ok, trayvons past showed him to be a person who liked to fight, someone who had to prove how tough he was, someone who was racist, someone who was a thug.
This instance with Zimmerman shows he can get upset with the person who is divorcing him. Yes it shows he can threaten but did he shoot? what example shows more?
..trayvon by a LOT, you want to think otherwise but the facts simply are not on your side, one instance vs a whole host of instances.

and you really want to claim what people claim on a 911 call is to be considered heavily?
Uhhhh, Zimmermans 911 call would then prove him even more innocent now wouldn't it? This is your reasoning and you can't have it both ways, if it means so much for his wife, then his call must mean more as well!

Trayvon looks like a real "suspicious guy" (not a kid but a "guy")

he "looks black" showing he was not certain of that (yet you guys are playing the race card)

"he's coming towards me ... he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is" (shows fear)

He also said he would wait for the police, not the sign of someone who wants to start a fight.

All on the 911 call, YOUR insistence this must be true, the guy is innocent thank you very much!

freeman3 wrote:You can't wake someone up who is determined to remain asleep

Unlike you, I prefer thought and reason, not mere visceral response.

Charges, if you please, not speculation.

Thought and reason. it seems to me that you are making an assessment based on emotion or perhaps bias--that a woman will make up things in a domestic violence situation. Where is the thought or reason in that?

freeman3 wrote:Thought and reason. it seems to me that you are making an assessment based on emotion or perhaps bias--that a woman will make up things in a domestic violence situation. Where is the thought or reason in that?

You seemed to disregarded the similarity to the Trayvon case that Tom is bringing up. Using a person's past to convict in the present... Are you sure that is your intent?

Well, a pattern of conduct is relevant. We evaluate people based on their past conduct. In criminal cases we want juries to focus on what happened at the relevant to time and place, not on what defemdant may have done in the past (however, past conduct can be relevant to prove motive, intent, habit, plan, etc.) The concern we have with character evidence in general is that juries will convict someone merely because they think the defendant was a bad guy. And that what was done with Trayvon Martin, just attempts to show that he was a bad kid, none of it really relevant to the case or admissible ( and by the way none of it showing that he was a bad kid --no allegations that he was in a gang or had committed violent crimes or had a juvenile record, or has assaulted anyone violently)
But the situation with Zimmerman is different. Now we have further evidence of Zimmerman quickly going to his gun and committing a battery. A 911 tape is evidence, regardless if the State decides not to pursue the case. This is relevant to assessing his state of mind at the time of the Trayvon Martin incident. Of course it doesn't change the result, but I think that if a reasonable person had supported Zimmerman before they are less sure of that support now. Normal law abiding people don't threaten with a gun when their life is not threatened

fate

It appears to be a divorce settlement dispute

Conducted in a normal fashion for this kind of dispute?
freeman3

Normal law abiding people don't threaten with a gun when their life is not threatened.

One thing we do know, Zimmermans Father in law was wise to treat Zimmermans threat seriously.
He has killed before.

so what you are saying is Trayvons history does not matter but Zimmermans does. When it suits your opinion it matters, when it doesn't then it's a different story.
We can "assess Zimmermans state of mind" thanks to this knowledge but we can not assess Tayvon's state of mind based on his history of fighting, yeah, that makes perfect sense to me!

History of fighting? You mean some kind of mma fights and he talked about how he liked it? Or something like that. Compare that to a specific incident where Zimmerman was alleged to have threatened two people while he had his hand on a gun. How would a jury proces the information about Trayvon Martin and apply that to the facts of the case? Whereas, with regard to this current incident regarding Zimmerman if it had happened before the incident with Trayvon it would have probably been admissible to show Zimmerman 's state of mind at the time of the shooting (because this current incident shows he is quick to go his gun in a dispute) Vague allegations about someones's character without specific instances similar to the instant case, not admissible (like the info on Trayvon) specific instances of conduct that involve similar situations may be admissible because relevant to an issue in the case like intent (like the incident involving Zimmerman)

Most physical fights result from two people with issues. It seems to me that both of these men had character flaws.

That statement I would agree with, from what I can tell.

I have always suggested that both Zimmerman and Martin were people with flaws. Neither were angels, nor were they the devil.

A person's past is an indicator of recent actions. Martin's and Zimmerman's are both repeating themselves.

Trayvon was such a saint...

*Suspended from school three times
*caught with drugs (marijuana and codeine)
*The skittles and drink just bought were drug ingredients (Lean)
*caught with a burglary tool and women's jewelry
*he was a racist
*reports of punching a bus driver
*He was in many fights and even refereed others
*linked to guns

Zimmerman is no saint either! I am not defending him as a person but to say he shot this thug wrongly, that's pure fiction! Trayvon was a bad kid, no doubt about it. Zimmerman is no saint and has his issues as well but to claim ONLY Zimmerman is bad...really???

rickyp wrote:fate

It appears to be a divorce settlement dispute

Conducted in a normal fashion for this kind of dispute?

As someone who has handled many, many disputes like this? Yes. People get very emotional, exaggerate, and even lie. I know, I know, it's shocking.

freeman3

Normal law abiding people don't threaten with a gun when their life is not threatened.

One thing we do know, Zimmermans Father in law was wise to treat Zimmermans threat seriously.
He has killed before.

But, he has not murdered . . . that we know of.

I would caution you liberals from being illiberal. You know, all that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff.

fate

As someone who has handled many, many disputes like this? Yes. People get very emotional, exaggerate, and even lie. I know, I know, it's shocking

I was refering to the use of firearms as a negotiating tool.
And had his father in law swung at him, I'm sure he'd claim he felt his life was threatened... which makes the father in laws retreat in the face of the threat from Zimmerman judicious.

Tell me Fate, what do you call an armed man who resorts to brandishing his gun in an arguement with an unarmed man?

once again assuming things?
"Had the father-n-law swung at him"
do you know that he did not? Or are you simply assuming this to be the case?
and even if he had not, you are again assuming he would have been shot.

What do I cal an armed man who resorts to brandishing his gun in an argument with an unarmed man?
Chicken
Scared
Petty
...but "murderer" is not one of those words now IS IT?