Was Trayvon high?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Was Trayvon high?

Post by Diogenes »

Here's a pretty good argument that if not, he was trying to get that way.



Update #26 Part 2 – Trayvon Martin Shooting – A year of drug use culminates in predictable violence…



ImageImage
Image

Purple Lean, or Lean, is an intoxicating beverage also known by the names lean, sizzurp, and liquid codeine. It is commonly abused by southern rappers and wannabe suburban teenagers. It is a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and sprite, or other beverage [such as Arizona Watermelon] with a few jolly ranchers and/or skittles thrown in.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -violence/

The guy seems to have done quite a bit of research on this.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Was Trayvon high?

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:Here's a pretty good argument that if not, he was trying to get that way.



Update #26 Part 2 – Trayvon Martin Shooting – A year of drug use culminates in predictable violence…



ImageImage
Image

Purple Lean, or Lean, is an intoxicating beverage also known by the names lean, sizzurp, and liquid codeine. It is commonly abused by southern rappers and wannabe suburban teenagers. It is a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and sprite, or other beverage [such as Arizona Watermelon] with a few jolly ranchers and/or skittles thrown in.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -violence/

The guy seems to have done quite a bit of research on this.
Don't know about the details of Florida law Diogenes but under Ohio law, I recall one important caveat for a successful claim of self-defense: You the shooter claiming self-defense cannot be "At fault for having caused the situation". Meaning if your action caused the physical confrontation, even if the other guy struck first you can't claim self-defense. The Florida prosecutor Angela Corey will probably argue that Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit of Trayvon Martin when there was no clear crime or danger to himself or anyone else constitutes "fault", on Zimmerman's part. Therefore his claim of self-defense is rejected even if Martin struck first. Don't think it matters that Zimmerman's following of Martin was not a crime in and of itself, it could still be considered "fault".

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Was Trayvon high?

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote: Don't know about the details of Florida law Diogenes but under Ohio law, I recall one important caveat for a successful claim of self-defense: You the shooter claiming self-defense cannot be "At fault for having caused the situation". Meaning if your action caused the physical confrontation, even if the other guy struck first you can't claim self-defense. The Florida prosecutor Angela Corey will probably argue that Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit of Trayvon Martin when there was no clear crime or danger to himself or anyone else constitutes "fault", on Zimmerman's part. Therefore his claim of self-defense is rejected even if Martin struck first. Don't think it matters that Zimmerman's following of Martin was not a crime in and of itself, it could still be considered "fault".
Famous liberal defense lawyer Alan Derschowitz apparently disagrees.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05 ... l-shooting

My point in introducing this is more about debunking the theory that the pursuit of a "high" is a victimless crime. All too often things go awry and people end up getting hurt. The man at the above linked article makes a pretty good argument that Trayvon had a bad habit, and it is that habit which may have been responsible for his apparent attack upon Zimmerman, instead of just leaving when the annoying little man showed up and followed him.

If drugs and getting "high" are really involved in this, they will have claimed two victims. Trayvon AND Zimmerman.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Was Trayvon high?

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:
williatw wrote: Don't know about the details of Florida law Diogenes but under Ohio law, I recall one important caveat for a successful claim of self-defense: You the shooter claiming self-defense cannot be "At fault for having caused the situation". Meaning if your action caused the physical confrontation, even if the other guy struck first you can't claim self-defense. The Florida prosecutor Angela Corey will probably argue that Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit of Trayvon Martin when there was no clear crime or danger to himself or anyone else constitutes "fault", on Zimmerman's part. Therefore his claim of self-defense is rejected even if Martin struck first. Don't think it matters that Zimmerman's following of Martin was not a crime in and of itself, it could still be considered "fault".
Famous liberal defense lawyer Alan Derschowitz apparently disagrees.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05 ... l-shooting

My point in introducing this is more about debunking the theory that the pursuit of a "high" is a victimless crime. All too often things go awry and people end up getting hurt. The man at the above linked article makes a pretty good argument that Trayvon had a bad habit, and it is that habit which may have been responsible for his apparent attack upon Zimmerman, instead of just leaving when the annoying little man showed up and followed him.

If drugs and getting "high" are really involved in this, they will have claimed two victims. Trayvon AND Zimmerman.
From your link:

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

If Derschowitz is correct in his reading of Florida law than Zimmerman has a good chance, though in any case think Corey overcharged Zimmerman by going with 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter. I believe the criminal investigator at the crime scene wanted Zimmerman charged, but with manslaughter rather than murder. Don't know what Corey's reasoning was. If the judge caves, and does not dismiss the charges on the grounds of self-defense, and it goes to a trial, it would be up to the jury. Jury can more easily be swayed by the emotional arguments of a clever prosecutor.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Was Trayvon high?

Post by djolds1 »

williatw wrote:If Derschowitz is correct in his reading of Florida law than Zimmerman has a good chance, though in any case think Corey overcharged Zimmerman by going with 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter. I believe the criminal investigator at the crime scene wanted Zimmerman charged, but with manslaughter rather than murder. Don't know what Corey's reasoning was. If the judge caves, and does not dismiss the charges on the grounds of self-defense, and it goes to a trial, it would be up to the jury. Jury can more easily be swayed by the emotional arguments of a clever prosecutor.
Corey is a political animal who was brought on to head off riots and deflect blame. If the case implodes but the blame can be laid at the feet of the judge on the case, she has done the job she was hired to do.
Vae Victis

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

You guys forgot one other minor point, Zimmerman said Trayvon was trying to grab his gun. Further, no one small is going to confront a six foot three inch man, in the dark.

Regarding the cocktail Trayvon might have been brewing, following Diogenes' argument, the state should really expand the laws so that no one would be allowed to buy those items, or any of the millions of other combinations of possible combinations. Hail Diogenes, our new big brother who has our interests at heart. Oh, and there must have been something genetic too, so shouldn't we prevent crime by weeding out the possible bad seed? There really is no end to preventing possible bad behavior, what fun!
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

One more thing, no one but a liberal would have believed the skittles yarn told for what "little" "ten" year old, 6'3" man/kid was doing going to the neighborhood store, at night, in the rain, instead of watching TV or (God forbid) doing his homework.

Just saying, maybe the problem was that his parents needed a more watchful eye on their teen. Just another possibility for blame....and parental guilt shifting attempt to Zimmerman.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

mvanwink5 wrote:One more thing, no one but a liberal would have believed the skittles yarn told for what "little" "ten" year old, 6'3" man/kid was doing going to the neighborhood store, at night, in the rain, instead of watching TV or (God forbid) doing his homework.
Do you remember being that age? Discipline is not high on the agenda of the testosteronized adolescent male brain.
mvanwink5 wrote:Just saying, maybe the problem was that his parents needed a more watchful eye on their teen. Just another possibility for blame....and parental guilt shifting attempt to Zimmerman.
They lost their son. Nothing is ever going to make that right, nor take away the desire to see someone pay for it.

The drug angle is total speculation. All public evidence points to a tragedy of low-blame errors. Slightly over-enthusiastic neighborhood watch guy, a late-teen male who thought someone was stalking him and moved to defend himself. Mutual misperceptions leading to tragedy. I.e., there is no one to blame but cruel fate. Not satisfying to the Martin family.
Vae Victis

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

djolds1 wrote:
mvanwink5 wrote:One more thing, no one but a liberal would have believed the skittles yarn told for what "little" "ten" year old, 6'3" man/kid was doing going to the neighborhood store, at night, in the rain, instead of watching TV or (God forbid) doing his homework.
Do you remember being that age? Discipline is not high on the agenda of the testosteronized adolescent male brain.
mvanwink5 wrote:Just saying, maybe the problem was that his parents needed a more watchful eye on their teen. Just another possibility for blame....and parental guilt shifting attempt to Zimmerman.
They lost their son. Nothing is ever going to make that right, nor take away the desire to see someone pay for it.

The drug angle is total speculation. All public evidence points to a tragedy of low-blame errors. Slightly over-enthusiastic neighborhood watch guy, a late-teen male who thought someone was stalking him and moved to defend himself. Mutual misperceptions leading to tragedy. I.e., there is no one to blame but cruel fate. Not satisfying to the Martin family.
Then add to that the role of the gun-hating quick to judge liberal media. They vehemently hate the idea of Americans having guns and using them to defend themselves, hate concealed carry, and castle doctrine/stand your ground laws. Furious at the defeats they have been handed the last few years in favor of gun rights. They smelled blood in the water in the Martin case, couldn't wait for the facts to be vetted before jumping to their foregone conclusion.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

They smelled blood in the water in the Martin case, couldn't wait for the facts to be vetted before jumping to their foregone conclusion.
yup.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Post by mvanwink5 »

Yes I remember that age. I was in college studying my ass off when near 18 ). Before that I was working in a grove keeping gnats out of my eyes and sweating in the hot sun. When I got home, I was either studying or cranking on the ice cream maker.

Progressives have made sure Trayvon can't get a job by mandating minimum wages. Besides he wouldn't be cool working or studying. What a crock this victimization is.

Back to the issue, if he was just a kid why was he unsupervised, if he was not a kid, he was responsible. Six foot three inches is big enough to kill a man with his bare hands, and judging by the pictures and reported injuries of Zimmerman, Zimmerman barely escaped serious injury or death.

If Trayvon was not responsible then his parents were, which is it?
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

williatw wrote:
djolds1 wrote:They lost their son. Nothing is ever going to make that right, nor take away the desire to see someone pay for it.

The drug angle is total speculation. All public evidence points to a tragedy of low-blame errors. Slightly over-enthusiastic neighborhood watch guy, a late-teen male who thought someone was stalking him and moved to defend himself. Mutual misperceptions leading to tragedy. I.e., there is no one to blame but cruel fate. Not satisfying to the Martin family.
Then add to that the role of the gun-hating quick to judge liberal media. They vehemently hate the idea of Americans having guns and using them to defend themselves, hate concealed carry, and castle doctrine/stand your ground laws. Furious at the defeats they have been handed the last few years in favor of gun rights. They smelled blood in the water in the Martin case, couldn't wait for the facts to be vetted before jumping to their foregone conclusion.
Race, not guns - a replay of the Duke Rape Case Pavlovian Reaction in '06, with the Race Baiters ramping the rhetoric to 11 quickly. The moment the evidence started to go sideways, the Baiters disappeared. Odd, no? :roll:
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

mvanwink5 wrote:Back to the issue, if he was just a kid why was he unsupervised, if he was not a kid, he was responsible.
Seventeen. The years of independence and foolishness.
mvanwink5 wrote:Six foot three inches is big enough to kill a man with his bare hands, and judging by the pictures and reported injuries of Zimmerman, Zimmerman barely escaped serious injury or death.
On the straight evidence, I just don't see any simple blame to assign. Like most of real life, the situation is muddled.
Vae Victis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

mvanwink5 wrote:Yes I remember that age. I was in college studying my ass off when near 18 ). Before that I was working in a grove keeping gnats out of my eyes and sweating in the hot sun. When I got home, I was either studying or cranking on the ice cream maker.

Progressives have made sure Trayvon can't get a job by mandating minimum wages. Besides he wouldn't be cool working or studying. What a crock this victimization is.

Back to the issue, if he was just a kid why was he unsupervised, if he was not a kid, he was responsible. Six foot three inches is big enough to kill a man with his bare hands, and judging by the pictures and reported injuries of Zimmerman, Zimmerman barely escaped serious injury or death.

If Trayvon was not responsible then his parents were, which is it?
How is the responsibility transferred to Trayvon in this case? This is ridiculous. Have you considered the fact that this is a young man being followed and approached by an irritated, overly-aggressive neighborhood watch member? Zimmerman approached Trayvon by his own testimony and Trayvon didn't owe him any form of explanation. Matter of fact, he was in an unfamiliar place with an unfamiliar man aggressively following/approaching him, and if that were me, I'd be very nervous. Perhaps Trayvon was exercising the "Stand your ground" law when he felt threatened by this individual.

Putting the speculation aside, Zimmerman is the legal adult here who has been an adult for a few years. He showed zero respect to law enforcement by not heeding their request for him not to follow and a completely judgemental break down in approaching an unfamiliar figure in an aggressive manner. He deserves to rot for being an epic moron.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

mvanwink5 wrote:You guys forgot one other minor point, Zimmerman said Trayvon was trying to grab his gun. Further, no one small is going to confront a six foot three inch man, in the dark.

Regarding the cocktail Trayvon might have been brewing, following Diogenes' argument, the state should really expand the laws so that no one would be allowed to buy those items, or any of the millions of other combinations of possible combinations. Hail Diogenes, our new big brother who has our interests at heart. Oh, and there must have been something genetic too, so shouldn't we prevent crime by weeding out the possible bad seed? There really is no end to preventing possible bad behavior, what fun!
Stop trying to make your straw man speak with my voice. It is not practical to ban every substance with which someone can conceivably induce a high. There's still spray paint, glue and mouthwash, among other things. You intentionally miss the point.

You types, when you can't think of anything worthwhile to say, always fall back on mockery. The solution to this problem is teaching people to behave better when they are young and amenable to learning, but we are going to tolerate this idiocy as long as we are a rich and prosperous nation. We will continue to put up with as much stupidity as we can afford, but an end will come to it eventually.

Let me once again remind people of what Edmund Burke said about this:

The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Post Reply