[Responsibility2nd]

That the boy had a history of burglary arrests is just icing on the cake.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope. Just as the punk-ass thug history of Trayvone was not allowed in court, neither will the prior arrest record of this “professional theif” ever be mentioned.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Possibly, but it will be up to the judge to determine if his “pattern of behavior” prior to the event constitutes a reasonable assumption that his event behavior was a pattern he followed with his previous behavior.

The difference is that, until Martin attacked Zimmerman, he had not done anything illegal in *that* situation, just was behaving suspiciously. Therefore former acts could be excluded. However, this boy had broken at least two laws *as part* of what he was doing.

Typically, this would mean his former behavior could be used by the defense. But again, this is Louisiana, and their legal system can be very peculiar compared to that used by the rest of the US.

[supercat]

Just as the punk-ass thug history of Trayvone was not allowed in court, neither will the prior arrest record of this “professional theif” ever be mentioned.

Were I a legislature, I would push for a bill that made explicit that self-defense on one's property would be justified if either:

1. The shooter can demonstrate that most reasonable people in the same situation would have believed that the intruder was, without a doubt, a professional thief, robber, rapist, or other such criminal who was in the process of plying his trade.
2. The intruder was in fact a professional thief, robber, rapist, or other such criminal who was in the process of plying his trade, whether or not the shooter had any demonstrable objectively-reasonable basis for believing him to be one.

If an intruder acts in such a fashion that a reasonable person would believe him to be a criminal who could be shot on sight, the shooting should be justified even if the intruder happened to be an unfortunate stranded motorist who was seeking aid but failed to distinguish his actions from those of a criminal. If an intruder does not act in such a fashion that a reasonable person would make such a determination, the homeowner would have the right to shoot him if the homeowner accepts all risk for the possibility of being wrong.

I dislike the extent to which judges prevent juries from hearing things about the decedent which might affect juries' evaluations of whether they would likely have been acting in such a fashion as to justify their getting shot. While such evidence would often be somewhat prejudicial, it may also have substantial probative value. I suspect the real reason it's excluded is that it would often lead jurors to believe, rightly, that various decedents belonged to a certain culture whose members would be apt to behave in ways that would justify their being shot.