R.I.P Trayvon

OMara did an interview and said "if GZs past can be brought in which shows he was obsessed with being a cop, then TMs past can be brought in as well" I thought this was GZ on trial not TM.

I don't watch a lot of cases so maybe some of you guys can tell me but does the defense trying to bash the character of a victim in these types of cases actually work? Seems like that's a bad tactic to try and get over with a jury
 
LyonBC1 said:
OMara did an interview and said "if GZs past can be brought in which shows he was obsessed with being a cop, then TMs past can be brought in as well" I thought this was GZ on trial not TM.

I don't watch a lot of cases so maybe some of you guys can tell me but does the defense trying to bash the character of a victim in these types of cases actually work? Seems like that's a bad tactic to try and get over with a jury
Click to expand...


Because the Defense, like the Prosecution, is trying to prove the aggression of one person or the other. GZ is a "wannabe cop" therefore he was looking for confrontation. TM had a history of fights, therefore he has a history of having a short fuse.
 
LyonBC1 said:
I don't watch a lot of cases so maybe some of you guys can tell me but does the defense trying to bash the character of a victim in these types of cases actually work? Seems like that's a bad tactic to try and get over with a jury
Click to expand...

Of course. For an easy reference, remember the Kobe rape case? They were going to trash his accuser's character, which was one of the main reasons the two sides reached a settlement before the case went to trial.
 
rashi said:
LyonBC1 said:
OMara did an interview and said "if GZs past can be brought in which shows he was obsessed with being a cop, then TMs past can be brought in as well" I thought this was GZ on trial not TM.

I don't watch a lot of cases so maybe some of you guys can tell me but does the defense trying to bash the character of a victim in these types of cases actually work? Seems like that's a bad tactic to try and get over with a jury
Click to expand...


Because the Defense, like the Prosecution, is trying to prove the aggression of one person or the other. GZ is a "wannabe cop" therefore he was looking for confrontation. TM had a history of fights, therefore he has a history of having a short fuse.
Click to expand...

Aren't they also saying GZ would have known the stand your ground law and be able to create a situation that could be supported by that though? I don't see how TM being in fights before would matter if both people have violence in their backgrounds and one also has courses in the law yet claimed he doesn't know those same laws
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
LyonBC1 said:
I don't watch a lot of cases so maybe some of you guys can tell me but does the defense trying to bash the character of a victim in these types of cases actually work? Seems like that's a bad tactic to try and get over with a jury
Click to expand...

Of course. For an easy reference, remember the Kobe rape case? They were going to trash his accuser's character, which was one of the main reasons the two sides reached a settlement before the case went to trial.
Click to expand...

Gotcha I see what you mean
 
LyonBC1 said:
Aren't they also saying GZ would have known the stand your ground law and be able to create a situation that could be supported by that though? I don't see how TM being in fights before would matter if both people have violence in their backgrounds and one also has courses in the law yet claimed he doesn't know those same laws
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at, but it's hard to assume someone knows the law if they simply took college courses. For instance, someone could easily screw up administering CPR even if they are certified.

That's a bit of a reach for the jury to make that assumption.

Someone above me said that you need to know the law as a conceal/carry precursor, that probably holds more weight.
 
she's way too excited to be on the stand right now....

and Manti is happy as hell to be questioning her.... son feeling himself this morning lol
 
Last edited:
LyonBC1 said:
Aren't they also saying GZ would have known the stand your ground law and be able to create a situation that could be supported by that though? I don't see how TM being in fights before would matter if both people have violence in their backgrounds and one also has courses in the law yet claimed he doesn't know those same laws
Click to expand...

I don't know how you really "create" what this situation is really about. If they are saying "create" in the context of following TM, then I dont really know what they are trying to prove. Being followed by someone isnt enough "provocation" to defend yourself in the State of Florida.

I guess TM being in fights would allow the Defense to say "See! TM has a history of fighting and therefore has a violent past.", so that tells the Jury that there is a "possibility" that TM could have started the fight. Which is all the Defense needs to do. They need to create the "possibility" of TM starting the fight which doesnt allow the Prosecution to prove beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


Florida courts are a Kubuki theatre anyway.
 
Last edited:
I thought the brotha was about to say George was one of the worse students for some reason, but the fact that he said he was one of the better students is helpful to the prosecution. 
 
gonna be interesting to see O'Mara or West cross-examine another lawyer... especially when it comes to evidence they kinda got caught off guard with
 
Deuce King said:
I thought the brotha was about to say George was one of the worse students for some reason, but the fact that he said he was one of the better students is helpful to the prosecution. 
Click to expand...

How so? Could be perceived either way. If he knew the law, the defense will try and say him being attacked1st and using lethal force would be applying the stand your ground the justifiably as he learned in the classroom.
 
the "white" paralegal for the defense keeps staring at the witness....

box might be offered after court
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
Deuce King said:
I thought the brotha was about to say George was one of the worse students for some reason, but the fact that he said he was one of the better students is helpful to the prosecution. 
Click to expand...
How so? Could be perceived either way. If he knew the law, the defense will try and say him being attacked1st and using lethal force would be applying the stand your ground the justifiably as he learned in the classroom.
Click to expand...
From the Hannity interview that was shown in the courtroom yesterday, Zimmerman said that he didn't know about the stand your ground law in Florida.  According to this lawyer who was Zimmerman's teacher, he did know stand your ground from his direct teaching, and to add to that, George was one of the better students so the perception is or would be that he was very knowledgeable. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
R.I.P. Paul Reubens AKA Pee-wee Herman
Replies
13
Views
572
$tacy
$tacy

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom