Originally Posted by dohdough It was a blood test, so that means that he more than likely smoked up before the All-Star game. It's also more than likely that he had sobered up by the time he was killed as indicated by the THC levels.

Absolutely agree. I don't think he was "high" at the time he was shot. I would have to read up a little bit more on THC testing but I know it is fat soluble unlike alcohol and that is why unlike alcohol it stays in your system (to a detectable point) for weeks after use.

However since the results that were released were blood (plasma) results it's unfair for someone to say because it was just 1.x ng/ml that he could have smoked days prior.... This is certainly not true because in as little as 8 hours after smoking it can become impossible to detect THC in the blood. That is why urine tests are used as the standard.

Which is what I have a problem with. I hate how agencies have set "standards" of what is considered acceptable levels of consumption when it is widely accepted that factors including gender, age, weight, body composition, frequency of use all play a huge part in tolerance. I'm quite positive that when I used to drink heavily even with a BAC of .20 I could function better then a 21 year old girl with a BAC of .07 but the law doesn't see it that way. In some states (using a urine or saliva test) with a marijuana concentration of just 5 ng/ml you will be convicted of an OUI and in many users all that proves is they smoked earlier that MONTH while in other states it's zero tolerance (i.e. you'll get an OUI for just having a positive test).

Oh well... back on topic.

Drugs are bad.

Originally Posted by EdRyder Legality of obtaining them or legality of effects of drug use within the court of law?

Legality of obtaining them.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 Even for you to defend a drug that is ILLEGAL and is the direct cause of tens of thousand of murders rape and kidnappings is a effing stretch. Alcohol is LEGAL and while you may not like it as many don't it is legal and if you want to change that I suggest you start writing your political reps and not use it or be a part of the problem.

It's not illegal all over the world, much less the US. If you don't think that alcohol causes murders, rapes, and kidnappings equal to or more than weed, I have a ing bridge to sell you.

As I said I know my acceptable recreational activities are legal and don't directly cause deaths rapes kidnappings and widespread economic issues coupled with corruption and bribery.

HAHAHAH...this is funny because you literally have no idea how any of your consumer items are made or sourced. Where the hell do you think the raw materials for the computer your posting your ignorant rants come from? How about your cellphone? How about your PS3? What do you think will happen to those things once you're done with them? How do you think the oil in your car is procured?

Do an inventory of how many items you own were made or have parts made in China. Do you seriously think that they're made under circumstance on the up and up? Hell, just look up all the problems with Nestle and see if you have any Nestle products.

You can defend the illegal activity and try to downplay that it is illegal and contains the problems I mentioned but you are still the one truly burying your head in the sand or maybe the pot bag?

Actually, I'm just not delusional about where it is on the scale of Bad Things. I'm also aware of how certain controlled substances have different places on the socially acceptability and criminal offense ladder.

You see how that works? I didn't defend alcohol problems by down playing it as some innocent recreation nor did I take it to something else like smoking cigarettes as being somehow worse than tens of thousands of rape murders etc etc etc (you know like you did to alcohol). You can twist it anyway you want but it is illegal and is the direct cause of all that I mentioned. I know most illegal drug users aren't aware (for obvious reasons) that their illegal crud just doesn't automatically appear like magic in their pocket when they want it but that it comes from somewhere that has direct ties to all the major criminal activities and atrocities I mentioned and there is no excuse for that type of ignorance or DENIAL.

You know what else is illegal, directly causes numerous deaths, and everyone does? Speeding.

Cant believe i just read someone try to downplay the effects alcohol can cause just because its legal. sigh

Martin's girlfriend will likely be the key to any type of successful prosecution of Zimmerman. Based on the other evidence, I think its going to be crucial for the state to somehow show Zimmerman instigated a physical confrontation. This tidbit was among the info released today.

An unnamed girl, the one identified by the Martin family attorney as Trayvon's girlfriend, may be one of the case's most important witnesses. She told prosecutors that she and Trayvon talked by cellphone on and off as he went to the store that evening. She said Trayvon told her a white man in a vehicle was watching him. Trayvon started walking, and the call cut off, she said. When she called back, "he said this man is still following him." The girl said Trayvon started running, "and then he said he lost him [Zimmerman]," she said, adding that the teen's "voice kind of changed … I could tell he was scared. And in a couple minutes, he said a man's following him again." She said Trayvon asked, "Why are you following me for?" and a man's voice said, "What are you doing around here?" Then she heard a noise, and the call cut off.

She may be the only evidence that directly contradicts Zimmerman's story. Her testimony probably still wont show who actually instigated physical contact but it would certainly go against Zimmerman's assertion he was jumped by Martin. Her credibility will be a huge factor in convicting Zimmerman IMO.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 DohDough...So you are okay with illegal drugs and use and deny that it causes everything I said? By that last post it seems you do. You see as I pointed out in my last post we can get into a conversation about fertilizer, oil, trans fat, rubber and on and on and on but I was specifically talking about marijuana in response to your post about it. The easy way to clear it up is answer my question and actually discuss it instead of trying to spin away from it. I will gladly discuss the problems with all kinds of products and activities with you but first answer my questions since you seem to have a problem with my posts about the problems with illegal drug use. You see I can discuss with honesty any of those other things so why can't you with the topic of my post that you responded to with nonsense. If you didn't want to discuss that topic then you should have ignored me and it. So man up and quit playing childish games.

How the hell do you interpret me saying that alcohol causes more harm than weed as being in denial of the harm it causes when I said it two freaking posts above yours. Seriously...WTF.

And weren't you the one that argued this turd:

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 OFF topic but since when is using an illegal drug that is directly responsible for thousands of murders and deaths considered an acceptable recreational activity? I think that is really burying the head in the sand. I prefer my recreation to be one that is a little more innocent. Just saying.

You JUST ing argued that weed being illegal should be an unacceptable form of recreation because it directly causes murders and deaths, yet you handwave alcohol despite it causing MORE deaths just because it's legal and therefore acceptable. If weed is unacceptable while directly causing less harm than alcohol, what does it say about the concept of illegality and how we define what is acceptable? And what does that say about your other recreational activities?

Hell, you were the one that wanted to take the "debate" in this direction and opened yourself up for these arguments. Don't hate on me because you can't argue your case.

Alan Dershowitz believes the murder charge should be dropped.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/d...sEnabled=false

Did you guys know that regardless of what was in his system or what he was doing that Trayvon would be alive if Zimmerman listened to the cops and didn't leave his car?

Originally Posted by perdition(troy Did you guys know that regardless of what was in his system or what he was doing that Trayvon would be alive if Zimmerman listened to the cops and didn't leave his car?

When did the cops instruct Zimmerman to stay in his car? I believe the 911 dispatcher (not a cop) told him "We don't need you to do that" in response to Zimmerman commenting that he was going to follow Martin.


But it is fun to twist words and make it sound like he disobeyed a direct order or violated a command and went rogue vigalante on Martin.

No... Martin would still be alive today if Zimmerman was never granted a concealed weapon permit.

He also responded "ok" to the dispatchers statement- a fact almost always disregarded by the media. This is no small detail because Zimmerman actually claims he was going back to his car and was confronted. Obviously, it remains to be seen what evidence exists to back up or contradict his account, but simply assuming its false without seeing all the evidence is premature. Especially given reports are he passed a voice stress test.

Originally Posted by perdition(troy Did you guys know that regardless of what was in his system or what he was doing that Trayvon would be alive if Zimmerman listened to the cops and didn't leave his car?

Yep...if he'd listened to the 9/11 dispatcher none of this would have happened.

It's NEVER a citizen's place to confront someone they think is suspicious. Call the cops and let them do their job. A citizen should never get involved unless it's a case of imminent danger where they have to defend themselves or others.

Better yet, none of it would happen if he wasn't so ing paranoid and had such a low threshold for what makes someone suspicious.

Again, stupid ass suburbanites. I'd love to see how some whackjob like Zimmerman would manage living in a city like Atlanta where even the nice areas have lots of homeless and other sketchy people stumbling around when something as simple as a black teen in a hoody is suspicious to him. Much less if he had to live in a high crime hot spot in a bad area of a big city.

Originally Posted by GBAstar When did the cops instruct Zimmerman to stay in his car? I believe the 911 dispatcher (not a cop) told him "We don't need you to do that" in response to Zimmerman commenting that he was going to follow Martin. But it is fun to twist words and make it sound like he disobeyed a direct order or violated a command and went rogue vigalante on Martin. No... Martin would still be alive today if Zimmerman was never granted a concealed weapon permit.

If you really want to play the technicality game, Zimmerman is technically guilty of stalking Martin according to Florida law.

While your assertion that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman was never given a CCW is correct, but are you saying that he'd kill someone eventually, his history should have restricted him from getting one, or that CCW is bad in general?

Originally Posted by caltab He also responded "ok" to the dispatchers statement- a fact almost always disregarded by the media. This is no small detail because Zimmerman actually claims he was going back to his car and was confronted. Obviously, it remains to be seen what evidence exists to back up or contradict his account, but simply assuming its false without seeing all the evidence is premature. Especially given reports are he passed a voice stress test.

Zimmerman also claims that he was walking back to check the street he was on...after he was able to identify his exact location from a car in the rain...in a neighborhood that he patrols...a neighborhood with 3 whole streets to keep track of. I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor on this one and say that Zimmerman is full of shit.

Also, if by voice stress test, you mean a lie detector test, they're inadmissible in court. Even if he "passed," the prosecution would never allow it.

"lie detectors" are usually polygraphs, which don't measure any kind of sound, let alone stress in your voice.

Voice stress analysis is just another form of lie detector tests. Also not found to be very accurate.

http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voic...s-analysis.htm

Originally Posted by Clak "lie detectors" are usually polygraphs, which don't measure any kind of sound, let alone stress in your voice.

You're absolutely right. I just bunched them together because lie detector tests, in whichever form they take, are pure hokum and a tool that law enforcement uses to try and get a suspect to flip as well as being less than 100% accurate.

Originally Posted by dohdough While your assertion that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman was never given a CCW is correct, but are you saying that he'd kill someone eventually, his history should have restricted him from getting one, or that CCW is bad in general?

I'm saying that Zimmerman's history should have prevented him from getting a CCW. While I'm not a gun fanatic and I don't directly own any guns I do support the right for people to own guns for whatever reason they choose; be it for sport, for collecting or for the feeling of safety they may provide inside ones home.

I am less supportive for these same people to carry firearms outside their homes (loaded) and mingle in the general population; especially when they may have a history of mental illness or violence.


I feel pretty confident stating that had Zimmerman not had a gun no one would have lost their life (in that situation) on that evening. I'm not saying an altercation may or may not have occured and I'd even go as far as to saying that Zimmerman's approach to the entire situation would have changed (i.e. he might not of had the balls to pursue someone he deemed suspicous).

Either way Martin would still be here.


Edit: Not trying to stir the pot here because I don't think it necessarily aides either side but I read in an article that the FBI deemed but the used of a racial slur and the screaming as inconclusive; meaning that they couldn't decide if Zimmerman said coons or not or if the screaming was Zimmerman's or Martin's.

Anyone else read that?

Originally Posted by dohdough Zimmerman also claims that he was walking back to check the street he was on...after he was able to identify his exact location from a car in the rain...in a neighborhood that he patrols...a neighborhood with 3 whole streets to keep track of. I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor on this one and say that Zimmerman is full of shit. Also, if by voice stress test, you mean a lie detector test, they're inadmissible in court. Even if he "passed," the prosecution would never allow it.

heres the actual 911 call, I would say its not the way you describe:

911 dispatcher:
Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman:
Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25



This part of the call would not contradict his statement he was looking for an address. He generally knew where he was, but didn't have an actual address, which was requested by the dispatcher. I am pretty sure he never was able to give the dispatcher the name of the street he was on. I don't find it unbelievable he wouldn't know the name of the street. I live in a small neighborhood and couldn't tell you all the names of the few streets. I am sure thats not unique.

Also, I know the stress test cannot be used in court- but that doesn't mean it had absolutely no value in trying to discover the truth. Investigators use it for a reason.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Yep...if he'd listened to the 9/11 dispatcher none of this would have happened.

I want to agree with that but I know there's something deeper going on. When incidents like this happen the entire discussion gets compartmentalized into instances. Americans love to do that shit. We'd so much rather discuss the particular instances.

: If Zimmerman never left the car none of this would've happened.
: If Zimmerman wasn't on the neighborhood watch ,none of this would've happened.
:If Zimmerman didn't own a gun ,none of this would've happened.
: If he didn't carry the gun he wouldn't have felt brazen enough to confront Martin ,none of this would've happened.

:If Trayvon wasn't in the wrong neighborhood, ,none of this would've happened.
:If Trayvon wasn't wearing a hoodie and appearing "suspect" ,none of this would've happened.
:If Trayvon didn't try to confront/fight Zimmerman ,none of this would've happened.

It cant be about any 1 particular instance or a combination of them (If you're interested in changing the climate/culture)

I agree there are multiple instances--though I disagree with the first two about Trayvon. It's a free country, people can walk down the street wearing whatever they damn well please and shouldn't be deemed suspicious just because of their dress style, race or combination of the two.

But the biggest problem to me is the dumb ass suburban paranoia and the uselessness of neighborhood watch which has no impact on crime rates and promotes this type of vigilante stuff from want to be cop types. The only positive of the program is improving relationships between police and the community, but there are other programs that can do the same without involving the community in police like activities since citizens often end up "patrolling" etc. even though they're not supposed to as part of the official Neighborhood Watch program.

The neighborhood wasn't some idealic gated suburb from my understanding. It had quite a few instances of crime. It wasn't just paranoia- there was real crime taking place in that specific neighborhood. Also, neighborhood watches arent limited to suburbia, in fact I believe there are tons of them right were you live in ATL.