May 17, 2012

Zimmerman was right about Martin: "He's on drugs"

From ABC News:
Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System, Autopsy Found 
By MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) , SENI TIENABESO (@senijr_abc) and COLLEEN CURRY 
May 17, 2012 
Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.

THC = weed.

This is of major importance not because marijuana makes people more aggressive (it doesn't), but because it undermines the indictment's claim that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, which appears to be the prosecution's main hope in swaying the jury: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what reason could Zimmerman possibly have had for being suspicious of a black male other than his blackness? 

Well, Zimmerman explained his reasons in his 911 call:
We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [Emphasis mine]

How much worse can this get for The Narrative?

By the way, Matt Gutman of ABC has been doing a lot better work ever since Gucci Little Piggy called him out for playing Peter Fallow (the poisonous English reporter who shills for attorney Al Vogel in Bonfire of the Vanities) to attorney Benjamin Crump.

85 comments:

Anonymous said...

About the "better work" by Guttman, Steve? Maybe a tad but when you file sh-t to begin with, it takes little to inprove, right?

Check out the tone of his report to George S. here in this one minute ABC video that headlines the drug in TM's system, but which talks about GZ's injuries instead.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-documents-released-shooting-george-zimmerman/story?id=16371852

Lucius said...

But, but--marijuana's the religion of peace!

Anonymous said...

The mainstream newsmedia has been out to get Zimmerman right from day one. They are the TRUE profilers. They immediately decided Zimmerman was a "white racist" and created a fairytale narrative around it and spoonfed it to the American sheeple.

Anonymous said...

If you can't use a gun when someone is beating you to death, when can you use it?

Anonymous said...

Marijuana is not really known as a drug that promotes violent or criminal behavior.

beowulf said...

TJ: How'd you find me?
Deuce: It’s the only chicken and waffles place in Holland.
TJ: So, a black man's gotta be at a chicken and waffles place? That's racist.
Deuce: But you are here.
TJ: Yeah, but figuring it out is racist.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-was-wrong-with-this-picture.html

Baloo said...

I've checked around, and you're the first one I've found, Steve, who points out that Zimmerman suspected drugs and turned out to be right. I'm linking to this and to the Daily Mail article here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/05/trayvon-full-of-thc.html

Baloo said...

Anyhow, the left will now insist on an autopsy for Zimmerman, just to be fair.

Anonymous said...

They say Zimmerman should have stayed in his SUV. I guess the lesson is "stay as far away from black youths as possible."

Bill said...

THC in his system? Big deal. THC is fat soluble and detectable for a long time -- a lot longer than cocaine, for example. Also, it isn't exactly associated with aggression. If you say a random 17yo urban male is "on drugs," and that can be understood to mean that he tests positive for THC, you'll probably be right about half the time.

I don't think Trayvon was some innocent little boy as he's being portrayed, but using "on drugs" as a justification for shooting someone down is highly problematic.

The real issue is whether or not he initiated the assault. Whether he was stoned or not (or had been at some point in the last 30 days) shouldn't have much relevance.

Anonymous said...

Marijuana is not really known as a drug that promotes violent or criminal behavior.

Maybe not, but it is known to contribute to abnormal behavior, which coming from a strange, hooded stranger at night should be enough to put anyone on guard (and maybe to justify a call the cops if the hooded individual is wandering around in a gated community).

RKU said...

Further proof of Young Trayvon's total innocence!

Everyone knows that marijuana tends to make you "mellow." So Trayvon was clearly a bit light-headed and peaceable when his fists were suddenly subjected to an unprovoked brutal beating by Zimmerman's eyes, nose, and head...

Steve Sailer said...

"THC in his system? Big deal. THC is fat soluble and detectable for a long time -- a lot longer than cocaine, for example. Also, it isn't exactly associated with aggression."

You're missing the point.

Dahlia said...

Steve,

I commend Chuck Ross, but the best reporting and activism has come from theconservativetreehouse.com and its readers. They have been relentless and tireless in investigating and documenting everything. When books are written in the future, that site will be a veritable treasure trove.

Currently, they are going over the drug thing and here is just one comment:

Reality Check says, "...Yes the THC lasts a short period …THC breaks down very quickly into THC-COOH. They tested for BOTH .. TM had THC of 1.5/ml and THC-COOH of 7.5/ml … The fact that non metabolized THC shows up proves TM did not just have skittles and iced tea. He probably used the red lighter from 7-11 to smoke a joint."

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/17/matt-gutman-backpeddling-fast-says-thc-marijuana-in-trayvon-system/#more-39902

They found "Dee Dee" and have even made Ryan Julison and others scrub their tracks in fear.

Steve Sailer said...

One forensic question is how recent his dope smoking was.

Harry Baldwin said...

Early on in the Trayvon case, one blogger claimed that "iced tea and Skittles" were code names for drugs.

Apparently ecstasy is sometimes referred to as Skittles and "tea" is slang for marijuana--or was, anyway. Has anyone called marijuana "tea" since the 1970s?

BTW, since all these facts are now coming out, I'm still curious as to whether Trayvon actually had iced tea and Skittles on him when he was shot. Reports?

Black-eyed Susan said...

You can't make this stuff up.

It turns out Trayvon had not Arizona tea, but...........

Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail

http://www.trbimg.com/img-4fb57f02/turbine/os-pictures-evidence-photos-released-in-the-sh-015/600

http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h415/Stoltzpus/Juices-Arizona-Watermelon-Tea-1.gif

Svigor said...

Lol, so he was high, as many speculated.

You can't make this stuff up.

It turns out Trayvon had not Arizona tea, but...........

Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail


Must...re...sist...!!!

The media should petition all of these sources to hold their wad until they're all ready, then blow at once, so the media can put it all in tiny print on the back page, exhale, and move on.

Poor buggers. I almost feel sorry for them.* Death of a thousand cuts.

*not really. I'm savoring every moment. Just as I'll savor the dismissal/acquittal, and any subsequent rioting and unrest.

Svigor said...

You're missing the point.

Yeah, true, THC stays in your system for a long time. A lot less time when you're a bean pole like Trayvon was, but true, he wasn't necessarily high at the time. But then there's his sudden need for Skittles...

But it does mean he was a pot head, and the "empty MJ baggie" probably wasn't "yet another frame-up."

Svigor said...

If you can't use a gun when someone is beating you to death, when can you use it?

Your average bigmouth smallbrain libtard (the kind that dumps comments on MSM sites) makes no sense whatsoever. Matter and anti-matter all over the place. Just today, read a comment from some libtard saying that it's not self-defense if you use a gun against an unarmed assailant.

The same libtard would probably cheer if a woman used a gun to blow away her would-be rapist.

Matter/Anti-Matter. Something in the libtard brain prevents connections, pattern recognition, introspection, etc.

Svigor said...

Make that unarmed would-be rapist.

Svigor said...

Anyhow, the left will now insist on an autopsy for Zimmerman, just to be fair.

Belly laugh on that one, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Back when I was in my early teens I always left the house for a short period of time to get high. "Mom, I'm going to so and so's to do this or that", then I would go to the woods and smoke a bowl. Next, I would spray myself in cologne and then the denouement was eating something or drinking something to hide my breath.

Smoking pot in the house will stink it up to high heaven and you will get caught unless your parents are clueless. Trayvon's parents were gone but the smell lingers for hours. This is why he went for his walk (not for candy or a drink, this is incidental).

I think Trayvon left the house to smoke a bowl or joint and was returning home when the incident occurred. Smoking pot does not make an aggressive person less so. It also impacts decision making and leads to paranoia and anxiety, which could precipitate a physical altercation.

jody said...

"You're missing the point."

he's also missing the chemistry. this report means martin was high, or very recently high. probably within the last day. if you have THC in your body that means you put it in there recently. it's like finding a blood alcohol level above 0. it doesn't stay above 0 for very long.

"You can't make this stuff up.
It turns out Trayvon had not Arizona tea, but Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail"

hey man, don't bash arizona ice tea. that stuff is good! as i pointed out in the thread about brooklyn hipsters and the locavore movement, i have seen everybody BUT urban hipsters drinking it. trayvon had good taste!

Anonymous said...

Smoking dope is supposed to mellow you out maaaan. But all the bad boys where I live (UK) smoke it.

There is a high correlation between anti-social types and smoking the herb. Not what nice hippies want to dwell on but there it is.

Anonymous said...

The latest resort I see is people who previously were saying that stand your ground was such a horrible horrible thing, is that Trayvon was in the right because of stand your ground. He had the right to stand his ground against the aggressive Zimmerman, or something like that.

Anonymous said...

Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail

LOL. All stereotypes are true.

Anonymous said...

MSM is on drugs. PC-P: politically correct pap.

Display Name said...

Smoking pot in the house will stink it up to high heaven and you will get caught unless your parents are clueless.

You take a paper-towel tube.

You cram a couple of sheets of scented fabric softener into one end.

You hit the bowl.

You exhale into the tube's open end.

A light wispy scent of lavender (or whatever) emerges.

Worked for my high-school girlfriend and I for three years.

Bill said...

Steve Sailer said...
"THC in his system? Big deal. THC is fat soluble and detectable for a long time -- a lot longer than cocaine, for example. Also, it isn't exactly associated with aggression."

You're missing the point.


Maybe as far as the political/media argument goes, but if there is legal precedent for assigning culpability on the basis of having pharmacologically active substances in one's system the concept of self-defense gets pretty flimsy.

This cuts both ways, of course, and that is why it bothers me.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Steve, but the NYT is still at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/us/new-details-are-released-in-shooting-of-teenager.html?_r=1&hp

Anonymous said...

I am surprised neither Steve, nor any of his commentaries surmised that Martin might have been high on pot based on his need to walk several miles at night to get a pack of Skittles. I think they call this kind of behavior a typical symptom of "munchies."

Anonymous said...

What was Trayvon Martin doing with a lighter and a pin in his pockets?

Anonymous said...

THC... isn't exactly associated with aggression.

Marijuana is widely understood [by serious medical psychiatrists and neurologists and epidemiologists] to push "at-risk" teenagers and young adults over the edge and into full-blown schizophrenia.

[WORD TO THE WISE: If you have a familial history of schizophrenia, and if you yourself are still relatively sane, then NEVER EVER EVER EVER light up a joint!]

Anonymous said...

"I'm still curious as to whether Trayvon actually had iced tea and Skittles on him when he was shot. Reports? "

Why, of course he had it, but the white boy stole it. Put that on the charges too.

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...

With each new actual fact that emerges....I picture the Reverends Al and Jesse facepalming and bellowing increasingly louder Homer Simpson style "D'ohs".


Somewhere, Strom Thurmond is laughig his ass off about the waremelon tea

AmericanGoy said...

There you go (and other people blindly follow, nodding their heads) with your logic, facts, common sense and sanity.

This is a race matter, son.

The OJ trial proved to the world that logic, facts, common sense and sanity DO NOT MATTER one whit.

It is all down to the jury selection, and the defender will not block black jurors, because that would be racist.

This man will go to jail, have an accident, and that fact will be celebrated by people smiling and high fiving each other on the street.

Svigor said...

I am surprised neither Steve, nor any of his commentaries surmised that Martin might have been high on pot based on his need to walk several miles at night to get a pack of Skittles. I think they call this kind of behavior a typical symptom of "munchies."

Anybody who's ever had the munchies knows a pack of skittles ain't cutting it.

Anonymous said...

While I'll agree the media is slanted as hell in TM's favor. I'll just throw this up in the interest of accuracy.

from

http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm

Perez-Reyes et al[xiv] tested concentrations in experienced marijuana smokers who had refrained for 6 days prior to the experiment. Two cigarettes, with an average of 882mg cannabis at 1% THC (8.82mg THC), were smoked two hours apart, blood samples being taken every 5 minutes for the first 20 minutes after smoking, and at 10 minute intervals thereafter. The first cigarette produced a level of 70ng/ml at 10 minutes roughly 17ng/ml at 20 min, and roughly 3ng/ml at 2 hours. The second produced respective levels of 90, 17 and 5ng/ml at similar intervals after smoking. There is a rapid rise in THC concentration during smoking, and then an equally rapid fall which levels off at roughly 30 min post-smoking and falls gradually thereafter.

You can interpret this as you like... TM had 1/2 the level that smokers have two hours out after one joint. And you are not high 2 hours after your last smoke.

He was a regular user. We all knew that. He was not high though.

Anonymous said...

"The OJ trial proved to the world that logic, facts, common sense and sanity DO NOT MATTER one whit."

I learned this the hard way...

Anonymous said...

So if Trayvon was high, he was not fully in control of his actions; what's Zimmerman's excuse?

Anonymous said...

How many white people would accept Zimmerman's story if it was their son he killed?

You people seem to want to sidestep the fact that Zimmerman killed the wrong person?

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:53, you can defend yourself with a gun as long as it's a white guy beating you!

pat said...

Marijuana is not really known as a drug that promotes violent or criminal behavior.

Yes, that's the modern view of pharmacology, but as I'm sure you must know, the term "assassin" is derived from the term "Hashish".

The Old Man of the Mountain controlled the Middle East until about 1255 with his cult of assassins whom he controlled and
motivated with Hashish (marijuana).

In 1255 Hulugu arrived. He was not deterred by the topography. His solution was total extermination.

Is there a lesson here?

Albertosaurus

Truth said...

" What was Trayvon Martin doing with a lighter and a pin in his pockets?"

Who gives a shit? He got shot to death.

Kylie said...

"They say Zimmerman should have stayed in his SUV. I guess the lesson is 'stay as far away from black youths as possible.'"

No, the lesson is there's a difference between standing your ground and going forward to meet trouble.

My concern is for the repercussions this case could have for law-abiding gun-owners like myself. So please don't anyone make any clueless comments about how I must think whites are just supposed to stand there and take it when NAMs choose to beat them up or worse. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Anonymous said...

Wait we were lied to about Twana Brawley?

alternate media universe said...

Trayvon being high makes perfect sense.
A white man rapidly hurtling toward middle-age with a history of loserdom and an upcoming black kid who had just been LJBFed by the love of his life, hatch together a plan to achieve fame and glory while battling racism in the united states.
The narrative goes like this: white guy shoots the black guy, all the the usual suspects come out in full force with the incident gaining nation-wide attention and fueling prime time TV. The fairy-talesque saga is summed up in a grand trial where the two protagnists reveal their true intentions and give John Galt rivalling speeches to the judge, jury and the whole country.

So exactly what went wrong?

As per the original plan, Zimmerman had to shoot on the right side of Mr. Martin's chest, but his loserishness and his white man pusillanimity kicked in at the last minute and it was upto Trayvon to show him right from left.
Now anyone who has tried to figure out why their reflection in the miror raises its left hand when they raise their right, can realize that when Trayvon lifted his right hand and placed it on his chest to show Zimmerman the right side to shoot, he was committing a very fatal mistake.

For a brilliant kid like Trayvon, this petty mistake would only make sense if he was high, and of course, mightily irritated by the incompetency of his white comrade.

On the eve of the trial, the startling revelation that Zimmerman was not just a standard white guy, but also a Hispanic and an octoroon was to shock the world. With the words, 'take that arizona bigots' tattooed on his chest, zimmerman's prison picutres were to go viral and lead to large-scale pro-immigration protests all across the country.

High-profile Hollywood execs were already in talks of a 3 hour mega saga with zimmerman's role being reprised by a young scots irish man living in a community of white liberals who only pay lip-service to diversity.
A highly-tanned Jeremy Lin was speculated to play the other lead, an upcoming basketball star who was racially taunted both on field and in the classroom for being the son of a black mother and an asian father, and a proud recipient of 'sons of obama' scholarship.

Anonymous said...

I like Arizona ice tea and drink it fairly often. I have never, ever, seen the watermelon tea. I suppose, when my neighborhood stores start selling it it's time to move.

Anonymous said...

" AmericanGoy said...
There you go (and other people blindly follow, nodding their heads) with your logic, facts, common sense and sanity.

This is a race matter, son.

The OJ trial proved to the world that logic, facts, common sense and sanity DO NOT MATTER one whit."

Sigh ...I agree. Yup, but that logic, sanity, and common sense is a mighty hard habit to kick. I know ... I've tried... in order to understand the other side.

Just imagine being really ignorant and really hating Whites (because of all the grievance learning you got by watching MSM or taking a grievance studies class in college). Then, you will get an idea of their mind set.

I know it's hard ... but it can be done.

It's not something that bodes well for the future.

Svigor said...

So if Trayvon was high, he was not fully in control of his actions; what's Zimmerman's excuse?

That Trayvon was high, not fully in control of his actions?

How many white people would accept Zimmerman's story if it was their son he killed?

This one always gives me a laugh; like we're all supposed to take a death the way the victim's parents do.

How many White parents would start a witch hunt over a son like Traytray?

How many White parents have a vast racial machine at their beck and call?

Andrew said...

Everything I read about this case everywhere has everything all backwards.

When the trial comes, Trayvon Martin won't be the defendant, George Zimmerman will. The evidence against him the prosecution will present is Zimmerman patroling his neighborhood armed with a deadly weapon, the 911 calls showing he stalked Martin after being told not to, his gun with his finger prints on it, and a bullet wound that killed Martin from a bullet from Zimmerman's gun, as well as the location of the various events. Plus his inconsistent statements (hard to keep things straight when you aren't being fully truthful). That is plenty to get Manslaughter and probably Murder 2.

For Zimmerman to defend himself, he has to take the stand to explain why he was justified in shooting Martin. No one else is going to do that, and since he killed Martin, Martin certainly won't be testifying about any agressive actions. Most of his testimony as a witness is going to come off as self-serving and will need to be carefully coached due to his conflicting stories and the physical evidence.

This isn't one of those cases where a prosecutor has to work hard to build a case and where there is "reasonable doubt". Its very clear Zimmerman killed Martin. Instead, Zimmerman has to prove his innocence by proving that Martin put him in fear for his life, thus justifying the killing. To do this, he will have to convince people that a grown man such as himself with 70+ lb weight advantage was afraid of some unarmed scrawny beanpole of a kid killing him. I was once a 6'-1" 17 year old who weighed 150 lbs too. I could barely benchpress 70 lbs. at that weight. In other words, Zimmerman has to pass himself off as a pussy who couldn't handle a 17 year old weakling.

Most people commenting on the story seem to assume Martin will be the one being prosecuted, instead of Zimmerman. Once you disabuse yourself of that confusion, his situation becomes much clearer, and it has nothing to do with race.

Marin said...

If we believe the user stereotypes, then if he were on weed, he would probably have been more paranoid about Zimmermann- hence the chaotic confrontation.

On the other hand, it should have made him more laid back, and less likely to initiate violence, so maybe his drug use is a toss-up.

Eric said...

"Your average bigmouth smallbrain libtard (the kind that dumps comments on MSM sites) makes no sense whatsoever. Matter and anti-matter all over the place. Just today, read a comment from some libtard saying that it's not self-defense if you use a gun against an unarmed assailant.

The same libtard would probably cheer if a woman used a gun to blow away her would-be rapist."


- Even worse, they'd cheer if a woman used a gun to blow away a man, regardless of what he was doing. After all, according to their dogma, ALL men are basically rapists at heart, and they define rape so broadly, that even looking at an attractive girl is considered raping her.

The libs are so enraged when a 'white' hispanic guy with a bashed up face knocks out his young, black ne'r-do-well assailant, less by what happened than by the fact that it shakes up their little world. The victim and the culprit are all screwed up to them. Its all backwards compared to the fantasy narrative they have in their mind, and threatens to pop the fantasy with a dose of reality. Can't have that...

Legal Scholar said...

"Andrew said...
Everything I read about this case everywhere has everything all backwards."

Let me guess, you are thinking about taking the LSAT? Forget about law, you are way too clueless.

First, Zimmerman does not have to prove he is innocent. He doesn't have to "prove" anything. He is assumed to be innocent until the state "proves" he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state has the entire burden of proof. In fact, since the state gets to present evidence first during the trial after they rest it is not uncommon for the criminal defense attoney to ask for a directed verdict (ie. an acquittal) from the judge before the defense even presents evidence or the case reaches the jury on the grounds that the state hasn't carried its burden.

The judge will only grant such a motion if in his opinion no reasonable juror could find for the state based on the evidence presented by the state up to that point.

While you are prepping for the LSAT you should also review the Florida Stand Your Ground statute.

The new law codified in Florida Statutes 776.013(3)(2006) states:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"

What is interesting about the statute is that it goes far beyond the traditional affirmative defense of self-defense.

Under the traditional affirmative defense of self-defense the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't in fear for his life. Again, the state has to prove it. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. All he has to do is claim it in the pleadings and it is up to the state to disprove Zimmerman's affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (pretty hard to do given the injuries to Zimmerman and the two witness statements claiming Zimmerman was on the ground crying for help while being beaten by Martin, no?).

Under a straight reading of the Florida Hold Your Ground statute you don't even have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force all you have to show is that you used it to prevent "great bodily harm or the commission of a felony." The "commision of a felony" language presumably can be read to include even simple assault, which is a felony (a felony is defined as a crime punishible by more than one year in jail).

I agree with Dershowitz, that the case probably should never have been filed.

However, as other posters on this thread have pointed out in racially charged cases facts, reason, logic, etc... can go out the window and not matter a whit.

Anonymous said...

For Zimmerman to defend himself, he has to take the stand to explain why he was justified in shooting Martin.

Are you retarded? Can't think of an explanation why one would want to shoot when being beaten viciously, probably to death?

Anonymous said...

Reply to ANDREW SAID:

So many falsehoods in your post.

1) Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution.

2) What 70 pound "weight advantage"? Martin is believed to have weighed 160 pounds and Zimmerman 170. The weight difference was insignificant. Add in Martin's considerable height and reach advantage and a classic black sucker punch and I think the odds would be heavily against Zimmerman.

3) Martin played football, which is a rough game (to say the least). He was hardly the "weakling" you describe.

Andrew said...

Legal Scholar:

You seem confused. The prosecution case is simple. There is a dead guy with a bullet in him from Mr. Zimmerman's gun, and Mr. Zimmerman's fingerprints are all over the gun. Oh, and he confessed to shooting him.

The prosecution doesn't need to delve into who picked a fight or who was winning the fight or Mr. Zimmerman's mental state to prove their case that Goerge Zimmerman left his house armed and ended up shooting someone after following them. All that stuff about fighting and fear needs to be brought up by Mr. Zimmerman to defend himself from the simplest conclusion from the physical evidence - that he shot and killed a teenager. And the only way it can be brought up is for Mr. Zimmerman to take the stand in his own defense.

Asking for a dismissal after the prosecution presents its case will undoubtedly be done by Zimmerman's lawyers. I don't see how a judge rules for self-defense when the one person who can testify about the need for that will not yet have taken the stand.

Andrew said...

Are you retarded? Can't think of an explanation why one would want to shoot when being beaten viciously, probably to death?

Why in the world would the prosecution want to bring out George Zimmerman's version of events as part of their case? They can let George Zimmerman do that if he feels it needs to be in the record.

This is part of the mental confusion on the web about who is being prosecuted, and who needs to defend themselves in court. Hint, its not Trayvon Martin. Since he is dead, he can't even be brought onto the stand to play the blame the victim game like is done in rape cases.

prawnster said...

Somebody here wrote:
"With the words, 'take that arizona bigots' tattooed on his chest"

In cholo-style Olde Englishe font, no doubt.

Lucille said...

The prosecution doesn't need to delve into who picked a fight or who was winning the fight or Mr. Zimmerman's mental state to prove their case that Goerge [sic] Zimmerman left his house armed and ended up shooting someone after following them.

Yeah, they need to, if they want to show George Zimmerman committed murder.

Remember kids: homicide!=murder.

Anonymous said...

"How many white people would accept Zimmerman's story if it was their son he killed?"

About as many as would have accepted the MSM break-out story if Zimmerman was their own son.
Actually it would be a lesser number, because

"a grown man such as himself with 70+ lb weight advantage"

unless Zimmerman went on some really good weight-reduction program.

"3) Martin played football, which is a rough game (to say the least). He was hardly the "weakling" you describe."

Actually he described himself, and unfortunately doesn't seem to make up for it in the intelligence department.

Anonymous said...

Freeing Zimmerman infuriates blacks bc of Skittle’s race, and a lot of blacks smoke dope, fight, burgle and menace.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Zimmerman did not have 70 lbs on Saint Skittles and even if he did would a 6' 2" football playing stoodent atleet be able to get the final few feet home as Zimmerman if he were that porked out would never have been able to catch up with him?

Why did Martin feel the need to turn around stalk Zimmerman and attack him as he was preparing to leave the area?

Anonymous said...

Andrew said...
Legal Scholar:

You seem confused. The prosecution case is simple. There is a dead guy with a bullet in him from Mr. Zimmerman's gun, and Mr. Zimmerman's fingerprints are all over the gun. Oh, and he confessed to shooting him."

Andrew, you are wrong and apparently don't understand affirmative defenses and burdens of proof or how the court system works (such as the burden of production, burden of pursuasion, who goes first, etc..).

A recent article by a law professor discussing the case, discussed what the state has to prove. It can be read here: www.ohio.com/.../zimmerman-s-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-o...

This is an excerpt:

"On April 1, 2012, the Florida Bar News published proposed amendments to the Standard Jury Instructions. The proposed amendment to Instruction 3.6(f) would strengthen this language to clarify that the jury may convict the defendant only if it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The proposed amendment adds the underlined phrase to the charge to the jury:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense."

Andrew, you really need to understand affirmative defenses and who has the burden of proving them or disproving them to understand what is going on.

The state has to show that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life because he alleged it in his pleadings. He does not have to prove it is true. The state has to prove his claim is false beyond a reasonable doubt.

He does not have to take the stand. He can cast doubt on the state's case that he was not in fear of his life merely by calling the two witnesses who saw him being attacked and the medical reports that describe his injuries.

I hope this helps explain it better to you.

I know it is confusing (even for lawyers I am sure).

Svigor said...

the 911 calls showing he stalked Martin after being told not to

The 911 calls don't show he stalked Martin.
He was not "told not to."
The implication that a 911 operator telling you not to do something has any bearing is false.

Impressive. It's not easy to pack that many errors into one sentence.

his gun with his finger prints on it, and a bullet wound that killed Martin from a bullet from Zimmerman's gun, as well as the location of the various events. Plus his inconsistent statements (hard to keep things straight when you aren't being fully truthful). That is plenty to get Manslaughter and probably Murder 2.

You should have just said "self defense proves murder." That would have summed up your "argument" much more concisely.

For Zimmerman to defend himself, he has to take the stand to explain why he was justified in shooting Martin.

"He sucker punched me without provocation, I fell to the ground, he got on top of me, pinned me, and started beating me with such savagery that I feared for my life. I drew my gun and fired."

Doesn't sound that difficult to me.

First, Zimmerman does not have to prove he is innocent. He doesn't have to "prove" anything. He is assumed to be innocent until the state "proves" he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I assumed. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman fired not in self-defense.

That's looking like a pretty hard row to hoe, so far.

The state has the entire burden of proof. In fact, since the state gets to present evidence first during the trial after they rest it is not uncommon for the criminal defense attoney to ask for a directed verdict (ie. an acquittal) from the judge before the defense even presents evidence or the case reaches the jury on the grounds that the state hasn't carried its burden.

Which is what I think is likely to happen here. Or he'll be acquitted. Or he'll be freed on appeal.

Other predictions:

The proceeds from the Zimmerman defense fund will exceed its expenditures.

Zimmerman will toughen up and bring several lawsuits. He'll win a substantial one.

Anonymous said...

"Zimmerman will toughen up and bring several lawsuits. He'll win a substantial one."

I certainly hope he brings a lawsuit against the media organization and the individuals responsible who edited the conversation he had with the police operator (who was not a 911 operator as many falsely state). It was edited to make it sound like he was specifically zeroing in on Martin for being black, when he only made a reference to it because the operator specifically asked him what Martin's race was. That was such a dirty trick by the MSM. It should really be a criminal offence.

Andrew said...

Legal Scholar

Again, you seem confused. The State does not have to undertake Zimmerman's defense. They don't need to prove he was not defending himself. They need to show he killed someone. He needs to prove that his actions were justified by showing self defense.

When you shoot an unarmed person in a public place, the assumption is not that you were defending yourself. The law, including Stand Your Ground, does not give you benefit of the doubt, it excuses you from retreating if your life is threatened. The shooting must be unavoidable to preserve your life. That is what is so important about the police statements that this entire incident was completely avoidable. All Zimmerman had to do was avoid starting a confrontation. He didn't.

I can see from the irrational support for Zimmerman across the right side of the web that we have another OJ case in the making. In which case, it should be fun cleaning up on betting on the results of the trial again.

Anonymous said...

All Martin had to do was avoid starting a confrontation. He didn't.

FIFY.

Anonymous said...

Andrew, you sound confused.

In Florida the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's claim of self-defense is false once the defendant has met his "burden of production" on this issue.

The burden of production is the defendant's duty to present a "prima facie evidence" that he was in fear for his life.

It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction how much evidence
is needed, but it is usally not much. He does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has to prove it is false beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regarding OJ. I guess you think he is innocent?

ROTFLMAO!

You should really read famed criminal defense attorney Gerry Spence's book on the topic. he was the first attorney asked to represent OJ but turned OJ down after meeting with him. In his book he explains how OJ did it and why he got away with it.

Oh I forgot, what was I thinking, you are a left wing troll!!! The truth is not something you much care about!!!

Lucille said...

They need to show he killed someone.

You're remarkably ignorant. No, they don't need to show he killed someone. They need to show he committed murder. Not the same thing. But apparently that escapes you.

Also, in all criminal cases, the burden of proof is intended to rest with the prosecution. In this case, since Zimmerman is being charged with murder, it is the duty of the prosecution to show that he committed murder. (And again - showing that he killed Martin, which is not in dispute, does not prove he committed murder.)

Lucille said...

They don't need to prove he was not defending himself

That is *exactly* what the State has to prove, because that's what makes the difference in this case. That's the exact factor that will determine whether this is ruled a murder or justifiable homicide.

Svigor said...

Again, you seem confused. The State does not have to undertake Zimmerman's defense. They don't need to prove he was not defending himself. They need to show he killed someone. He needs to prove that his actions were justified by showing self defense.

Again, you seem confused. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wrongfully killed Martin. You seem to think "self defense" or other "justifiable homicide" defenses provide the prosecution with a "get out of 'beyond reasonable doubt' free" card, but you've provided no evidence for this beyond assertion. Despite the fact that your opponents have provided several quotes to the contrary.

When you shoot an unarmed person in a public place, the assumption is not that you were defending yourself.

By "public place," I assume you mean "outdoors on private property"?

"Presumption of innocence" and "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" don't just go out the window as soon as the defendant claims "self defense" or "justifiable homicide." You do know that "murder" and "manslaughter" are not interchangeable with "homicide," right?

You're remarkably ignorant. No, they don't need to show he killed someone. They need to show he committed murder. Not the same thing. But apparently that escapes you.

Yeah, he's just not grasping the concept. He might make a great legal scholar of the "Living Constitution" someday.

Andrew said...

All:

You can tell from the comments on this case by various Zimmerman supporters that most of you have (1) never been in a fist fight, (2) never been in a typical Florida gated community or walked the path behind houses trying to find where you should be going, (3) never had your nose broken, (4) never had a confrontation with a strange adult as a teenager, (5) never had a criminal altercation with black teenagers, (6) never faced the barrel of a gun, (7) never been a witness to a crime, (8) never wrestled with someone significantly larger than you.

If you had a little more real world experience relevant to the case, you'd see why Zimmerman's self-serving self-defense story spread by him and his surrogates is not believable and why he is going to trial and will be convicted of manslaughter or worse.

And, no I am not a liberal troll. I do find it funny to see Steve's readers going all out to support a Latino against a black. Personally, I don't have a dog in the hunt.

Lucille said...

Look at Andrew continuing to lie (i.e. claiming that Zimmerman was "significantly larger" than Martin), even after his lie was pointed out.

And yet he claims he's not a troll...

Anonymous said...

Reply to Andrew said;

I am a white person who has followed Mr Sailer on the internet for a long time.

I don't have a dog in the hunt either. When I first saw a photo of Zimmerman & Martin, I thought, "a brown guy killed a black guy". I was baffled as to why anybody and everybody was calling him "white". And what is up with "white Hispanic"? If your white, your white. Nobody says a "white Slav" or a "white Nordic" or "white Celtic".

That all having been said, I do believe that the media has a very powerful agenda to SHAPE the story, rather then to REPORT it and a clear bias against Zimmerman. There is ample evidence of this, everything from repeated use of outdated photos to edited tapes.

One other thing. I don't know why or how you reason Zimmerman was "significantly larger" then Martin.

Truth said...

"Other predictions:"

Were these "predictions" or were they the SWiPpLe version of what I do when I think of Halle Berry naked?

Truth said...

"
You can tell from the comments on this case by various Zimmerman supporters that most of you have (1) never been in a fist fight, (2) never been in a typical Florida gated community or walked the path behind houses trying to find where you should be going, (3) never had your nose broken, (4) never had a confrontation with a strange adult as a teenager, (5) never had a criminal altercation with black teenagers, (6) never faced the barrel of a gun, (7) never been a witness to a crime, (8) never wrestled with someone significantly larger than you."

(9) Never left your seat in front of the computer screen, even as mom yells; "Maury did you look for a damn job today" down the basement stairs.

Andrew said...

Anonymous at 8:46

Exactly. Why I don't live in a neighborhood with people like Martin or Zimmerman. I fail to see the importantance of defending Zimmerman to the cause of civilization. In fact the opposite - I prefer a society with fewer cop wannabes like Zimmerman running around packing heat and calling in kids walking on a sidewalk to 911 as suspicious, and also a society with fewer Trayvons. The bright side of this story is that it looks like both these guys managed to remove themselves from society either permanently or for at least some duration in jail.

One other thing. I don't know why or how you reason Zimmerman was "significantly larger" then Martin.

I thought I stated this upfront. When I was 17, I was 6'-1" and 150 lbs. and so as slim as Trayvon and thus about as strong. I don't recall thinking this size made me want to take on adults in a fight. Zimmerman has been variously related to have been around 5'-9" and 185 lbs or more at the time of the shooting. My dad was 5'-9" and 150 lbs and he would have been able to kick the crap out of me at that age. Give an adult his size another 40 lbs of weight to use and there is obviously no comparison in terms of strength to a beanpole kid. I will admit to being confused about Zimmerman's weight. I only found information about it from the night of the shooting yesterday.

Especially consider that just being taller sucks up weight from muscle or belly and legs into torso and leg length - on average 5-6 lbs per inch. This menas that 20 lbs of Trayvon's lesser weight wasn't even useful weight for him in a fight because it was nothing more than his gangly body, not extra muscle.

Its been mentioned Trayvon was an athlete and so would be expected to be relatively strong. I question this assertion based on my having been the same size and also having been an athlete (soccer, baseball, running, biking). When you are tall and thin and have an enormous teenage metabolism, it is difficult to gain weight and muscle even by working out because your body consumes everything you are eating in height growth and metabolism instead of mass building. Its not like he was an NFL or even College Division 1 linebacker - he played high school football like millions of other not that big boys who do not go any further with the game, and it looks like he was not even an active player in the last years of his life - probably because of his weight vs. height making him unable to stand the pounding. I know I couldn't, which is why I didn't play in high school when I was his size. And just being taller than a larger adult does not make you think you can win a fight with a shorter stockier person. It made me think the opposite because I felt thinner and more fragile.

Truth said...

UH oh, Part X!

http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman--drugs-violent-side-effects-killed-trayvon-martin-details

Andrew said...

All:

One more thought. Zimmerman's injuries to me seem far more consistent with his having slipped in the grass or on a wet sidewalk while walkng/running after Martin and trying to make a turn instead of from a fight. I've seen people give themselves a fractured nose from tripping on the sidewalk and broke my own by running into a forehead of another player playing mud football. Breaking someone's nose with your fist without damaging your hand is extremely difficult given the hardness of bone and the fragility of the hand. Hollywood movie fights are not reality.

However, if his head really was being repeatedly bashed into the concrete sidewalk as he claimed, he would have far worse injuries than a couple of cuts to the scalp. You would expect massive trauma to the skin of the scalp (especially on a shaven head) and probable fracture of the skull. The two small abrasions are more like what happens when you take a tumble and your skin nicks the ground.

If Zimmerman fell while chasing Martin, and then Martin turned around to confront him while he was prone, it would explain a lot of the eyewitness testimony and evidence a lot more simply. As Martin came over to confront a prone Zimmerman and continued advancing as words were exchanged, an injured Zimmerman probably felt threatend, and got up and shoved Martin away, causing Martin's bluetooth to fall out and end his call with his girlfriend. A tussle would have then ensued because of the chase and physical contact, someone cried out for help for at least a minute during the confrontation and Zimmerman then shot Martin at close range. This would then explain why Martin's body was lying the way it was face down on the ground after having been shot from the front, but why Zimmerman was not drenched in Martin's blood from a chest shot at close range with Martin astride him and beating him while he was prone. If that had happened, you would have expected Martin's body to collapse on Zimmerman and bleed all over him while Zimmerman struggled to get out from underneath his dead weight, leaving a trail of blood from Zimmermans chest at least to his legs.

Zimmerman's claims that Martin was shouting at him things like "You're going to die tonight" while fighting sound totally preposterous, which is why it is porbable Zimmerman's whole story is made up and self-serving. When you are fighting a fist fight, you typically clench your mouth to protect your tongue, teeth and jaw from blows and as a natural tensing mechanism of the whole body to give more strength to each blow you are trying to land. You are not wasting energy threatening the other person with your mouth and leaving opportunities for it to be injured. You do your talking with your fists, feet, and fingernails. If you have any experience in fights, you know to go right for the eyeballs with the fingernails to try to blind the other person and distract them from being able to punch and react. The purpose of fighting is to quickly overwhelm the other person with pain and make them want to stop. Fist fits are not boxing matches, and they don't look like moviefights. Zimmerman's accounts and those of his surrogates sound like a movie fight, not a real fight, probably because itis made up and embellished with each retelling to avoid admitting the truth.

Andrew said...

On the person yelling for help.

What is more likely? Someone crying repeatedly for help for over a minute while fighting someone, or someone yelling for help for over a minute because they are being forcibly restrained against their will by a stranger?

If someone was being forcibly restrained, wouldn't it most likely have been Martin, who was trying to run away?

If Zimmerman was being forcibly restrained for over a minute by a smaller teenager why did it take him so long to draw his gun to free himself by superior force?

If Martin was being forcibly restrained for over a minute, isn't it likely he got shot either because he managed to lash out or free himself at least in part while being restrained or was shot simply for having the temerity to struggle against the restraint?

Zimmerman's story is that Martin somehow got him on the ground and was on top of him restraining him, that he cried for help for over a minute while having his head smashed into the sidewalk, and that in the midst of all of this, he finally found his wits and his gun and shot the guy on top of him in such a way that he didn't collapse on him but fell face first into the grass beside him.

Really, what sounds more likely based on this starting with Martin running away and Zimmerman purusing him?

Anonymous said...

Grossly under reported.

According to the paramedic report, the vigilante neighborhood watch captain was on the prescription drug Temazepam, reports MSNBC.com.

RELATED: NewsOne’s Trayvon Martin Coverage

Temazepam, also known as Restoril, is known to cause insomnia and anxiety, reports MSNBC. But there are more important side effects that were not mentioned.

Newsone exclusively reports:

According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, the drug is also known to cause “aggressiveness” and “hallucinations,” among other problematic symptoms.

Zimmerman was also on the often abused prescription drug Adderall, which is known to cause “worsening mental or mood problems (eg, aggression, anxiety, delusions, depression, hallucination, hostility),” according to Drugs.com.
George Zimmerman on Prescription Drugs That Cause Aggression ...

12 hours ago ... While the mainstream media made sure to report with exclamations and gasps
that marijuana was found in Trayvon Martin's system on the ...
newsone.com/2016433/george-zimmerman-drugs/

Anonymous said...

THC = weed.

This is of major importance not because marijuana makes people more aggressive (it doesn't), but because it undermines the indictment's claim that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, which appears to be the prosecution's main hope in swaying the jury: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what reason could Zimmerman possibly have had for being suspicious of a black male other than his blackness?


Steve Sailer,

Zimmerman needs to be hired by the police. If he can sit in a car and at a distance detect the miniscule quantities of THC that were in Trayvon's blood he is super human. Forget the local PD. The FBI should be calling.

Do you know anyone that can tell a 160 lb teenage male has a whopping 1.5 ng/ML of THC in their blood just by looking at them?! If this is the best you can do then Zimmerman's goose is cooked on the profiling charge.

Anonymous said...

Howdy! Do yоu knoω if thеy makе any plugіns to safeguard against hackeгѕ?
I'm kinda paranoid about losing everything I've worked hard on.
Αny suggestiоnѕ?

Feel free to surf to my weblog :: online casino
my page :: online casino