<p>It does not make sense that TM past stealing behavior is relevant in this case. TM did not steal anything in this incident and he was not shot because he was a thief, it would be prejudicial (maybe I watched too many Law & Order here).</p>
<p>OTH, GZ statement on Fox news that he did not know about SYG law would be discredited by his educational record. That could be relevant to the possible state of mind when GZ left the car to follow TM.</p>
<p>1559, razorsharp, if they let in any examples of TM stealing? Which I haven’t heard of, yet, wouldn’t they then have to admit the record of Z, who actually does have a record of violence and arrest for violence and anger management issues and treatment?</p>
<p>Or would that be a different thing?</p>
<p>I don’t honestly know.</p>
<p>“You all forget, TM was armed with the sidewalk as well.”</p>
<p>Yes, and skin on his knuckles so tough that he could beat a man to death without leaving so much as a trace on them!</p>
<p>I think someone earlier stated TM had no arrest record. I don’t think it is relevant at all because GZ had no way of knowing it. GZ record relating to violence might be relevant. Imo. Whether admissable idk.</p>
<p>sally, You can’t try to fill in the blanks with an imaginary story that will help to boost your idea of what happened. Instead, listen to the evidence/witnesses presented at the trial with an unbiased lens. This is how one is supposed to analyze a trial. </p>
<p>I’m not saying he’s guilty or not guilty. Yes, I will say he’s a jerk, but even jerks deserve a fair trial. Legally, he (and any other defendant being tried) is entitled to be judged based only on the evidence/witnesses presented at trial without personal bias and preconceived judgements.</p>
<p>Actually, now that I think about Z’s record of arrest for violence and his anger management issues, I wonder why he could get a concealed carry permit. I wonder if there ought not be some tougher standards on who can carry.</p>
<p>"… even jerks deserve a fair trial."</p>
<p>It’s well-established that GZ doesn’t represent the best of America … and I don’t think anyone is arguing that he doesn’t deserve a fair trial. The bigger issue is whether FL wants to encourage this sort of behavior. (See Verdict Factor #1: Juror bias.) Everyone here is just part of the crowd along the parade route.</p>
<p>
Well to match that hypothetical to this case, what I think would happen is that TM, being the only one alive to say anything, would claim that GZ “jumped him” and that TM was merely defending himself. Who is to say otherwise? Various witnesses will state that they “think” one or the other was “on top” at one point or the other, injuries will be exaggerated by one side and minimized by the other, and - if I understand 07DAD’s reasoning correctly - the state would be unable to prove a lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Does that about cover it?</p>
<p>Of course, TM would have the advantage of being able to prove that GZ got out of his truck and followed him in defiance of the police operator’s instructions, and had referred to him as a #$% punk and an #$$hole. Pretty strong support for TM’s self defense case, don’t you think? </p>
<p>
What testimony are you referring to? I haven’t seen any witness testify that that happened. The only testimony was that TM asked GZ why he was following him, followed by an aggressive response from GZ and then the sound of a scuffle. GZ’s own statement was that TM initiated their interaction with the question “You got a problem?” The <strong>only</strong> support for the claim that TM “started the physical part of it” comes from the guy who shot and killed an unarmed teenager. I find the lack of skepticism about GZ’s self-serving explanations for what happened to be interesting.</p>
<p>Maybe that’s the next tactic from the anti 2nd Amendment folks. If you have ever been angry you can’t own a gun.</p>
<p>find it quite fascinating that some posters believe TM’s alleged past history of “stealing” should be part of the trial, but not GZ’s past CRIMINAL VIOLENT history.</p>
<p>it is clear why GZ’s school records are relevant and they did prove he lied to Hannity about never having heard of SYG.</p>
<p>as to the report of “get off” comments by Rachel that was not the same point in time as the screaming. The screaming included cries for help/yelp, not get off, which immediately preceded the shooting and immediately stopped with the shooting.</p>
<p>riprorin, I’ve been clear that I am pro second amendment.</p>
<p>But, given that the entire NRA extremist set (not the only pro second amendment people in the country) set off on a PR campaign to say that the “problem” with guns isn’t guns but the people who carry them when things go wrong, I would assume that anyone in that camp would completely AGREE with me.</p>
<p>You don’t do yourself any favors with these logically inconsistent positions. At all.</p>
<p>Where was the phone when she allegedly heard this?</p>
<p>poetgirl, When he was 20 years old (2005), the charge of shoving a police officer was reduced to resisting without violence and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. I’ve read that he shoved a police offer when the officer questioned a friend on suspicion of underage drinking.</p>
<p>Regarding the domestic violence issue (2005) with an ex-fiancee, both he and the fiancee were granted restraining orders. Sounds like it was a two-way issue.</p>
<p>In 2006 a speeding ticket was dropped because the officer didn’t show up in court. This happens a lot with tickets. Many times if you take the time to show up to the court for a ticket rather than check off the guilty box and send in the fine for the ticket, it gets dropped because it’s not worth the time for the officer to show up.</p>
<p>Poetgirl, you say are pro 2nd Amendment but you said that you won’t let your husband keep hunting rifles in the house. Interesting.</p>
<p>At what point do you think people are too angry to be able to own a gun?</p>
<p>Wasn’t he being treated by a mental health professional for anger management issues? Wasn’t this exactly the kind of thing the spinners were saying all over the place was the “issue” after sandyhook? That people who were not stable were getting guns?</p>
<p>I’m just curious.</p>
<p>I think in a state with such liberal SYG laws and such easy self defense laws, I’d want very, very stringent back ground check laws.</p>
<p>JMO</p>
<p>RIP: my husband, who grew up hunting, agrees with me, as do his friends. Take your choice, lockers, gun clubs, whatnot. If there’s one thing for sure, keeping guns around the house when you have kids is dangerous. Anyone with half a brain and experience with guns knows this. Nobody I know who has guns argues with this or sees it as anything other than logical.</p>
<p>Poetgirl - I think Rip was just being sarcastic about not allowing people who have ever been angry to own a gun.</p>
<p>^so shoving a police officer is not concerning to you? I find that quite unusual frankly. but ok in your view, you explained away these crimes, they still existed. and again, why say TM’s history should be used but NOT these crimes.</p>
<p>interesting that people focus on TM using marijuana, but it concerns me that GZ had to take an alcohol education course as punishment for shoving a police officer. Can you not see that these type of views paint TM in a darker light than GZ? Does that really seem right?</p>
<p>[Boy</a>, 14, shot and killed while riding bike home - chicagotribune.com](<a href=“http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shootings-violence-20130702,0,7091843.story]Boy”>Mother Of Slain Boy, 14: 'What Am I Going To Do When Christmas Comes ...')</p>
<p>Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.</p>
<p>“I’d want very, very stringent back ground check laws.”</p>
<p>Wouldn’t help. Those denied permits would do what denied petitioners in CT do … buy a gun in Virginia.</p>
<p>MG, I know he is being sarcastic. But, he is trying to belittle my point by being sarcastic. Frankly, I think THAT is a very serious issue, and given that it was brought to the forefront by the gun lobby as the REAL reason people die from gun deaths, it’s a valid question, and an important one, too.</p>
<p>You can’t say the problem with guns is the people who carry them and then act as if it is ridiculous to question the carry laws which allow anger management cases to carry.</p>
<p>RIP: I can’t say and wouldn’t say how “angry” someone has to be to be legally barred from concealed carry. I can say there are professionals who can make that assessment.</p>
<p>RIP: I don’t think you really know the neighborhoods in Chicago you keep posting about, but I do. And really hunger and poverty are much bigger issue and are at the heart of the gang issues in the city. Do you have a solution to this?</p>