PDA

View Full Version : George Zimmerman was Right



tpeichel
05-18-2012, 04:36 PM
Trayvon Martin's autopsy found THC in his bloodstream which means he was actively high. George Zimmerman had noted that Martin was acting strange like he was on drugs. Guess he was right.

Another blow to the medias racial profiling narrative.

TheNati97
05-18-2012, 06:13 PM
just because thc was in his system doesnt mean he was high at the time he may have been but thc can stay in your blood urine and hair for a long time. im not trying to defend anyone just saying.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 09:50 PM
just because thc was in his system doesnt mean he was high at the time he may have been but thc can stay in your blood urine and hair for a long time. im not trying to defend anyone just saying.

Partly right. I believe the metabolites from marijuana stay in your system a long time, while THC is only the bloodstream for a very short time.

pspstatus
05-18-2012, 10:10 PM
Partly right. I believe the metabolites from marijuana stay in your system a long time, while THC is only the bloodstream for a very short time.


What's your definition of a very short time? THC can be detected in the blood stream for up to a few days after smoking. Metabolites can be found significantly longer. There are many variables in how long THC can be found in the system such as quality of marijuana, usage frequency, and excretion rates. So even though THC was found in his blood that doesn't necessarily mean he was high at the time. He may have been but it's not a definite. I do believe there is a test that can tell though.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 10:17 PM
What's your definition of a very short time? THC can be detected in the blood stream for up to a few days after smoking. Metabolites can be found significantly longer. There are many variables in how long THC can be found in the system such as quality of marijuana, usage frequency, and excretion rates. So even though THC was found in his blood that doesn't necessarily mean he was high at the time. He may have been but it's not a definite. I do believe there is a test that can tell though.

Ha Ha, sounds like you may more about this than me. Here is the info I found:

The active ingredient in marijuana (http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/marijuana.htm) -- Tetrahydrocannabinol or delta-9-THC or simply THC -- enters the body's bloodstream rapidly after smoking marijuana. If marijuana is ingested, rather than smoked, it takes longer to be absorbed into the blood, usually from 20 minutes to an hour and a half. But THC is detectable in the blood for a short time, usually a few hours, because it is rapidly metabolized into molecules known as metabolites. At least 80 different metabolites are formed from THC. These metabolites are stored in body fat and are gradually eliminated from the body through feces and urine.

MadMan1978
05-18-2012, 10:36 PM
Trayvon Martin's autopsy found THC in his bloodstream which means he was actively high. George Zimmerman had noted that Martin was acting strange like he was on drugs. Guess he was right.

Another blow to the medias racial profiling narrative.
Check the report again

the amounts in the blood steam werent enough to alter his mind.

MadMan1978
05-18-2012, 10:37 PM
Partly right. I believe the metabolites from marijuana stay in your system a long time, while THC is only the bloodstream for a very short time.
actually your incorrect THC can remain in the system for several weeks. As with most drugs.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 10:44 PM
The Marijuana Passion website seems to think that THC is broken down very quickly into metabolites as well so it is not in the bloodstream very long.

Delta-9-THC enters the bloodstream rapidly after smoking (in minutes) or more slowly when ingested orally (20 minutes to 1.5 hours). It is rapidly metabolized into inert molecules known as metabolites. These chemicals also have the word Tetrahydrocannabinol in them and are called THC, which can be quite confusing.
Delta-9-THC is detectable in the blood for a few hours,
but none of this active chemical is found in the urine or stored in the fatty tissues such as the liver and brain.

hawk2618
05-18-2012, 10:53 PM
I don't see how experts can say"someone didn't have enough THC level to alter their mind".I really think 1 hit can alter anyones mind,casual user or an everyday user.Once its in your body,you become a different person.~~Dave C.

Just so you all know,my comment was refering to the day of the incident.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 10:56 PM
The key is that the THC was found in both the blood and urine.

habsheaven
05-18-2012, 11:32 PM
The fact THC was found in his system is irrelevant to the case. For starters, it has already been established that traces of THC can remain in your system for days. Also, it is commonly known that marijuana does not produce violent behaviour. In most instances it has the complete opposite affect. And finally, Zimmerman's claim that he looks like he is on drugs was based on observing Martin from how far away? He couldn't possibly had any REAL reason to have that suspicion.

ensbergcollector
05-18-2012, 11:46 PM
ok, so zimmerman, who using YEARS of evidence shows no signs of racial profiling calls 911 and says he sees a suspicious person who looks like they are on something. test confirm that there were drugs in his system. i could care less if they were from weeks ago or minutes ago.

yet all people here want to focus on is that even if completely high there is no way zimmerman could have known that. or that there wasn't enough to effect him. really?

is it really easier for some of you to believe that zimmerman decided to profile for the first time in recorded history and that the drugs in trayvon's system were weeks old than it is to believe that just maybe, trayvon was acting weird because he was high?

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 11:51 PM
The fact THC was found in his system is irrelevant to the case. For starters, it has already been established that traces of THC can remain in your system for days. Also, it is commonly known that marijuana does not produce violent behaviour. In most instances it has the complete opposite affect. And finally, Zimmerman's claim that he looks like he is on drugs was based on observing Martin from how far away? He couldn't possibly had any REAL reason to have that suspicion.

THC is only in the blood for a few hours. Metabolites, the processed THC, stays in your system for a long time. The defense will certainly make the point that Trayvon under the influence would have impaired judgement, but I tend to agree that it is a minor point.

The more important evidence is the eyewitness who was nearby and saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him MMA style while Zimmerman yelled for help.

This eyewitness account would match all the physical evidence that has been released and bolsters Zimmerman's claim of self defense.

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 12:04 AM
ok, so zimmerman, who using YEARS of evidence shows no signs of racial profiling calls 911 and says he sees a suspicious person who looks like they are on something. test confirm that there were drugs in his system. i could care less if they were from weeks ago or minutes ago.

I could care less either because it is irrelevant. I assume this is why you could care less too, since if they are from weeks ago it doesn't bolster Zimmerman's claim.

yet all people here want to focus on is that even if completely high there is no way zimmerman could have known that. or that there wasn't enough to effect him. really?

How could Zimmerman know that? Explain it please.

is it really easier for some of you to believe that zimmerman decided to profile for the first time in recorded history and that the drugs in trayvon's system were weeks old than it is to believe that just maybe, trayvon was acting weird because he was high?

Where are you getting the profiling from? Who brought that up here? And for that matter, what concerned citizen approaches someone they consider "on something" when they know police are on the way?



Responses in bold.

hawk2618
05-19-2012, 12:08 AM
I find it hard to believe how people can say impaired judgement is a minor point.Although the eyewitnesses is the main evidence here,I still think impaired judgement by a substance is just as important.This was a huge find in Zimmermans favor.
~~Dave C.

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 12:13 AM
Responses in bold. <br />
<br />
I will add this because I don't want to give off the wrong impression. From all the evidence that is being released it appears that Zimmerman's claims are, at the very least,...

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 12:16 AM
I find it hard to believe how people can say impaired judgement is a minor point.Although the eyewitnesses is the main evidence here,I still think impaired judgement by a substance is just as important.This was a huge find in Zimmermans favor.
~~Dave C.

Again, you guys must be hearing something I am not. All I have heard is that the autopsy results show that the level of impairment, if any, would have been minor.

And I don't see how it would be favourable to Zimmerman. What reasonable "armed" person confronts someone they think is HIGH?

hawk2618
05-19-2012, 01:00 AM
Just because an armed person who's reasonable doesn't necessarily mean he won't confront another person,especially when he thinks the other person is acting suspicious,in his opinion.As far as the impairment goes.It would be very hard to determine what level of impairment would effect a particular person.By this,I'm saying whether its 1% or 50%,depending on the individual,impaired is impaired.Obviously the judgement of this imparity left a person dead,whether provoked or not.

pspstatus
05-19-2012, 01:33 AM
THC is only in the blood for a few hours. Metabolites, the processed THC, stays in your system for a long time. The defense will certainly make the point that Trayvon under the influence would have impaired judgement, but I tend to agree that it is a minor point.

The more important evidence is the eyewitness who was nearby and saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him MMA style while Zimmerman yelled for help.

This eyewitness account would match all the physical evidence that has been released and bolsters Zimmerman's claim of self defense.


I think you're right. It's usually out of the blood within 3 to 8 hours. It can stay in urine for longer. So having it in his blood means that he most likely smoked within the 8 hours prior to that. That being said even if he did smoke hours prior to the altercation that doesn't mean he was still high. Or maybe he smoked 10 minutes before he ran into Zimmerman. I don't know. But I don't think him maybe or maybe not being high should be a major factor in the case.

This debate has been going on for some time now. My opinion is this. I don't think that Zimmerman is necessarily a racist. But I do think that in this situation that Martin's race played a part in Zimmerman's suspicion. From everything I've heard I do think most of Zimmerman's story is probably true. BUT don't forget that the situation was instigated by this guy taking it upon himself to follow someone he deemed suspicious. Truthfully at that point Zimmerman himself may have seemed just as suspicious to Martin. And if you go by the stand your ground laws didn't Martin have a right to defend himself if he felt threatened by some guy following him in a neighborhood that he had every right to be in.

And even if it wasn't his race that prompted suspicion it's obvious that Zimmerman had made a quick judgement that this kid was a "punk". Why is that?

theonedru
05-19-2012, 12:31 PM
Chances are we are probably not hearing half the story, who to say something more did not happen between them that led to martin attacking him, or defending himself whatever your view may be. Zimmerman could have said something to set him off like a threat, or who knows..But with Martin dead we will only really know a one sided story .

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 12:36 PM
the kid was a punk, he smoked and dealt weed, broke into homes, kicked out of school.

but this does not justify a shooting, but the background of a person can help to understand what might of happened.

i think trayvon confronted zimmerman

i wish the call to his girlfriend was released, what he said to her can make all the difference.

such as" oh my god i am scared, i am going to get out of here"

or "oh my god this guy is going to get his butt kicked for messing with me"

pghin08
05-19-2012, 07:37 PM
the kid was a punk, he smoked and dealt weed, broke into homes, kicked out of school.

but this does not justify a shooting, but the background of a person can help to understand what might of happened.

i think trayvon confronted zimmerman

i wish the call to his girlfriend was released, what he said to her can make all the difference.

such as" oh my god i am scared, i am going to get out of here"

or "oh my god this guy is going to get his butt kicked for messing with me"


I've often wondered if they ever had that call recorded.

pspstatus
05-19-2012, 08:18 PM
the kid was a punk, he smoked and dealt weed, broke into homes, kicked out of school.

"

I doubt Zimmerman was able to tell that just by looking at him.

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 08:22 PM
so do i

duane1969
05-20-2012, 11:47 AM
I don't see how just having THC in his system means he was high. THC can stay in your blood for up to 2 days and urine for up to 90 days if you are a regular user. The key would be if the levels were high enough for him to actually be high.

What I find to be more relevant is the pictures that were released that show the injuries to Zimmerman's head that support his claim that Martin was attacking him and bashing his head against the sidewalk. http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10012334.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

As far as I am concerned, these pictures will make it EXTREMELY difficult for the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self-defense.

habsheaven
05-20-2012, 11:53 AM
I agree with you Duane. I find it completely plausable that Zimmerman was in a vulnerable position at the time of the shooting but the question remains; what led to him being in that position? And is that relevant to a self-defense claim?

What I mean by that is this scenario. Suppose Zimmerman starts the altercation knowing he has a weapon at his disposal to fall back on if he starts losing the battle. Is that a mitigating factor in a self-defense claim? I don't know. Just putting it out there.

pghin08
05-20-2012, 12:09 PM
I agree with you Duane. I find it completely plausable that Zimmerman was in a vulnerable position at the time of the shooting but the question remains; what led to him being in that position? And is that relevant to a self-defense claim?

What I mean by that is this scenario. Suppose Zimmerman starts the altercation knowing he has a weapon at his disposal to fall back on if he starts losing the battle. Is that a mitigating factor in a self-defense claim? I don't know. Just putting it out there.

Entirely plausible. Sort of like the same thing if you're a teenager, you'd be more willing to start a fight with someone if you have a group of friends that have your back. Without a lot of eyewitness testimony, it's going to be tough for the prosecution.

AUTaxMan
05-20-2012, 01:12 PM
It doesn't matter if Martin was high or not. Zimmerman's present sense impression that he was acting strange might be evidence that he felt threatened or that Martin didn't act rationally when the confrontation occurred. All I can say is that there does not appear to be enough evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

habsheaven
05-20-2012, 02:15 PM
It doesn't matter if Martin was high or not. Zimmerman's present sense impression that he was acting strange might be evidence that he felt threatened or that Martin didn't act rationally when the confrontation occurred. All I can say is that there does not appear to be enough evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agreed, at this point. We will just have to wait and see what else is out there.

theonedru
05-20-2012, 02:27 PM
It doesn't matter if Martin was high or not. Zimmerman's present sense impression that he was acting strange might be evidence that he felt threatened or that Martin didn't act rationally when the confrontation occurred. All I can say is that there does not appear to be enough evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

It can be argued he came to these conclusions afterwards to back up his shooting of Martin. In fact he can say and do whatever he wants without Martin alive to argue.

pspstatus
05-20-2012, 08:36 PM
I don't see how just having THC in his system means he was high. THC can stay in your blood for up to 2 days and urine for up to 90 days if you are a regular user. The key would be if the levels were high enough for him to actually be high.

What I find to be more relevant is the pictures that were released that show the injuries to Zimmerman's head that support his claim that Martin was attacking him and bashing his head against the sidewalk. http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10012334.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

As far as I am concerned, these pictures will make it EXTREMELY difficult for the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self-defense.


Agreed. But the one thing we don't know is who absolutely started the fight. I think for the most part that a lot of people have been going on the assumption that Martin actually started the physical confrontation because that's Zimmermans story. But I think it's just as plausible that Zimmerman started the confrontation and Martin felt threatened enough to fight. Maybe he thought he could take Martin but found himself on the business end of a provoked beat down. In that case would he really have a right to a self-defense claim? I don't know I wasn't there. Unfortunately we'll never be able to hear the other side of the story and there doesn't seem to be any eyewitnesses to how the fight started.

I think the pictures alone may be great proof that it was self-defense. But we have to remember that just because you're the one on the ground getting punched that doesn't necessarily mean you didn't start the fight.

shrewsbury
05-21-2012, 10:23 AM
just because you're the one on the ground getting punched that doesn't necessarily mean you didn't start the fight.

yes sir, good point

Star_Cards
05-21-2012, 11:29 AM
Agreed. But the one thing we don't know is who absolutely started the fight. I think for the most part that a lot of people have been going on the assumption that Martin actually started the physical confrontation because that's Zimmermans story. But I think it's just as plausible that Zimmerman started the confrontation and Martin felt threatened enough to fight. Maybe he thought he could take Martin but found himself on the business end of a provoked beat down. In that case would he really have a right to a self-defense claim? I don't know I wasn't there. Unfortunately we'll never be able to hear the other side of the story and there doesn't seem to be any eyewitnesses to how the fight started.

I think the pictures alone may be great proof that it was self-defense. But we have to remember that just because you're the one on the ground getting punched that doesn't necessarily mean you didn't start the fight.

that's definitely a great point. However, even if a person starts a fight and he starts to lose, that person would still be able to defend himself if the person who didn't instigate the fight initially starts beating him to the point of where he felt his life was in danger. I get that it would be pretty deserved in such scenario. Even if zimmerman instigated and martin defended himself at first, at some point martin would have gone past defense and just beating zimmerman had zimmerman started calling for help and stopped fighting back. that's all hypothetical of course.

duane1969
05-21-2012, 12:04 PM
Catch22 is that starting the confrontation does not equate to deserving being beaten to death (I am assuming bashing someone's head on concrete can kill them). Different states have different laws...

duane1969
05-21-2012, 12:09 PM
Agreed. But the one thing we don't know is who absolutely started the fight. I think for the most part that a lot of people have been going on the assumption that Martin actually started the physical confrontation because that's Zimmermans story. But I think it's just as plausible that Zimmerman started the confrontation and Martin felt threatened enough to fight. Maybe he thought he could take Martin but found himself on the business end of a provoked beat down. In that case would he really have a right to a self-defense claim? I don't know I wasn't there. Unfortunately we'll never be able to hear the other side of the story and there doesn't seem to be any eyewitnesses to how the fight started.

I think the pictures alone may be great proof that it was self-defense. But we have to remember that just because you're the one on the ground getting punched that doesn't necessarily mean you didn't start the fight.

I think the question is where self-defense (on Martin's part) would come to an end. If Zimmerman assaulted him first then Martin had a right to fight back. The question is, was holding him down bashing his head on concrete self-defense?

ensbergcollector
05-21-2012, 12:55 PM
+1 <br />
<br />
so many people are throwing out the claim that if zimmerman was following martin then he started the altercation and martin had a right to &quot;defend&quot; himself. <br />
<br />
if zimmerman started the fight,...

duane1969
05-21-2012, 02:41 PM
+1

so many people are throwing out the claim that if zimmerman was following martin then he started the altercation and martin had a right to "defend" himself.

if zimmerman started the fight, that is a whole different story, but just following him doesn't qualify as starting the fight.

As a member of the Community Watch in a private gated community his primary purpose is to question the presence of strangers.

A few days ago a lady was sitting in the entrance to my subdivison when I got home. I went over to her car and inquired as to why she was there. Turned out she was pulled over to talk on her cell phone. I apologized for disturbing her and went on about my business. As a resident (not even a Community Watch member) I had the right to do that. My asking her what she was doing did not give her grounds to become hostile or confrontational.

The idea that Martin had the right to be aggressive or confrontational because Zimmerman was following him or questioned him is ludicrous.

theonedru
05-21-2012, 02:50 PM
As a member of the Community Watch in a private gated community his primary purpose is to question the presence of strangers.

A few days ago a lady was sitting in the entrance to my subdivison when I got home. I went over to her car and inquired as to why she was there. Turned out she was pulled over to talk on her cell phone. I apologized for disturbing her and went on about my business. As a resident (not even a Community Watch member) I had the right to do that. My asking her what she was doing did not give her grounds to become hostile or confrontational.

The idea that Martin had the right to be aggressive or confrontational because Zimmerman was following him or questioned him is ludicrous.

Thats the thing, Zimmerman could have grabbed martin, threatened him or did something to provoke him and then do what he did and claim self defense and it all goes back to him following him after being told not to so. Zimmerman could have had a bad day, been in a bad mood or just feeling the a big man complex... I just think people have to have an open mind towards this whole mess as they are just as many arguments for either end but the fact that Martin is dead and cannot defend his action says alot.....

ensbergcollector
05-21-2012, 03:13 PM
Thats the thing, Zimmerman could have grabbed martin, threatened him or did something to provoke him and then do what he did and claim self defense and it all goes back to him following him after being told not to so. Zimmerman could have had a bad day, been in a bad mood or just feeling the a big man complex... I just think people have to have an open mind towards this whole mess as they are just as many arguments for either end but the fact that Martin is dead and cannot defend his action says alot.....

see, the same people who talk about everyone having open minds are the very ones who come up with scenarios where zimmerman is completely in the wrong. all are speculation but apparently only one side is supposed to be open minded

duwal
05-21-2012, 03:21 PM
Thats the thing, Zimmerman could have grabbed martin, threatened him or did something to provoke him and then do what he did and claim self defense and it all goes back to him following him after being told not to so. Zimmerman could have had a bad day, been in a bad mood or just feeling the a big man complex... I just think people have to have an open mind towards this whole mess as they are just as many arguments for either end but the fact that Martin is dead and cannot defend his action says alot.....


First the 911 operator told Zimmerman that he 'didn't need to' he was never told not to not follow him. It was more of a suggestion than a demand. And if Zimmerman felt strongly about what he was doing as part of community watch, as most should, he would still go about. What would you do if you were questioning yourself about a certain person around the neighborhood that you looked after? How would you feel if someone not around there said don't think you should do that and you listen but then hear about something bad happening the next morning? Now I don't know about you but as for me I would much rather do a little more investigating than think maybe I should mind my own business and if a neighbors house is broken into, if one of my neighbors gets hurt because of it so be it.


Yes we're only hearing one side but as more and more information comes out its starting to get much clearer with how things went down that night. The one thing I don't like is people still calling Trayvon a 'kid'. He was 17, I know and I hope others on this board would have been insulted at 17 if someone called them a kid. At 17 I was in school and working two jobs, I was paying my own bills, I was for sure old enough to know right from wrong

duane1969
05-21-2012, 08:13 PM
Yup. Aliens could have done it too. Any theory is plausible. It just seems a bit far-fetched that he pursued Martin, attacked him, killed him by shooting him from 18 inches away, bashed his own head...

hawk2618
05-21-2012, 09:33 PM
Duane....after all this time and so many scenerios,I just might have to add your aliens theory.Afterall...nothing can really be ruled out right?:winking0071:

shrewsbury
05-21-2012, 09:39 PM
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-18/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting_1_witness-interview-person?_s=PM:JUSTICE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/evidence-trayvon-martin_n_1525285.html

sublime420
06-03-2012, 12:42 AM
I hope Zimmerman goes to jail for a long time, and the law gets banned.

mrveggieman
06-04-2012, 09:05 AM
I hope Zimmerman goes to jail for a long time, and the law gets banned.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

duwal
06-04-2012, 06:59 PM
I hope Zimmerman goes to jail for a long time, and the law gets banned.


sadly he might because there is probably fear that riots or violent protests might start like after the Rodney King verdict even with all the evidence backing up Zimmerman in his being attacked

theonedru
06-04-2012, 08:51 PM
It looks like Zimmerman messed up his chances now, what else has he been lying about to everyone.......

habsheaven
06-04-2012, 09:42 PM
It looks like Zimmerman messed up his chances now, what else has he been lying about to everyone.......

His credibility took a huge hit with this incident. By the time this gets to court he may be taking a plea deal.

mikesilvia
06-05-2012, 06:30 PM
A few points.

First, if they found THC in Zimmerman, does anyone believe the prosecution wouldn't be using it? It would be relevant for both sides of the argument. He was busted in school for pot and it was in his system. Pot can 100% effect how you act in public. Could it be why Martin was paranoid? Made him braver than he normally would have been?

Second, I've seen countless fights in real life and on the internet. I've seen even some of the fights end in death usually from getting your head stomped on or slammed into concrete. I can tell you from my experience as a boxer and a MMA practitioner, that 1 minute is a LONG time to take punches.

Third, I still can't believe that people are stating that "Zimmerman shouldn't have been following Martin thus he is guilty." The gun use is irrelevant to me. What if he didn't have a gun, but still killed Martin?

For example, let's say I look out my window and see something suspicious. I look at some guy with a hoody walking around so I follow him. Does it now give that guy the right to attack me? Beat me for a full minute? What if he does attack me and I knock him over and he hits his head on the concrete and dies? The use of a gun, knife or bare hands is irrelevant to me. If you kill a guy who is beating you for a full minute, it is self defense. I'm not going to hope that once I'm knocked unconscious that he stops.

Again, I've seen people get knock unconscious and then stomped to death. For the life of me, I don't understand why guys like Martin knock someone down and beat them for a full minute when they are screaming to stop. Winning a fight is one thing, knocking a guy down and trying to do permanent damage to someone is another. The sad thing is kids these days don't know when to stop.

theonedru
06-05-2012, 06:45 PM
A few points.

First, if they found THC in Zimmerman, does anyone believe the prosecution wouldn't be using it? It would be relevant for both sides of the argument. He was busted in school for pot and it was in his system. Pot can 100% effect how you act in public. Could it be why Martin was paranoid? Made him braver than he normally would have been?

Second, I've seen countless fights in real life and on the internet. I've seen even some of the fights end in death usually from getting your head stomped on or slammed into concrete. I can tell you from my experience as a boxer and a MMA practitioner, that 1 minute is a LONG time to take punches.

Third, I still can't believe that people are stating that "Zimmerman shouldn't have been following Martin thus he is guilty." The gun use is irrelevant to me. What if he didn't have a gun, but still killed Martin?

For example, let's say I look out my window and see something suspicious. I look at some guy with a hoody walking around so I follow him. Does it now give that guy the right to attack me? Beat me for a full minute? What if he does attack me and I knock him over and he hits his head on the concrete and dies? The use of a gun, knife or bare hands is irrelevant to me. If you kill a guy who is beating you for a full minute, it is self defense. I'm not going to hope that once I'm knocked unconscious that he stops.

Again, I've seen people get knock unconscious and then stomped to death. For the life of me, I don't understand why guys like Martin knock someone down and beat them for a full minute when they are screaming to stop. Winning a fight is one thing, knocking a guy down and trying to do permanent damage to someone is another. The sad thing is kids these days don't know when to stop.

Unfortunately now that its in the open about Zimmerman lying about his finances, everything else that may have or not have happened is now questionable because you have to think everything Zimmerman will say is also a lie..

mikesilvia
06-05-2012, 07:16 PM
Unfortunately now that its in the open about Zimmerman lying about his finances, everything else that may have or not have happened is now questionable because you have to think everything Zimmerman will say is also a lie..

It's obvious that you haven't read up fully on this topic. It was Zimmerman's wife that hid the PayPal money from the court. I watched and heard the audio. Zimmerman's wife may have lied to the court, but Zimmerman never did. Zimmerman remained quiet while his wife spoke and per the Constitution doesn't have to ever say a word in his case.

Also, as usual, people are making judgement based on 10% of the information. Finally, the John Edwards case shows you can lie and be a slime ball and still be found innocent. :)

habsheaven
06-05-2012, 07:54 PM
It's obvious that you haven't read up fully on this topic. It was Zimmerman's wife that hid the PayPal money from the court. I watched and heard the audio. Zimmerman's wife may have lied to the court, but Zimmerman never did. Zimmerman remained quiet while his wife spoke and per the Constitution doesn't have to ever say a word in his case.

Also, as usual, people are making judgement based on 10% of the information. Finally, the John Edwards case shows you can lie and be a slime ball and still be found innocent. :)

Apparently you haven't read up fully on the topic either. The court has recorded phone conversations between Zimmerman and his wife in which they are talking in code about how much money they have. Just as a spouse cannot be made to testify against their spouse, it works both ways. Testimony by the spouse reflects on him anyway. The judge would be insane not to make the connection and we know he is not insane because he has said just that.

mrveggieman
06-06-2012, 09:08 AM
Apparently you haven't read up fully on the topic either. The court has recorded phone conversations between Zimmerman and his wife in which they are talking in code about how much money they have. Just as a spouse cannot be made to testify against their spouse, it works both ways. Testimony by the spouse reflects on him anyway. The judge would be insane not to make the connection and we know he is not insane because he has said just that.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

gladdyontherise
06-06-2012, 10:39 AM
I haven't read enough about Zimmerman and the whole thing about his money situation to make an accurate comment, but if he did lie, that still can't take away evidence of what a witness said, or photos showing proof, right?

Why do people ignore what Martin had done (such as the fact he was a druggy), but are so quick to make Zimmerman guilty?

I'm just wondering.....

mrveggieman
06-06-2012, 10:41 AM
I haven't read enough about Zimmerman and the whole thing about his money situation to make an accurate comment, but if he did lie, that still can't take away evidence of what a witness said, or photos showing proof, right?

Why do people ignore what Martin had done (such as the fact he was a druggy), but are so quick to make Zimmerman guilty?

I'm just wondering.....


So smoking a little bit of weed makes you a druggie? Wow I'm sure that most of the people on here are dope fiends then. :rolleyes: Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone.

gladdyontherise
06-06-2012, 10:43 AM
So smoking a little bit of weed makes you a druggie? Wow I'm sure that most of the people on here are dope fiends then. :rolleyes: Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone.

How do you know it's a "little bit" of weed? I'm 19, not stupid, and I know people his and my age that smoke anything, don't just do "a little bit". I'd be willing to guarantee that he did it almost if not every day.

If Zimmerman had traces of drugs in his system, you would be going on and on and on about it, right?

habsheaven
06-06-2012, 10:47 AM
I haven't read enough about Zimmerman and the whole thing about his money situation to make an accurate comment, but if he did lie, that still can't take away evidence of what a witness said, or photos showing proof, right?

Why do people ignore what Martin had done (such as the fact he was a druggy), but are so quick to make Zimmerman guilty?

I'm just wondering.....

The evidence will speak for itself. I am quite sure we haven't seen all of it. And I am not "making Zimmerman guilty" at all. I was commenting on his problem with credibility now. That is it.

mrveggieman
06-06-2012, 10:48 AM
How do you know it's a "little bit" of weed? I'm 19, not stupid, and I know people his and my age that smoke anything, don't just do "a little bit". I'd be willing to guarantee that he did it almost if not every day.

If Zimmerman had traces of drugs in his system, you would be going on and on and on about it, right?


How do you know he smoked ever day? Were you with him? Did you smoke with him? Also traces equates to a small amount. There is no hard evidence that Trayvon was a dope fiend.

gladdyontherise
06-06-2012, 10:50 AM
How do you know he smoked ever day? Were you with him? Also traces equates to a small amount. There is no hard evidence that Trayvon was a dope fiend.

I don't, just as you don't know anything either, but you claim he was a saint who never did anything wrong and was perfect, so, yea...

I'm just saying that as someone close in age, I know what people of that age do, you act like it's a one time thing, and I'm telling you it wasn't.

mrveggieman
06-06-2012, 10:54 AM
I don't, just as you don't know anything either, but you claim he was a saint who never did anything wrong and was perfect, so, yea...

I'm just saying that as someone close in age, I know what people of that age do, you act like it's a one time thing, and I'm telling you it wasn't.


When did I say that he was a saint? I used to also be a teenager a few years ago and know that people back then as well as now used to smoke. Not advocate smoking week but a lot of people are able to smoke and go work/school/church/mosque/snyagouge and contribute as functioning members of society. So your theory of Trayvon being a drug abusing junkie goes up in smoke. :kiss:

gladdyontherise
06-06-2012, 11:04 AM
When did I say that he was a saint? I used to also be a teenager a few years ago and know that people back then as well as now used to smoke. Not advocate smoking week but a lot of people are able to smoke and go work/school/church/mosque/snyagouge and contribute as functioning members of society. So your theory of Trayvon being a drug abusing junkie goes up in smoke. :kiss:

Based on your posts, I think everyone believes you think he was a saint.

You can be a "functional member of society" and still be a druggy, and I called him a druggy based on the evidence of it being in his system, and being realistic about all things considered.

pghin08
06-06-2012, 11:11 AM
Steve Jobs did a bunch of drugs. He was a little bit productive in his life.

gladdyontherise
06-06-2012, 11:14 AM
Steve Jobs did a bunch of drugs. He was a little bit productive in his life.

I never said you couldn't function in society if you did drugs though. (Although I'm not sure if this post was directed at me)

pghin08
06-06-2012, 11:21 AM
I never said you couldn't function in society if you did drugs though. (Although I'm not sure if this post was directed at me)

Nah, I'm really just agreeing with you that you can do drugs and still be successful. I have a friend who is a huge pothead, and he's a corporate lawyer.

AUTaxMan
06-06-2012, 11:32 AM
When did I say that he was a saint? I used to also be a teenager a few years ago and know that people back then as well as now used to smoke. Not advocate smoking week but a lot of people are able to smoke and go work/school/church/mosque/snyagouge and contribute as functioning members of society. So your theory of Trayvon being a drug abusing junkie goes up in smoke. :kiss:

I'm pretty sure he did more than just smoke. Hadn't he been suspended from school multiple times? I don't know about you, but the kids in my high school who were suspended multiple times were the "bad" kids.

gladdyontherise
06-06-2012, 11:47 AM
Nah, I'm really just agreeing with you that you can do drugs and still be successful. I have a friend who is a huge pothead, and he's a corporate lawyer.

Ah, gotcha. Yea, I know people who are very successful that do drugs often as well.


I'm pretty sure he did more than just smoke. Hadn't he been suspended from school multiple times? I don't know about you, but the kids in my high school who were suspended multiple times were the "bad" kids.

Didn't he get suspended for having drugs on him? Don't remember if that was the case.

Star_Cards
06-06-2012, 12:07 PM
A few points.

First, if they found THC in Zimmerman, does anyone believe the prosecution wouldn't be using it? It would be relevant for both sides of the argument. He was busted in school for pot and it was in his system. Pot can 100% effect how you act in public. Could it be why Martin was paranoid? Made him braver than he normally would have been?

Second, I've seen countless fights in real life and on the internet. I've seen even some of the fights end in death usually from getting your head stomped on or slammed into concrete. I can tell you from my experience as a boxer and a MMA practitioner, that 1 minute is a LONG time to take punches.

Third, I still can't believe that people are stating that "Zimmerman shouldn't have been following Martin thus he is guilty." The gun use is irrelevant to me. What if he didn't have a gun, but still killed Martin?

For example, let's say I look out my window and see something suspicious. I look at some guy with a hoody walking around so I follow him. Does it now give that guy the right to attack me? Beat me for a full minute? What if he does attack me and I knock him over and he hits his head on the concrete and dies? The use of a gun, knife or bare hands is irrelevant to me. If you kill a guy who is beating you for a full minute, it is self defense. I'm not going to hope that once I'm knocked unconscious that he stops.

Again, I've seen people get knock unconscious and then stomped to death. For the life of me, I don't understand why guys like Martin knock someone down and beat them for a full minute when they are screaming to stop. Winning a fight is one thing, knocking a guy down and trying to do permanent damage to someone is another. The sad thing is kids these days don't know when to stop.

excellent post. I agree that is you follow someone the person being followed has zero right to attack the follower. on top of that pushing a guy away or even punching him and knocking him to the ground is one thing. Best him for a minute is completely another. If martin knocked him to the ground, the point at which he may have gotten on top of him and started punching him, martin turned into the aggressor in the situation.

mrveggieman
06-06-2012, 12:14 PM
So if you are walking down the street late alone at night minding your business and a complete stranger is starting to follow you should do you not have a right to defend yourself from possible harm if that stanger provokes you?

habsheaven
06-06-2012, 12:34 PM
So if you are walking down the street late alone at night minding your business and a complete stranger is starting to follow you should do you not have a right to defend yourself from possible harm if that stanger provokes you?

Yes, you have the right to defend yourself. Defending yourself doesn't mean you have the right to strike the person though.

mrveggieman
06-06-2012, 12:38 PM
Yes, you have the right to defend yourself. Defending yourself doesn't mean you have the right to strike the person though.


How do we know that Zimmerman didn't step to Trayvon, tried to rob and intimidate him and Trayvon wasn't the one standing his ground until Zimerman murdered him?

habsheaven
06-06-2012, 12:48 PM
How do we know that Zimmerman didn't step to Trayvon, tried to rob and intimidate him and Trayvon wasn't the one standing his ground until Zimerman murdered him?

All we know is that Zimmerman was following him, Martin was seen beating on Zimmerman, someone was heard screaming for help and Martin ended up dead. If/when we find out how the actual altercation began then we can try to determine fault/guilt. Until then, how does introducing hypotheticals into the discussion help?

mrveggieman
06-06-2012, 01:21 PM
All we know is that Zimmerman was following him, Martin was seen beating on Zimmerman, someone was heard screaming for help and Martin ended up dead. If/when we find out how the actual altercation began then we can try to determine fault/guilt. Until then, how does introducing hypotheticals into the discussion help?


Everyone else has a theory on what happened on that faitful night. Why can't I? :confused0024:

Star_Cards
06-06-2012, 01:42 PM
So if you are walking down the street late alone at night minding your business and a complete stranger is starting to follow you should do you not have a right to defend yourself from possible harm if that stanger provokes you?

If a guy is following me down the street late at night and I'm minding my business I don't have the right to attack him.

Had martin even punched zimmerman and broke his nose I'd have no real issue with that since zimmerman out himself in that situation... even if zimmerman was just casually following him from a distance. It's the part about having a man on the ground and continuing to beat him as he cried for help that says he went over the line and became the aggressor. If that's what is proven actually happened. Once martin is on top of martin and beating him, zimmerman posed no threat to him and he should have stopped.

Star_Cards
06-06-2012, 01:45 PM
How do we know that Zimmerman didn't step to Trayvon, tried to rob and intimidate him and Trayvon wasn't the one standing his ground until Zimerman murdered him?

we don't really. my post was based of the scenario that martin threw the first punch and continued once he had zimmerman on the ground.

had zimmerman walked up to martin and grabbed him or hit him, then martin would have every right to punch zimmerman back. he still would have crossed the line had he had martin subdued and continued beating him.

theonedru
06-06-2012, 01:46 PM
If a guy is following me down the street late at night and I'm minding my business I don't have the right to attack him.

Had martin even punched zimmerman and broke his nose I'd have no real issue with that since zimmerman out himself in that situation... even if zimmerman was just casually following him from a distance. It's the part about having a man on the ground and continuing to beat him as he cried for help that says he went over the line and became the aggressor. If that's what is proven actually happened. Once martin is on top of martin and beating him, zimmerman posed no threat to him and he should have stopped.

What if Zimmerman had been saying threatening or intimidating things to him as he followed him to make Martin think he might be in jeopardy? Its not always a physical attack that can cause one to defend themselves and go on the attack,

Star_Cards
06-06-2012, 01:51 PM
Everyone else has a theory on what happened on that faitful night. Why can't I? :confused0024:

do you really think zimmerman was trying to rob martin? that's a stretch from what I've heard about the situation. why call the police and talk about a person that you are going to rob. Intimidate? maybe. I could see that possibility. we really don't know how far back martin was following.

shrewsbury
06-06-2012, 02:34 PM
why didn't trayvon call 911?
he had a cell phone

also who's to say that zimmerman didn't pull his gun and trayvon tried to disarm him, they ended up entangled on the ground and zimmerman shot him?

Star_Cards
06-06-2012, 02:48 PM
What if Zimmerman had been saying threatening or intimidating things to him as he followed him to make Martin think he might be in jeopardy? Its not always a physical attack that can cause one to defend themselves and go on the attack,

very true. had zimmerman been saying threatening things and provoking martin I could see where martin might want to or actually punch him. I'm not sure if legally you are allowed to assault a person just because he is saying threatening things to you, but can see where in this case martin would have been asking to be hit... more or less. still, even in this scenario martin would have crossed the line by continuing to beat him... if martin was crying for help and wasn't hitting martin back and just defending martin's attack.

Star_Cards
06-06-2012, 02:56 PM
why didn't trayvon call 911?
he had a cell phone

also who's to say that zimmerman didn't pull his gun and trayvon tried to disarm him, they ended up entangled on the ground and zimmerman shot him?

if someone is following me at night I think calling 911 would be something I'd do. Never been in that situation, but one would think that would be something I'd do if being followed like that at night.

very true... the fight could have started because zimmerman pulled his weapon. If it comes to light that zimmerman pulled his gun on martin the attack would have been justified in my opinion. Although, even in that scenario zimmerman may have been legally deemed no longer a threat and martin would not have had the right to continue beating him.

If martin knew he had a gun at the time he punched him initially and went to the ground it's reasonable to say that even if zimmerman was crying for help martin would have still be threatened by the presence of a gun and justified his his continued beating.

from what I have heard it doesn't sound like that was the case, but I'm open to the fact if it's said that's how it happened. From what I've heard it sort of sounds like martin got pissed off that zimmerman was following him and took that anger out by attacking zimmerman to the point of beating him and bashing his head on the ground. Of course new facts would change my thoughts on the case.

shrewsbury
06-06-2012, 03:36 PM
star-cards, i agree

mikesilvia
06-06-2012, 03:55 PM
Apparently you haven't read up fully on the topic either. The court has recorded phone conversations between Zimmerman and his wife in which they are talking in code about how much money they have. Just as a spouse cannot be made to testify against their spouse, it works both ways. Testimony by the spouse reflects on him anyway. The judge would be insane not to make the connection and we know he is not insane because he has said just that.

Again, Zimmerman never testified in court that he had no money. His wife did. Also, once again people are making judgement based on a fraction of the facts. This is how this case even got blown up. In the first week, people made it out to be a 12 year old boy with Skittles getting killed by a giant, red neck white supremacist. I even heard that Martin was shot in the back while running. Once more facts came out the picture changed significantly.

Overall, a VERY stupid move by Zimmerman, but we won't know until all the facts are released.

pghin08
06-06-2012, 04:12 PM
Again, Zimmerman never testified in court that he had no money. His wife did. Also, once again people are making judgement based on a fraction of the facts. This is how this case even got blown up. In the first week, people made it out to be a 12 year old boy with Skittles getting killed by a giant, red neck white supremacist. I even heard that Martin was shot in the back while running. Once more facts came out the picture changed significantly.

Overall, a VERY stupid move by Zimmerman, but we won't know until all the facts are released.

This is the key point in all of this. The modern media cycle tends to demand the general public to take one side or the other very quickly, rather than being judicious in their analysis. We've become a culture that determines opinion in seconds rather than days, weeks and months. This case as a whole has changed so much in the last couple months, but people have stayed put in the beliefs that they developed whenever they read the very first news report, rather than collecting all available information, waiting for more to be released, and THEN figure out what you believe.

habsheaven
06-06-2012, 04:17 PM
This is the key point in all of this. The modern media cycle tends to demand the general public to take one side or the other very quickly, rather than being judicious in their analysis. We've become a culture that determines opinion in seconds rather than days, weeks and months. This case as a whole has changed so much in the last couple months, but people have stayed put in the beliefs that they developed whenever they read the very first news report, rather than collecting all available information, waiting for more to be released, and THEN figure out what you believe.

Agreed.

duwal
06-06-2012, 08:55 PM
So smoking a little bit of weed makes you a druggie? Wow I'm sure that most of the people on here are dope fiends then. :rolleyes: Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone.


I, excuse the pun, highly doubt that. And really that's kind of insulting to the members on here by proclaiming that you think most of us on here are occasion drug users. And yes, if you take illegal drugs, you're a druggie.

As someone said it wasn't JUST that it was in his system when he passed but he was even expelled for having a baggie with weed paraphernalia residue when means that was either his stash that he used or sold. So one time he was caught, another time when he was tested for it and who knows how many other times he has done it in the past

Star_Cards
06-07-2012, 12:27 PM
I tend to think of a druggie why let's his drug use get in the way of the rest of his life or advancing or growing. I myself have never done an illegal drug, but wouldn't define all people who have at some point in their lives or even from time to time as druggies.

gladdyontherise
06-07-2012, 03:33 PM
I tend to think of a druggie why let's his drug use get in the way of the rest of his life or advancing or growing. I myself have never done an illegal drug, but wouldn't define all people who have at some point in their lives or even from time to time as druggies.

Just my opinion, but I think it's safe to assume Martin was a "druggy". You don't get caught in school with what he did if you've just tried it once, or something like that.

Star_Cards
06-07-2012, 03:58 PM
Just my opinion, but I think it's safe to assume Martin was a "druggy". You don't get caught in school with what he did if you've just tried it once, or something like that.

that could be. I was just commenting on the term druggy and how I define it.

I'd also tend to think that someone who brings drugs to school my be a little too much into it at that point. I can see where one could make that assumption.

GiantsSB42Champs
06-07-2012, 03:59 PM
people high on marijuana are not really threats he wasn't right at all rac