George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Alien Space Bats]

I hope Zimmerman wins, so then he'll have money to give Martin's family when they sue him for wrongful death. Though really I don't know why NBC bothered, given his idiotic mumbling about 'he looks like he's on drugs or something' Zimmerman didn't need any help making himself look like a paranoid wannabe lawman.

It's not clear if Florida law permits the Martins to sue Zimmerman. If he'd killed Trayvon Martin with a knife, there'd be no problem. But part of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law immunizes people who are acquitted on a self-defense claim if they used a gun from liability. You can thank the NRA for that lovely little perk to Florida gun owners.

Well, he was on drugs. It's entirely possible trayvon was acting in a manner that was consistent with looking like he was on drugs.

Let's get this straight here: There were minute quantities of THC present in his system; small quantities of THC remain in a toker's system for up to 30 days after marijuana use. Are you going to claim that a single joint will get you high for a friggin' month? No, of course not; to make that sort of claim would be ludicrous.

The ME was unable to determine if Trayvon Martin had smoked marijuana recently enough to be under the influence of the drug. If we're going to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't we give it to Trayvon Martin, too? Or is leeway something only white people get?

[Ostroeuropa]

I hope Zimmerman wins, so then he'll have money to give Martin's family when they sue him for wrongful death. Though really I don't know why NBC bothered, given his idiotic mumbling about 'he looks like he's on drugs or something' Zimmerman didn't need any help making himself look like a paranoid wannabe lawman.

It's not clear if Florida law permits the Martins to sue Zimmerman. If he'd killed Trayvon Martin with a knife, there'd be no problem. But part of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law immunizes people who are acquitted on a self-defense claim if they used a gun from liability. You can thank the NRA for that lovely little perk to Florida gun owners.

Well, he was on drugs. It's entirely possible trayvon was acting in a manner that was consistent with looking like he was on drugs.

Let's get this straight here: There were minute quantities of THC present in his system; small quantities of THC remain in a toker's system for up to 30 days after marijuana use. Are you going to claim that a single joint will get you high for a friggin' month? No, of course not; to make that sort of claim would be ludicrous.

The ME was unable to determine if Trayvon Martin had smoked marijuana recently enough to be under the influence of the drug. If we're going to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't we give it to Trayvon Martin, too? Or is leeway something only white people get?

I'm giving it to both of them.
In a toss-up, it goes to the defence.
We have to assume, for the purposes of the zimmerman trial, that since it's impossible to determine whether or not he was under the influence of marijuana but that there is in fact marijuana in his system, and all the facts are consistent with zimmermans testimony, that he is telling the truth. We can't be sure, so we have to back zimmerman.


Were this the Martin trial, I would be advocating that we must assume that the Marijuana did not influence Martin.
Incidentally, Zimmerman is Hispanic.

[The UK in Exile]

It's not clear if Florida law permits the Martins to sue Zimmerman. If he'd killed Trayvon Martin with a knife, there'd be no problem. But part of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law immunizes people who are acquitted on a self-defense claim if they used a gun from liability. You can thank the NRA for that lovely little perk to Florida gun owners.


Let's get this straight here: There were minute quantities of THC present in his system; small quantities of THC remain in a toker's system for up to 30 days after marijuana use. Are you going to claim that a single joint will get you high for a friggin' month? No, of course not; to make that sort of claim would be ludicrous.

The ME was unable to determine if Trayvon Martin had smoked marijuana recently enough to be under the influence of the drug. If we're going to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't we give it to Trayvon Martin, too? Or is leeway something only white people get?

I'm giving it to both of them.
In a toss-up, it goes to the defence.
We have to assume, for the purposes of the zimmerman trial, that since it's impossible to determine whether or not he was under the influence of marijuana but that there is in fact marijuana in his system, and all the facts are consistent with zimmermans testimony, that he is telling the truth. We can't be sure, so we have to back zimmerman.


Were this the Martin trial, I would be advocating that we must assume that the Marijuana did not influence Martin.
Incidentally, Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Are you high?

[Page]

Of course Trayvon smoking marijuana (well, him and all the other millions of high schoolers across America, and a lot more others) turned him into a bloodthirsty killer. Haven't you seen Reefer Madness? It perfectly corroborates Zimmerman's account that Trayvon hid behind that little bush (kid was tall, but he's also a shapeshifter), ambushed Zimmerman as he returned to his truck, beat him, said "you're gonna die tonight", and then saw in the dark the black gun that Zimmerman said was holstered behind him. With his x-ray vision.

Kid was basically a drug-crazed supervillain and all Zimmerman wanted was to make sure he wasn't hatching any evil schemes.
#thisiswhatmanypeoplewatchingthistrialactuallybelieve

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm giving it to both of them.
In a toss-up, it goes to the defence.
We have to assume, for the purposes of the zimmerman trial, that since it's impossible to determine whether or not he was under the influence of marijuana but that there is in fact marijuana in his system, and all the facts are consistent with zimmermans testimony, that he is telling the truth. We can't be sure, so we have to back zimmerman.


Were this the Martin trial, I would be advocating that we must assume that the Marijuana did not influence Martin.
Incidentally, Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Are you high?

Do you have an argument or not.

The ME could not tell whether or not Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of the shooting.
There was Marijuana in his system.
All of this is entirely consistent with Zimmermans story.
Unless the prosecution can show that Trayvon martin was absolutely not acting like he was under the influence of drugs, then we have to regard zimmermans story as plausible.
If it's plausible, then he wins due to the burden of proof.

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course Trayvon smoking marijuana (well, him and all the other millions of high schoolers across America, and a lot more others) turned him into a bloodthirsty killer. Haven't you seen Reefer Madness? It perfectly corroborates Zimmerman's account that Trayvon hid behind that little bush (kid was tall, but he's also a shapeshifter), ambushed Zimmerman as he returned to his truck, beat him, said "you're gonna die tonight", and then saw in the dark the black gun that Zimmerman said was holstered behind him. With his x-ray vision.

Kid was basically a drug-crazed supervillain and all Zimmerman wanted was to make sure he wasn't hatching any evil schemes.
#thisiswhatmanypeoplewatchingthistrialactuallybelieve

Since I found out Martin was on marijuana, i've become minorly convinced that Zimmerman is probably guilty due to my knowledge of how marijuana has effected probably everyone I know. The vast majority are calm and shit.
Some people.
SOME people, get paranoid and freak out.
And if you are paranoid and there is a dude following you, it's not a stretch to imagine you'd attack them.
That's enough of a reasonable doubt.
Even if I think he did it.

All the other evidence points to zimmerman being at the receiving end of the attack.

[Page]

Of course Trayvon smoking marijuana (well, him and all the other millions of high schoolers across America, and a lot more others) turned him into a bloodthirsty killer. Haven't you seen Reefer Madness? It perfectly corroborates Zimmerman's account that Trayvon hid behind that little bush (kid was tall, but he's also a shapeshifter), ambushed Zimmerman as he returned to his truck, beat him, said "you're gonna die tonight", and then saw in the dark the black gun that Zimmerman said was holstered behind him. With his x-ray vision.

Kid was basically a drug-crazed supervillain and all Zimmerman wanted was to make sure he wasn't hatching any evil schemes.
#thisiswhatmanypeoplewatchingthistrialactuallybelieve

Since I found out Martin was on marijuana, i've become minorly convinced that Zimmerman is probably guilty due to my knowledge of how marijuana has effected probably everyone I know. The vast majority are calm and shit.
Some people.
SOME people, get paranoid and freak out.
And if you are paranoid and there is a dude following you, it's not a stretch to imagine you'd attack them.
That's enough of a reasonable doubt.
Even if I think he did it.

All the other evidence points to zimmerman being at the receiving end of the attack.

If a dude is following me in a truck as I walk down a dark street, I'm at least mildly paranoid sober.

[United Meritocratic Athiest Democracy]

I hope Zimmerman wins, so then he'll have money to give Martin's family when they sue him for wrongful death. Though really I don't know why NBC bothered, given his idiotic mumbling about 'he looks like he's on drugs or something' Zimmerman didn't need any help making himself look like a paranoid wannabe lawman.

It's not clear if Florida law permits the Martins to sue Zimmerman. If he'd killed Trayvon Martin with a knife, there'd be no problem. But part of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law immunizes people who are acquitted on a self-defense claim if they used a gun from liability. You can thank the NRA for that lovely little perk to Florida gun owners.

Well, he was on drugs. It's entirely possible trayvon was acting in a manner that was consistent with looking like he was on drugs.

Let's get this straight here: There were minute quantities of THC present in his system; small quantities of THC remain in a toker's system for up to 30 days after marijuana use. Are you going to claim that a single joint will get you high for a friggin' month? No, of course not; to make that sort of claim would be ludicrous.

The ME was unable to determine if Trayvon Martin had smoked marijuana recently enough to be under the influence of the drug. If we're going to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't we give it to Trayvon Martin, too? Or is leeway something only white people get?

Unless my knowledge of this issue has failed I, Zimmerman is not white.

Or at least, if he is, it's due to lack of proper circulation.

[The UK in Exile]

Are you high?

Do you have an argument or not.

The ME could not tell whether or not Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of the shooting.
There was Marijuana in his system.
All of this is entirely consistent with Zimmermans story.
Unless the prosecution can show that Trayvon martin was absolutely not acting like he was under the influence of drugs, then we have to regard zimmermans story as plausible.
If it's plausible, then he wins due to the burden of proof.

its not consistent, its at best inconclusive. it doesn't in any sense co-oborate his story. nor is definitive proof that he's lying. it demonstrates nothing. so by your logic, we now know exactly what happened.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you have an argument or not.

The ME could not tell whether or not Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of the shooting.
There was Marijuana in his system.
All of this is entirely consistent with Zimmermans story.
Unless the prosecution can show that Trayvon martin was absolutely not acting like he was under the influence of drugs, then we have to regard zimmermans story as plausible.
If it's plausible, then he wins due to the burden of proof.

its not consistent, its at best inconclusive. it doesn't in any sense co-oborate his story. nor is definitive proof that he's lying. it demonstrates nothing. so by your logic, we now know exactly what happened.

If it's not inconsistent, it's consistent. I chose my word very carefully.
It means it's possible.
Since it's not proof either way, we have to tend toward zimmerman.
The evidence is consistent with zimmermans story.


Consistent:
Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".

Since I found out Martin was on marijuana, i've become minorly convinced that Zimmerman is probably guilty due to my knowledge of how marijuana has effected probably everyone I know. The vast majority are calm and shit.
Some people.
SOME people, get paranoid and freak out.
And if you are paranoid and there is a dude following you, it's not a stretch to imagine you'd attack them.
That's enough of a reasonable doubt.
Even if I think he did it.

All the other evidence points to zimmerman being at the receiving end of the attack.

If a dude is following me in a truck as I walk down a dark street, I'm at least mildly paranoid sober.

Precisely.

[The UK in Exile]

its not consistent, its at best inconclusive. it doesn't in any sense co-oborate his story. nor is definitive proof that he's lying. it demonstrates nothing. so by your logic, we now know exactly what happened.

If it's not inconsistent, it's consistent. I chose my word very carefully.
It means it's possible.
Since it's not proof either way, we have to tend toward zimmerman.
The evidence is consistent with zimmermans story.

no if its not inconsistent, it can still be irrelevant.

No, we don't. thats not they way logic works. you don't pick the most irrelevant bullshit detail out of an investigation and go "well it doesn't outright contradict him, therefore, we have to take him at his word".

[Ostroeuropa]

If it's not inconsistent, it's consistent. I chose my word very carefully.
It means it's possible.
Since it's not proof either way, we have to tend toward zimmerman.
The evidence is consistent with zimmermans story.

no if its not inconsistent, it can still be irrelevant.

No, we don't. thats not they way logic works. you don't pick the most irrelevant bullshit detail out of an investigation and go "well it doesn't outright contradict him, therefore, we have to take him at his word".

Consistent:
Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".

Before you call out someone on a definition, look it up first.
It's relevant because Zimmerman claimed Martin looked like he was on drugs and the defence is making a big deal out of that.

[The UK in Exile]

no if its not inconsistent, it can still be irrelevant.

No, we don't. thats not they way logic works. you don't pick the most irrelevant bullshit detail out of an investigation and go "well it doesn't outright contradict him, therefore, we have to take him at his word".

Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".
Before you call out someone on a definition, look it up first.

Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".
Before you call out someone on a definition, look it up first.

[Ostroeuropa]

Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".
Before you call out someone on a definition, look it up first.

Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".
Before you call out someone on a definition, look it up first.

Or.
Do you need me to explain Or to you?
Just admit you fucked up.


Besides which, as I pointed out, the facts are that Martin WAS on drugs.
That is, de-facto, in agreement with the statement "Looked like he was on drugs."

He was X.
He looked like he was X.
Because he is X.


Looks like an X, because it is an X.
Even if it's disguised as a Y, it still looks like an X. It's just an X in disguise.

[The UK in Exile]

Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".
Before you call out someone on a definition, look it up first.

Or.
Do you need me to explain Or to you?
Just admit you fucked up.

its compatible with absolutely any story you care to tell, because its a total irrelevancy. it is however, not in agreement with his story, because its an irrelevancy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or.
Do you need me to explain Or to you?
Just admit you fucked up.

its compatible with absolutely any story you care to tell, because its a total irrelevancy. it is however, not in agreement with his story, because its an irrelevancy.

Doesn't need to be both. That's how OR works you see.
If I offer you tea OR coffee, you don't need to have both. I'm positively shocked you need this explained to you.
As I pointed out in the edit, it is relevant it is in agreement as well, but that isn't relevant.

[The UK in Exile]

Compatible or in agreement with something: "injuries consistent with falling".
Before you call out someone on a definition, look it up first.

Or.
Do you need me to explain Or to you?
Just admit you fucked up.


Besides which, as I pointed out, the facts are that Martin WAS on drugs.
That is, de-facto, in agreement with the statement "Looked like he was on drugs."

He was X.
He looked like he was X.
Because he is X.


Looks like an X, because it is an X.
Even if it's disguised as a Y, it still looks like an X. It's just an X in disguise.

the facts are that the amount of drugs found in his system is consistent with him not being on drugs at the time.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or.
Do you need me to explain Or to you?
Just admit you fucked up.


Besides which, as I pointed out, the facts are that Martin WAS on drugs.
That is, de-facto, in agreement with the statement "Looked like he was on drugs."

He was X.
He looked like he was X.
Because he is X.


Looks like an X, because it is an X.
Even if it's disguised as a Y, it still looks like an X. It's just an X in disguise.

the facts are that the amount of drugs found in his system is consistent with him not being on drugs.

Not being under the influence of drugs.
But other than that, yes, yes they are.
So we can't be sure.
That means, zimmermans argument wins.

[The UK in Exile]

the facts are that the amount of drugs found in his system is consistent with him not being on drugs.

Not being under the influence of drugs.
But other than that, yes, yes they are.
So we can't be sure.
That means, zimmermans argument wins.
congratulations, you learned how to use a new word.

thats not what it means at all. it means the jury gets to decide.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not being under the influence of drugs.
But other than that, yes, yes they are.
So we can't be sure.
That means, zimmermans argument wins.
congratulations, you learned how to use a new word.

thats not what it means at all.

That's the burden of proof.

[Page]

This entire debate in this very thread is perfect proof of why the drug test done on Trayvon after he was deceased should have never been introduced into evidence at all.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not being under the influence of drugs.
But other than that, yes, yes they are.
So we can't be sure.
That means, zimmermans argument wins.
congratulations, you learned how to use a new word.

thats not what it means at all. it means the jury gets to decide.

Yes, and the jury has to back Zimmerman if they want to do their jobs properly.

[The UK in Exile]

thats not what it means at all.

That's the burden of proof.

thats not the burden of proof, which applies to the Charge, not to the FACTS.

[Ostroeuropa]

This entire debate in this very thread is perfect proof of why the drug test done on Trayvon after he was deceased should have never been introduced into evidence at all.

What's done is done. This entire situation has been bungled by every institution involved.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's the burden of proof.

thats not the burden of proof, which applies to the Charge, not to the FACTS.

The prosecution is alleging that Zimmerman saying "Looks like he is on drugs" shows bad faith on his part.
In order to do that, they need to show that it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
The facts are consistent with both accounts.
As such, they have failed to prove it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
As such, the Jury must acquit.