This.
Trayvon isn't on trial. Zimmerman is. Zimmerman can't have known Trayvon's history, therefore it's irrelevant when determining if Zimmerman was acting legally given the facts available to him at the time.
For myself, I have mixed feelings about this. Which is usually just another way of saying I probably don't know enough about it yet, and haven't thought through on all the ramifications and implications. Not this case specifically, but the general concepts as applied to all cases.
For example, how can a person's recent drug history and violent attitude
not be relevant to deciding whether an attack likely occurred? But, on the other hand, the only reason to probe such would be if the existing evidence wasn't conclusive. Meaning, I would think a juror wouldn't
need to reach for likelihoods if the rest of the evidence was conclusive. Which then raises the question, if the evidence is that shaky that jurors might need to look to likelihoods, why is the prosecution bringing the case in the first place?
Which raises two more questions. If the evidence is shaky, how did the prosecution convince itself they got the right guy? And, if the prosecution couldn't honestly reach a solid conclusion about guilt, what is their
real reason for bring the case?
And, if a citizen/defendant has the entirely plausible chance of being unfairly or maliciously prosecuted, why not give him every chance to defend himself?
See what I mean? Lots of implications.