I never said being on drugs makes a person inherently guilty, you made all that **** up to avoid having to admit yeah, ok he was not on drugs. The being on drugs was merely one check in the list of assumptions Zimmerman made about him which turned out to be untrue. That was my whole original post. That he was not on drugs, as Zimmerman believed. That he was not holding anything suspicious, as Zimmerman assumed. And that he was not involved in any way with any of the local burglaries, which Zimmerman suspected. Had he actually been walking around high as a kite then Zimmerman's suspicions would not have been so controversial. That was my entire point, written in plain simple english.Which is just as stupid. Drug use does NOT in and of itself denote guilt or innocence unless one is arrested on a drug violation. This was not a drug violation. You are about as thick as Sequoia tree.
LJS9502_basic
So, Obama just spoke about the Treyvon tragedy...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
LJS getting pounded by ninja-hippo once again :lol:heeweesRus
Trayvon Martin was completely sober.
"I never said otherwise."
:lol:Â
Â
Â
Still stamping your feet and having a tantrum? In regard to the autopsy...they did not state whether he would be affected or not. Hence....you cannot state categorically he was not.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Â LJS9502_basic
Â
He was completely sober at the time.
"I never said otherwise."
:lol:Â
Â
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]From the autopsy.... Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood -- 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) -- according to the medical examiner's report. There also was a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine, according to the medical examiner's report. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. You seem to play fast and loose with facts. Following someone is not illegal. Keeping an eye on someone acting suspicious is not illegal. So we have two individuals doing nothing illegal until one choose to start a physical confrontation. Evidence points to that individual as Martin. Hence...he was NOT innocent. No the f*cking idiot is the moron that refuses to accept evidence of fact. Do your country a favor...and don't go into law. It's way over your head. Your emotions rule...not your head.He was not on drugs at the time. He had levels of THC in his system consistent with a person who had smoked weed some weeks ago.Â
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="dave123321"]Although doesn't the presumption of innocence make a not guilty verdict different from say like proven innocent LJS9502_basicThe case has been tried....if the jury found Martin to be innocent then Zimmerman would have been convicted. They could not find that Martin was innocent in the altercation so vis a vis this trial....he was not deemed to have clean hands so to speak. I think we can safely say the case has been adjudicated. Maybe I will look into the details of this particular case some more. Though stand by the difference between found innocent and found not guilty. And that in the eyes of the law, treyvons innocence or guilt isn't determined or acknowledged in some sense
it's fascinating the number of racist f*ckers Trayvon threads tend to bring out.majoras_wrath
hope you aren't referring to me....if you watched the entire trial you'd understand the jury made the right decision with the info they had.
There are alot of people who can't see past their bias to understand why the verdict was not guilty.
[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]it's fascinating the number of racist f*ckers Trayvon threads tend to bring out.AFBrat77
hope you aren't referring to me....if you watched the entire trial you'd understand the jury made the right decision with the info they had.
There are alot of people who can't see past their bias to understand why the verdict was not guilty.
People cannot separate their moral urges from the legal side of things. He was blatantly not guilty. Reasonable doubt wasn't just an inkling in that case, it was a freight train driven through the entire thing.[QUOTE="AFBrat77"][QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]it's fascinating the number of racist f*ckers Trayvon threads tend to bring out.Ninja-Hippo
hope you aren't referring to me....if you watched the entire trial you'd understand the jury made the right decision with the info they had.
There are alot of people who can't see past their bias to understand why the verdict was not guilty.
People cannot separate their moral urges from the legal side of things. He was blatantly not guilty. Reasonable doubt wasn't just an inkling in that case, it was a freight train driven through the entire thing.exactly right
I won't be watching CNN anymore, their panel just beats up on juror B37, and she gave pretty much the same verdict and reasons that I would have. I too feel bad for the Martin family.
I feel bad for B37, I hate to say but a couple of the black rebuttals seemed racist to me.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I never said being on drugs makes a person inherently guilty, you made all that **** up to avoid having to admit yeah, ok he was not on drugs. The being on drugs was merely one check in the list of assumptions Zimmerman made about him which turned out to be untrue. That was my whole original post. That he was not on drugs, as Zimmerman believed. That he was not holding anything suspicious, as Zimmerman assumed. And that he was not involved in any way with any of the local burglaries, which Zimmerman suspected. Had he actually been walking around high as a kite then Zimmerman's suspicions would not have been so controversial. That was my entire point, written in plain simple english. Lies...Which is just as stupid. Drug use does NOT in and of itself denote guilt or innocence unless one is arrested on a drug violation. This was not a drug violation. You are about as thick as Sequoia tree.
Ninja-Hippo
He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugsNinja-Hippo
Â
"Travyon was completely sober." "I never said otherwise." :lol: [QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Even the 7.3 is still less than 50% of the levels found in a COMPLETELY SOBER PERSON. And the individual who performed that autopsy said what about the implications of those levels? Let's quote him shall we? "They mean almost absolutely nothing." Thanks, Dr Drew. So let's say now for the third time: Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Maritn was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Trayvon Martin. Was not. On. Drugs. Ninja-HippoYet the evidence says otherwise....no matter how many times little ninja stamps his feet, covers his ears, and shouts.Drugs in his system Drugs in his system Drugs in his system Per the autopsy report.
You quoted wrong, and even before you fix it I can already tell you that you're talking utter bullsh1t and just humiliating yourself at this point. Ninja-HippoI quoted that exactly as you said it. Copy and paste...you damn liar.
I quoted that exactly as you said it. Copy and paste...you damn liar. I have not posted a single post in this thread which consisted of just the words 'He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugs.' Quote the entire post and the context becomes obvious, but you didn't do that because you're a pathetic human being. I wasn't even talking about that you clown, I was talking about the quote chain being all messed up and needing to be edited and fixed. Post the entire quote and then try and do a pathetic job of explaining how I in any way said that never taking drugs in your life makes you an inherently innocent person, and not that being sober on that particular day is evidence that he wasn't doing anything wrong as Zimmerman assumed. Go right ahead. You're embarrassing yourself.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You quoted wrong, and even before you fix it I can already tell you that you're talking utter bullsh1t and just humiliating yourself at this point. LJS9502_basic
What does him using drugs have to do with anything,he a smoked a lil weed oh my he's so terrible Bucked20Exactly, it makes no difference even if he had literally just blazed a fat one. The fact that he was completely sober on further hurts Zimmerman's case and pisses people off more, because he told the police he looked like he was on drugs and he patently was not. The fact that Zimmerman thought he was on drugs, holding something suspicious and involved with the robberies and all of those things turned out to be untrue is what has resulted in so much controversy and the media portrayal of Trayvon as being discriminated against and profiled.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Drugs in his system Drugs in his system Drugs in his system Per the autopsy report.Ninja-HippoTiny trace amounts less than a sober person. Not on drugs. Completely sober. You apparently have never contested this. Weird - it looks like you're doing it right now. And yet the autopsy said they cannot assume anything based on that. Great how you know. Again...why weren't you called as an expert witness?
Â
Stop being dishonest....
Â
Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) according to the medical examiner's report. There was also a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I quoted that exactly as you said it. Copy and paste...you damn liar. I have not posted a single post in this thread which consisted of just the words 'He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugs.' Quote the entire post and the context becomes obvious, but you didn't do that because you're a pathetic human being. I wasn't even talking about that you clown, I was talking about the quote chain being all messed up and needing to be edited and fixed. Post the entire quote and then try and do a pathetic job of explaining how I in any way said that never taking drugs in your life makes you an inherently innocent person, and not that being sober on that particular day is evidence that he wasn't doing anything wrong as Zimmerman assumed. Go right ahead. You're embarrassing yourself. That was still YOUR words on the subject. Just because I edited out the other comments does NOT mean you did not say that. I think it's you that's embarrassed and now resorting to lies.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You quoted wrong, and even before you fix it I can already tell you that you're talking utter bullsh1t and just humiliating yourself at this point. Ninja-Hippo
What does him using drugs have to do with anything,he a smoked a lil weed oh my he's so terrible Bucked20Ask Ninja...he stated lack of drugs means innocence.
I thought you guys got along beforedave123321I don't like asshats dave....
He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugs and did not have something suspicious in his hands as Zimmerman believed. He was not a burglar and had nothing to do with any burglaries in the area. He was just walking. The whole chain of events transpired because a kid doing nothing wrong was believed to be doing something wrong. In this respect, he was innocent. Had he just been left alone, none of this would have happened. Ninja-HippoThis is the post that LJ is part-quoting to try and make it look like I said anyone who takes drugs at any point in their lives is inherently guilty. As anyone who isn't a complete psychotic shut-in can see, I clearly said no such thing but just compared the list of things Zimmerman believed about Treyvon to the list of things which were actually the case. He wasn't on drugs. He wasn't holding anything suspicious. He wasn't involved in any of the recent robberies. In no way whatsoever could any sane person read into that 'he never took drugs once in his life ever and is therefore inherently innocent' - unless you're LJ_basic.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugs and did not have something suspicious in his hands as Zimmerman believed. He was not a burglar and had nothing to do with any burglaries in the area. He was just walking. The whole chain of events transpired because a kid doing nothing wrong was believed to be doing something wrong. In this respect, he was innocent. Had he just been left alone, none of this would have happened. Ninja-HippoThis is the post that LJ is part-quoting to try and make it look like I said anyone who takes drugs at any point in their lives is inherently guilty. As anyone who isn't a complete psychotic shut-in can see, I clearly said no such thing but just compared the list of things Zimmerman believed about Treyvon to the list of things which were actually the case. He wasn't on drugs. He wasn't holding anything suspicious. He wasn't involved in any of the recent robberies. In no way whatsoever could any sane person read into that 'he never took drugs once in his life ever and is therefore inherently innocent' - unless you're LJ_basic.The ME said....Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) according to the medical examiner's report. There was also a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.
Â
And as we see you stated what I said you stated. Your reposting it doesn't change the words dude.:lol:
This is the post that LJ is part-quoting to try and make it look like I said anyone who takes drugs at any point in their lives is inherently guilty. As anyone who isn't a complete psychotic shut-in can see, I clearly said no such thing but just compared the list of things Zimmerman believed about Treyvon to the list of things which were actually the case. He wasn't on drugs. He wasn't holding anything suspicious. He wasn't involved in any of the recent robberies. In no way whatsoever could any sane person read into that 'he never took drugs once in his life ever and is therefore inherently innocent' - unless you're LJ_basic.The ME said....Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) according to the medical examiner's report. There was also a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]He was an innocent young kid because he was just walking, was not on drugs and did not have something suspicious in his hands as Zimmerman believed. He was not a burglar and had nothing to do with any burglaries in the area. He was just walking. The whole chain of events transpired because a kid doing nothing wrong was believed to be doing something wrong. In this respect, he was innocent. Had he just been left alone, none of this would have happened. LJS9502_basic
Â
And as we see you stated what I said you stated. Your reposting it doesn't change the words dude.:lol:
And as we've already established.... the Dr said those levels were below that of a sober person and 'almost mean nothing.' :|And if you genuinely read into that original post 'Ninja is clearly saying here that Trayvon never took drugs at any point in his life and is therefore an inherently innocent person' then you're not just an idiot you're mentally unstable.
Â
Â
[QUOTE="LazySloth718"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]None of this pointless argument (as per usual) has changed my belief that had Zimmerman left him alone none of this would have happened and he would have simply gone about his business as he already was. Hence, in my view, he was an innocent kid who ended up dead for no good reason. Ninja-Hippo
You're blaming the victim.
Is there something wrong with following someone you deem suspicious or possibly a burglar?
And if the suspicious person then takes offense to being followed and attacks you, YOU are in the wrong?
That whole line of thinking is wrong.
We do not know that he took offense and attacked him. We do not know what happened, because the other side of the story is dead. I do not think any random idiot should be able to patrol the streets and follow a kid he deems to be suspicious with a handgun in his possession. Personally I just dont buy Zimmerman's account that he followed him then Trayvon just attacked him out of nowhere. I believe there was much more of a confrontation there, but it's just my personal bias. We will never know what actually happened. I think people should be careful about just blindly accepting Zimmerman's account as factual and calling him the 'victim'. That doesn't mean you need to jump over to accepting the other side of the tale as fact either, by any means - and that's what the media has certainly done - but Zimmerman's word should not be allowed to be asserted as the factual account of what happened that day. If the media did it's job it would be pointing out that nobody knows what happened and the race-baiting side of things is purely conjecture and assumption.We know TM attacked GZ, we have evidence of that.
We know GZ didn't attack TM (other than the gunshot) again we have evidence of that.
Under what possible "confrontation" scenario would it be acceptable to punch someone in the face and shove their head into the sidewalk?
It comes down to the bold.
You believe that "following someone armed" is justification to attack that person.
And yet :
Following someone is legal, especially since you're following them to point them out to the cops.
You have a license to be armed, so that's legal.
Can you point out ANYTHING that GZ did that he was not %100 within his rights?
So :
Someone within %100 of his rights (proven) was ATTACKED (proven.)
Explain to me please, why "Trayvon didn't deserve to get shot."
We do not know that he took offense and attacked him. We do not know what happened, because the other side of the story is dead. I do not think any random idiot should be able to patrol the streets and follow a kid he deems to be suspicious with a handgun in his possession. Personally I just dont buy Zimmerman's account that he followed him then Trayvon just attacked him out of nowhere. I believe there was much more of a confrontation there, but it's just my personal bias. We will never know what actually happened. I think people should be careful about just blindly accepting Zimmerman's account as factual and calling him the 'victim'. That doesn't mean you need to jump over to accepting the other side of the tale as fact either, by any means - and that's what the media has certainly done - but Zimmerman's word should not be allowed to be asserted as the factual account of what happened that day. If the media did it's job it would be pointing out that nobody knows what happened and the race-baiting side of things is purely conjecture and assumption.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LazySloth718"]
You're blaming the victim.
Is there something wrong with following someone you deem suspicious or possibly a burglar?
And if the suspicious person then takes offense to being followed and attacks you, YOU are in the wrong?
That whole line of thinking is wrong.
LazySloth718
We know TM attacked GZ, we have evidence of that.
We know GZ didn't attack TM (other than the gunshot) again we have evidence of that.
Under what possible "confrontation" scenario would it be acceptable to punch someone in the face and shove their head into the sidewalk?
It comes down to the bold.
You believe that "following someone armed" is justification to attack that person.
And yet :
Following someone is legal, especially since you're following them to point them out to the cops.
You have a license to be armed, so that's legal.
Can you point out ANYTHING that GZ did that he was not %100 within his rights?
So :
Someone within %100 of his rights (proven) was ATTACKED (proven.)
Explain to me please, why "Trayvon didn't deserve to get shot."
Â
We don't know TM attacked Z. The testimony was wildly inconsistent. Nobody saw the whole confrontation. Even those who claimed to have seen parts of it gave contradictory accounts.
I agree entirely that he should have been found innocent on the basis of that doubt, I just dont think people should assert Zimmerman's side of the story as fact because he was found not guilty.
The only honest answer in this whole debacle is 'we do not know what happened that day.'Â
Â
Â
EDIT: you're also mentioning a lot of things that are legal or allowed in the state of Flordia; again, it's important to separate the legal aspect from just simple moral opinions. Mine is the latter. I do not think Zimmerman should have been walking around with a gun. The fact that he was allowed to do so doesn't change my opinion. The cops themselves have said the whole thing was avoidable.Â
I sympathetic with the jury's verdict.Â
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The ME said....Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) according to the medical examiner's report. There was also a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] This is the post that LJ is part-quoting to try and make it look like I said anyone who takes drugs at any point in their lives is inherently guilty. As anyone who isn't a complete psychotic shut-in can see, I clearly said no such thing but just compared the list of things Zimmerman believed about Treyvon to the list of things which were actually the case. He wasn't on drugs. He wasn't holding anything suspicious. He wasn't involved in any of the recent robberies. In no way whatsoever could any sane person read into that 'he never took drugs once in his life ever and is therefore inherently innocent' - unless you're LJ_basic.Ninja-Hippo
Â
And as we see you stated what I said you stated. Your reposting it doesn't change the words dude.:lol:
And as we've already established.... the Dr said those levels were below that of a sober person and 'almost mean nothing.' :|That's not what that quote says....And as we've already established.... the Dr said those levels were below that of a sober person and 'almost mean nothing.' :|That's not what that quote says.... The Doctor's quote? That's exactly what he said. When asked what the levels meant he said 'almost nothing.' A separate study has also concluded that he was 1/10th of the levels of a completely sober person. Again, there is just no contention here - he was definitely not on drugs. You claim you have never once contested this. So we're in agreement. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Thanks.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The ME said....Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) according to the medical examiner's report. There was also a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.
Â
And as we see you stated what I said you stated. Your reposting it doesn't change the words dude.:lol:
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LazySloth718"]
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] We do not know that he took offense and attacked him. We do not know what happened, because the other side of the story is dead. I do not think any random idiot should be able to patrol the streets and follow a kid he deems to be suspicious with a handgun in his possession. Personally I just dont buy Zimmerman's account that he followed him then Trayvon just attacked him out of nowhere. I believe there was much more of a confrontation there, but it's just my personal bias. We will never know what actually happened. I think people should be careful about just blindly accepting Zimmerman's account as factual and calling him the 'victim'. That doesn't mean you need to jump over to accepting the other side of the tale as fact either, by any means - and that's what the media has certainly done - but Zimmerman's word should not be allowed to be asserted as the factual account of what happened that day. If the media did it's job it would be pointing out that nobody knows what happened and the race-baiting side of things is purely conjecture and assumption. Ninja-Hippo
We know TM attacked GZ, we have evidence of that.
We know GZ didn't attack TM (other than the gunshot) again we have evidence of that.
Under what possible "confrontation" scenario would it be acceptable to punch someone in the face and shove their head into the sidewalk?
It comes down to the bold.
You believe that "following someone armed" is justification to attack that person.
And yet :
Following someone is legal, especially since you're following them to point them out to the cops.
You have a license to be armed, so that's legal.
Can you point out ANYTHING that GZ did that he was not %100 within his rights?
So :
Someone within %100 of his rights (proven) was ATTACKED (proven.)
Explain to me please, why "Trayvon didn't deserve to get shot."
 We don't know TM attacked Z. The testimony was wildly inconsistent. Nobody saw the whole confrontation. Even those who claimed to have seen parts of it gave contradictory accounts.
I agree entirely that he should have been found innocent on the basis of that doubt, I just dont think people should assert Zimmerman's side of the story as fact because he was found not guilty.
The only honest answer in this whole debacle is 'we do not know what happened that day.'Â
We know GZ had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head.
We know he was assaulted.
We know TM had no marks other than the gunshot wound.
Are you asserting that the evidence is wrong?
Or are you asserting that assaulting GZ was somehow justified?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's not what that quote says.... The Doctor's quote? That's exactly what he said. When asked what the levels meant he said 'almost nothing.' A separate study has also concluded that he was 1/10th of the levels of a completely sober person. Again, there is just no contention here - he was definitely not on drugs. You claim you have never once contested this. So we're in agreement. Trayvon Martin was not on drugs. Thanks. Sobriety varies between people. The law picsk a number for legal proceedings...but one is not necessarily sober because they aren't legally drunk. That is your first fallacy. Second....It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. That does not say what you claim.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] And as we've already established.... the Dr said those levels were below that of a sober person and 'almost mean nothing.' :|Ninja-Hippo
Neither. We do not know who started the confrontation or how or why the two individuals came to blows. Trayvon indeed didn't sustain injuries other than the gunshot wound, but we have no idea what the circumstances were in which he ended up assaulting Zimmerman. Zimmerman might have tried to grab him and apprehend him. Zimmerman's account is that Treyvon just jumped him for no reason, but I dont buy that story at all. Of course, I dont assert that as fact. I maintain that we just dont know, and we never will because only one side of the story is alive to tell it.We know GZ had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head.
We know he was assaulted.
We know TM had no marks other than the gunshot wound.
Are you asserting that the evidence is wrong?
Or are you asserting that assaulting GZ was somehow justified?
LazySloth718
If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Bucked20
So you're saying essentially he pulled the guy on top of him and went "ok kid hit me" just to pull out a gun and shoot him?
A little ridiculous no?
They key is the word immediately. The key is the fact that the same doctor who did that report, when asked, said 'almost nothing' in relation to the importance of those levels. It is a fact that the mean level for a sober individual is 14. It is a fact that recent drug use would have put the number in the hundreds. It is a fact that his number was a fraction of even sober levels and that the Dr who did the autopsy claims the findings were all but meaningless. It is a fact that other experts in the field have concluded the same thing. It is an objective undeniable fact that Trayvon was sober on that day, and you cannot even seem to make your mind up about whether you agree with this or not as mere minutes ago you said you never contested that and yet now you are.Sobriety varies between people. The law picsk a number for legal proceedings...but one is not necessarily sober because they aren't legally drunk. That is your first fallacy. Second....It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. That does not say what you claim.
LJS9502_basic
If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Bucked20I see how Zimmerman looked and I can tell he needed a gun to do anything physical if he wants to be a "law enforcer". He's just another guy with a gun who doesn't have heart or grit unless he's holding. I bet you if he wasn't carrying none of this would have happen. That's how a lot of those pro gun zealots are no heart and all fear unless they have a weapon.
[QUOTE="Bucked20"]If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Enfamous_Mr_BHCI see how Zimmerman looked and I can tell he needed a gun to do anything physical if he wants to be a "law enforcer". He's just another guy with a gun who doesn't have heart or grit unless he's holding. I bet you if he wasn't carrying none of this would have happen. That's how a lot of those pro gun zealots are no heart and all fear unless they have a weapon. Preach
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]They key is the word immediately. The key is the fact that the same doctor who did that report, when asked, said 'almost nothing' in relation to the importance of those levels. It is a fact that the mean level for a sober individual is 14. It is a fact that recent drug use would have put the number in the hundreds. It is a fact that his number was a fraction of even sober levels and that the Dr who did the autopsy claims the findings were all but meaningless. It is a fact that other experts in the field have concluded the same thing. It is an objective undeniable fact that Trayvon was sober on that day, and you cannot even seem to make your mind up about whether you agree with this or not as mere minutes ago you said you never contested that and yet now you are. It's not actually.....ecause marijuana stays in the bloodstream for a short time, blood tests for marijuana are usually not used, except in the case of automobile accidents and some roadside sobriety check points. Blood or saliva tests can show current intoxication. However, unlike blood alcohol concentration tests, they do not indicate a level of intoxication or impairment.Sobriety varies between people. The law picsk a number for legal proceedings...but one is not necessarily sober because they aren't legally drunk. That is your first fallacy. Second....It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. That does not say what you claim.
Ninja-Hippo
On the other hand, urine tests for marijuana metabolites can only show recent marijuana use, not intoxication or impairment, because of the time required between smoking and the metabolites being eliminated in the urine. However, because many employers have a zero tolerance for drug use, most workplaces use urine tests for any recent use of drugs.
[QUOTE="Bucked20"]If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Enfamous_Mr_BHCI see how Zimmerman looked and I can tell he needed a gun to do anything physical if he wants to be a "law enforcer". He's just another guy with a gun who doesn't have heart or grit unless he's holding. I bet you if he wasn't carrying none of this would have happen. That's how a lot of those pro gun zealots are no heart and all fear unless they have a weapon.If he wasn't carrying....he could be dead. And Martin would be jailed. And?
[QUOTE="Bucked20"]If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.LazySloth718
So you're saying essentially he pulled the guy on top of him and went "ok kid hit me" just to pull out a gun and shoot him?
A little ridiculous no?
If trayvon was really on him why the hell didn't he just fight back and move around,I bet he was just reaching for his gun to shoot him instead of just trying to dodge the hits[QUOTE="LazySloth718"][QUOTE="Bucked20"]If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Bucked20
So you're saying essentially he pulled the guy on top of him and went "ok kid hit me" just to pull out a gun and shoot him?
A little ridiculous no?
If trayvon was really on him why the hell didn't he just fight back and move around,I bet he was just reaching for his gun to shoot him instead of just trying to dodge the hits It must be heaven in your make belief land that doesn't require facts....[QUOTE="LazySloth718"]Neither. We do not know who started the confrontation or how or why the two individuals came to blows. Trayvon indeed didn't sustain injuries other than the gunshot wound, but we have no idea what the circumstances were in which he ended up assaulting Zimmerman. Zimmerman might have tried to grab him and apprehend him. Zimmerman's account is that Treyvon just jumped him for no reason,but I dont buy that story at all. Of course, I dont assert that as fact. I maintain that we just dont know, and we never will because only one side of the story is alive to tell it.We know GZ had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head.
We know he was assaulted.
We know TM had no marks other than the gunshot wound.
Are you asserting that the evidence is wrong?
Or are you asserting that assaulting GZ was somehow justified?
Ninja-Hippo
You don't "buy the story" based on what?
Is there any basis?
What I'm seeing in your post (and also in the black community in general) is alot of "assumed hostility."
ie "I'm black therefor I KNOW that light skinned people want to find excuses and ways to kill me."
This is clearly denoted by some of the posts above that say basically "Why didn't he just throw him off, no, he wanted to use that gun."
So let me get this straight.
GZ went out of his way to find a black boy, went out of his way to follow him, went out of his way to get attacked by him, more or less pulled him on top and let him take swings, for the sole purpose of "using the gun" and killing a black kid.
I can understand the idea that maybe GZ was trying to act like a cop (and yes I believe that's more or less what happened.)
They key is the word immediately. The key is the fact that the same doctor who did that report, when asked, said 'almost nothing' in relation to the importance of those levels. It is a fact that the mean level for a sober individual is 14. It is a fact that recent drug use would have put the number in the hundreds. It is a fact that his number was a fraction of even sober levels and that the Dr who did the autopsy claims the findings were all but meaningless. It is a fact that other experts in the field have concluded the same thing. It is an objective undeniable fact that Trayvon was sober on that day, and you cannot even seem to make your mind up about whether you agree with this or not as mere minutes ago you said you never contested that and yet now you are. It's not actually.....ecause marijuana stays in the bloodstream for a short time, blood tests for marijuana are usually not used, except in the case of automobile accidents and some roadside sobriety check points. Blood or saliva tests can show current intoxication. However, unlike blood alcohol concentration tests, they do not indicate a level of intoxication or impairment.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
Sobriety varies between people. The law picsk a number for legal proceedings...but one is not necessarily sober because they aren't legally drunk. That is your first fallacy. Second....It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were. That does not say what you claim.
LJS9502_basic
On the other hand, urine tests for marijuana metabolites can only show recent marijuana use, not intoxication or impairment, because of the time required between smoking and the metabolites being eliminated in the urine. However, because many employers have a zero tolerance for drug use, most workplaces use urine tests for any recent use of drugs.
None of which changes the medical opinion of the Dr who discovered those levels that they were almost meaningless, alongside a great many other experts who have written about the toxicology report and thoroughly rebuked any assertion that Trayvon was on drugs at the time. Thank you for accepting that he was indeed sober, which a mere page back you claimed you did not even contest. Now apparently you do.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's not actually.....ecause marijuana stays in the bloodstream for a short time, blood tests for marijuana are usually not used, except in the case of automobile accidents and some roadside sobriety check points. Blood or saliva tests can show current intoxication. However, unlike blood alcohol concentration tests, they do not indicate a level of intoxication or impairment.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] They key is the word immediately. The key is the fact that the same doctor who did that report, when asked, said 'almost nothing' in relation to the importance of those levels. It is a fact that the mean level for a sober individual is 14. It is a fact that recent drug use would have put the number in the hundreds. It is a fact that his number was a fraction of even sober levels and that the Dr who did the autopsy claims the findings were all but meaningless. It is a fact that other experts in the field have concluded the same thing. It is an objective undeniable fact that Trayvon was sober on that day, and you cannot even seem to make your mind up about whether you agree with this or not as mere minutes ago you said you never contested that and yet now you are. Ninja-Hippo
On the other hand, urine tests for marijuana metabolites can only show recent marijuana use, not intoxication or impairment, because of the time required between smoking and the metabolites being eliminated in the urine. However, because many employers have a zero tolerance for drug use, most workplaces use urine tests for any recent use of drugs.
None of which changes the medical opinion of the Dr who discovered those levels that they were almost meaningless, alongside a great many other experts who have written about the toxicology report and thoroughly rebuked any assertion that Trayvon was on drugs at the time. Thank you for accepting that he was indeed sober, which a mere page back you claimed you did not even contest. Now apparently you do. You say that...but you haven't provided anything but your word. Nonetheless.....I don't give the drug issue much importance. I find the physical evidence and 911 calls to show Martin as the aggressor.[QUOTE="Bucked20"]If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Enfamous_Mr_BHCI see how Zimmerman looked and I can tell he needed a gun to do anything physical if he wants to be a "law enforcer". He's just another guy with a gun who doesn't have heart or grit unless he's holding. I bet you if he wasn't carrying none of this would have happen. That's how a lot of those pro gun zealots are no heart and all fear unless they have a weapon. You are full of sh*t Ive seen fights in high school with worst injuries than what he had
[QUOTE="Enfamous_Mr_BHC"][QUOTE="Bucked20"]If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Bucked20I see how Zimmerman looked and I can tell he needed a gun to do anything physical if he wants to be a "law enforcer". He's just another guy with a gun who doesn't have heart or grit unless he's holding. I bet you if he wasn't carrying none of this would have happen. That's how a lot of those pro gun zealots are no heart and all fear unless they have a weapon.. You are full of sh*t Ive seen fights in high school with worst injuries than what he had Oooh anecdotal evidence. It's a fact that smashing someone's head on concrete can lead to death. That is not disputable. Therefore, GZ had a right to fear for his life
The basis is just my own personal bias. Everybody hears a story and has their own internal judgment of whether they're buying it or not. I do not believe Zimmerman followed that kid with a gun, turned back and then Trayvon ran after him and brutally assaulted him for absolutely no reason. I just dont buy it at all. It doesn't have the ring of truth to it. What was his motive? Why do it? Do many 17 year old kids murder someone with their bare hands for no reason? It just doesn't make sense. Everything south of "So let me get this straight" I'm not going to bother responding to seeing as I've said nothing even close to any of that and dont want to waste my time rebuking things I never even said.You don't "buy the story" based on what?
Is there any basis?
What I'm seeing in your post (and also in the black community in general) is alot of "assumed hostility."
ie "I'm black therefor I KNOW that light skinned people want to find excuses and ways to kill me."
This is clearly denoted by some of the posts above that say basically "Why didn't he just throw him off, no, he wanted to use that gun."
So let me get this straight.
GZ went out of his way to find a black boy, went out of his way to follow him, went out of his way to get attacked by him, more or less pulled him on top and let him take swings, for the sole purpose of "using the gun" and killing a black kid.
I can understand the idea that maybe GZ was trying to act like a cop (and yes I believe that's more or less what happened.)
LazySloth718
[QUOTE="LazySloth718"][QUOTE="Bucked20"]If Trayvon was on top pounding his face in why the hell didn't he just put his hands up and move around especially if u weigh more than him.He was just looking for a reason to use that gun.Bucked20
So you're saying essentially he pulled the guy on top of him and went "ok kid hit me" just to pull out a gun and shoot him?
A little ridiculous no?
If trayvon was really on him why the hell didn't he just fight back and move around,I bet he was just reaching for his gun to shoot him instead of just trying to dodge the hitsI think when someone has a gun on him, the gun kind of takes over as the "defense."
Like, you'd be worried about someone taking it away from you, rather than keeping your hands up or actually trying to defend yourself, you'd be keeping both hands on the gun to make sure it doesn't get snatched.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment