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'?'"
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.
The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.
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.
That's true about the defendant, but we're talking about the victim here. It's much easier to get character evidence entered about the victim than it is about the defendant.
"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
Trayvon isn't on trial, therefore his speech is not being used against him, so miranda rights are pointless
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
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.
Zimmerman has always articulated from day one that he shot to stop the active attack. That he only got out of his car to give the relevant information to the 911 dispatcher of Martin's whereabouts. That Martin came back to confront ZImmerman, threw a punch and continued to beat him while he was supine on the ground. Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.
Zimmerman has never said that he shot Martin for looking suspicious. The media has latched onto speculation --as if it were fact-- that ZImmerman merely shot someone for walking around. The media has put forth the accusation that Stand Your Ground laws allow for this to happen legally when nothing could be further from the truth.
P.S. Guess which state was the first to enact a Stand Your Ground Law? California. Yes. Hardly the red state bastion of the NRA.
Here's a very informative video about what Stan Your Ground laws are really about: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/stand-ground-laws-self-defense-or-license-kill
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.
But the jury isn't being asked to decide whether an "assault with a deadly weapon" has occurred. They're being asked to decide whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was an act of self defense (and thus unfortunate, but legal under Florida law), or an act of 2nd degree murder (and thus illegal, and carrying with it a stiff prison sentence).
Since all we have is one side of the story, past patterns of behavior on the part of Martin & Zimmerman may be very relevant in assessing the evidence. *IF* Martin has a history of breaking into houses, getting into fights, etc. etc., then it makes Zimmerman's story - that he was standing there when Martin approached him and assaulted him - somewhat more believable. If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable. Just as past patterns of behavior on Zimmerman's part are relevant - does he have a history of racism? does he have a history of assault? does he have a history of waving his gun around like a maniac? All of these things would make his story LESS believable.
It's all relevant, because there simply aren't many facts beyond "deceased young black male, shot at close range" and the defendant's claim that "I was jumped, and acted in self defense." What a jury is being asked to decide is - is Zimmerman's story reasonable?
A bit hyperbolic, but it touches on several essentials. The causes of Martin's suspensions have been revealed repeatedly, and they are not violence related, but some people on Slashdot are willing to post speculations that there's something beyond that. When you keep looking for the thing that bolsters your opinion, and it's just not there, just maybe it's time to question your opinon instead of doubling down on it.
Beyond that, there was a point where the police locally knew a few things and only those things, for certain. At later times, other facts came to light, and the situation became more complex, but in the first few hours after the shooting, there was a definite point where all the police had to go on were these facts:
1. They knew they had a homicide, and who did it.
2. They knew that the person who did it was claiming it was justifiable self defense.
3. They knew there were major flaws in the shooter's story - changes in the range the encounter supposedly took place at, changes in what the suspect said to dispatch, what he claimed dispatch said to him, how the deceased person had attacked him, what blows were thrown, what blows landed where, and so on. They knew that their possible murderer had repeatedly changed his story.
So why didn't they charge him right there and then?
All debate about what has been revealed weeks or months later ignores this simple question. There was a definite point where George Zimmerman was a strong suspect for a charge of 1st degree murder. Most detectives would have been willing to insist on holding him for at least the standard 24, and go before a judge to apply for a warrent to search Mr. Zimmerman's home. Many would have been willing to get the judge up at 3 AM, if needed, on the strength of what they had at that particular point. Why not in the Martin case?
Who is John Cabal?
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.
This is why we need an assault Skittles ban.
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.