[OAW]

^^^^

Ummm ... ok. But the fact remains that a little Google Fu on "'trayvon martin' lean" brings up not a single reputable news site reporting on this "story" in the first 10 pages. Admittedly I stopped looking after that because these little gems that I did come across that are trashing the victim with this "story" speak volumes:

bluegrassbulletin.com
dailypaul.com
theconservativetreehouse.com
worldnetdaily.com (aka "birther central")
conservativepapers.com
rightsidenews.com
angrywhiteguy.com
stormfront.org (aka "neo-nazi central")
patriotaction.net
niggermania.net (aka "need I say more?")

And that list was gleaned from just the first 5 pages of search results. So you can say my "mind is completely fixed an inflexible" all you want. I will just say that a dismissal is not a rebuttal. And just let the company you are keeping on this "lean" crap speak for itself.

OAW

[Shaddim]

I suggest you lookup "trayvon martin dxm" and "trayvon martin Robitussin", then glance through the 1000s of mentions, and not just cherry-picking the ones from the extreme Right.

In high enough doses, like what you'd find in a full bottle of "Robo", the effects mimic PCP and ketamine (aka. Special K and "speks"). Along with the euphoria, you often get; paranoia, hallucinations, erratic and oftentimes violent behavior, especially when mixed with roxys, hydros, or pot. In my little county 18 kids have been arrested for DXM abuse and public intoxication in the last month, which is almost 1% of all the teens who live here, one of which actually attacked an armed police officer when approached (even bit him). It's dangerous, and not just because of the mood swings, but because the amount of acetaminophen being ingested can cause your liver and kidneys to shut down.

[OAW]

Mentions? WTF is this ... Twitter? I just did the search as you suggested and guess what? Not a single reputable new site is running with this story in the first 10 pages of results. It's a concoction of right wing blogs designed to trash TM. Many of which are the same sites listed above. There's no need for us to argue this point because anyone can do the search for themselves and clearly see that my characterization of the sites running with this story is most definitely accurate. Again, people can disagree with me to their heart's content. But nobody on this board can demonstrate that I am someone who doesn't back up what he says. And to that end ... I posted a link to the actual TM autopsy report some time ago. Didn't mention anything about the kid being high on "lean", "purple drank", "DXM" or whatever you want to call it. Now did it?

OAW

[subego]

If there's cherry picking, it's due to the search term. If you use "lean" (which I'd never heard) or "purple drank" (which I have heard of), all the hits come up as pretty whacko.

[subego]

I confirm OAW's observation. Three pages in with "Robitussin" as the term and they're all fruit loop sites.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Mentions? WTF is this ... Twitter? I just did the search as you suggested and guess what? Not a single reputable new site is running with this story in the first 10 pages of results. It's a concoction of right wing blogs designed to trash TM. Many of which are the same sites listed above. There's no need for us to argue this point because anyone can do the search for themselves and clearly see that my characterization of the sites running with this story is most definitely accurate. Again, people can disagree with me to their heart's content. But nobody on this board can demonstrate that I am someone who doesn't back up what he says. And to that end ... I posted a link to the actual TM autopsy report some time ago. Didn't mention anything about the kid being high on "lean", "purple drank", "DXM" or whatever you want to call it. Now did it?

OAW

You mean the autopsy report that showed liver damage consistent with Robo (APAP) abuse? As I mentioned earlier. You can keep dancing, but I'm not going to be your partner on this issue anymore. Martin had all the earmarks of a drug-abusing wannabe thug, and if you can't even consider that as a possibility, then there's no reason to discuss the subject with you.

[OAW]

OMG! Do you even bother to actually READ the autopsy report or do you simply parrot some wingnut site and their characterization of it?

HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM

The liver weights 1110 grams and presents a brown, smooth, glistening surface. Focal patchy yellow discoloration, due to mild fatty metamorphosis, is present. On sectioning, the hepatic parenchyma is yellow-brown, homogenous, and congested.

So TM had some "mild" fat in his liver which is normal. He also had some "congestion" in the liver that was revealed upon cutting into it. But where could this come from?

The liver is perhaps the most congested organ in the modern person. Too much stress, rich and greasy foods, late heavy meals, alcohol, fat, oils, meat, dairy, eggs, chemicals, intoxicants, and denatured food all interfere with the numerous biomedical processes of the liver.

A Congested Liver: The Root Cause of Many Symptoms & Disease » » Dr Verena

There are basically two main causes of liver congestion. Let us see these in detail.

The first is when the liver is unable to detoxify the waste in a proper manner. When there is an excess intake or presence of toxins in the blood, the liver might not be able to function properly.

Another problem that can lead to liver congestion is the presence of excess carbohydrates in your diet. The liver is responsible for carbohydrate metabolism and also for the maintenance of a normal blood glucose level. If the blood glucose level is low, then the liver can break the glycogen to release energy for the body. But, if the blood glucose level increases then this might hinder in the proper functioning of the liver and cause liver congestion

What Causes a Congested Liver? | healthguidance.org

But out of ALL those explanations for "liver congestion" ... which quite frankly sounds like the typical American diet .... instead you latch onto "purple drank" and the operative phrase "consistent with". Well consistent with what? Oh yeah ... you said "liver DAMAGE". But what did the autopsy report say about that when they dug a little deeper?

Microscopic Examination

LIVER: No diagnostic abnormality.

You see ... this is the type of public embarrassment that you could have easily avoided by just reading the autopsy report for yourself. Because had you done so it might have actually occurred to you that this BS you are spouting is easily debunked with a few minutes of simple research. I mean of all people on this board to try to slip that kind of foolishness by ... you try me? Like seriously ... you really thought that was going to work?

So exactly which part of the autopsy verbiage with respect to the kid's liver indicates TM was high on "lean", "purple drank", etc.? You know ... something that might actually be relevant to the night in question when GZ killed him? I already put the quotes there for you. I'll wait.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I confirm OAW's observation. Three pages in with "Robitussin" as the term and they're all fruit loop sites.

Which begs the question. Was it "cherry picking" or merely a "representative sample"? IJS ...

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But he didn't lose him. He thought he had, and then the next thing he said was nope he's right behind me. Are you saying neither was running, despite GZ's clear description "he's running?" Was GZ talking about a different "he" besides TM?

First, TM didn't say that GZ was right behind him, you manufactured that. Second, I believe Trayvon had been running at one point, but it is neither clear to me that GZ was "chasing" (meaning, running after) TM nor is it clear to me that TM continued to run until GZ caught him. I believe had TM continued running -- he'd be alive today.

"Generally," eh? "Generally" implies exceptions. Is one of the exceptions when you just tried running, only to find that when you thought you had lost them, they were still right behind you?

From testimonies for the Defense and Prosecution; I don't believe their close proximity was entirely GZ's doing. You're saying "right" behind and I disagree. If "at" is half a block away, "behind" could certainly be further in proximity than right behind... right?

Um, you said he initiated by hitting (etc). I asked you what evidence of this, and you gave:
1. TM speaks first (that was picked up by the phone, at least)

I said the first known illegal act was upon the first blow of altercation. The available evidence, yes. The phone was live after the altercation had begun, having started with words. Words that were captured by the prosecution's star witness. Per her testimony, TM initiated words...

2. There is a gap where something makes a noise

Per Jeantel, the thump and then wet grass sounds.

3. TM says "get off, get off"

Per Jeantel in testimony, TM says "get off, get off", but in her original deposition claimed she didn't know if it was TM's voice or not. Neither did TM's father. GZ had claimed from the very beginning (before being bluffed by the Investigator about it all being video-recorded on TM's phone and before lawyering-up) that he was screaming for help and I know of no discrepancies from the Defense witnesses on this factor. It should be noted, Zimmerman appeared relieved at the idea of it being video-recorded when the detective bluffed about it, responding; "thank God, I hoped someone recorded it". It should also be noted that GZ appeared to an officer first on the scene, not to have known TM was dead. On the evidence, I believe the scale is tilted heavily toward the defense here.

4. At some later point TM is hitting GZ
Is that a fair summary?

The physical evidence shows no injuries on TM other than the gunshot wound, yet multiple injuries to GZ and eyewitness testimony putting TM on top of Zimmerman.

Whether or not I think your breakdown is fair, is probably unimportant.

I can see how you would argue that (1) is TM "initiating" (but not by hitting), and I can see where you would argue that (4) is TM "hitting" (but not in initiating), but you haven't shown anything about the relationship implied by "A by B", and in between (1) and (4) there is evidence that someone is "on" TM prompting him to instruct "get off." Are you trying to claim that TM saying "get off" should be understood as TM launching the "hitting, jumping on, beating," etc? How are we to infer that?

As noted above in your 4-points; IMO, you're manufacturing an awful lot to maintain your arguments. Look, I started off thinking GZ was an effin' punk who deserved to get the book thrown at him -- in this thread. I didn't stop following the case at that point, that's all.

I'll be honest, I didn't watch any of the video of the trial (except what you just linked; for you, ebuddy, I will watch videos), so if there's something in the video that indicates this, that doesn't translate to text, I am willing to admit I was wrong.

I'm not wishing videos on anyone. Admitting you're wrong? I'm not sure you would at this point, but my perception is not necessarily your fault nor would you be obligated to.

I would have to manufacture evidence like GZ saying on his recorded conversation, "shit, he's running"?

See above.

Yeah, I don't follow your reasoning of how this evidence is "useful" for that. What is the use you're noticing that I'm not?

I don't think it's clear their close proximity is entirely GZ's doing. I'm noticing that TM initiated words between them. The prosecution's star witness gives us the first point at which any proximity could even be guessed. Physical evidence shows zero marks on TM establishing evidence of any injury sustained that night other than the gunshot wound. The only evidence of multiple injuries were sustained by GZ.

One person is chasing the other. This isn't ambiguous

"Chasing"

Hell, TM didn't even refer to it as a "chase" per Jeantel's testimony.

I guess if you're "not interested in being the next snow-i," then your instincts about how to achieve that are impeccable. Taking up the flag of his arguments, which you don't even agree with the accuracy of the wording of, is a good strategy for that.

That's not it at all. I'll be honest with you -- I've been surprised at your degree of passion for this case. To be clear, not that this case doesn't, by it's own tragic conclusion, merit a great deal of passion; just that you're not usually this emotionally-charged in your thought process. To such an extent that I was almost convinced that perhaps this passion had nothing to do with this particular case at all or that you weren't really buying what you were saying.

Um, yes(?) Which lesser offenses require depravity?
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Oh! Well then why didn't you just say this to begin with? 782.02; Justifiable use of deadly force. Otherwise, I don't see it.

I suppose you think that's not what I was doing with snow-i?

No, it seemed more brutal than that.

Not in the slightest. It's just that your grammatical structure "anything else is just being X" clearly implies that X is something you believe to be negative.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm without humility. I was trying to be diplomatic.

What is "moot upon trial?" How does anything you just said distinguish this case's affirmative defense from any other affirmative defense, one that would not be "moot upon trial?" Or is being "moot upon trial" something that's part of being an affirmative defense in the first place?

We've talked about this before. What I've read of the law is that the affirmative defense is given to secure a trial before your peers, at which point the burden of proof is on the prosecution. While no evidence for the defense is bad or meaningless, the burden shifts to the Prosecution to prove their charges against the defense. Honestly, this is as I understand it and could very well be projecting that onto snow-i. If that's the case and I'm missing the boat on what he's trying to say, I sincerely hope he'd correct me. Just because I stated that I would've worded this differently doesn't mean snow-i is somehow up to no good.

You've just described what a dog-whistle argument is.

huh?

I like you too.

Good! Well then I'll understand if you were to ever worry about me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Martin had all the earmarks of a drug-abusing wannabe thug, and if you can't even consider that as a possibility, then there's no reason to discuss the subject with you.

Originally Posted by OAW 

You see ... this is the type of public embarrassment that you could have easily avoided by just reading the autopsy report for yourself. Because had you done so it might have actually occurred to you that this BS you are spouting is easily debunked with a few minutes of simple research. I mean of all people on this board to try to slip that kind of foolishness by ... you try me? Like seriously ... you really thought that was going to work?

Keep plugging at it like a deranged prosecutor, denying anything he doesn't like. The fact you won't consider the possibility that Martin had a drug problem, or he had a violent nature, or that he'd had physical altercations with authority figures in the past mean nothing to you. Frankly, it's people like you who are the cause of his death, OAW, because you're too busy making excuses for his behavior instead of taking him to task for the things he's doing. There are going to be a lot more incidents like this in the future, so it would be better if you'd suck it up and admit there's a crisis, rather than blame people like GZ who end up having to deal with it.

I am embarrassed, over you continuing the side-stepping and distortion of these matters. You change and add things to suit you, and that's been very eye-opening for me.

[OAW]

^^^^

So in other words, even when your arguments are repeatedly debunked with these little things we call facts ... you continue to spout dismissals instead of rebuttals. Clearly you are coming up short when it comes to an actual counterpoint to my DECIMATION of your so-called "liver damage" evidence in the autopsy report. But that's not surprising. Because that's what happens when the facts don't support your narrative. You are making unsupported assertions ... not arguments. When you learn the difference you just might fare better in an intellectual tussle with me.

In the meantime, it doesn't matter if TM smoked weed. It doesn't matter if TM had been in some schoolyard fights. It doesn't matter if TM was pimping white girls in the school bathrooms. Because none of that would have been relevant to the night in question. When an armed man stalked an unarmed kid through a neighborhood, initiated a confrontation he could have easily avoided, and then shot him dead when he came out of a scuffle with a f*cking bandaid. You don't take a life over a punch to the face and a couple of minor cuts to the back of your head. That's some b*tchmade sh*t anyway you slice it. And if that fundamental concept escapes you then we simply have drastically different views when it comes to the appropriate use of deadly force.

OAW

[subego]

@Shaddim

Did I do the search wrong? What am I supposed to be looking for?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Shaddim

Did I do the search wrong? What am I supposed to be looking for?

You didn't do the search wrong. He just repeated some BS "purple drank" story circulating on RWNJ websites and I called him on it. As you verified with your own eyes no reputable news sites are carrying that story. But clearly he's inclined to believe it nevertheless. As I said, when the company you keep on such assertions are the birther crowd's favorite hangout, stormfront.org, and miscellaneous right-wing blogs ... that ought to give one reason to pause and consider the source. Not so much in this case apparently.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Shaddim

Did I do the search wrong? What am I supposed to be looking for?

trayvon martin dxm is the search, and I'm aware that the lion's share are Right-wing sites, but I also understand that at this point in time, saying anything negative about Martin in the mainstream is akin to career suicide (which is why most editors won't clear it in the first place). Like OAW, the big media outlets won't even talk about the possibility that he was high or impaired, or that he had a drug abuse problem. The EiC of a major newspaper told me, point blank, "we were ordered not to discuss the matter, or allow a conversation on the subject, within the bounds of this media outlet" and my jaw hit the floor. The degree that they're willing to go, even to the point of removing personal blogs on the matter, says a lot to me, and it should be a red flag to anyone who is trying to look at the entirety of this matter in an objective way. It's like the void of discussion on this subject, within the mainstream, is starting to suck the air out of the room, and like anything that's purposely ignored, it will come back to haunt them. The bulge under the rug is only going to get bigger.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^

So in other words, even when your arguments are repeatedly debunked with these little things we call facts ... you continue to spout dismissals instead of rebuttals. Clearly you are coming up short when it comes to an actual counterpoint to my DECIMATION of your so-called "liver damage" evidence in the autopsy report. But that's not surprising. Because that's what happens when the facts don't support your narrative. You are making unsupported assertions ... not arguments. When you learn the difference you just might fare better in an intellectual tussle with me.

In the meantime, it doesn't matter if TM smoked weed. It doesn't matter if TM had been in some schoolyard fights. It doesn't matter if TM was pimping white girls in the school bathrooms. Because none of that would have been relevant to the night in question. When an armed man stalked an unarmed kid through a neighborhood, initiated a confrontation he could have easily avoided, and then shot him dead when he came out of a scuffle with a f*cking bandaid. You don't take a life over a punch to the face and a couple of minor cuts to the back of your head. That's some b*tchmade sh*t anyway you slice it. And if that fundamental concept escapes you then we simply have drastically different views when it comes to the appropriate use of deadly force.

OAW

I'm saying you're incapable of reasonable discussion on this. Obfuscation, rage, and denial of likely possibilities, regarding this case, make it impossible to talk with you about it. At first I thought this was feigned outrage and forum "point-scoring", but it's real, and it isn't rational.

I don't care if it was Will Smith, Peyton Manning, or Marco Rubio that GZ was following. If he was on top of Zimmerman, at night, in the rain, punching him, then he put himself in a bad situation and he deserved to get shot.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm saying you're incapable of reasonable discussion on this. Obfuscation, rage, and denial of likely possibilities, regarding this case, make it impossible to talk with you about it. At first I thought this was feigned outrage and forum "point-scoring", but it's real, and it isn't rational.

I don't care if it was Will Smith, Peyton Manning, or Marco Rubio that GZ was following. If he was on top of Zimmerman, at night, in the rain, punching him, then he put himself in a bad situation and he deserved to get shot.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

In high enough doses, like what you'd find in a full bottle of "Robo", the effects mimic PCP and ketamine (aka. Special K and "speks").

I take it you mean the effects of when PCP and Ketamine are taken together?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I take it you mean the effects of when PCP and Ketamine are taken together?

Ketamine was developed as a faster-acting and safer replacement for PCP, for use as an anesthetic. They share many of the same effects; euphoria, dissociation, mood swings, and hallucinations, when taken in lesser (recreational-sized) doses.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's like the void of discussion on this subject, within the mainstream, is starting to suck the air out of the room, and like anything that's purposely ignored, it will come back to haunt them. The bulge under the rug is only going to get bigger.

My first taste of this was when I had posted tidbits of information that came from Jeantel's testimony and the shock of "I didn't know that" because the overwhelming majority of this evidence had to come from UK news sites. The Fourth Estate has all, but entirely disappeared from the US. Bought. In the tank. Defunct. Gone.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

trayvon martin dxm is the search, and I'm aware that the lion's share are Right-wing sites, but I also understand that at this point in time, saying anything negative about Martin in the mainstream is akin to career suicide (which is why most editors won't clear it in the first place). Like OAW, the big media outlets won't even talk about the possibility that he was high or impaired, or that he had a drug abuse problem.

Perhaps that's because the autopsy and toxicology reports didn't support this so-called "possibility".

But instead of rooting your views in the actual evidence instead you roll with a rumor-mongering smear campaign by the birther and neo-nazi crowd! And then try to hang your hat on the same old tired "mainstream media" crap when reputable news sites didn't cover a "story" based on conjecture that couldn't be corroborated. Again, even Fox News wouldn't touch this bogus story ... and they spent a good year trashing the kid. That really ought to tell you something.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps that's because the autopsy and toxicology reports didn't support this so-called "possibility".

But instead of rooting your views in the actual evidence instead you roll with a rumor-mongering smear campaign by the birther and neo-nazi crowd! And then try to hang your hat on the same old tired "mainstream media" crap when reputable news sites didn't cover a "story" based on conjecture that couldn't be corroborated. Again, even Fox News wouldn't touch this bogus story ... and they spent a good year trashing the kid. That really ought to tell you something.

OAW

Bullshit, "mainstream" media has been bought and sold, again. A lot of money has changed hands to suppress aspects of this case. The comedy in this is you still believe there are differences between the people at the top, when the reality is they're working both sides against the middle. There is no nobility on either side, and both agendas are fictitious. It's all about how the money rolls and how perception is going to be altered for someone else's purposes. Corroboration hasn't stopped people from speculating in countless other situations, but in this one it's been unilaterally suppressed.

"Neo-Nazis!" "Birthers!" Listen to yourself for a minute. How hard is it to believe that a kid who talked frequently online about getting his hands on drugs, has a best friend who gets high constantly (she mentioned it on Twitter 4 times in one week), and has physical symptoms and social issues (being kicked out of school) consistent with drug abuse, could be violent and attack someone? It isn't, in fact, it's consistent with habitual robo-trippers. That's not conspiracy shit, that's common sense and deductive reasoning. You've been had.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My first taste of this was when I had posted tidbits of information that came from Jeantel's testimony and the shock of "I didn't know that" because the overwhelming majority of this evidence had to come from UK news sites. The Fourth Estate has all, but entirely disappeared from the US. Bought. In the tank. Defunct. Gone.

I'd like to know how much has been spent shutting this down, it must be pretty impressive. Of course, it'll all eventually come to the surface, but it'll be long after this case has calmed down to a low rumble. Then it'll be, "Look what the drug companies are doing to our children!"

[The Final Dakar]

OAW, man, you need to ease up on the bold use. Its ok to emphasize words occasionally but when you're doing it that often somethings gone wrong (See Y3a and his love of caps words)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Neo-Nazis!" "Birthers!"

Whoa... hold the phone.

You can take OAW to task for a bunch of things, but you sent us on a search which ended up on Stormfront's porch.

You're killing the messenger.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whoa... hold the phone.

You can take OAW to task for a bunch of things, but you sent us on a search which ended up on Stormfront's porch.

You're killing the messenger.

That's interesting, because... No, I didn't. He suggested it first:

^^^^

Ummm ... ok. But the fact remains that a little Google Fu on "'trayvon martin' lean" brings up not a single reputable news site reporting on this "story" in the first 10 pages. Admittedly I stopped looking after that because these little gems that I did come across that are trashing the victim with this "story" speak volumes:

bluegrassbulletin.com
dailypaul.com
theconservativetreehouse.com
worldnetdaily.com (aka "birther central")
conservativepapers.com
rightsidenews.com
angrywhiteguy.com
stormfront.org (aka "neo-nazi central")
patriotaction.net
niggermania.net (aka "need I say more?")

And that list was gleaned from just the first 5 pages of search results. So you can say my "mind is completely fixed an inflexible" all you want. I will just say that a dismissal is not a rebuttal. And just let the company you are keeping on this "lean" crap speak for itself.

OAW

I said (after his post):

I suggest you lookup "trayvon martin dxm" and "trayvon martin Robitussin", then glance through the 1000s of mentions, and not just cherry-picking the ones from the extreme Right.

I know you like working the devil's advocacy hotlines, but c'mon, the drug connection is pretty obvious here.

[subego]

The robitussin search takes you to Stormfront too.

What does devil's advocacy have to do with it?

I'm not saying your hypothesis is wrong, what I'm saying is wrong is your original implication a mere search for those three terms would prove your case.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

The robitussin search takes you to Stormfront too.

What does devil's advocacy have to do with it?

I'm not saying your hypothesis is wrong, what I'm saying is wrong is your original implication a mere search for those three terms would prove your case.

I doubt Stormfront is on their payroll, but the search does bring up The Free Republic on the first page, which links to a Miami Herald article involving Martin's truancy and drug-related problems.

I didn't say "a search for these three terms will prove my case", either. I inferred that DXM and Robitussin are more accurate search terms, and they are, because they bring up a lot more hits related to the subject.

[subego]

Hence my use of the term "implied".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Bullshit, "mainstream" media has been bought and sold, again. A lot of money has changed hands to suppress aspects of this case. The comedy in this is you still believe there are differences between the people at the top, when the reality is they're working both sides against the middle. There is no nobility on either side, and both agendas are fictitious. It's all about how the money rolls and how perception is going to be altered for someone else's purposes. Corroboration hasn't stopped people from speculating in countless other situations, but in this one it's been unilaterally suppressed.

We'll just note your admission that you are just "speculating" without "corroboration".

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Neo-Nazis!" "Birthers!" Listen to yourself for a minute. How hard is it to believe that a kid who talked frequently online about getting his hands on drugs, has a best friend who gets high constantly (she mentioned it on Twitter 4 times in one week), and has physical symptoms and social issues (being kicked out of school) consistent with drug abuse, could be violent and attack someone? It isn't, in fact, it's consistent with habitual robo-trippers. That's not conspiracy shit, that's common sense and deductive reasoning. You've been had.

The problem with this is that the EVIDENCE indicates that TM smoked weed. And he had only trace amounts in his system the night in question according to the toxicology report so he wasn't even high when he was killed. Weed has never been known to make anyone "violent" or "aggressive" in the history of mankind. Sleepy and hungry yeah. But violently attack someone for no reason? Not so much. Now alcohol? That's an entirely different ball of wax. But we'll never know if GZ had been drinking that night because the Sandford PD didn't see fit to do a tox screen on him even though he had just killed an unarmed kid. What TM's friend on Twitter talks about is irrelevant because it has no impact on the events that transpired on the night of 2/26/2012. And I'll just leave it at this because your argument has seriously devolved into "short bus" territory. Pay attention now ....

If TM was a "habitual robo-tripper" as you call it ... the autopsy report would have indicated that.

Because habitual abuse does serious damage to one's liver and potentially other internal organs. But the autopsy report said nothing of the sort! Yet your persist in your "speculation without corroboration" anyway. Apparently because you have some need to believe this bogus narrative about TM despite the lack of evidence to support it. So carry on.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I doubt Stormfront is on their payroll, but the search does bring up The Free Republic on the first page, which links to a Miami Herald article involving Martin's truancy and drug-related problems.

I didn't say "a search for these three terms will prove my case", either. I inferred that DXM and Robitussin are more accurate search terms, and they are, because they bring up a lot more hits related to the subject.

And now I'm going to have to call bullshit using your own citations. From the Miami herald article ....

The Miami Gardens teen who has become a national symbol of racial injustice was suspended three times, and had a spotty school record that his family’s attorneys say is irrelevant to the facts that led up to his being gunned down on Feb. 26.

.
.
.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by schools police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

The punishment was the third for the teen. On Monday, the family also said Trayvon had earlier been suspended for tardiness and truancy.

Read more here: SANFORD: Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

The bottom line is that this article says that in Oct. 2011 TM was suspended for putting graffiti on school property. Then in Feb. 2012 he was suspended for an empty bag in his locker with trace amounts of marijuana. And sometime prior to Oct. 2011 he was suspended for being late to or skipping some classes. All of this has been well circulated in the news media. And it's something that most people would attribute to "immature teenage boy" behavior ... especially if he were a white kid from the suburbs.

The million dollar question though is ... where exactly do you and FreeRepublic.com get anything about Robitussin, DXM, "lean", or "purple drank" out of that? Seeing as how nothing of the sort is mentioned anywhere in the article?

You see what you are doing is throwing out "speculation without corroboration" about "purple drank" .... when the only sources for this "story" are a bunch of right-wing blogs. You pick one whose name isn't patently racist and remark about how it links to a Miami Herald article which gets into TM's "drug-related problems". Conveniently using a rather generic term designed to imply some sort of credibility to FreeRepublic.com's article because both were talking about "drugs" ... when in fact they were referencing two very different things. It's transparent. It's tired. And it ought to be beneath you.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Yep, just like a brick wall, and exactly what I expected (altering and twisting things again).

Common sense says he was becoming a f*cked up thug, if he wasn't already, but go on and ignore it. It's not like the situation can get much worse, right? Good luck with that.

[OAW]

Speaking of FreeRepublic.com ....



Now that's a really reputable news site for you I'm telling you!

What i find interesting about this Facebook conversation that TM supposedly had as scooped by this crack reporter named "NOBO2012" is that it's not sourced at all. Other than TM's "Facebook History". How would this person even have access to that? And nowhere does it mention if this was his Inbox or his Timeline (or Wall as it was called back then). But let's put all that aside for now. I just find it odd ... and quite telling ... that there no timestamps on any of the messages in this supposed conversation. Just a date. And anybody with a Facebook account knows that all posts are timestamped. But this is the type of foolishness that certain people are hanging their hat on.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Yep, just like a brick wall, and exactly what I expected (altering and twisting things again).

Common sense says he was becoming a f*cked up thug, if he wasn't already, but go on and ignore it. It's not like the situation can get much worse, right? Good luck with that.

Never mind Shaddim. It is obvious that you will say anything to trash TM. You rely upon this type of crap shown directly above ... your reference I might add ... to formulate your position. When challenged on your own links that don't even remotely support your position you claim I'm the one "altering and twisting" things. As opposed to just being intellectually honest and admitting that they neither say what you explicitly claimed nor implied. I've thrashed you sufficiently about this "purple drank" foolishness. Any more would serve no point. Wake me when you manage to say something even marginally substantive.

OAW

[OAW]

In April 2012, two days before George Zimmerman was arrested for the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, he huddled with a fellow neighborhood watch volunteer, Frank Taaffe. According to Taaffe, who disclosed the meeting on Fox News, Zimmerman asked him to share "several talking points" with the media. Taaffe obliged. Indeed, as Zimmerman's legal drama unfolded over the next year and a half, Taaffe emerged as his most visible and outspoken defender. He gave hundreds of interviews to media outlets, ranging from the New York Times to Fox News to CNN, and made near-daily appearances on cable news shows during Zimmerman's trial.

Taaffe used this platform to cast Martin as a drug-addled hoodlum and Zimmerman as a community-minded do-gooder ("the best neighbor you would want to have") who had every reason to suspect the black teen was up to mischief. He also railed against Zimmerman's critics, whom he accused of staging a witch hunt. "It's really sad that he has already been convicted in the public media and has already been sentenced to the gas chamber," he lamented in an interview with NBC's Miami affiliate last year.

Taaffe was hardly the ideal person to be weighing in on a case suffused with racial angst—or commenting on criminal-justice matters, period. A Mother Jones investigation has found that the 56-year-old New York native has a lengthy criminal record that includes charges of domestic violence and burglary, and a history of airing virulently racist views. Just last Sunday, he appeared on The White Voice, a weekly podcast hosted by a man named Joe Adams, who has deep, long-standing ties to white-power groups and has authored a manual called Save The White People Handbook. (Sample quote: "A mutt makes a great pet and a mulatto makes a great slave.")

During a previous White Voice appearance, on July 27, Taaffe argued that whites and blacks have no business mingling. ("They don't want to be with us and we don't want to be with them.") Taaffe also opined that if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin, he was justified in doing so because "young black males" had burglarized homes in their neighborhood. "What if I—a middle-aged white man—wore a hoodie and went through Trayvon Martin's neighborhood?" he asked defiantly. Adams replied that "no sane white person" would dare walk down their "local Marcus Garvey Boulevard."

"I'd only be there for one or two things," Taaffe shot back. "And I'm sure the vice squad would want to be interested in that."

In Taaffe's case, though, the comments about blacks' supposed criminality are thick with irony. According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Orange County Clerk of Courts, Taaffe has been arrested or faced criminal charges nearly a dozen times and logged at least two convictions. Last year, Taaffe was taken into custody for driving under the influence. He pleaded no contest to a lesser charge of reckless driving related to alcohol use and received six months' probation. He's also been charged with battery and two cases of "repeat violence." (Taaffe told Mother Jones that these were "frivolous" charges filed by "disgruntled" former coworkers.)

Many of the other entries on Taaffe's rap sheet stem from domestic-violence complaints filed by his second wife and their son. In 2000, he was arrested for burglary—the very crime he alleges "young black males" were committing in his community—after allegedly swiping some papers from his ex-wife's home. Taaffe pleaded no contest to a lesser charge of trespassing, and was sentenced to nine months in prison. According to police reports, he was later charged with stalking and with child abuse after his son, William, jumped out of a moving car, allegedly to escape his father's angry, profanity-laced tirade. Taaffe maintains these charges stemmed from false complaints filed by his then-wife, who persuaded William to corroborate the accusations so she could get more assets in their divorce. "She used my son as leverage against me for her own personal and monetary gain," he told Mother Jones.

Taaffe—who has railed against absentee black fathers—was a marginal figure in the lives in his own children. Vincent, his eldest son from his first marriage, who died in a car crash last year, didn't speak to him. (Taaffe says this was because Vincent was outraged over his involvement in the Zimmerman case: "I was ostracized by members of my own family for supporting George.") William, who struggled with addiction and emotional problems after his parents' brutal divorce, cycled in and out of rehab before dying of a drug overdose in 2008. According to a source close to the family who provided photocopies, he left behind an angst-filled notebook, with these words scrawled across the final pages: "**** you, Dad, I never thought a father could be so bad…I'm your son, the one you ditched."

George Zimmerman's Biggest Defender: A Racist With a Criminal Past | Mother Jones

It goes on. And it's well sourced. This guy was the originator (along with GZ'z brother and father) of the smear campaign against TM. And pardon the pun ... but it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

[Snow-i]

OAW is right guys.

This is definitely a conspiracy to keep the black man down. George Zimmerman knew exactly what he was doing, and the police played right into his hands. It's obvious that Republicans hate black people, so we're all obviously in on it too.

Evidence? What evidence? Everyone knows that when there's any sort of doubt you always have to convict. Otherwise, you're racist...or something.

[lpkmckenna]

It's fun to see someone get justifiably curb-stomped. Good job as always, OAW.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It's fun to see someone get justifiably curb-stomped. Good job as always, OAW.

I do try.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yep. I concur. My neighbor is a bona fide, card-carrying member of the US Communist party, and I talk with him fairly often, but that doesn't mean I'm a "Red".

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It's fun to see someone get justifiably curb-stomped. Good job as always, OAW.

Only in your Canadian fantasy world. Your indorsement is the kiss of death, as usual, chuckles.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm dyin' over here!

Who makes all these perfect little clips?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm dyin' over here!

ditto. that was gold, jerry. gold!

[OAW]

Sorry guys. Thursday nights for me was The Cosby Show, A Different World, and NY Undercover back in those days. I've literally never seen an episode of Seinfeld. Or Friends for that matter. Someone will need to explain the reference to me.

OAW

[Chongo]

He's watching KKKramer(Michael Richards) do his routine at the Laugh Factory.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Sorry guys. Thursday nights for me was The Cosby Show, A Different World, and NY Undercover back in those days. I've literally never seen an episode of Seinfeld. Or Friends for that matter. Someone will need to explain the reference to me.

OAW

I believe the clip was used to demonstrate that this thread had taken a horrible turn, off into the abyss of the absurd.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who makes all these perfect little clips?

The internet.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I believe the clip was used to demonstrate that this thread had taken a horrible turn, off into the abyss of the absurd.

My rationale for leaving was now its come out that one of Zimmerman's closest supporters is a virulent racist. This doesn't indict Zimmerman himself, but its just another reminder of the type of people who seem so drawn to that side of that case. He's so racist and worthless as a human being. It's utterly depressing.

The short version is "I can't take [the news that keeps coming out about this case] anymore, it's too much, I'm outta here."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

He's watching KKKramer(Michael Richards) do his routine at the Laugh Factory.

Seinfeld didn't abandon his friendship with Richards, yet people aren't ranting about him being a bigot.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Seinfeld didn't abandon his friendship with Richards, yet people aren't ranting about him being a bigot.

Well he'd have to be in the public eye. And whatever was left of his career was completely killed that night. No point in ranting about someone who has been completely marginalized.

[OAW]

@Dakar,

Here's something that's non-GZ oriented that's still very relevant to the thread. Which again goes back to the reason why I started the thread in the first place.

Florida prosecutors said Tuesday they would not file homicide charges against a 17-year-old who fatally shot a community choir director in the face, citing the state’s Stand Your Ground law.

In a memo released Tuesday, prosecutors explained that Tyrone Pierson was justified in using deadly force when he encountered Julius Jerome Jacobs on the street, and Jacobs was wielding a large stick. They concluded that even though Pierson possessed the gun illegally, and even though his friends successfully escaped the confrontation by simply walking away, he was immunized by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which eliminates any duty to attempt retreat first.
Two friends who were with Pierson at the time of the incident said they were walking down the street when Jacobs “almost hit” them with his SUV, driving at high speed. Pierson yelled at the driver to slow down. Jacobs slowed down and had a “hostile exchange” with Pierson as he passed them by. Jacobs then pulled into a driveway and interacted with another individual in what the teens suspected was a drug exchange. As the teens walked by, he told them he had something for them. The teens continued walking and shortly after that, Jacobs drove toward them, got out of the car, and swung a heavy stick in their direction while yelling at Pierson. One of the teens said he ran away from Jacobs as he was driving toward them, fearing that he was going to try to run them over. Pierson fired his gun.

In a pointed analysis that makes clear Pierson would have been expected to attempt retreat before Stand Your Ground, prosecutors conclude that Pierson is now immune. The memo, obtained in full by ThinkProgress, explains:

Prior to 2005 the law in the State would require Mr. Pierson to avoid the use of deadly force by “retreating” if he could do so without endangering himself further. Under traditional self defense rules, Mr. Pierson may have been required to retreat as Mr. Smith and Mr. Crim were able to safely do. Given the other two people with Mr. Pierson avoided the conflict by fleeing, it is not unreasonable to assume Mr. Pierson could have done also. However, in 2005, the Florida Legislature substantially amended chapter 776, Florida Statutes, by a series of enactments collectively known as the Stand Your Ground Law. [...]
In that under the current law, Mr. Pierson had no duty to retreat, Mr. Jacob’s actions make Mr. Pierson immune from criminal prosecution for any murder charges stemming from the death of Mr Jacobs.

The memo goes on to explain that Pierson qualifies for immunity from any homicide charges even though he illegally possessed the gun as a minor without a concealed carry permit. Prosecutors cite a recent Florida appeals court decision that concluded, even though the famed Stand Your Ground provision passed by the Florida legislature in 2005 prohibits those who are engaged in “unlawful activity” from claiming Stand Your Ground immunity, that another provision amended at the same time authorizes the use of deadly force in similar circumstances with no explicit exception for “unlawful activity.”
Prosecutors will charge Pierson on two counts for unlawful possession, and with evidence tampering for initially lying about the location of the gun. Like many instances in which Stand Your Ground is invoked, the facts are fraught with potential misbehavior by both parties. Jacobs, a father of five and assistant church choir director, was described by friends and relatives as a “nonviolent person” who turned his life around after past run-ins with the law. But several witnesses described him yelling foul language at the teens, and one said he yelled “I’ll beat your ass.” Pierson illegally possessed a firearm, but also may have been pursued by Jacobs without much provocation. What Stand Your Ground means is that Pierson got to make the choice to fire his gun with little consequence, rather than do what his companions did, and spare a life by running away.

No Homicide Charges For Teen Who Shot And Killed A Man With An Illegal Gun, Thanks To Stand Your Ground | ThinkProgress

It really should be quite evident by now that these Stand Your Ground laws are INSANE. They encourage the escalation of conflicts to the level of deadly force that simply don't need to go there.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It really should be quite evident by now that these Stand Your Ground laws are INSANE. They encourage the escalation of conflicts to the level of deadly force that simply don't need to go there.

So they ignored that he had no gun permit, the gun was illegal, he was a minor, and, for those of you keeping score at home, black. That's like four strikes against him. Well, I certainly would have lost money betting on this one.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So they ignored that he had no gun permit, the gun was illegal, he was a minor, and, for those of you keeping score at home, black. That's like four strikes against him. Well, I certainly would have lost money betting on this one.

If the victim were white perhaps not. But since he was black also ... well just see the stats I posted earlier.

And to be fair, they didn't completely ignore all that. He's facing charges for all of that. It just didn't matter when it came to the homicide charge.

OAW