I have been thinking on this for a few days and am genuinely trying to come to a secure position on the relevance of some of the things O'Mara wants to bring to the trial. I hate to pull the race card but under these circumstances, I race is obviously a big part of this case.
When it comes to Trayvon's history, previous fights and even social media behavior can give an indication to his behavior. If everything about his behavior, prior to that night, paints a picture of a shy, timid kid who is typically scared of confrontation, it would give a good indication of who likely started the physical altercation, especially since Zimmerman does not have a squeaky clean history. If he was typically an aggressive kid, impulsive and quick to fly off the handle, it doesn't exactly prove he started the altercation but it would refute the statement, "Trayvon just wouldn't do that." It's not a case closer but it could be part of a greater picture for the defense.
The things that I am less comfortable with are the image Trayvon portrayed, as in fashion choices. It is sad that in 2013 we are still facing this but I am of the opinion that in a random selection of people (especially if the jury is more white than black), there is a greater likelihood that Trayvon's fashion choices; baggy clothes, hoodie, gold teeth, tattoos, etc, are going to be seen as more thug-like simply because he is black.
I agree that the whole jewelry thing is completely irrelevant. Whether he was, prior to this night, some kid who made the mistake of holding stolen jewelry for a friend and refused to give up his friend's name, a full time burglar, or in possession of that jewelry for completely innocuous reasons, there was no reports of burglaries that night and he was not in possession of any stolen property that night. Even if Zimmerman was dead on accurate and Trayvon was "casing" houses, no actual crime was committed, there is no evidence of an intent to commit a crime and his real intention is something that we will never know. There is simply zero evidence that he was doing anything other than walking home, when Zimmerman spotted him. Regardless of how long he took to get there, he was not breaking any laws, choosing to meander rather than briskly walk.
Where I am torn is Zimmerman's right to a defense. I probably wouldn't feel the same reluctance if Trayvon was white. It could me my latent racism and/or it could be the general attitude of whites that I am exposed to. I live one county south of Seminole. In Florida, community characteristics change drastically in short distances so Seminole could be completely alien to me. While Brevard county is predominantly a mix of people from all over the country, it seems to be a little more liberal than say, 1960's Alabama. The prevailing attitude I hear from whites is, "I don't have anything against black people, in general, I just hate those thug- wanna be types who talk in that gutter-slang." On one hand, I don't think it's fair for the defense to hold back a potentially valid defense on the off chance that the jury might be a little racist but on the other hand, the image painted of Trayvon, could really hurt the jury's ability to see him as a typical teenage victim.
I have my opinion on the known facts of this case; regardless of all the suspicion thrown around, I just don't feel that I've seen enough evidence to point in either direction, on what I feel are the deciding factors. I still follow this thread and I will probably follow the case thread more and if I have time to watch the case, I most certainly will. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I would want it to be because the state failed to prove a case of guilt. I would feel sick if he were to be found not guilty because the jury saw, just another black kid, thug wanna be who dug is own grave. Regardless of my opinion of Crump, I suspect that is the very reason why when he made a public case, he was behind the scenes locking down his social networking persona and trying to get his school records sealed. Any thoughts?
