Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[batvette]

Brava! Totally agree with that.

I do too but I think it's absurd to believe it would go down the other way.

This isn't going to be the Emmett Till trial.

Though if the shoe's going to fit for "the lil black kid who dug his own grave" it may just end up being so if the story is revealed as it's been presented, that Martin assaulted and battered Zimmerman after flying off in a fit of rage because a white guy was following him around.

What else do you call assaulting someone who turns out to be legally armed, but digging your own grave? Doesn't matter if you're black or white.

That should be a message that SHOULD get out. It's not okay to pop open a can of whoop ass on some one just because you didn't like them looking at you.

 

[sgtbaker]

It's also the first alibi a thief uses when caught with stolen goods.
But even if we accept your theory this leaves Trayvon Martin having unwavering alliance with burglars and thieves as friends.
Not a convincing argument Zimmerman couldn't have been right and Martin may have been casing homes.

I think that is a point Sgt Baker needs to understand too. We're not trying to ascertain this just to smear Martin. It's claimed Zimmerman had no good reason to follow Martin in the first place and this was probably race motivated. If we can establish a history of Martin engaging in burglary or associating with burglars it makes it a lot more plausible Zimmerman was justified.

The only justification Zimmerman needed to call the police that night was to see something he perceived as suspicious. He was acting well within his rights to call the police. Given the climate of that neighborhood, prior to that night, his suspicion were not completely unfounded. However, I don't know what kind of logical fallacy it is but there has to be a name for using information only known after the fact to prove that the unfounded assumption was just. It's okay to wonder if Trayvon really was, "up to no good," but since there was no report of any break ins, there was nothing in Trayvon's possession other than the infamous Arizona, skittles, and some cash, so at the end of the day, it's really just mental masturbation. I would hardly call once incident a history of crime.

What gets me is that in 47 previous calls, not once did the police come out, find that Zimmerman was complaining about someone just minding their own business, coming back from the store getting Skittles.
One of the subjects in those 47 calls would have come forward by now and said "yeah I got hassled by this guy for just walking through the complex".
Isn't that a little bit of a stretch to believe Zimmerman began such a practice on call #48?

Not all of those 47 calls involved burglary, either. He's called because a woman was driving around harassing people, he's called because kids were vandalizing the clubhouse, he's called for potholes, and he's called out of concerned because a kid that looked very young was walking to school alone, etc. He's called the police a lot and though I don't think his reason for calling this time was unjust, he has called for some weird reasons, in the past. His history has no bearing on what Trayvon was actually doing. It's not like he is psychic and incapable of misreading a situation.

I'll allow the fact that Zimmerman may have been completely wrong and mistook talking on the phone with a hoodie and being preoccupied in a conversation with a G/F to be on drugs looking at houses.

That's exactly what I think happened.

In any case the eyewitness testimony I believe exists still places Zimmerman on his back being beaten by Martin and I believe legally that will be the crux of his defense.

I am not sure since the two eyewitness' have since changed their accounts, it will give the prosecution some leverage. I will however state that memories are subject to outside influence and I do think the media coverage has played a part in how they remembered the situation after a period of time.

It is also most plausible it was Martin that initiated the assault. I cannot fathom why Zimmerman would call police, then pursue, then assault Martin. I can easily see Martin assaulting Zimmerman if he felt threatened or even more likely, disrespected.
Not justification for assault. Yet being beaten and scared is justification to shoot, by the law.

I don't find either scenario to be more plausible than the other. It's possible that Trayvon felt threatened, as I've said before, Zimmerman claims to be reaching for his cellphone, Trayvon may not have known what he was reaching for and felt he was acting in self defense. It's possible that Trayvon was showing off for his female friend. It is also equally possible that Zimmerman did attempt to hold Trayvon until the police got there. There is just not evidence to show how the fight started, which is why I am still not willing to call Zimmerman guilty.

 

[batvette]

So... you think a statement isn't evidence until it's made in a courtroom?

Take some to think about the implications of that, and what a silly notion it is.



Yes. Unsubstantiated evidence.



Also correct. I am not aware of any evidence that corroborates her claim.



There is substantiating evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Zimmerman had an injury consistent with being punched in the nose.

There is not substantiating evidence that Martin repeatedly bashed Zimmerman's head into the concrete.

And if you disagree, please provide that evidence.

(And just to save us all a little time, you're going to have to come up with something more than just two small cuts and a complete lack of any other related trauma. Something like the opinion of a verified medical professional that states Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with having his head repeatedly bashed into concrete should suffice.)

I think there is some ambiguity over the claims of "concrete" vs "ground" and possibly you are emphasizing concrete to demand a standard of injuries and if they aren't met that presumes Z is lying.
I think it's pretty well known the last part of the fight has Z on the grass. Is the concrete claim that of Z? Did he say he was knocked down on concrete then his head was slammed on the ground? Or?
Anyway complete lack of related trauma, bruises wouldn't be that visible through his hair, and we don't need to show life threatening injuries HAD happened for self defense if he felt they were or would happen.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The defense has a right to inspect potential evidence. That doesn't automatically grant them the right to have anything they inspect admitted into the evidence. That is another issue that will be dealt with separately.

Yes, it is potential evidence, as in it may be relevant, and it may be admitted.

Yet you and others keep claiming that it is irrelevant and will never see the light of day.

I certainly agree BDLR will do (and currently is doing) what is in his power to keep TMs past history out of the court. That doesn't mean he will succeed. It doesn't even mean MOM will bring it up, or even need to bring it up.

And by the way, the prosecution was so terrified by the implications of this motion, that they made no effort to oppose it.

Or they had no legal reason to oppose it ... I'm sure we both know that's the real reason.

 

[quadraginta]

Same question for you that JK has been dodging ... if it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" why does the judge grant the motion to photograph and inspect the jewelry ? Why not deny the motion, as it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" ?

One reason might be to avoid grounds for reversal on appeal.

 

[batvette]

It's amazing how convinced some people are by a narrative that we know lacks sufficient evidence to merit an immunity hearing.

It gets repeatedly asserted that Martin assaulted and beat Zimmerman as if this was some kind of proven and obvious fact, and yet Zimmerman's defense team is forgoing the opportunity to present these proven and obvious facts and give their guy a free chance at acquittal.

Talk about a disconnect from reality.

If you're suggesting that people who disagree with you are suffering from delusions, let's not go there.
The basis of beliefs that Zimmerman was being assaulted by Martin stem from the original media coverage of witnesses statements. I don't believe recanting these statements later after watching Zimmerman go into hiding after receiving several hundred death threats diminishes that. YMMV.
As for Zimmerman's "free chance at acquittal" have you considered Zimmerman may be pursuing this as the only way to truly clear his name and come out of hiding later? If he gets out of this through a legal technicality the public won't find him not guilty, just no longer charged with a crime.

 

[batvette]

, I don't know what kind of logical fallacy it is but there has to be a name for using information only known after the fact to prove that the unfounded assumption was just. It's okay to wonder if Trayvon really was, "up to no good,"

What do we call saying Zimmerman had no reason at all to follow Martin other than he didn't like blacks and because he didn't like black people in his neighborhood and so hunted down Martin, initiated a fight with him and shot him in cold blood for no good reason?

but since there was no report of any break ins, there was nothing in Trayvon's possession other than the infamous Arizona, skittles, and some cash,

I see nothing in the above points which preclude the possibility Zimmerman's description was correct and Martin was casing the neighborhood looking for an opportunity. Does Martin had to have committed the burglary for him to have intended to do so? Why was he so irritated that George Zimmerman was observing him from a distance? Why did he try to evade Zimmerman?

I would hardly call once incident a history of crime.

Really. You'd better alert the justice dept, one incident on your record is enough to label you a criminal and will be used in your sentencing on future offenses.
Keep in mind the only reason that Martin's possession of that jewelry was not investigated, the jewelry connected to the break in, and Martin having a burglary or stolen property record, is because of a well documented scandal by MDSDP to fix juvenile crime stats in their area. So if you're saying without a conviction Martin can't be a burglar I will ask, how could he possibly have one?

Not all of those 47 calls involved burglary, either. He's called because a woman was driving around harassing people, he's called because kids were vandalizing the clubhouse, he's called for potholes, and he's called out of concerned because a kid that looked very young was walking to school alone, etc. He's called the police a lot and though I don't think his reason for calling this time was unjust, he has called for some weird reasons, in the past. His history has no bearing on what Trayvon was actually doing. It's not like he is psychic and incapable of misreading a situation.

If people are saying Zimmerman called police, pursued him and killed him for merely being black I think Zimmerman's police call history is extremely relevant. He'd never done that before.

That's exactly what I think happened.

So do I. However my analysis cannot change the facts and should not be presumed to be factual.

I am not sure since the two eyewitness' have since changed their accounts, it will give the prosecution some leverage. I will however state that memories are subject to outside influence and I do think the media coverage has played a part in how they remembered the situation after a period of time.

Agreed. I think this is quite factual:

Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/17374352/trayvon-martin-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz2TuEHY6fO

I don't find either scenario to be more plausible than the other. It's possible that Trayvon felt threatened, as I've said before, Zimmerman claims to be reaching for his cellphone, Trayvon may not have known what he was reaching for and felt he was acting in self defense. It's possible that Trayvon was showing off for his female friend. It is also equally possible that Zimmerman did attempt to hold Trayvon until the police got there.

Does it really make sense that Zimmerman would call police THEN initiate the assault with them minutes away? As for Zimmerman holding him there remember he had nearly completed a criminal justice degree, I think he'd know better.

. There is just not evidence to show how the fight started, which is why I am still not willing to call Zimmerman guilty

Actually there is. Coroner's examination of Martin found no evidence of blows to the face and head or any other signs of Zimmerman striking him. In fact IIRC the only damage to Martin was the gunshot wound and some light abrasions or bruising on his hands. Please correct me if that assumption is wrong.

Zimmerman had no such injuries. Just a broken nose, small lacerations on the face, and scrapes and cuts to the back of the head.

This would suggest the only crime going on that night was Martin's brutal assault of George Zimmerman, in which if he had not been legally carrying a firearm, the outcome of which would be wholly different.

You have to wonder what the world is coming to where a 17 y/o goes to stay with a relative in an unfamiliar neighborhood, where homeowners had asked a responsible adult to take on neighborhood watch duties, and that 17 year old decides that being looked at is due cause to brutally beat a man asked to watch over his own neighborhood- and people (not necessarily you) seem to think that's okay.

 

[Dan O.]

How do we know that the gun in the waist holster was not either showing, or a noticeable bulge?

Because Zimmerman is alive.

If someone presents enough of a threat that you have to take a swing to punch them to the ground. If you know for a fact that they are armed, that deadly threat needs to be eliminated. You can't just get up after a fight when the other person is armed.

 

[bookworm]

It's also the first alibi a thief uses when caught with stolen goods.
But even if we accept your theory this leaves Trayvon Martin having unwavering alliance with burglars and thieves as friends.
Not a convincing argument Zimmerman couldn't have been right and Martin may have been casing homes.

I think that is a point Sgt Baker needs to understand too. We're not trying to ascertain this just to smear Martin. It's claimed Zimmerman had no good reason to follow Martin in the first place and this was probably race motivated. If we can establish a history of Martin engaging in burglary or associating with burglars it makes it a lot more plausible Zimmerman was justified.
Burglary, particularly by non professionals, is a crime of opportunity. Martin staying for a short time in a neighborhood miles away from his own might be prone to look for such an opportunity. Even while talking on the phone to his G/F.
What gets me is that in 47 previous calls, not once did the police come out, find that Zimmerman was complaining about someone just minding their own business, coming back from the store getting Skittles.
One of the subjects in those 47 calls would have come forward by now and said "yeah I got hassled by this guy for just walking through the complex".
Isn't that a little bit of a stretch to believe Zimmerman began such a practice on call #48?
I'll allow the fact that Zimmerman may have been completely wrong and mistook talking on the phone with a hoodie and being preoccupied in a conversation with a G/F to be on drugs looking at houses.
That does not automatically prequalify him as a predator racist as is implied by his critics either.
In any case the eyewitness testimony I believe exists still places Zimmerman on his back being beaten by Martin and I believe legally that will be the crux of his defense.
It is also most plausible it was Martin that initiated the assault. I cannot fathom why Zimmerman would call police, then pursue, then assault Martin. I can easily see Martin assaulting Zimmerman if he felt threatened or even more likely, disrespected.
Not justification for assault. Yet being beaten and scared is justification to shoot, by the law.

Great post. I keep being amazed that people can't see the relevance as to that night of TM's prior behavior. It goes straight to the very beginning when everyone said Zimmerman had to be the one at fault because TM was an almost perfect child who would never instigate trouble.

 

[bookworm]

The only justification Zimmerman needed to call the police that night was to see something he perceived as suspicious. He was acting well within his rights to call the police. Given the climate of that neighborhood, prior to that night, his suspicion were not completely unfounded. However, I don't know what kind of logical fallacy it is but there has to be a name for using information only known after the fact to prove that the unfounded assumption was just. It's okay to wonder if Trayvon really was, "up to no good," but since there was no report of any break ins, there was nothing in Trayvon's possession other than the infamous Arizona, skittles, and some cash, so at the end of the day, it's really just mental masturbation. I would hardly call once incident a history of crime.

The relevance of the prior burglary goes to whether or not TM was likely (or not) the type of teenager who could get angry at someone watching him and want to beat his behind for it. It goes to whether or not Zimmerman's story that he was attacked on his way back to his truck, by THIS teenager, is believable or not. It goes to whether or not it's believable that THIS teenager is capable of beating someone's head off the ground.

 

[johnny karate]

I think there is some ambiguity over the claims of "concrete" vs "ground" and possibly you are emphasizing concrete to demand a standard of injuries and if they aren't met that presumes Z is lying.

You'll have to point out the ambiguity in this statement:

The suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled "Help" several times. The suspect told me "Shut the **** up", and I tried to sit upright. The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell "Help" and then I attempted to sit up. The suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode.

... because I'm not seeing it.

I think it's pretty well known the last part of the fight has Z on the grass.

It is? According to whom? And based on what?

Is the concrete claim that of Z?

Yes.

Did he say he was knocked down on concrete then his head was slammed on the ground? Or?

Or nothing. He made a repeated and unambiguous claim that his head was slammed onto the concrete sidewalk.

Anyway complete lack of related trauma, bruises wouldn't be that visible through his hair...

Zimmerman's head was virtually clean-shaven and he received an examination from a medical professional. The injuries he had were the injuries that were documented.

Any fantasy scenario in which Zimmerman had phantom injuries that were somehow missed during a medical examination is flatout ludicrous.

...and we don't need to show life threatening injuries HAD happened for self defense if he felt they were or would happen.

It's not about determining grounds for self-defense, it's about corroborating Zimmerman's specific claims regarding the nature of his alleged assault.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

MOM argues that toxicology report should be allowed in evidence:
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/052113_reply_limine_toxicology.pdf

The active THC was measured at l.5 ng/mL whereas the metabolite was measured at 7.3 ng/mL. This level is sufficient to cause some impairment (although it is considered to be less than that required for a DUI arrest) according to the State’s toxicologist, Dr. Bruce Goldberger....

Dr. Goldberger opined that Trayvon Martin may have used marijuana within a couple of hours of his death or that it could have been longer than that depending on whether Trayvon Martin was a chronic user or an occasional user. From other evidence in the case, it is known that Trayvon Martin brought marijuana with him from South Florida to use while he was in Sanford...

So the States own toxicologist contradicts all the experts here who claimed he couldn't possibly have been under the influence of drugs at the time of the incident.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, it is potential evidence, as in it may be relevant, and it may be admitted.

Yet you and others keep claiming that it is irrelevant and will never see the light of day.

And I'll stand by that.

I certainly agree BDLR will do (and currently is doing) what is in his power to keep TMs past history out of the court. That doesn't mean he will succeed. It doesn't even mean MOM will bring it up, or even need to bring it up.

We'll see.

Or they had no legal reason to oppose it ... I'm sure we both know that's the real reason.

Motions can be opposed for whatever reason. The legality is determined by the judge's ruling.

Case in point: O'Mara manufactured a fantasy about discovery violations that was proven in court to have no legal merit. But there was nothing stopping him from filing those bogus motions in the first place.

The prosecution would have opposed the motion if they were worried about allowing the defense access to Martin's school records.

They didn't, so they're not.

 

[johnny karate]

The relevance of the prior burglary goes to whether or not TM was likely (or not) the type of teenager who could get angry at someone watching him and want to beat his behind for it. It goes to whether or not Zimmerman's story that he was attacked on his way back to his truck, by THIS teenager, is believable or not. It goes to whether or not it's believable that THIS teenager is capable of beating someone's head off the ground.

Yes, the issue of burglary is relevant because it proves Martin might have attacked and assaulted Zimmerman.

Because as everyone knows burglary is a crime in which you attack and assault other people.

What perfectly airtight logic.

 

[This is The End]

How do we know that the gun in the waist holster was not either showing, or a noticeable bulge?

Because Zimmerman is alive.

If someone presents enough of a threat that you have to take a swing to punch them to the ground. If you know for a fact that they are armed, that deadly threat needs to be eliminated. You can't just get up after a fight when the other person is armed.

I'm not following your logic.

In fact, you are almost exactly describing what Z says happened. Except for the fact that M did not "succeed" in eliminating the threat.

 

[johnny karate]

If you're suggesting that people who disagree with you are suffering from delusions, let's not go there.
The basis of beliefs that Zimmerman was being assaulted by Martin stem from the original media coverage of witnesses statements. I don't believe recanting these statements later after watching Zimmerman go into hiding after receiving several hundred death threats diminishes that. YMMV.

George Zimmerman would be free man if it wasn't for all those witnesses lying!

Let loose the dogs of conspiracy theory!

As for Zimmerman's "free chance at acquittal" have you considered Zimmerman may be pursuing this as the only way to truly clear his name and come out of hiding later? If he gets out of this through a legal technicality the public won't find him not guilty, just no longer charged with a crime.

You should tell that to 2012 Mark O'Mara:

Now that the State has released the majority of their discovery, the defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense. Consistent with this claim of self-defense, there will be a “Stand Your Ground” hearing.

Apparently, he didn't realize all the reasons a pretrial immunity hearing was such a bad idea until it looked like he might have to actually hold one.

And of course, no one in this thread realized it until after O'Mara cancelled it.

(By the way, the bold declaration made by O'Mara above was months after those terrified witnesses decided to all lie and condemn an innocent man with their cowardice. I guess when O'Mara posted that on his website, he was not yet privy to the wheels of conspiracy that were turning and threatening to crush his client.)

 

[ABC10]

Sure the Tox report should be included particularly as one of Zimmerman's comment to NEN was something like he looks like he is on drugs which the report certainly verifies that in fact, Martin was.

 

[Noztradamus]

What do we call saying Zimmerman had no reason at all to follow Martin other than he didn't like blacks and because he didn't like black people in his neighborhood and so hunted down Martin, initiated a fight with him and shot him in cold blood for no good reason?

"Murder 2"

 

[sgtbaker]

What do we call saying Zimmerman had no reason at all to follow Martin other than he didn't like blacks and because he didn't like black people in his neighborhood and so hunted down Martin, initiated a fight with him and shot him in cold blood for no good reason?

I call that jumping to conclusions. I haven't seen any evidence of this actually being racially motivated.

I see nothing in the above points which preclude the possibility Zimmerman's description was correct and Martin was casing the neighborhood looking for an opportunity. Does Martin had to have committed the burglary for him to have intended to do so? Why was he so irritated that George Zimmerman was observing him from a distance? Why did he try to evade Zimmerman?

I don't particularly agree with people having to prove themselves innocent of accusations, so yes, he would have to have been caught in the act before I think it should be a part of the narrative. I can't answer for why Trayvon acted as he did but, in all honesty, you are making assumptions on Trayvon's behavior based on Zimmerman's story, alone. Grant it, it's the only narrative being told and we shouldn't assume it's a lie just because it's self serving but a more skeptical approach would be; if he attacked Zimmerman, why was he so irritated. We know there was a physical altercation and we know that Zimmerman was at the beaten end of it but we don't know for a fact that Trayvon attacked him unprovoked.

Really. You'd better alert the justice dept, one incident on your record is enough to label you a criminal and will be used in your sentencing on future offenses.
Keep in mind the only reason that Martin's possession of that jewelry was not investigated, the jewelry connected to the break in, and Martin having a burglary or stolen property record, is because of a well documented scandal by MDSDP to fix juvenile crime stats in their area. So if you're saying without a conviction Martin can't be a burglar I will ask, how could he possibly have one?

You are correct, the justice system screwed up there, assuming the scandal is all it cracked up to be (admittedly, I haven't followed that aspect of it that much). However, since there was no investigation and no investigation, trial, or conviction with that incident, the only facts we know about that case are that he, for some unexplained reason, had jewelry and a screwdriver. Part of me is curious to see where the defense wants to go with it, if there is something I am missing or if it can be presented in some way that ties it to this case but I worry that it is just an attempt to throw suspicion around and confuse the jury.

If people are saying Zimmerman called police, pursued him and killed him for merely being black I think Zimmerman's police call history is extremely relevant. He'd never done that before.

I think if that comes up in trial, there is a strong case against that accusation. The FBI did an investigation and concluded that this was not a racially motivated incident and the lead investigator in the case believes the suspicion was over his attire not his race. I do believe his history of calling the police and not getting involved bears relevance to questions on Zimmerman's actions but it is not relevant to what Trayvon was actually doing when he was, "just walking around, looking about."

Does it really make sense that Zimmerman would call police THEN initiate the assault with them minutes away? As for Zimmerman holding him there remember he had nearly completed a criminal justice degree, I think he'd know better.

I don't think stupidity is immediate grounds for conviction but Zimmerman does not come off as the brightest bulb in the box. You would think with his proximity to a law degree, he would have requested a lawyer the moment he realized that this was an investigation.

Actually there is. Coroner's examination of Martin found no evidence of blows to the face and head or any other signs of Zimmerman striking him. In fact IIRC the only damage to Martin was the gunshot wound and some light abrasions or bruising on his hands. Please correct me if that assumption is wrong.

Zimmerman had no such injuries. Just a broken nose, small lacerations on the face, and scrapes and cuts to the back of the head.

This would suggest the only crime going on that night was Martin's brutal assault of George Zimmerman, in which if he had not been legally carrying a firearm, the outcome of which would be wholly different.

Just because the beating was one sided it doesn't mean that the one with the upper hand, started the fight. I said it was possible that he tried to hold him, not that he hit him.

You have to wonder what the world is coming to where a 17 y/o goes to stay with a relative in an unfamiliar neighborhood, where homeowners had asked a responsible adult to take on neighborhood watch duties, and that 17 year old decides that being looked at is due cause to brutally beat a man asked to watch over his own neighborhood- and people (not necessarily you) seem to think that's okay.

I think you are assuming facts not in evidence and I just don't see the same falling sky you are seeing. My heart aches for the mother because I can identify with that. What I see is a mother who sees her son starting to make some bad decisions (so far very little points to a violent nature although I have not seen all of the evidence) and sends him to go live with his father in hopes of straightening him out. I've had to make the same decision and I don't know how I would feel if my son died as a direct result of that decision. The neighborhood had a theft problem, a typical reaction to a working class community when the economy takes a nose dive. It's not like she sent him to the hood. As for assuming facts, I would like to see what you see that convinces you that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman for being looked at because as far as I can see, there is no saying how the altercation started.

What I know is that Trayvon was a 17 year old kid who, at one point had unexplained jewelry, vandalized his school, and smoked some weed. That no more makes him a person capable of killing someone with their bare hands than the accusations of Zimmerman raping his cousin makes him capable of murdering an unarmed teenager.

 

[sgtbaker]

The relevance of the prior burglary goes to whether or not TM was likely (or not) the type of teenager who could get angry at someone watching him and want to beat his behind for it. It goes to whether or not Zimmerman's story that he was attacked on his way back to his truck, by THIS teenager, is believable or not. It goes to whether or not it's believable that THIS teenager is capable of beating someone's head off the ground.

When did theft become evidence of violence? Assuming he did steal the jewelry, he had a burglary tool which means the person he stole from was likely not present at the time of the theft. There is a huge difference between someone who sneaks in and steals jewelry and someone who robs another person. One shows the type who is less likely to be confrontational. Grant it, it's not evidence that Trayvon wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman but in my uneducated opinion, I don't see it as evidence that he would, either. Did Trayvon beat the officer that checked his bag? Did he show any violent tendencies? Did he even resist?