[OldManMac]

Open Channel - Court docs: Trayvon Martin shooting 'ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman'

IMO, Zimmerman is a murderer. He initiated a confrontation when he decided to play cop, jury, and executioner. There is one inescapable fact; if Zimmerman hadn't confronted Martin, needlessly, and let the police handle the situation, a young man wouldn't be dead today.

[Shaddim]

It does look like Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, but he provoked it. He should plead to Voluntary Manslaughter, 10 years, out in 5.

[Chongo]

Police Photos

Video of Martin At the 7-11 buying Skittles and tea.
Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version - ABC News

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

People on THC are generally more relaxed

This ^

And this:

Pot vs. Alcohol - YouTube

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It does look like Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, but he provoked it. He should plead to Voluntary Manslaughter, 10 years, out in 5.

And that's the bottom line.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

in other words, he was under their influence when this all went down.

Let's not get all high and mighty about pot here. We'll never know if Zimmerman was completely clear headed because the police failed to do the tests.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

What gets me is, he had a gun. Why did he even get close enough for a physical confrontation. That's just stupid and for me enough to deny him the Stand Your Ground defense.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

What gets me is, he had a gun. Why did he even get close enough for a physical confrontation. That's just stupid and for me enough to deny him the Stand Your Ground defense.

I think this is where the "Travyon circled around and assaulted him" claim comes in.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Yeah but we're not talking about running around in the woods he would have had to circle around one of the condo blocks. That doubt the timeline allows for that.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

People on THC are generally more relaxed

Do you have anything but your own personal experience to back that up? I know there's a stereotype about stoners, but you can do better if you're trying to prove murder.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let's not get all high and mighty about pot here. We'll never know if Zimmerman was completely clear headed because the police failed to do the tests.

Unless there was a reason to (i.e. Zimmerman was acting in such a way), why would they? AFAIK it is not standard procedure to take sobriety tests on someone unless there is a reason to.

I'm not high and mighty about the pot, but its worth mentioning that Martin was acting with impairment to his judgement and decision making.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Unless there was a reason to (i.e. Zimmerman was acting in such a way), why would they? AFAIK it is not standard procedure to take sobriety tests on someone unless there is a reason to.

Why would they run a toxicology test on Martin and not Zimmerman?

Trayvon Martin Family Seeks FBI Investigation of Killing - ABC News

ABC News has learned police seemed to accept Zimmerman's account at face value that night and that he was not tested for drugs or alcohol on the night of the shooting, even though it is standard procedure in most homicide investigations.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not high and mighty about the pot, but its worth mentioning that Martin was acting with impairment to his judgement and decision making.

I suppose a case could be made that if didn't get high he wouldn't have gotten the munchies and gone to the 7/11.

[andi*pandi]

Before we found out about the pot, the best theory was that they both acted stupidly, they both had a chance to walk away and failed. Now we know what Martin's excuse was... what's Zimmerman's?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It really doesn't matter how much Zimmerman bled or how severe his injuries were.. It corroborates his story that he was attacked by Martin.

Or Martin defended against an attack by Zimmerman...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But off more than the sober dude that you've just attacked and beaten. And it was within 3 hours, i.e. less then. He was high.

And what do you mean "less likely to pick a fight"? Care to back that up? How can you make that assessment?

Ask any cop who they prefer dealing with. A drunk or a stonner. Its such common knowledge that people on weed are more docile and less violent.

[OAW]

It would be helpful to keep this drug marijuana thing in perspective:

Martin's blood contained THC, which is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, according to autopsy results released Thursday. The autopsy was conducted February 27, the day after the teenager was shot dead.

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.
No precise levels on the urine were released.

Dr. Michael Policastro, a toxicologist, cautioned against reading too much into the blood THC levels, adding that one cannot make a direct correlation between those findings and a level of intoxication. He also said that levels of THC, which can linger in a person's system for days, can spike after death in certain areas of the body because of redistribution.

And Dr. Drew Pinsky, an addiction specialist who hosts a show on CNN's sister network HLN, added that marijuana typically does not make users more aggressive.

Concentrations of THC routinely rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliliter after marijuana use, though it typically falls to below 5 ng/ml within three hours of it being smoked, according to information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's website.

While some states have zero-tolerance policies for any drug traces for driving while impaired, others set certain benchmarks, the website of California's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs notes. In Nevada, that equates to 2 ng/ml for THC and 5 ng/ml for THC-COOH, also known as marijuana metabolite. The cutoff level in Ohio is 2 ng/ml for THC and 50 ng/ml for THC-COOH.

So like I said before, the autopsy showed trace amounts of marijuana in his system. An amount that wouldn't have even gotten him a DUI in certain states.

More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN.com

As has been noted, the Sanford PD didn't do a toxicology screen on Zimmerman even though he had just shot a kid in the chest as is standard procedure in a homicide investigation. So we don't know what substances he may have had in his system at the time ... legal or illegal. Go figure. But now we do know this from Zimmerman's own medical report:

The morning after the shooting, on Feb. 27, Zimmerman sought treatment at the offices of a general physician at a family practice near Sanford, Fla. The doctor notes Zimmerman sought an appointment to get legal clearance to return to work.

The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month.

But the report also shows Zimmerman declined hospitalization the night of the shooting, and then declined the advice of his doctor to make a follow-up appointment with an ear nose and throat doctor.

In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman complained of stress and "occasional nausea when thinking about the violence." But he was not diagnosed with a concussion. The doctor noted that it was "imperative" that Zimmerman "be seen with [sic] his psychologist for evaluation."

According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.

Now we already knew that Zimmerman didn't go to the hospital or even receive a band aid to cover the minor injuries he received in his confrontation with Martin. But recently we found out that he sought medical treatment with his own personal physician the next day. But again ... not because of the minor injuries he received. It obviously wasn't that deep because again he declined follow-up treatment. He went because he "sought an appointment to get legal clearance to return to work." But there's no way his employer could have known that Zimmerman was involved in the Martin shooting at the time! So what was this "legal clearance" for exactly? Interesting.

But even more interesting is the revelation that Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam. The former is used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) ... and the latter is used to treat insomnia. But each can cause some interesting side effects:

Adderall

"Tell your doctor immediately if any of these unlikely but serious side effects occur: mental/mood/behavior changes (e.g., agitation, aggression, mood swings, depression, abnormal thoughts), uncontrolled movements, continuous chewing movements/teeth grinding, outbursts of words/sounds, change in sexual ability/desire."

Temazepam

"You should know that your mental health may change in unexpected ways while you are taking this medication. It is hard to tell if these changes are caused by temazepam or if they are caused by physical or mental illnesses that you already have or suddenly develop. Tell your doctor right away if you experience any of the following symptoms: aggressiveness, strange or unusually outgoing behavior, hallucinations (seeing things or hearing voices that do not exist), feeling as if you are outside of your body, memory problems, difficulty concentrating, new or worsening depression, thinking about killing yourself, confusion, and any other changes in your usual thoughts, mood, or behavior. Be sure that your family knows which symptoms may be serious so that they can call the doctor if you are unable to seek treatment on your own."

So which one was more likely to be the one being "aggressive" that night? But as one ponders that question, let's not forget that Martin's girlfriend was the last person to talk to him literally moments before he was killed. And her testimony given to investigators is this;

Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, talking to him on the telephone, heard the teenager saying, "get off, get off" in the moments before his cell phone cut off and he was shot dead, according to a recording of the girl's interview with a prosecutor released Friday.

...........

The girl, whose name has not been made public, told Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda that Martin got away from the man, who turned out to be Zimmerman, but only temporarily.

He was out of breath from running away, and scared, she said, and decided not to keep running because he was close to the house where he was staying.

And as Zimmerman drew closer, the girl said, Martin called out," Why you following me for?" according to the recording. "I hear this man, like this old man, say, 'What are you doing around here?' " the girl said.

The girl said she called out to Martin, asking what was happening, but he didn't answer. The next thing she heard was a bumping sound, followed by what might have been a scuffle.

"I could hear it a little bit, 'Get off, get off,' then the phone just hung up," the girl said.

The other witness said he heard loud noises outside his home that dark, wet night, and when he looked outside, he saw one person in dark clothing over someone who appeared to be wearing a red or white piece of apparel.

"I heard, 'Help, help, help,' and I yelled at them and said, 'Hey cut it out,' " the witness told police. He then called 911.
Zimmerman has claimed self-defense in the shooting, saying Martin charged him after the two exchanged words, knocking him to the ground and hitting his head repeatedly against a concrete sidewalk.

Prosecutors say Zimmerman profiled Martin, an African-American teenager wearing a hoodie, as a criminal and killed him, even though he was doing nothing wrong.

The witness said he couldn't say what sparked the incident.

"I didn't see how it started, I didn't see how it ended. I just saw the part where they were in an altercation on the ground," the witness said.

More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN.com

So for the Zimmerman defenders out there ... what exactly is the going theory on why Martin would be yelling "Get off! Get off!" if Zimmerman was not physically accosting him at the time?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So for the Zimmerman defenders out there ... what exactly is the going theory on why Martin would be yelling "Get off! Get off!" if Zimmerman was not physically accosting him at the time?

That's an easy one, she's embellishing. You're doing the same thing you (we) condemn the investigators of: taking people's story at face value when they are clearly not unbiased.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why would they run a toxicology test on Martin and not Zimmerman?

Standard procedure for an autopsy. The Police were able to talk to Zimmerman, and obviously didn't feel he was under any influence.

I suppose a case could be made that if didn't get high he wouldn't have gotten the munchies and gone to the 7/11.

And if zimmerman were high, that would be okay too?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Or Martin defended against an attack by Zimmerman...

Right. So Martin's only injury is broken skin on his knuckles... Meaning Zimmerman attacked him where?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ask any cop who they prefer dealing with. A drunk or a stonner. Its such common knowledge that people on weed are more docile and less violent.

Its a good thing our legal system doesn't accept such "common knowledge" as evidence in court.

Numerous studies showing that THC impairs judgement, however, can.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So which one was more likely to be the one being "aggressive" that night? But as one ponders that question, let's not forget that Martin's girlfriend was the last person to talk to him literally moments before he was killed. And her testimony given to investigators is this;



OAW

You tell me. The one with illegal drugs in their system, or the one with drugs prescribed by a physician?


You can downplay it all you want, but Martin was high and did something stupid and unfortunately paid for it with his life.

Weed might not make someone more aggressive but if you take someone who's already aggressive and impair their judgement, well you get this.



OAW, Where were the marks on Martin if Zimmerman attacked him? Why would the only injury be broken skin on his knuckles from repeatedly punching somebody? Doesn't make sense. Can you please explain to me how thats possible?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Standard procedure for an autopsy.

One might wonder why.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The Police were able to talk to Zimmerman, and obviously didn't feel he was under any influence.

That's very scientific.

I wonder if someone accidentally killed someone else with a car if they'd be tested. I'm thinking yes.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And if zimmerman were high, that would be okay too?

Huh?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's very scientific.

What suggests Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

I wonder if someone accidentally killed someone else with a car if they'd be tested. I'm thinking yes.

Huh?

If the person behind the wheel was acting or driving like it, yes. Otherwise no.


A 16 year old killed a pedestrian on the street the other day near where I live. The man was drunk and ran into the road where she hit him. The Police did not give her a sobriety test because after talking to her there was no evidence she was under any sort of influence. Very very sad, but illustrates my point.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Standard procedure for an autopsy.

You didn't answer why. Why would they care about what might be in his system?

And why the double standard:

ABC News has learned police seemed to accept Zimmerman's account at face value that night and that he was not tested for drugs or alcohol on the night of the shooting, even though it is standard procedure in most homicide investigations.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What suggests Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

Why wouldn't they want to verify he was sound of mind when he decided to use lethal force? Why is it "usually" standard procedure?

[hyteckit]

Notice how clean Zimmerman's jacket, shirt, and pants are?

This guy claim he was tackled to the ground on a rainy days and then shot Martin, while Martin was on top.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You didn't answer why. Why would they care about what might be in his system?

To determine cause of death.

And why the double standard:

There is no double standard.

Zimmerman was alive to give a statement. Martin was not.

Why wouldn't they want to verify he was sound of mind when he decided to use lethal force? Why is it "usually" standard procedure?

Questioning or gathering a statement is sufficient to determine whether or not someone is of sound mind. Someone's behavior is a much better indicator of their state of mind then is a lab test. In martin's case, there was no such behavior.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's an easy one, she's embellishing. You're doing the same thing you (we) condemn the investigators of: taking people's story at face value when they are clearly not unbiased.

But it's not at "face value" because there is corroborating evidence. She says Martin ran away from Zimmerman. Said he was afraid because Zimmerman was following him through the neighborhood. We know this to be true because Zimmerman himself confirms both of these points on the 911 tapes. So she obviously told the truth about that part ... but suddenly she's "embellishing" about Martin yelling to Zimmerman to "Get off!" him?

We also have evidence with regard to the state of mind of George "These assholes ... they always get away" Zimmerman. George "F*cking punks" Zimmerman repeatedly called 911 about suspicious activity that somehow only seemed to involve young black males. He pursues a young black male on the night in question in direct violation of the instructions given to him by the 911 dispatcher. As in ran after him in the rain! So which of these is indicative of a person who is more likely to display aggressive behavior? The armed Zimmerman who blatantly disregarded the 911 dispatcher's instructions to make sure the person who he perceived to be an "asshole" and a "punk" didn't "get away"? Or the kid who was running away from him in fear?

Zimmerman ran after this kid in the rain with a gun. What do you think the plan was once he caught up with him? Chat about the weather? Or to confront Martin? Martin's girlfriend said that she heard Zimmerman ask Martin what he was doing around there. Zimmerman himself corroborated that in his own statement to the police. She said Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Which is a very logical thing to do when someone has been following you! Moments later it gets physical. So again I ask ... what's the more likely scenario? The kid who ran away in fear from Zimmerman until he was out of breath suddenly turns into "Super Thug" and sucker punches the man who he was afraid of seconds earlier? Just for sh*ts and grins? Or George "Wannabe Cop" Zimmerman ... feeling emboldened because he's packing heat ... puts his hands on the kid in an attempt to detain Martin prompting him to yell "Get off! Get off!*" and punch Zimmerman in the face in self defense?

OAW

* - As a cultural note, I should point out that in the African-American community if you approach someone aggressively and touch them (e.g grab them, get in their face, push them, etc.) it is common for us to say "Get off!" or "Get off me!". It does NOT necessarily denote that you are on the ground and someone is literally on top of you. More like a WARNING that things are about to get ugly if you don't "Back off!".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Right. So Martin's only injury is broken skin on his knuckles... Meaning Zimmerman attacked him where?

No that wasn't his only injury. You're forgetting about the bullet to the chest that pierced his heart and hemorrhaged his lung out.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You tell me. The one with illegal drugs in their system, or the one with drugs prescribed by a physician?

First of all marijuana is not a "drug". It is a freaking plant ... the possession of which has been made illegal by an idiotic government policy. Prescription medication is in fact a "drug". Which kills more people each year than all "illegal drugs" combined. I just made a post about the potential side effects of the particular drugs that Zimmerman was taking .... which include "aggressiveness". That same post also contained a quote from a doctor who said that marijuana does not typically make people aggressive. If you choose to ignore it then hey ... whatever.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You can downplay it all you want, but Martin was high and did something stupid and unfortunately paid for it with his life.

Again, you can choose to not let little things like facts get in the way of your opinion if you want to, but the autopsy report indicated the levels of THC in his system. And they aren't indicative of someone who was "high" at the time of death. Period.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Weed might not make someone more aggressive but if you take someone who's already aggressive and impair their judgement, well you get this.

And you've determined that Martin was "already aggressive" based on what exactly? Running away?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

OAW, Where were the marks on Martin if Zimmerman attacked him? Why would the only injury be broken skin on his knuckles from repeatedly punching somebody? Doesn't make sense. Can you please explain to me how thats possible?

Because if someone "attacks" or "physically accosts" you that doesn't necessarily mean that they were successful!

Muhammad Ali could go 12 rounds and emerge relatively unscathed. And then boast about how he was still "pretty". If you take a swing at me and I slip your punch ... the fact that you "attacked" me get doesn't get negated just because you missed, right?

Clearly there was a physical confrontation that night between Zimmerman and Martin. And by all the evidence released to date, Zimmerman was getting the worst of it until he resorted to the ultimate "b*tch ass move" and pulled a gun in the middle of a fist fight instead of just taking his lumps like a man. Martin supposedly was repeatedly slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete? But he's not hospitalized, refuses follow up treatment, and didn't suffer a concussion? All he has is a little 1 inch cut that didn't even require a freaking band-aid? Martin was supposedly repeatedly punching Zimmerman in the face? But his only facial injuries are one small forehead abrasion and a bloody nose? Both of those could easily be the result of a solid punch between the eyes. Two punches max. Martin had a small abrasion on his left ring finger. A minimal amount of damage that is virtually unheard of if he was actually "repeatedly punching" Zimmerman. Sorry ... but I'm going to have to call BS on this one. Zimmerman's injuries are a lot more consistent with taking a clean punch to the face and then hitting his head on the ground when he fell down. Which likely pissed him off ... to which he responded by getting up, pulling his gun, and shooting him from "intermediate range".

As for how this probably turned physical, see my post above.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Notice how clean Zimmerman's jacket, shirt, and pants are?

This guy claim he was tackled to the ground on a rainy days and then shot Martin, while Martin was on top.

For me the larger issue is the lack of Martin's blood on his clothing. If someone is on top of you and you shoot them in the chest some of that blood will get on your clothing. It's also likely that path of the projectile would be upward. But that's not the case here. The front of Zimmerman's clothing is devoid of blood and the bullet that entered Martin went in at mid-chest level and went downward to lodge in the lower lobe of his lung.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But it's not at "face value" because there is corroborating evidence. She says Martin ran away from Zimmerman. Said he was afraid because Zimmerman was following him through the neighborhood. We know this to be true because Zimmerman himself confirms both of these points on the 911 tapes. So she obviously told the truth about that part ... but suddenly she's "embellishing" about Martin yelling to Zimmerman to "Get off!" him?

We also have evidence with regard to the state of mind of George "These assholes ... they always get away" Zimmerman. George "F*cking punks" Zimmerman repeatedly called 911 about suspicious activity that somehow only seemed to involve young black males. He pursues a young black male on the night in question in direct violation of the instructions given to him by the 911 dispatcher. As in ran after him in the rain! So which of these is indicative of a person who is more likely to display aggressive behavior? The armed Zimmerman who blatantly disregarded the 911 dispatcher's instructions to make sure the person who he perceived to be an "asshole" and a "punk" didn't "get away"? Or the kid who was running away from him in fear?

Zimmerman ran after this kid in the rain with a gun. What do you think the plan was once he caught up with him? Chat about the weather? Or to confront Martin? Martin's girlfriend said that she heard Zimmerman ask Martin what he was doing around there. Zimmerman himself corroborated that in his own statement to the police. She said Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Which is a very logical thing to do when someone has been following you! Moments later it gets physical. So again I ask ... what's the more likely scenario? The kid who ran away in fear from Zimmerman until he was out of breath suddenly turns into "Super Thug" and sucker punches the man who he was afraid of seconds earlier? Just for sh*ts and grins? Or George "Wannabe Cop" Zimmerman ... feeling emboldened because he's packing heat ... puts his hands on the kid in an attempt to detain Martin prompting him to yell "Get off! Get off!*" and punch Zimmerman in the face in self defense?

OAW

* - As a cultural note, I should point out that in the African-American community if you approach someone aggressively and touch them (e.g grab them, get in their face, push them, etc.) it is common for us to say "Get off!" or "Get off me!". It does NOT necessarily denote that you are on the ground and someone is literally on top of you. More like a WARNING that things are about to get ugly if you don't "Back off!".

Jesus, get a grip. If you know all that stuff, so does the girlfriend. She's even more motivated to concoct a whole narrative about what happened based on these other known facts than you are, filling in the gaps with her rosiest memories of her beau's character, and her darkest imagination of his killer. Her hearsay testimony means squat (unless it somehow helps the defense, in which case it would be against her own self-interest so it would be more convincing). If it agrees with other less-invested evidence, then you're better off going with that other evidence on its own.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

No that wasn't his only injury. You're forgetting about the bullet to the chest that pierced his heart and hemorrhaged his lung out.

Aside the obvious. Didn't think I would have to spell that one out for you.

First of all marijuana is not a "drug". It is a freaking plant ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

Right there in the name

the possession of which has been made illegal by an idiotic government policy.

So its okay to be high? That's what I hear you saying

I just made a post about the potential side effects of the particular drugs that Zimmerman was taking .... which include "aggressiveness". That same post also contained a quote from a doctor who said that marijuana does not typically make people aggressive. If you choose to ignore it then hey ... whatever.

I never claimed being high would make you more aggressive. I claimed it impairs judgement. If you take an already aggressive person, and impair their judgement, they could become more aggressive as their decision making skills are diminished.

I never said trayvon was aggressive to begin with, I'm simply dismissing your argument that being high doesn't matter as a material fact to this case.

Again, you can choose to not let little things like facts get in the way of your opinion if you want to, but the autopsy report indicated the levels of THC in his system. And they aren't indicative of someone who was "high" at the time of death. Period.

Originally Posted by WebMD

These effects are reduced after three or four hours.

The toxicology report indicated he smoked within 3 hours. i.e. He was high and suffered from:

Originally Posted by webmd

Psychological Effects of Marijuana

The main psychological effect of smoking pot is euphoria. Getting high or "stoned" is the reason most pot smokers use marijuana.

distorted sense of time
paranoia
magical or "random" thinking
short-term memory loss
anxiety and depression

You don't think paranoia nor "Magical or Random thinking" could have made Trayvon more aggressive? Please.

And you've determined that Martin was "already aggressive" based on what exactly? Running away?

Please show me where I said Trayvon Martin was already aggressive? I simply dismissed your claim that being high could have no consequences to the situation that occurred.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

Right there in the name

You must be joking right? Marijuana is a drug because of a URL? GTFOOH!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So its okay to be high? That's what I hear you saying

That's because you hear what you want to hear. I didn't say anything one way or the other about if it's "okay to be high". All I said was that marijuana is a plant. It grows on this green earth all on its own. As opposed to Adderall and Temazepam which are "chemical substances" that are cooked up in a lab. The only reason it is called a "drug" is because the federal government has deemed it to be "illicit". Period.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I never claimed being high would make you more aggressive. I claimed it impairs judgement. If you take an already aggressive person, and impair their judgement, they could become more aggressive as their decision making skills are diminished.

I never said trayvon was aggressive to begin with, I'm simply dismissing your argument that being high doesn't matter as a material fact to this case.

Uh huh. You may not have said it explicitly ... but the implication was certainly there. Why? Because A) the entire crux of this case revolves around who was the aggressor on that tragic night, and B) you could have just as easily said "Marijuana impairs your judgement." and left it at that ... but you didn't.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The toxicology report indicated he smoked within 3 hours. i.e. He was high and suffered from:


You don't think paranoia nor "Magical or Random thinking" could have made Trayvon more aggressive? Please.

You see this is what happens when you try to talk out of both sides of your neck. Just two seconds ago you said that "I never said trayvon was aggressive to begin with". But now you turn around and say that the marijuana "could have made Trayvon more aggressive." How are you going to be "more aggressive" unless you were already "aggressive to begin with"?

But more importantly than that foolishness. I linked to the actual autopsy report several posts ago. Shows up on page 12 on my machine. YMMV. Where exactly do you get this "within 3 hours" notion from in that autopsy report? Specifically? Because I certainly don't see anything of the sort. Now it does make reference to a toxicology report when it said "See separate report from NMS Laboratories". Do you have a link to that particular report to support your claim?

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You must be joking right? Marijuana is a drug because of a URL? GTFOOH!

Because you're too lazy to click my link and read the first freaking sentence I've cut and pasted it for you.

"Cannabis, also known as marijuana[1] (from the Mexican Spanish marihuana) and by other names,a[›] refers to preparations of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.[2][3][4] "

That's because you hear what you want to hear. I didn't say anything one way or the other about if it's "okay to be high". All I said was that marijuana is a plant. It grows on this green earth all on its own.

So do opiates and cocaine. I guess they aren't a drug either? Your position is indefensible. Because it grows in the ground, its not a drug? You've been smoking too much plant, OAW.

Uh huh. You may not have said it explicitly ... but the implication was certainly there. Why? Because A) the entire crux of this case revolves around who was the aggressor on that tragic night, and B) you could have just as easily said "Marijuana impairs your judgement." and left it at that ... but you didn't.

And the physical evidence only indicates one aggressor Trayvon clearly didn't punch Zimmerman until his knuckles were bloody after he was shot, did he?

Y Just two seconds ago you said that "I never said trayvon was aggressive to begin with".

I apologize if I over estimated your critical thinking skills. I'm still waiting for you to drop the spin and realize the distinction between claiming Trayvon was by his very nature aggressive and that in this instance, while high on drugs, was the aggressor in this situation. Does that make sense? Do you need a diagram?

But now you turn around and say that the marijuana "could have made Trayvon more aggressive." How are you going to be "more aggressive" unless you were already "aggressive to begin with"?

When presented with facts refuting your claims, fall back to semantics. Classic. Only aggressive people can become aggressive. Right? Okay.

For those of you at home. When you're paranoid as the result of being high, you can become more aggressive than you would be sober. That is my point.

But more importantly than that foolishness. I linked to the actual autopsy report several posts ago. Shows up on page 12 on my machine. YMMV. Where exactly do you get this "within 3 hours" notion from in that autopsy report? Specifically? Because I certainly don't see anything of the sort. Now it does make reference to a toxicology report when it said "See separate report from NMS Laboratories". Do you have a link to that particular report to support your claim?

Its from the CNN article you yourself linked. Did you even read it?

Edit:

Originally Posted by OAW

More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN.com
...

OAW

Originally Posted by OAW's link

Concentrations of THC routinely rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliliter after marijuana use, though it typically falls to below 5 ng/ml within three hours of it being smoked, according to information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's website.

Trayvon's was 7.

Ergo, he had smoked within three hours.

[OAW]

^^^

OIC. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit it would seem. "It typically falls to below 5 ng/ml within three hours of it being smoked" does not mean AFTER 3 hours.

within - preposition

- inside the range of

So those levels could have dropped to 5 ng/ml 30 minutes later ... an hour later ... or three hours later.

With that being said, the relevant point here is the DISPARITY in THC levels between the 100-200 ng "after marijuana use" and the 1.5 ng that was found in his system. It was a residual amount. IOW, Martin was far from being stoned out of his mind.

OAW

EDIT: Corrected measurement from 5 to 1.5 ng after Uncle Skeleton pointed out my earlier mistake. Even bolded it for his viewing pleasure.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Jesus, get a grip. If you know all that stuff, so does the girlfriend. She's even more motivated to concoct a whole narrative about what happened based on these other known facts than you are, filling in the gaps with her rosiest memories of her beau's character, and her darkest imagination of his killer. Her hearsay testimony means squat (unless it somehow helps the defense, in which case it would be against her own self-interest so it would be more convincing). If it agrees with other less-invested evidence, then you're better off going with that other evidence on its own.

Except cell phone records corroborate that the call that took place. And she relayed her story to the Martin family attorneys well before the 911 tapes were even released. And the story didn't change after the 911 tapes were released. Hence the controversy over the Sanford PD failing to contact her. Now if you are going to dismiss it as a "concoction" because of this ... well then the same would go for the Zimmerman family right?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i

So do opiates and cocaine. I guess they aren't a drug either? Your position is indefensible. Because it grows in the ground, its not a drug? You've been smoking too much plant, OAW.

Couldn't let this one slide. Indeed opiates and cocaine come from plants. But the same applies to most drugs. The thing is to get heroin or cocaine one has to process those plant extracts in a lab. IOW, one has to apply an artificial chemical process to produce the drug in question. Quite the contrary with marijuana as it is just the leaf of the plant in its natural, dried state. With that being said, aspirin was originally produced by applying a chemical process to the bark of a willow tree to turn it into a paste or powder. So is a willow tree now a "drug"?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Except cell phone records corroborate that the call that took place. And she relayed her story to the Martin family attorneys well before the 911 tapes were even released. And the story didn't change after the 911 tapes were released. Hence the controversy over the Sanford PD failing to contact her. Now if you are going to dismiss it as a "concoction" because of this ... well then the same would go for the Zimmerman family right?

OAW

Yes, duh. Your thinking is clearly becoming clouded on this issue.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So its okay to be high?

On pot? Sure. Why not?

Much better than being drunk, which FWIW is generally considered okay.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, duh. Your thinking is clearly becoming clouded on this issue.

Actually ... not really. But since the standard now is to dismiss out of hand any statement that may be self-serving ... then parity demands we must now do the same for Zimmerman's story itself. Yet interestingly enough, that seems to be the crux of the entire debate now. Whether or not Zimmerman's story is true and Martin sucker punched him for no reason and beat him to within an inch of his life? Imagine that.

OAW

[andi*pandi]

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually ... not really. But since the standard now is to...

See right there, you're doing it again. You're too anxious for there to be a yes or no answer to everything right here right now. It stinks of desperation.

You asked how there could be a "theory" for this hearsay evidence, and I gave you one (one you've been using since jump street). That isn't a "standard," it's a "doubt." You're trying to leverage it into some sort of hard evidence, and it comes across as grasping at straws. Just ask yourself what you'd think of your behavior if it was coming from the Zimmerman camp. If Zimmerman's girlfriend told defense lawyers that she heard Zimmerman saying "what's happening? Why am I being victimized right now?" and someone here said "what about that, Zimmer-phobes? What's the theory for why he would say that if he wasn't the victim?" Do you think you would take that as a sign they were losing their perspective? Be honest.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

See right there, you're doing it again. You're too anxious for there to be a yes or no answer to everything right here right now. It stinks of desperation.

You asked how there could be a "theory" for this hearsay evidence, and I gave you one (one you've been using since jump street). That isn't a "standard," it's a "doubt." You're trying to leverage it into some sort of hard evidence, and it comes across as grasping at straws. Just ask yourself what you'd think of your behavior if it was coming from the Zimmerman camp. If Zimmerman's girlfriend told defense lawyers that she heard Zimmerman saying "what's happening? Why am I being victimized right now?" and someone here said "what about that, Zimmer-phobes? What's the theory for why he would say that if he wasn't the victim?" Do you think you would take that as a sign they were losing their perspective? Be honest.

Be honest? I think if one were to look at the totality of the evidence to date ... independent of the testimony of this girl that you see so inclined to discount ... and be "honest" about it all? Then there is NOTHING to suggest unprovoked aggressiveness on the part of Martin in the situation other than Zimmerman's word. Yet OTOH, we have incontrovertible evidence of George "These assholes ... they always get away" Zimmerman's determination to make sure Martin didn't. Otherwise, why run after him in the rain against the 911 dispatcher's instructions? Again to do what? Chat about the weather? And let's not forget that we also have evidence of Zimmerman's first public statement in this case in his "apology" to Martin's parents being demonstrably false. So if in your view that constitutes me "grasping at straws", well then ....

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Be honest? I think if one were to look at the totality of the evidence to date ... independent of the testimony of this girl that you see so inclined to discount ... and be "honest" about it all? Then there is NOTHING to suggest unprovoked aggressiveness on the part of Martin in the situation other than Zimmerman's word. Yet OTOH, we have incontrovertible evidence of George "These assholes ... they always get away" Zimmerman's determination to make sure Martin didn't. Otherwise, why run after him in the rain against the 911 dispatcher's instructions? Again to do what? Chat about the weather? And let's not forget that we also have evidence of Zimmerman's first public statement in this case in his "apology" to Martin's parents being demonstrably false. So if in your view that constitutes me "grasping at straws", well then ....

OAW

Yes, absolutely. You have many perfectly good ropes to grasp at. I don't know why you would risk casting doubt on those, by treating this flimsy twig of straw like it's another rope.

Look at it this way, Zimmerman was there, in person. Obviously you don't take his word for what happened (nor should you), even though he mixes his lies with the truth. If you go and take the girlfriend's word for what happened, when she wasn't even there, and not only that you attack people like me who are on your side, simply for not being as blindly zealous as you, then you're a hypocrite. And a jerk. Get some perspective back.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, absolutely. You have many perfectly good ropes to grasp at. I don't know why you would risk casting doubt on those, by treating this flimsy twig of straw like it's another rope.

Look at it this way, Zimmerman was there, in person. Obviously you don't take his word for what happened (nor should you), even though he mixes his lies with the truth. If you go and take the girlfriend's word for what happened, when she wasn't even there, and not only that you attack people like me who are on your side, simply for not being as blindly zealous as you, then you're a hypocrite. And a jerk. Get some perspective back.

You see this is where it seems like you're choosing to be willfully blind to what I'm saying. I mean I just said take the girl's sworn testimony out of it. And go by the incontrovertible evidence alone. The "ropes" as opposed to the "straws" as you put it. Are you saying that there is evidence to suggest unprovoked aggression on Martin's part other than Zimmerman's word? It seems not because you just said that I shouldn't take his word for it! And furthermore, exactly where did I "attack" you? All I said was is if that's how you see it (i.e. "grasping at straws") then ... oh well.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You see this is where it seems like you're choosing to be willfully blind to what I'm saying. I mean I just said take the girl's sworn testimony out of it.

No. That's the only thing I was responding to. You asked for a "theory" of how this single piece of information could be explained, and I gave one. That's when you spazzed out

And furthermore, exactly where did I "attack" you?

I guess maybe you don't realize this, but your aggressive use of bold text often comes across as hostile and condescending, like your audience is too dumb realize what the important part is and you're in no mood to let them decide for themselves.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. That's the only thing I was responding to. You asked for a "theory" of how this single piece of information could be explained, and I gave one. That's when you spazzed out

Fair enough. But again, there isn't just that single piece of information involved. Some eyewitnesses say Zimmerman was on top. Others say Martin was on top. Different eyewitnesses see different things at different times ... which is to be expected if two people are wrestling on the ground as the 911 tapes indicate.

More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN.com

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I guess maybe you don't realize this, but your aggressive use of bold text often comes across as hostile and condescending, like your audience is too dumb realize what the important part is and you're in no mood to let them decide for themselves.

Well now who's "grasping at straws"? I suppose I don't realize that because I use formatting for emphasis alone. And it is in no way meant to be "hostile and condescending". On those occasions when condescension is warranted do trust and believe I'm quite capable of unleashing a zinger that will leave no doubt. And I'm not one to go there for no reason because I only respond like that in kind. For instance that "reading comprehension" comment I sent in Snow-i's direction a few posts up. After those "Didn't think I would have to spell that one out for you." ... "Because you're too lazy to click my link" ... and "I apologize if I over estimated your critical thinking skills." comments that were sent my way ... well let's just say that my retort was not only factual but its tone was well-deserved.

Having said that, I've been on these boards for well over a decade now. One thing I know for a fact is that a significant number of the regulars don't always read an entire post regardless of its length ... they just skim it for the highlights. Not a criticism ... just an observation made readily apparent by their responses. I submit that formatting aids in getting one's point across for those who fall into the latter category. In any event, your opinion on the matter is duly noted.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Cannabis (drug) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Right there in the name

I think you are brainwashed into demonizing marijuana.

From your link, it looks like alcohol and tobacco is a worst in terms of 'physical harm' and 'dependence'.

I never understood why conservatives, who are against big government, tends to favor keeping marijuana illegal, as it is somehow worst than alcohol or tobacco. My guess is that they are more easily brainwashed in going against their core beliefs of being against big government telling them what they can eat, drink, or smoke.




What's next? Rally against caffeine?

OMG. Martin has caffeine in his blood! He must have been drinking soda or coffee. Having caffeine must have justified Zimmerman shooting him.

Caffeine is also a drug; A psychoactive drug.

Caffeine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline xanthine alkaloid that acts as a stimulant drug.
...
In humans, caffeine acts as a central nervous system stimulant, temporarily warding off drowsiness and restoring alertness. It is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^

So those levels could have dropped to 5 ng/ml 30 minutes later ... an hour later ... or three hours later.

OAW

.

If his level was 7, higher than it typically falls to within three hours, than you can safely assume he had smoked within three hours.

If the effects of the drug are only reduced 3-4 hours after smoking, he was still under the effects of the drug.


You're challenging my reading comprehension while failing to grasp a high school level logical reasoning problem? Thank goodness they'll never let you in a courtroom. I would fear for all of our safety.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Having said that, I've been on these boards for well over a decade now. One thing I know for a fact is that a significant number of the regulars don't always read an entire post regardless of its length ...

OAW

Like how you didn't read the article that you posted yourself?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

.

If his level was 7, higher than it typically falls to within three hours, than you can safely assume he had smoked within three hours.

Actually, you misread it. His THC level was only 1.5 ng/ml, according to OAW's quote (I don't see a link to that source). The figure of 7 ng/ml was for a completely different chemical, THC-COOH, which is a biological metabolite of THC. The figure given for metabolism rate applied to THC, not the metabolite. However, since OAW decided not to bold that last part, the intention seems to be for it to be overlooked