Hoody string:
So what, it proves nothing. When was it pulled? Was Zimmerman's DNA on it? Did Martin pull it himself after leaving the C-store to close up his hood because it was rainy and he only had 1 hand free? Is it pulled more on one side than the other because Martin thought it looked cool that way and he always did that? To convict Zimmerman, the state must produce proof, not pull guesses out of their butt. They must be able to say "X" happened because "Y", "z", "Q", & "R" show that it did. The entire prosecution hinged on Zimmerman attacking Martin and they have absolutely zero evidence to back it up.
I don't care, so why am I arguing:
Well, to start with, I enjoy debate, but I do also care about what is right and what is wrong, and the rules we live buy. In many ways I am an idealist. We live in a country that is governed by a set of laws, and those law should be followed (or changed if they can't be) without concern for perceptions, or what is the popular opinion at the time. One of the basis of our justice system is that the accused is innocent until the state proves them guilty. The state has completely failed to prove anything in this case.
Martin's history
It is not relevant to Zimmerman's defense as long as the prosecution isn't trying to portray him as some innocent little child who would never, ever, hurt anyone when that is not the truth. The defense can knowingly distort, the prosecution can not, that is our system. In this case the prosecution's (I won't even go into the media)portrayal of Martin is completely false. It is proven false via his own statements to friends via text and twitter messages. My question simply was "why can the prosecution characterize him, but the defense is not allowed to refute it?"
Theft
Martin was never charged, nor investigated over the jewelery, this is fact. However it is also fact that the week before they were found a house was burglarized and a police report filed listing strikingly similar articles. It is an additional fact that the confiscation of the items was never reported to the police, nor were they compared (until a journalist compared the reports). The victim of the robbery (to the best of my knowledge) has not yet been offered the chance to see the items to determine if they are theirs. In fact, the "school police" had implemented a policy of actively not reporting potentially criminal activities (by using some severely BS interpretations of medical confidentiality)to the police to lower the incident rate in the school system. All of this has been documented rather thoroughly, look it up.
kill an unarmed black...
kill anyone in any circumstances, I don't care if they are purple & paisley, you get away with it if the state can not prove your actions were criminal. In this case, they have not.
buy into a narrative:
I don't "buy into" any narrative, nor do I care what someone's color is. I care what people do. Black and criminal, go to jail, white and criminal, go to jail, green with tiger stripes and not a commit a criminal act, don't go to jail. I break the law, maybe I'll lie my ass off to try to stay out, maybe I'll admit my guilt and welcome 3 hots and a cot. Who knows, hopefully I will never find myself in that situation. However, if I do, I sure as hell hope my skin color, or the skin color of my victim, does not dictate whether the state prosecutes me, and if they do I want them to have to prove that I did it, not that they think I did. In my opinion, every other rational person who might some day be prosecuted should want that as well.
The string on the hood could be nothing or it could not. Again, the only person who knows for sure is dead. Also again, it's a narrative that the prosecution did not pursue, not that what I put down is the definitive narrative. Zimmerman's accounting of the struggle has too many holes in it for his version to be definitive either. And the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, not that he attacked Martin. They tried to prove Zimmerman attacked first and did not do a very good job of it, but they at least laid the groundwork for an easy manslaughter conviction, assuming the jury has enough doubt to acquit on murder. Remember that there is no dispute that Zimmerman killed Martin. The question is, what was his intent with killing Martin. Zimmerman claims self-defense, the prosecution has to prove that he acted maliciously or out of spite to get their murder conviction. I'm not sure they did that, but the jury will be the ones to figure that out, not us.
The question of Martin's previous activities have no play in the trial because they are not relevant. He could have himself been a murderer prior to his death, but that has no bearing on the case unless Zimmerman knew of these things beforehand. The defense cannot use any of this as evidence because Zimmerman cannot have known any of it before the shooting. And the prosecution cannot use it either for the same reason. But the prosecution can portray their case however they see fit as long as it is not unethical to do so. Just as the defense can bring out people who are attempting to profit from this case as witnesses to Zimmerman's side as long as they are truthful to the case at hand. It may not seem fair or ethical, but as long as they skirt the correct side of that line, there is some leeway that can be given.
