Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Zimmerman Trial

The most important and unknown fact in this trial has to do with menstrual cycles.






That's the wild card.

Being on neighborhood watch could preclude going to a bar... or would the neighbors feel just as secure with Z bellied up to a bar?

Would have no problem with Z living in my neighborhood.

And fishbait!

Exactly! Avoidance, If possible should Always be your first option!

Question for lawyers -

I see that the judge has allowed evidence of Zimmerman's interest in being a cop and his college legal classes regarding "stand-your-ground. If Zimmerman's past history is allowed, why is Martin's past history (violent acts, etc.) being excluded?

What is the legal basis and is it correct?

Z said he didn't know anything about "stand your ground"....

The Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with this case. Hasn't been raised by the defense.

Then it must be murder 2.

TRH is not a "failed police cadet" or "washout from law school". He applied for a job as a policeman and took the tests, etc., scoring high. He was about to go for training and some judge ruled that there weren't enough minorities that were cops. The tests were somehow weighted then to favor minorities and one was hired instead of TRH. He was told he'd be hired after the quotas were filled. He then went to college and was in college a year or two later when he received the call to come for cop training. Being busy with college, he declined. As to law school, TRH is a graduate thereof but has never sat for the Bar.

Anybody who has been around here and paid attention knows these stories as they have been related several times. You don't like TRH or some of the stuff he posts, that's fine. It's also fine to slam him if that's your thing. But if you're going to do so it would be good to get your stories straight so you're not repeating lies. Just some free advice, freely given.

While I hope your prediction for the outcome of this trial is wrong, I fear it will be right. The very right to defend oneself is in jeopardy here.

I think Jorge has it scoped out right. I believe GZ was dealt a winning hand, but couldn't resist the urge to better it with a little embellishment. Even women jurors may be suspicious of a pat hand.

Take away the media attention and this case has zero implications for our right to defend ourselves.

Can anyone point to any legal ramifications resulting from the Simpson trial, for instance.

BTW.. good to see you back on the forum.

Yes, he said this on Hannity's show, but his college instructor said they'd cover the subject in class and Z got an A. Maybe he was asleep during this part of the class? Or, maybe he was trying to make himself look better - I don't know.

I don't even live in Florida and I've heard of their stand your ground law.

The Simpson trial made me not trust the legal system at all. I watched every bit of it that I could and there is no way that he was not guilty. He got off because the jury was afraid of riots if they convicted him and this jury, I think, will do the opposite for the same reason. miles

Why does it matter whether he KNEW about the law or not? It does not change the law!

"Stand your ground" is not the name of any law. It's NOT the label the "Professor" would have used in class.

However....... I still think George lied about not hearing of it.

He will be done in by a few little lies he told which were not necessary to his defense.

Prior bad acts aren't permitted as to the defendant for the purpose of showing a tendency to be guilty of the crime charged. Ordinarily, however, they are allowed in with regard to the "victim" if the defendant's defense is self-defense. So Martin's prior bad acts should have been allowed in, but aren't.

As to wanting to be a cop, that's not technically a prior "bad" act, which is the theory under which the prosecution got it into evidence. Defense argued that although it's not a prior bad act, the prosecution wishes to use it as if it were, i.e., to suggest a tendency to insert himself into "police matters," as it were, where he's supposed to be a good citizen and be afraid of criminals, leaving them to the real cops. In other words, they want to introduce it so as to create the impression with the jury that he's some sort of crazy cop wannabe, implying that he was the aggressor, i.e., trying to "make an arrest," or "deal out justice."

The defense was right. The judge was wrong.

Exactly. Evidence that he said he didn't on Hannity, but actually did, is not relevant, and should never have come in. Knowing a law doesn't tend to make him guilty of what he's charged with, so it should never have come in due to lack of relevance. The judge is absurdly pro-prosecution.

I never heard the term "stand your ground" until this incident.

In my opinion Zimmerman used poor judgment,however I do not believe he is a murderer.