Trayvon Martin- How and why and what the hell

[DaveShoelace]

compare and contrast

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

That's pretty sickening

[kinboshi]

Compare and contrast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

[titaniumbean]

ones off white ones black. she obv should get punished for that alone amirite.

I wonder how Obamas stood near US police for so long and still not been shot in the back.........

[MTT DESTROYER]

If a guy on drugs was smashing your skull repeatedly into the pavement after breaking your nose would you use the gun then?

[Jon MW]

If a guy on drugs was smashing your skull repeatedly into the pavement after breaking your nose would you use the gun then?

How is that in any way comparable to what is being discussed?

[Alverton]

If a guy on drugs was smashing your skull repeatedly into the pavement after breaking your nose would you use the gun then?

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

[Dino]

That was Zimmermans defense.

[MTT DESTROYER]

Yes, now i'm confused, have you read about the case? His defense etc?

[Marky147]

Yes, now i'm confused, have you read about the case? His defense etc?

Not sure what drugs have to do with anything...

The autopsy showed that he had a miniscule amount of THC in his blood/urine, the levels were so low that they can be seen for days after smoking and as such it would have played no part in his behaviour.

[Jon MW]

and he had injuries consistent with a single hit - e.g. like somebody trying to defend themselves after being chased by someone who'd just got out of their car to catch them.

i.e. it would be relevant if it was true, but that it was his defence doesn't it make it so

[MTT DESTROYER]

Yes, now i'm confused, have you read about the case? His defense etc?

Not sure what drugs have to do with anything...

The autopsy showed that he had a miniscule amount of THC in his blood/urine, the levels were so low that they can be seen for days after smoking and as such it would have played no part in his behaviour.

So we agree he had drugs in his system (i'm just playing devils advocate, i'm sure the defense would argue THC causes paranoia, anxiety, long term brain damage etc even years after smoking).

Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing his innocence, i'm just shocked that people are surprised he was found not guilty, the jury had all the evidence available and made their decision based on that evidence.

I was just interested in the answers to the question I asked:

If a guy on drugs was smashing your skull repeatedly into the pavement after breaking your nose would you use your gun?

[Marky147]

Yes, now i'm confused, have you read about the case? His defense etc?

Not sure what drugs have to do with anything...

The autopsy showed that he had a miniscule amount of THC in his blood/urine, the levels were so low that they can be seen for days after smoking and as such it would have played no part in his behaviour.

So we agree he had drugs in his system (i'm just playing devils advocate, i'm sure the defense would argue THC causes paranoia, anxiety, long term brain damage etc even years after smoking).

Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing his innocence, i'm just shocked that people are surprised he was found not guilty, the jury had all the evidence available and made their decision based on that evidence.

I was just interested in the answers to the question I asked:

If a guy on drugs was smashing your skull repeatedly into the pavement after breaking your nose would you use your gun?

Martin's autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin's behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

"This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes," Kobilinsky said. "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out."

I will defer to the experts

I'm not surprised at all from what I have read, but I think it is a joke that he did get away with it.

[Jon MW]

Self defence is a perfectly legitimate reason, and if you were somewhere which allowed guns then it's no issue that you'd use one for self defence.

There's perfectly good analysis to show the not guilty verdict was absolutely correct as a point of law.

But only because the law is written such that it's perfectly legal to push anyone further and further until they turn on you - then you can legally shoot them.


The issue's are that, it's clearly a ridiculous concept to have enshrined in law and that it only seems to apply if you're not black.

[titaniumbean]

Why are we arguing about an argument that cant be won, about something that is clearly stupid and indicative of a wider US problem of the bulk of them being morons.


Saw a great chart on twitter for zimmerman bingo lemme go find.

Click to see full-size image.