and the most interesting part of this all -- I was correct. Trayvon had mar1juana and the effects of lean in his system. TOLD YA SO
This is only true if by confrontation you mean attack. If I'm doing my yard and see someone snooping in a neighbor's window and walk across the street to ask what's going on and the guy starts to attack me, am I not legally allowed to defend myself because I "initiated" a confrontation? If all George Zimmerman did was follow a kid to ask what he was doing he did not forfeit his right to defend himself from an attack.
Where do you keep getting the idea he was doing a deal? And it wouldn't change the effects of the drugs.
I was just raising the question regarding the drug deal. Skittles can be used to flavor lean, by the way... GZ's injuries make it clear that violence was involved, so your point about him being mellow is not relevant, since it's clear that he was "un-mellow" enough to dish out some pain.
Remember that scene in Crash where Ludacris gets all offended that a white person acts afraid of him and his buddy? He goes on a rant about racism and profiling? And then he proceeds to steal the car. LOL All the Trayvon media talk was about a little kid who went to get skittles and was skipping on home without a care in the world. Big bad racist white (not white) George Zimmerman racially profiled him as a thug because he was black. He said outrageous things like he looked suspicious and like he was on drugs or something. That racist cracker then gunned Trayvon down like a dog! And now we find out that Trayvon wasn't a choir boy, was on drugs, at the very least landed blows on Zimmerman and was in the dominant position when the gun was fired. He had troubles in school and at home. None of that makes him guilty or Zimmerman innocent but it should shame the media.
1. OK, in this forum, evidence is in the eye of the beholder. So no need to expound on that. 2. You evade the question. Like the others who were deafeningly silent on the question. If it is someone on your own (family, race) who will be the victim, with the same set of circumstances, your position changes. Or at the very least - you keep your position to yourselves. That is what I'm trying to drive at. And that is what behind your defense of Zimmerman is, in my opinion. Rule of law? You can't even admit to a theoretical question that you will uphold the rule of law if IT IS YOUR OWN on the line. 3. Fairness: I don't want to be accused of putting only you on the spot. I want to test your conviction, albeit theoretical, if you will uphold the rule of law if it will involve your own. So I said if I am the father of Zimmerman, I will disown him. And obviously, if I was the father of Martin... Definitely, it has no bearing on the discussion of GZ guilt, but has exposed, in MY OPINION, where some of the support of GZ is coming from.
absolutely spot on. media bias in this whole episode has been to blame. Trayvon wasn't a 10 year old Hollister wearing choir boy like the media reported in order to gain sympathy and revenge against the neighborhood watch captain who was trying to help keep the neighborhood safe. Rather, Trayvon was an illegal drug using racist who celebrated thug life and couldn't follow the rules at school.
Okay, what is your point? He wasn't carrying drugs. He wasn't carrying large sums of money. Nothing points to him doing a drug deal. Especially unlikely since that was not the area he had been living in previously, and would not have had the same contacts. Talking about him having THC in his system is irrelevant. It only makes him less likely to have started something. He likely wasn't high at the time the incident went down. If he had been drunk, it would be far more relevant. Or if he was on some sort of upper drug.
Bigtexx is a poster on a message board who, despite his ability to rile up people here, has very little impact on society. (no knock on Bigtexx, it's true for most individuals) The media has a huge impact on society and influences everything from our purchasing decisions to court rulings to elections.
Having been through a court case in which my severely autistic son was the victim and the defendant (a non family member or friend) received a 15 year plea bargain sentence, I am unfortunately familiar with what it's like to be the family of the victim in court. Let me tell you, that as a victim or advocate for the victim (my son does not have the ability to speak) that you have to resign yourself to the fact that you have little say in what happens to the defendant or even if it goes to court or not or even how long the sentence is. My wife and I had nightmares for months. I had one over and over where I was asleep and the door to my bedroom was closed. My son ran in afraid and shut the door. Something was banging on the door trying to get in. I ran to the door to try to keep whatever was outside the door from getting in but it was back and forth with the door slightly opening and then closing as I pushed against it. I would alway wake up before whatever was outside the door got in. To me it evil outside that door and that I had failed to keep my son out of harms way and that I somehow should have known the guy was evil. I still do. I will always feel that way. I'm his Dad, it my job to protect him. He can't protect himself. The relationship with my older now adult son is different, my job was to teach him right from wrong and reinforce that over and over so that he will hopefully make decisions that keep him out of harms way when I'm not around. I saw the defendants mom in court the day her son was sentenced. She cried loudly. As I left the stand giving my impact statement, I had to walk past her. She was crying and looking at me. I stopped took her hand and said "My wife and I don't blame you. Please don't carry this burden for your son". That was her son and I don't blame her for being there on the worst day of his life. I can honestly tell you seeing the legal process in play first hand and knowing how little you have control of it. If I were the Martins, I would be bracing myself knowing that GZ has a good chance to walk. I would be very disappointed in the quality of the evidence that is being put on the stand. That said, I found out even if your side wins the court case, no one wins. Lives are shattered on both sides beyond the victim and defendant. Nothing really good comes from it. Her son was in jail and my son's innocence was stolen. I don't blame her for being there with her son during the worst moment in his life. I didn't want her son acquitted but I didn't think whatever I wanted would be fair because I would have put a bullet in his head. There's another side of the my son's case that I can't legally go in to, but we faced long odds of prevaling. I know what I wanted to say in that matter and I know what the law would allow to be said. It was frustrating but I knew the law wasn't designed to make things fair for just my son's side of the incident.
I'd agree that he can do whatever he wants while the mainstream media should maintain less bias. I don't blame the media for the pictures, as the Trayvon picture was from the parents, and the Zimmerman picture was publicly available. We saw pictures of nut job sites use the wrong pictures trying to be negative about Trayvon. There were several pictures of Trayvon at 16-17 they could have used that looked like a good kid too. Media gets blame for altering the 911 call, altering Zimmerman's photo to make him appear whiter, etc. As we've seen with a lot of news stories, including Aaron Hernandez recently, the media makes a lot mistakes in the details trying to get the information in. In this cased the media didn't just get bad information, they altered it themselves, which is unacceptable.
I said I'd be over-the-top angry (and grieved). The position of a victim's family might be different due to the emotional connection but that doesn't make it justice. By your logic, everyone who is not PERSONALLY connected to Trayvon Martin by family or race relation ( ) should be supporting Zimmerman... and EVERYONE who is connected to TM by race is against Zimmerman. Doesn't that logically follow? The Rule of Law does not allow for the most angry to determine Guilt or Innocense. Really? It's about evidence and the judgment of a jury of your peers. People who are grieving will work through that in their own time and way but the Rule of Law does not follow their lead. That would lead to vigilantism.
You have yet to paint an accurate picture of the law. So you might not want to bring that up so much unless you're willing to show that Zimmerman tried everything within his power to get away from the situation which is what the aggressor must do if they use deadly self defense. So when people bring up GZ as an aggressor you keep talking about that law, and you bring up that isn't what the law says, you're wrong. That is exactly what the law says unless GZ shows that he met specific other conditions. You haven't shown any evidence that he met those other conditions.
I gotta disagree here. You never know what effect THC or Codeine would have on a 17 year old boy with a history of anger issues/problems. While it would make sense the MJ would make him chill, that's not always the case. I've known plenty of hot-heads that get worse when they get high. It all depends on the individual. If your statement were true, than all the gangstas in the world who live a life of gettin' high and bustin' caps would more likely stay at home eating funyuns and frosted flakes. There would be no gang related crime and the bloods and crips have barbecues instead of drive-bys.
Exactly. these same guys get mad when you point out the rape victim in the ohio high school football case was drunk. Its not to defame her character. what's worse rape or murder. because you smoke weed you deserve to die? what is the point?
