Actually unless Trayvon has a documented history of violence a past of drug use, or tagging school walls isn’t relevent. Zimmerman’s case hinges on Martin attacking him, if Martin has no history of attacking people that’s very relevent. Zimmerman’s history of violence towards others is RELEVANT.** In fact a history of violence is totally admissable if the defendant is claiming self defense.** He after all shot the boy and is arguing that we believe his word that he was attacked. When instead he’s the one with a very documented history of being aggressive towards others.
A history of using violence as a security officer, being considered way heavy handed in his neighborhood watch duties, that’s all extremely relevant. It may be very well that the standing your ground defense especially if this guy brandished a gun, is all in Trayvon’s defense.
And lets point out Zimmermans legal connections are relevant here too. The fact that you have a witness saying the police tried to correct her to say Zimmerman was calling for help not the boy…
Once again if at in anyway Zimmerman physically confronted this kid (and he’s got a history of doing this) and or brandished his gun . Than his Stand Your Ground defense goes completely out the window.