im sorry, but if there's this big mystery about whether or not there was a fight, the defendant had injuries to the back of the head, and it turns out the victim was a thief, that's probably going to be enough for me (as a member of the jury) to not be willing to vote the defendant's life away. it'd make me think 'this guy was scum, just the type of person who might attack someone'

http://www.deepthoughtsbyjackhandey.com/

Tsao, what if we told you that Zim actually has a documented history of assaulting people? You think that might be a wee bit more important in your analysis?

Occam's razor

So, you contend that the theory with the least assumptions to support how yet-to-be-identified-as-stolen jewelry got to TM's possession is that he breaks into houses and steals jewelry? As opposed to, you know, not assuming that the jewelry was stolen at all?

lol, this my friends, is modern racism.

Also, this is why the stuff about trayvon's past will not be mentioned to the jury. Jurors, like the general, just cannot handle it. They are simply not logical.

I have a suggestion for this thread.

How the **** is that racist?

I agree that it's not logical, but the only way that quote can be described as "racist" is beginning with the very racist presumption that black people routinely steal ****.

lulz

People don't just come out and say it anymore. But as far as I can tell the emphatic defense of a guy who killed a kid who he followed home is pretty telling. The need to clutch to anything that could justify the murder is telling as well.

You just have to take the logic a couple steps further back to get there. Black people are more likely to be poor. Poor people are more likely to steal.

In any event, I think it's pretty dumb to say people who steal are necessarily violent.

For the record, I don't think Tsao's stmt was racially motivated.

lol @ the ZOMGRACISM posts because I say that a person who is willing to break the law and steal is probably more likely to break the law and hit someone.

****ING RACISM!!!!!!!!

llolllll at how over the top you people are. more like caricatures than anything else.

Well, this is literally why that type of evidence is withheld from juries. You can justify any mudslinging like this. There's probably a strong correlation between S&M and willingness to punch. Between being an MMA fan and willingness to punch. Between listening to Slipknot and willingness to punch. Between doing drugs, or hell, I'm sure if someone looked into it, between being a government hating gun nut and willingness to throw a punch. Everyone participating itt probably has five traits/activities that have a strong correlation to willingness to throw a punch. I'm sure you'd be thrilled if your attacker got off because the jury figured anarchists are more likely to be violent and so you probably started the fight.

Limiting it to actual violent tendencies--and not having the jury draw whatever connections it wants between two unrelated things--is the better rule.

Tsao, is it just allegedly stealing (in other words innocent because no conviction of it) that makes someone more likely to assault others or are there other laws that make it more likely too?

Smoking weed is illegal too, I think its generally accepted that Trayvon smoked weed at some point given the empty weed baggy. Do you think he is more likely to have started the fight because he break the law by taking illegal drugs?

How about if someone has a restraining order against them, or they are arrested for assaulting a police officer in the past, or perhaps a former co-worker said that person assaulted someone whilst working at that job? Do those accusations of former criminal behaviour count as increasing the likelihood that they started the fight?

Universal summed morality?

Tsao, it is very obvious that you reverse engineered this. You want Zimmerman to be not guilty, you hear this story about the school records, you're grasping for straws about how that can be good for "your" side.

So you've got this "prior behavior" stuff, but that isn't good enough because stealing watches isn't violent. So you're (just like ikes!) waving your hands and pretending that stealing watches is evidence of violence because of the universal summed morality theory you developed earlier today(Trayvon=BAD GUY, BAD GUYS do BAD THINGS). Bonus points for skipping the part where you actually show the watches were stolen.

sorry phill, if you find out someone is a thief and this doesn't make you question their character, i really can't help you out on this one.

i'm not saying they were stolen, guy. it's obvious you and phill et al are just assuming they're stolen because TM was black btw.

i'm saying the defense has a right to know. the defense should be able to learn the origin of ****ing man if it will help their client. his liberty is at stake.

Let me know when we find out Martin is a thief. Right now, all you've got is some jewelery and skin color. We have the fact that, even after an (admittedly brief) investigation, no one accused Martin of anything.

umm the question isn't 'is he a thief', the question is does the defense have the right to ask that question. phill et al are saying no because blahblahracism

It's a pretty silly question to ask, because Trayvon Martin is not a thief.

kool story bro.

tbh i'm not trying hard to find a way to defend zimmerman, i thought the defense was obvious (cut to the back of his head, punched in the nose).

saying that the defense should have access to records isn't defending zimmerman, it's defending the jury trial.

Yes, boom, headshot. You're like, "hey I want to look at school records to find evidence of theft(school records being the traditional place to record evidence of theft in America) so I can develop this weird universal lawbreaker system, apply it to this case, and amazingly discover it supports Zimmerman(who knew!)", and we're like "come on bro."

I do like the bolded. Yes, being able to spot racism is the real racism. People tell you that you're white and you believe them, because you don't see race. Thumbsupokguy.gif

We've literally gone to "If you don't think Zimmerman is guilty, you're a racist" ITT.

You see gentlemen, this is the problem that arises when you call everyone and everything you disagree with racist.