Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Defense Can Use Trayvon Martin Tweets
theodp writes "The NY Times reports a judge in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman has ruled that Trayvon Martin's school and social media records should be provided to the defense. Judge Debra S. Nelson said Martin's Twitter, Facebook and school records were relevant in the self-defense case. In those instances, showing whether a victim 'had an alleged propensity to violence' or aggression is germane, the judge said. The defense also got permission for access to the social media postings of a Miami girl who said she was on the phone with Martin just before the shooting. Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
Tweeting, and posting on facebook or other social sites are forms of speech, speech is protected by the first amendment but that said it can also be used against you in any court of law. 'Anything you say can and will be used against you' so I think the current miranda rights cover that.
So nothing really ground breaking here as far as I'm concerned.
Zimmerman, not Martin, is the accused here so of course he should be entitled to what ever exculpatory evidence he can find. If the "Miami girl who said she was on the phone with Martin just before the shooting" wanted her social media postings protected on 5th amendment grounds and the court found that they weren't protected there might be a story here, but the summary at least doesn't hint at that.
Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?
Sorry but courts allow emails to be introduced as evidence so long as authenticity can be established. Why shouldn't this hold true for tweets and facebook posts? This has absolutely nothing to do with Miranda.
"Anything you tweeted six months ago can and will be twisted to portray you in whatever light suits the prosecutor's agenda."
It amazes me that so few people understand how truly dangerous social media is. Everyone who uses it is creating a permanent record of things that used to be hearsay. Even the most innocuous posts can come back to haunt you. Like any corporation, people need to be exceptionally careful about the image they present, even if they believe it to be private. Failing to so so could easily affect ones entire life.
For example, Take a fellow we just received a resume for. The gentleman had all of the qualifications we were looking for, and did quite well on a phone interview. Googling for this guy produced some pictures of what we presumed to be college gatherings that demonstrated extremely poor judgement on this guys part. Final result: no in person interview, they guy is on our block list, and he will never even know why he didn't get an in person interview. How many different opportunities is he going to miss out on that he will never know he missed because of those photos. Same thing goes for all social media postings. How long before Facebook decides to start "enhancing their revenue" by providing this kind of damning information to HR services for a fee. The company I work for wouldn't hesitate for a second to pay for such a "search", and neither would a lot of places. Facebook has almost no real risk of exposure because no HR department would want to publicize this kind of research, and people would have no way of finding out they had been the "victim" of such a search.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.
What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him. What they're actually almost definitely after is information that they can use to drag Martin's name through the mud to try to convince the jury that Martin's life was not worth protecting under the law.
I watched a defense attorney try this exact move while I was sitting on a jury. The defendant had been accused of smashing a brick over the victim's head, making her smoke crack, dragging her into a house, and then cutting up her face with a knife. The defense counsel offered no defense except to insinuate as much as he could get away with that the victim had entered the house voluntarily and traded the use of her car for the drugs. The jury realized very quickly that this didn't matter at all, because the available evidence made it quite clear that defendant had still taken a knife to the victim, and we were only asked to decide whether an assault with a deadly weapon had occurred. It was plain to me that the point of the "defense" was not to suggest that the defendant was innocent, but to suggest that the victim was a worthless human being so we wouldn't care what the defendant had done.
I am officially gone from
Why should they need to have prior knowledge?
In an fairly extreme example: if I post on FB about my martial arts hobby that I'm going to go out and beat some random guy on the street up. Then I'm shot dead out on the street. Then the shooter is prosecuted for shooting innocent me with wide reporting of how innocuous I was. Then it's certainly reasonable to use my prior statements displaying bad intent to call that description of me into question and of my martial arts training to suggest capabilities beyond what might normally be expected of someone my age and appearance.
I don't know all the details of this case and almost certainly neither do you. But it's ludicrous to suggest prior statements are only relevant if the defendant knew about them beforehand or can't be used in this situation under some misunderstanding of the constitutional protections of free speech.
I still don't recall a single story in the mainstream media that had a picture of the victim as anything other than a kid of 11 or so. They're obviously trying to generate outrage for attrcting clicks or purchases.
It's the way the system works. It's how it's designed. If a fact is relevant, then it's admissible. The defence is arguing that this is relevant. Given that he's going to be locked away from society for a very long time and have his life ruined, I don't think it's too much to ask to be absolutely sure that his actions were totally unjustified.
It's important that all relevant facts are disclosed. The court is meant to consider these facts impartially. If the court can't be impartial, and we need to hide factual information from the jury, then we have bigger problems than this specific decision.
You think he's guilty. That's fair enough. So do I. The court is acting on the presumption that he's innocent, and that's how it should be.
they wont see it that way... let me counter that with a different medium but similar concept..
I am hanging around a campfire with 5 of my buddies, we are all drinking. I make the comment that I cant stand my boss and I'm probably going to kill him one day. A week later he is found murdered in his home. One of my buddies drops an anonymous tip about my drunken outburst to the cops. The cops go gather witness statements from a couple of these buddies and collect enough evidence for grand jury indictment. Later all 5 people are brought into court, sworn in under oath, and made to testify as to the accounts of that night.
I cannot claim that just because I didnt get on live TV and make the announcement, I had some expectation of privacy. If these twitter and facebook posts as well as school records create a pattern of violence and other criminal activity, it garners support of the defendants claim:
"during the physical altercation with Travon Martin, Travon found the gun lodged in the waistband of George's belt and grabbed for it while saying 'you're going to die tonight mother fucker!'. During the struggle for George's life, the gun discharged once into the chest of Travon at point-blank range".
This is a statement of account that has no eye witness. The defense claims that the intent was just to detain one of the people that has been constantly breaking into the homes of the neighborhood and Travon jumped him, resulting in a struggle for life. Some of these breakins have even been home invasions while residents were home. For weeks cops have gotten there 30min too late to catch them. Many times even called in by George to come grab them. This again gives a story of a man simply trying to slow people down just enough for the cops to arrive. Its a good story. Nobody will ever know what really happened besides George and Travon. Dead people obviously cant testify.
Meanwhile the media, and the victim's family, are painting Travon as this completely innocent angel, an honor roll student, that's only crime in life was being black. So if these records show:
1. travon was a C and D student
2. Travon had a poor attendance recorc
3. Suspensions and records of disciplinary action for extreme violence
4. tweets bragging about breaking into homes
5. facebook posts bragging about, or pictures showing, stolen goods
Then although they, by themselves, do not prove travon grabbed the gun and tried to murder George; still accomplish character assasination. "If they lied about these things, then they're probably lying about everything else too, just to avoid public record of their son being a criminal". Once that opinion gets formed with the jury it will be harder to get a conviction for sure. The evidence to decide on is not whether George shot and killed Travon, he clearly did. The question is whether George's life was actually in immanent danger, justifying self defense.
Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense.
There are times that deadly force MUST sometimes be used in self defense, if you intend to survive.
A fist fight can easily end in the death of one of the parties. If you didn't start the fight, is your only option supposed to be lay there and take it? Hope you don't end up dead by the time the attacker stops?
Non-lethal self defense training or not, you pull a knife and get close to an officer, you're getting shot and rightfully so.
being in such a situation isn't going to give you much opportunity to draw a weapon and fire it, let alone do much else.
Nice blanket assumption. Ever been in that exact situation?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
you mean the one that wasn't even him? yea thet is why it only showed up in right wing rags and neo nazi blogs
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
He shot and killed a man.
True.
He deliberately went out with a weapon to kill someone.
False. You're attributing intent where none has been proven. Carrying a gun does not equal intent to kill anymore than wearing your seat belt indicates an intention to get into a car wreck.
How is that not murder?
See above.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You have that backwards. If the goal was to make white people fear black people, they would not have printed photos of an 11 year old child. You are right that it was to create racial divide, but it was to rial black people to hate white people, and to kick in the 'white guilt' in white people. The whole thing was portrayed as a big bad evil white man shooting a poor defenseless black child. Of course, the black person wasn't a child, and the white guy was Mexican. Who was the aggressor is hard to say, but what is clear is that this wasn't an attempt to rally white folks against blacks.
It's only tragic if the kid was completely innocent and did not attack zimmer first.
These things seem severely in doubt.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. The evidence points strongly to Zimmerman stalking and harassing Martin. What happened after that, we don't know for sure, and never will. But it is pretty obvious that Zimmerman engaged in some level of provocation.
Your life is no more important than anyone else's, to assume so is extremely arrogant and selfish.
??? Do you not understand the notion of "social contract"? You can say that our lives have equal worth, OK, fine. You don't attack me and I won't attack you. However, if you do attack me, you give up the right to not be attacked. You get that, right?
So if I have to kill you to stop the attack, I damn sure will, and that's one of the most fundamental human rights there is.
Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened
That is not a fair way to describe what happened. A neighborhood watchman following what he considers a "suspicious" looking person is not "hunting them down with a gun". Sure he may have been overzealous and it is not pleasant to be followed around and considered a criminal when you are not, but that's not enough of a reason to jump on the guy and start pounding his head against the concrete (saw the pictures?). On the other hand, once that happened, Zimmerman WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself. It's a shitty deal for Trayvon but this case should never have been brought to trial and it wouldn't have been if it wasn't so politicized.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Of course, the black person wasn't a child, and the white guy was Mexican.
Actually, the white guy is half Peruvian, and half white. Since he was described as a "white Hispanic" I guess we should describe 0bama as a "white African-American". ;-)
Who was the aggressor is hard to say, but what is clear is that this wasn't an attempt to rally white folks against blacks.
Right, instead it was an attempt to railroad Zimmerman and derail "stand your ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws. Fortunately all that looks to have backfired. I'm hopeful that Zimmerman will walk after the first "stand your ground" review, if in fact the evidence that TM initiated violence continues to be supported.
"Stand your ground" is a very reasonable doctrine, it simply allows self-defense without retreating first.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Yeah so my point still stands. Next time save yourself the time and effort in posting.
I completely disagree. He offered relevant information and clarified what the law says. Even if it doesn't invalidate your point, it's a good post.
Discussion is not about winning arguments, it's about exchanging ideas to better understand things.
Funny. I was under the impression it became national and international news because a kid got shot buying ice tea. And because there was no proper police investigation. There was a very belated public outcry, a belated investigation and a resignation.
Now a national shame is a cause celebrée and the shootist a modern day Alfred Drefus? Does that make right-wing pundits the equivalent of the intellectual circle which was rallied behind the words "J'accuse"?
Monsieur Zola, I presume?
20 minutes into the future
My problem:
You do not go on neighborhood watch with a gun. You do not attempt to apprehend people while on neighborhood watch. You are neighborhood WATCH, not a sworn and trained officer of the law.
Everything about this sounds like Martin was a fucking idiot kid who liked to shoot off his mouth and Zimmerman imagined himself to be some kind of law dog who was going to bust this thing wide open.
Zimmerman also is putting tons of words into Martins mouth, and many of those words sound to me like bullshit - like a very, very bad script writer tried to write a part for scary black thug #2 or something.
I don't know what happened that night - I'm actually not even sure Zimmerman knows what happened that night at this point. I do know that Zimmerman is not helping himself and has not been helping himself this entire time.
I also know that it's good that this has been investigated and is going to trial rather than just being waved off as it initially was. A man is dead at the hands of another man, under unclear circumstances, and that Deserves an investigation and trial. If Zimmerman really was acting in self-defense (or at least is found to have been acting so) then he'll be fine. If not, he will be punished according to the law. Isn't that what should happen?
I am not a gun person, though I am somewhat realistic about guns and gun culture in the US. I don't think it is unreasonable for a man who used a gun to shoot another man to stand trial for that. I don't care about the racial noise, I don't care about the politics. I just want people who kill other people to be held accountable for their actions.
I actually am somewhat surprised at the number of people who post here and seem to be pro-gun and simultaneously bothered that Zimmerman is being tried. You would think responsible gun owners would be glad that we live in a nation of laws and that a man who shot another man under incredibly unclear circumstances wouldn't just be left free to walk on his own say-so. I mean, what if things had gone differently and Martin shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun? Wouldn't people want that to be investigated and tried also?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
It would be less slanted of you to say "the homicide" than "the murder."
I have followed all sorts of stuff about this case and have found two serious problems colliding here. The first is a person who was clearly frustrated with his neighborhood and the crime going on all around there generally committed by "not middle-aged white females" if you get my drift... also a person who had his own issues of self-importance and lack of good personality control. Not an ideal condition on Zimmerman's side of things. The second is a community which supports and defends all young black males with blind faith against anything and everything. (Check this story to see some obvious parallels: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/black-mob-picks-the-wrong-guy/) It does not matter to them that the deceased was a person with behavior problems of his own or that he had a documented past of similar behaviors to the ones being alleged as the cause leading to his death. The media fell into place siding with the religious support of a young black male and has blocked every attempt to update the story with truth or facts.
At the end of the day, it should be the truth and the facts which SHOULD bring a conclusion to the case. Unfortunately, other factors are in the way.