3 ms·

> Had this withheld information been allowed into evidence, it would tend to undermine the claims that Martin was a peaceful person, supporting Zimmerman's asse

> Had this withheld information been allowed into evidence, it would tend to undermine the claims that Martin was a peaceful person, supporting Zimmerman's assertion that Martin started the fight and ultimately supporting his claim of self-defense. Whether Trayvon Martin was a peaceful person or not is irrelevant, there are no direct witnesses of the actual fight between him and Zimmerman and Martin had definite reason to fear for his own safety that night. This evidence seeks to imply racist stereotypes of black men being hyper-aggressive.

adventured 13y ago
Can you explain how the supposed implications of the evidence has anything to do with Martin being black? It's my opinion that if a white person had those photos on their phone, it would count negatively against a claimed peaceful character as well. Unfortunately whether Martin was peaceful or not is absolutely not irrelevant. An important part of a trial like this is character construction / deconstruction by the prosecution and defense.
- reader5000 13y ago
  Negative. Plenty of white people are into guns and no doubt are in possession of photos of themselves with their guns. A white person into guns is a "patriot" (despite of course not belonging to any well-regulated militia nor having any actual obligation to the nation's defense).
- _delirium 13y ago
  Let's say that someone was a big fan of Joe Arpaio, and had photos of themselves on their phone relating to their Minutemen Militia service. And, separately from that, they were involved in an alleged murder of someone who happened to be Latino. Should their photos be allowed into evidence? I.e. should the jury be allowed to consider: 1) their support for a hardline right-wing sheriff; and/or 2) their membership in an armed anti-immigrant organization? Or would that bias the jury?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I can't help noticing that you've switched a homicide victim with a murder defendant. A more appropriate analogy might be of a Joe Arpaio fan allegedly being murdered by someone who happened to be Latino, who then claimed self-defense. I get that you're trying to pose the question of whether the homicide victim was also an aggressor, but if so we need to include the context that the person in question was fleeing the defendant when the alleged aggression took place. If I chase you down the street for no good reason, and you turn around and punch me in the nose, who's at fault?
    - smsm42 13y ago
      If you just chase, not brandishing a weapon, screaming threats or in some other way giving a person being chased reasonable fear for his life, then the person punching is at fault. Running on the street is not a violation of anybody's rights, and you do not have to have any specific "good reason" to run on the street, neither is running while other person is present on the same street. Punching one in the nose, on the other hand, is.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Unfortunately whether Martin was peaceful or not is absolutely not irrelevant. I suggest that it is. Let's agree you are a peaceful person; now imagine the following sequence of events, which I've tried to present in the most neutral terms possible. a. You are walking along the street, at night, talking to someone on the phone. b. You notice me following you, driving my truck at walking pace, for at least a full minute - half a block, probably. c. You pause and stare at me. I stare back. You see I'm also on the phone. d. You approach my vehicle a bit more closely. e. Something makes you decide to turn and begin running away from me. f. You hear me get out of my truck and start running after you. Now, just answer me one question: how would you describe your situation at this point?
jrs235 13y ago
As stated in another reply: While many might agree that the evidence would not have been admitted in this trial by this judge based on other decisions this judge made pertaining to some similar evidence... If the defense had this evidence they may have gone with the Stand Your Ground hearing before a judge in which the judge may have taken the evidence into account and prevented this trial from the get go. If the defense had this evidence earlier decisions prior to trial may have been different.
smsm42 13y ago
Of course it is relevant - the history of interest in topics of violence and describing one's fighting prowess is highly relevant when the case is about a fight and who initiated it. It's like saying in case about hacking it is irrelevant if the participant in the case is an accomplished hacker or doesn't even know where "any key" is. Of course it's relevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with Martin being black or white or any other color, nobody said the missing information is relevant because Martin was black (and that fact was obvious from the start, so nobody in his right mind could claim there's some new information there) - the claim was that the information was relevant because Martin allegedly had closer relation to violence and firearms that was previously known. Nobody ever claimed that Martin was aggressive because he was black. The racism charge is pure bullshit. It is a fallacy to claim that it is always racist to say some particular black man is violent, because it "implies the stereotype". Well, some people are violent, and some black people are too - and the question was not whether Martin was black and thus violent (it is obvious he's black but that says nothing of him being violent) but whether Martin was violent regardless of him being black. And the data in the phone was relevant to that. Exactly because it is not imply that Martin was violent just from him being black, we need some evidence beyond that to figure out if he was - and the phone data is that evidence.
- _delirium 13y ago
  the history of interest in topics of violence and describing one's fighting prowess is highly relevant when the case is about a fight and who initiated it Are you arguing that the judge was wrong not to let evidence of Zimmerman's violent past be introduced?
  - smsm42 13y ago
    I never argued that. I was arguing that the evidence that was hidden was obviously likely to influence the consideration of the prosecution's argument to the defendant's benefit, and by the law all such evidence must be turned over to the defense. On the contrary, there's no law that any evidence that might make the defendant look worse must be allowed.

adventured 13y ago

Can you explain how the supposed implications of the evidence has anything to do with Martin being black? It's my opinion that if a white person had those photos on their phone, it would count negatively against a claimed peaceful character as well. Unfortunately whether Martin was peaceful or not is absolutely not irrelevant. An important part of a trial like this is character construction / deconstruction by the prosecution and defense.

reader5000 13y ago
Negative. Plenty of white people are into guns and no doubt are in possession of photos of themselves with their guns. A white person into guns is a "patriot" (despite of course not belonging to any well-regulated militia nor having any actual obligation to the nation's defense).
_delirium 13y ago
Let's say that someone was a big fan of Joe Arpaio, and had photos of themselves on their phone relating to their Minutemen Militia service. And, separately from that, they were involved in an alleged murder of someone who happened to be Latino. Should their photos be allowed into evidence? I.e. should the jury be allowed to consider: 1) their support for a hardline right-wing sheriff; and/or 2) their membership in an armed anti-immigrant organization? Or would that bias the jury?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I can't help noticing that you've switched a homicide victim with a murder defendant. A more appropriate analogy might be of a Joe Arpaio fan allegedly being murdered by someone who happened to be Latino, who then claimed self-defense. I get that you're trying to pose the question of whether the homicide victim was also an aggressor, but if so we need to include the context that the person in question was fleeing the defendant when the alleged aggression took place. If I chase you down the street for no good reason, and you turn around and punch me in the nose, who's at fault?
  - smsm42 13y ago
    If you just chase, not brandishing a weapon, screaming threats or in some other way giving a person being chased reasonable fear for his life, then the person punching is at fault. Running on the street is not a violation of anybody's rights, and you do not have to have any specific "good reason" to run on the street, neither is running while other person is present on the same street. Punching one in the nose, on the other hand, is.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Unfortunately whether Martin was peaceful or not is absolutely not irrelevant. I suggest that it is. Let's agree you are a peaceful person; now imagine the following sequence of events, which I've tried to present in the most neutral terms possible. a. You are walking along the street, at night, talking to someone on the phone. b. You notice me following you, driving my truck at walking pace, for at least a full minute - half a block, probably. c. You pause and stare at me. I stare back. You see I'm also on the phone. d. You approach my vehicle a bit more closely. e. Something makes you decide to turn and begin running away from me. f. You hear me get out of my truck and start running after you. Now, just answer me one question: how would you describe your situation at this point?

jrs235 13y ago

As stated in another reply: While many might agree that the evidence would not have been admitted in this trial by this judge based on other decisions this judge made pertaining to some similar evidence... If the defense had this evidence they may have gone with the Stand Your Ground hearing before a judge in which the judge may have taken the evidence into account and prevented this trial from the get go. If the defense had this evidence earlier decisions prior to trial may have been different.

smsm42 13y ago

Of course it is relevant - the history of interest in topics of violence and describing one's fighting prowess is highly relevant when the case is about a fight and who initiated it. It's like saying in case about hacking it is irrelevant if the participant in the case is an accomplished hacker or doesn't even know where "any key" is. Of course it's relevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with Martin being black or white or any other color, nobody said the missing information is relevant because Martin was black (and that fact was obvious from the start, so nobody in his right mind could claim there's some new information there) - the claim was that the information was relevant because Martin allegedly had closer relation to violence and firearms that was previously known. Nobody ever claimed that Martin was aggressive because he was black. The racism charge is pure bullshit. It is a fallacy to claim that it is always racist to say some particular black man is violent, because it "implies the stereotype". Well, some people are violent, and some black people are too - and the question was not whether Martin was black and thus violent (it is obvious he's black but that says nothing of him being violent) but whether Martin was violent regardless of him being black. And the data in the phone was relevant to that. Exactly because it is not imply that Martin was violent just from him being black, we need some evidence beyond that to figure out if he was - and the phone data is that evidence.

_delirium 13y ago
the history of interest in topics of violence and describing one's fighting prowess is highly relevant when the case is about a fight and who initiated it Are you arguing that the judge was wrong not to let evidence of Zimmerman's violent past be introduced?
- smsm42 13y ago
  I never argued that. I was arguing that the evidence that was hidden was obviously likely to influence the consideration of the prosecution's argument to the defendant's benefit, and by the law all such evidence must be turned over to the defense. On the contrary, there's no law that any evidence that might make the defendant look worse must be allowed.