DMX to fight Zimmerman

Post Reply New Topic

Thankfully to the conscientious state IT expert - who later was fired - we find out that the state withheld evidence from the defense. The Zimmerman case will forever be an argument for libertarianism.

Kruidbos, an IT expert, testified that he delivered the 900-page report to the prosecution in January of 2013, but that the prosecution did not turn this evidence over to the defense, as required by law, until mid-June, a few weeks before the trial Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos

An employee of the Florida State Attorney’s Office, Ben Kruidbos, has testified that prosecutors withheld:

- images from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone that shows Martin smoking marijuana,
- boasting about street fights he’s been in,
- deleted text messages regarding Trayvon’s efforts to purchase a firearm.
- “U got heat?” he wrote to a friend

http://www.escapetyranny.com/2013/07/14 ... -evidence/

While the prosecution was delinquent in their duties, I suspect the reason why they might have been slow to report this to the defense was because Martin was the victim, after all, and they didn't want to play the defense's game of putting the victim on trial.

Wuhu...smoking Marihuana...does that mean, that I now loose my right to do a walk in my parents neighborhood, without an creeper stalking me and shooting me, if I dare to face him? What else do I know have to be afraid of, because of me having smoked Marihuana? ^^ I as well got some tickets for driving to fast, and there are photographes proofing that. Does that give my parents neighbors the right to burn me, when I visit my parents without publicly announcing it two weeks before? ^^

It is disturbing to see trivialization of law breaking.

Imagine a case where the defendant is black, and white prosecutors hold back evidence from the defense, because as you say, they don't want to "play into the hands of a black defendant who is accusing white cops of being racist".

This is OK too ?

Most teens have smoked weed.It does not make them a bad person,just a typical teenager.They may also have some cigarettes which are illegal for kids,should we burn them for that?If he had drank a beer,would that be any different?

The government committed a crime by not turning over evidence in the trial.

What does smoking or drinking have to do with it?

If you don't believe in the law, then the case of George Zimmerman is moot.

As weed had become legalized here in Washington state, and as it had never been viewed by most people here as anything other than than a mere triviality prior to legalization, I just can't take Martin's choice of what he smoked all that seriously.

Alright, Judge Dredd, let's just execute everyone who broke the law or conspired to do so. Oops, now the world is a barren wasteland filled with starving infants.

It would be illegal for someone that age to smoke or drink.To bring up the fact that Trayvon may have burned a jay would be as stupid as saying that he also smoked a cig.
Sometimes the laws are stupid.

This is good.

The true sociopathic nature of humans is revealed.

The sociopath thinks: Why bother with the law ? Why not make our own law ?

You don't need to justify it with "barren wasteland of starving infants".

Yes, sociopathic people think "the laws are stupid", and do what they want to do.

However, it matters what kind of country you want to have. One with laws, or one everyone does what they want to do.

How about one where we don't punish people for stupid s**t like smoking a joint, but where it's still illegal to follow a kid who is doing nothing wrong then shoot him when he rightly confronts you for it. Cause it seems like we've got the exact reverse right now which is, frankly, insane.

It used to be illegal to be gay or be in an interracial relationship.Were those laws just?Yes,some laws are stupid and it's up to people to change them.

You are unknowingly perhaps, advocating for sociopathy.

You appear to not like the principal of law that the prosecution should have to turn over evidence, so you think, "bah ... I think people should have the right to disregard that law when they want to".

What about when prosecutors convict innocent people by withholding evidence ? You think that is OK , right ? It is the same principal that the prosecutor should turn over evidence to the defense.

I think this is the true nature of humans.

Like the book, "Lord of Flies", or as the Joker says in the Batman movie, "Morals are a bad joke, that are dropped at the first sign of trouble".

No one was on trial for smoking a joint.It shouldn't even be an issue.

Not so. I just don't think any of it counts as evidence regaridng Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. None of it was relevant. And I find it ridiculous, the way people talk about it as though Martin's past behavior justified his killing.

I mean, do Zimmerman's supporters really think saying "oh yeah, well there's a picture of Martin smoking a joint" is gonna make the rest of us say "oh, in that case I'm glad he's dead."