
So where were you positioned at in the neighborhood when you saw this? One way he stays alive and Zimmerman remains a free man. Listen to the dispatcher and keep your ass in the car. Simple as that.ccrunner609;1467759 wrote:sure, 2 ways he stays alive......when he ran he could of kept running. It is obvious that he stopped. (probably hid and either jumped GZ or at least waited for him). Or when he was confronted by GZ....just tell him what you are doing and you get left alone.
Ehhh, the actions of both fed each other's paranoia. TM thinks he's being followed stalked, doesn't appear (according to Zimmerman) know where he's going and then goes in between houses. Sure, TM is trying to elude a stalker, but that's the sort of thing you'd expect from a suspicious person.rmolin73;1467760 wrote:So where were you positioned at in the neighborhood when you saw this? One way he stays alive and Zimmerman remains a free man. Listen to the dispatcher and keep your ass in the car. Simple as that.
Don't punch a guy with a gun. End of story.rmolin73;1467757 wrote:Care to rethink this statement? So you honestly think that anyone that has been or will be shot dead their actions were part of the problem? Come on dude even you can't be that stupid.
She appears to be ruling with an eye at avoiding any political fallout. Choosing a gutless path probably because she doesn't expect him to be convicted. And, oddly enough, if he is convicted she'll have provided more than a few grounds for appeal.Fly4Fun;1467588 wrote:The issue with the judge is about the rules of evidence.
I agree with you 100% and it has been my stance from the beginning.gut;1467778 wrote:Ehhh, the actions of both fed each other's paranoia. TM thinks he's being followed stalked, doesn't appear (according to Zimmerman) know where he's going and then goes in between houses. Sure, TM is trying to elude a stalker, but that's the sort of thing you'd expect from a suspicious person.
It's easy to say Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, but I'm sure there are scenarios where women and children would be grateful he didn't.
We can debate if Zimmerman's suspicion was rational or valid - and he certainly has demonstrated to be more prone to error before this, but failing that he didn't do anything wrong. Except perhaps failing to exercise caution because he was emboldened having a gun.
But they both share a lot of the blame. We could similarly debate whether TM was justified in choosing to fight/confront. "Creepy ass cracker" - isn't TM guilty of a similar misperception of what Zimmerman is doing? Whether he attacked out of rage or fear, in either case it's an action taken because of perceiving Zimmerman as someone he was not.
We'll never really know what actually happened. IMO Travon is dead as much due to the choices he made as due to Zimmerman's.
How cute.TedSheckler;1467779 wrote:Don't punch a guy with a gun. End of story.
Completely wrong. From that article her ruling isn't out of the ordinary and in general judges are given pretty broad discretion when deciding the admissibility of evidence (weighing probative value versus the risk of prejudice). And furthermore there are generally rules which I already went over (such as not being able to use past actions to show a propensity to act in a certain way, but you can use the past to show someone has a knowledge which could affect their frame of mind, and frame of mind is relevant here as it is huge part of the murder 2 charge, depraved mind).gut;1467782 wrote:She appears to be ruling with an eye at avoiding any political fallout. Choosing a gutless path probably because she doesn't expect him to be convicted. And, oddly enough, if he is convicted she'll have provided more than a few grounds for appeal.
I'm not talking about just this particular ruling. I haven't follow that closely, but this is just one of many questionable rulings. And aren't such judicial decisions ample ground for appeal (i.e. procedural)?Fly4Fun;1467841 wrote:Completely wrong. From that article her ruling isn't out of the ordinary and in general judges are given pretty broad discretion when deciding the admissibility of evidence (weighing probative value versus the risk of prejudice).
Fly4Fun;1467841 wrote:...such as not being able to use past actions to show a propensity to act in a certain way, but you can use the past to show someone has a knowledge which could affect their frame of mind...
There is always the appeal as a right (everyone gets 1 appeal), it doesn't mean it will work as this probably isn't something that would be overturned because of the broad discretion trial judges are given when weighing whether or not to admit evidence and the standard of review on appeal.gut;1467861 wrote:I'm not talking about just this particular ruling. I haven't follow that closely, but this is just one of many questionable rulings. And aren't such judicial decisions ample ground for appeal (i.e. procedural)?
You might think that is a distinction without a difference, but in legal terminology/arguments and admissibility of evidence there is a whole ton of fine distinctions that certainly do make a difference and there are numerous rules and cases which illuminate the differences.gut;1467861 wrote:That's basically a distinction without a difference. I think the reason she ruled the way she did was because in this case that knowledge would appear to contradict certain statements George Zimmerman made. Nothing to do with this "frame of mind" BS.
That's because Zimmerman had to let TM get a couple punches in before he capped him. That's how you get away with murdering someone, and Zimmerman learned that in cop school.ccrunner609;1468080 wrote:chief medical examiner testified that TM had abrasions on is hand, GZ had none, his hands were clean. So looks like TM was using his hands and GZ was not.
ccrunner609;1468080 wrote:chief medical examiner testified that TM had abrasions on is hand, GZ had none, his hands were clean. So looks like TM was using his hands and GZ was not.
This aspect will go right over some of these guys heads.sherm03;1468163 wrote:I haven't watched at all today. But just to clarify, the medical examiner said that TM had abrasions on his hands (most likely from punching GZ) and GZ had none...right? So that implies that GZ didn't punch TM at all?
If I'm the prosecution, I'd exploit that big time. You don't even throw a punch at the guy and instead go right to your gun? I mean, the only times I was not able to get ANY punches off in a fight was when I was sucker punched and the guy ran away. Every other fight I've been in, even the ones where I got my ass beat, I was at least able to get in a few punches.
I think that would be easy for the defense to refute and make that support the self-defense claims.sherm03;1468163 wrote:I haven't watched at all today. But just to clarify, the medical examiner said that TM had abrasions on his hands (most likely from punching GZ) and GZ had none...right? So that implies that GZ didn't punch TM at all?
If I'm the prosecution, I'd exploit that big time. You don't even throw a punch at the guy and instead go right to your gun? I mean, the only times I was not able to get ANY punches off in a fight was when I was sucker punched and the guy ran away. Every other fight I've been in, even the ones where I got my ass beat, I was at least able to get in a few punches.
To expand upon my post above.sherm03;1468163 wrote:I haven't watched at all today. But just to clarify, the medical examiner said that TM had abrasions on his hands (most likely from punching GZ) and GZ had none...right? So that implies that GZ didn't punch TM at all?
If I'm the prosecution, I'd exploit that big time. You don't even throw a punch at the guy and instead go right to your gun? I mean, the only times I was not able to get ANY punches off in a fight was when I was sucker punched and the guy ran away. Every other fight I've been in, even the ones where I got my ass beat, I was at least able to get in a few punches.
That's a very valid point. But I still find it VERY hard to believe that he isn't able to hit anything. I mean, you would have abrasions on your hands just from putting your hands up to protect your face if someone is hitting you. So the fact that he had nothing just leaves me scratching my head.elbuckeye28;1468177 wrote:To expand upon my post above.
1. The lack of abrasions on his hand would support that he didn't land a punch. Just because he didn't land a punch doesn't mean he didn't try to fight back. He could feasibly have thrown a punch but made no contact.
2. They could easily go back to the self-defense and state that the hits to his head made him incapacitated to a point where he was unable to effectively fight back.