Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTank77
While it's all irrelevant to that night of the incident, he DID have a history, which included organized fights and possible possession of an illegal handgun. We can pretend it either doesn't matter, or make up excuses about it only being brought up because of his race (which is stupid), but Trayvon was not some innocent child. He certainly wouldn't have been afraid of starting a fight with someone.
|
I'll address each of those in turn:
1) The organised fights: I believe the texts and videos you refer to were excluded by the trial judge, Debra Nelson, on the grounds that they were irrelevant and the defence did not seek to introduce them at trial at a later date. That means the evidence is untested, and its reliability therefore rests at the level of hearsay (i.e. not particularly strong). Mere "suggestion" is not sufficient to establish a record, and your subsequent claim that he "wouldn't have been afraid to start a fight" rests on nothing stronger than speculation. I got into fights at school, yet I don't tend to walk up to people and start pummeling their head in.
2) The firearm: See above. Also, claiming possession of a gun leads to a propensity for violence would somewhat harm your claims about Mr Zimmerman...
3) The jewellery: Given the items in question, I find it very surprising indeed that such a haul would not result in an arrest and charge. Twelve items of jewellery and a screwdriver is pretty suspicious, after all, and certainly would not result in merely a suspension in most jurisdictions. Indeed, the reports suggest the suspension was for a graffiti incident and that no action was taken in relation to the jewellery discovery, which raises some concerns as to the reliability of the claims about it. In particular, the report states further down that the police found no evidence that they were stolen items or that Martin was involved in any such activity.
As I alluded to above, "history" is some way from a "record", and certainly the general understanding of a "record" in this context. Perhaps my background in law makes me take these things with a larger-than-average pinch of salt, but I think throwing around accusations about the character of the parties (particularly the deceased, who is in no position to respond to them) is pretty counterproductive. I'd prefer to leave it to see if any further action is taken by the DoJ.