George Zimmerman was Right

[gladdyontherise]

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.

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]

Steve Jobs did a bunch of drugs. He was a little bit productive in his life.

[gladdyontherise]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?