The Trayvon Martin incident

[rodeosweetheart]

So the skittles and snapple he was walking with are ingredients to a drug that rappers use, that he was reported to use? Which made something called "poor man's pcp"?

That most of us did not know about, or schools would not be holding Trayvon days and handing out skittles and watermelon soda, right?

FRom reading I am doing about this, this 17 year old does not sound very child-like, so glad the judge threw out the ludicrous child abuse angle.

It also sounds like the Justice Dept brought this against Zimmerman because it was political grandstanding. And that the stand your ground law means that in Fl, Zimmerman did not have to go back to his car?

And that Zimmerman might have been having his head smashed to the ground by someone onthe equivalent of PCP?

IT will be interestng to see if they get the manslaughter charge to stick. Only the jury, who got to see the evidence, will decide. If I were on that jury, I would feel it was completely unfair, to change3 charge at the last minute like that. The prosecution would not have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, the jury has not seen the photos of him posing with wads of cash, the "gansta" look, the information on alleged drug use, the information on being thrown out of school for drug use. So hard to say if they will hav emuch insight into what might have been going through Zimmerman;'s mind as his head was being smashed against the concrete.

For shame, that the media has presented this image to the public. For shame.

[Yossarian]

So the skittles and snapple he was walking with are ingredients to a drug that rappers use, that he was reported to use?

That most of us did not know about, or schools would not be holding Trayvon days and handing out skittles and watermelon soda, right?

Kind of ironic, huh?

[Yossarian]

What bothers me is that some of the various truths aren't allowed in the courtroom.

I know the legal reasons why they do it but the biggest exclusion to me is Trayvon's history of fighting. We are asked to figure out who likely started the fight. It's common sense you would want to know about things like this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...disbarred.html

And knowing what I know now I do find it funny they keep using the watermelon drink as symbol.

[jennipurrr]

I guess we all learn something during these trials, but as a parent this one was news to me:

http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5

or

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html

Or just google "purple drank" or "purple lean"

I am not a drug expert, but I believe "Purple Drank" usually contains an opiate based cough syrup, not OTC robitussin. They usually mix it with regular Sprite. I think it is kind of silly this is purported as an angle...the opiates are what makes the drug "fun" - it isn't a thing with regular cough syrup from the drug store. It has some hype-y effects from the Dextromethorphan in the cough syrup, but usually the opiates overpower that easily and its more of a relaxing, herionish drug.

Kids can abuse Dextromethorphan based OTC cough syrup, which is I think where some of these articles are mixing up. Dextromethorphan is speedy but it takes A LOT of it and it has bad side effects. This is not what the rappers and famous folks use since they can get their hands on opiate based cough syrup easily and if they wanted a stimulant there are much better choices.. It is rare that teenagers are drinking this type of cough syrup regularly...I worked in mental health for a bit and only encountered one person who abused it. The high is much "better" (less side effects) off adderall or other stimulants, and those are much more easily found in the teenage populace.

[rodeosweetheart]

When I was researching the purple lean stuff I read the autopsy report on Trayvon Martin. God that is depressing, as the mother of three sons, may I say, heartbreaking. Such a waste of life.

What struck me was that he had absolutely no injuries whatsoever, save the bullet wound.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, was bleeding with injuries to the nose and head. So the autopsy report does not support a scenario where they were going at it and both hitting the other. To me, it supports Zimmerman's self-defense claims.

[Yossarian]

I think it is kind of silly this is purported as an angle

It's not an angle in and of itself, it's just more fodder for the selective nature of the narrative in the press. They show you an old photo of Trayvon as a young boy and tell you he was just carrying candy. But of course he was a lot bigger dude with tattoos and a gold tooth grill, into marijuana and purple lean, had access to illegal guns, and who had been kicked out of school and his mothers house for fighting too much, at least some of it MMA style (giving credence to the witness who said he was pummeling GZ "MMA style"). No one is blaming the incident on the watermelon drink and candy itself, but it is at least as likely that they were for future drug use and not a symbol of his boyish innocence.

[Yossarian]

What struck me was that he had absolutely no injuries whatsoever, save the bullet wound.

Didn't he also have damaged knuckles on his hand(s)?

[CathyA]

I wonder where the line is drawn, when not being allowed to taint the present case with info about a person's past character. On one hand, I understand it, but on the other, it just doesn't make sense.

[Yossarian]

And here is what it all comes down to: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...structions.pdf

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE


An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you
must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was
used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify
the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably
cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George
Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical
abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the
question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should
find George Zimmerman not guilty.

[Spartana]

The problem with jury trials is that many people aren't as impartial as they think they are or try to be. Many hold deep beliefs on things like gun laws, stand your ground laws, etc... (and we see that even in this discussion) that, even though those things are legal in Florida and GZ didn't violate any laws by having a gin on him, people who dislike the idea of a person having a gun or the legality of stand your ground laws, are often colored by that preception when making a judgement about the defendant. And usually a negative judgement just because they dislike the current laws that are in place. Also using words like "murderer", "assailant and victim" etc... rather than defendant (who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) shows the slant that many people have - and which I assume many jurors have as well and will lead them to make assumption of guilt or innocence based on that slanted beliefs. Some may dislike GZ solely on the fact that he legally carried a gun and acted in what they precieved was a cowboy-like manner. Neither which is illegal in his case. They may decide he is guilty of the crime based on nothing more than that dislike. If there was no gun involved just a physical altercation and TM had lived, and the issue was to determine who exactly assailed who, then based on the physical evidence alone it would probably seem that TM assulted GZ making GZ the victim in this case.

Personally I have no idea if GZ is guilty or not. I do feel that GZ WAS an overzealous cowboy of sorts and his job as neighborhood watch should mean to "watch" and call the police if there is suspicious activity, not to engage the person, follow them or question them if they were not doing anything criminal. However being a cowboy or overly zealous when there was no need to be (i.e. he doesn't need to confront TM, or anyone, unless perhaps if a crime that would harm another person was being committed) is grounds to convict him. And from what I have seen of the trial from a more informed than the jury position, the state hasn't met the burden of proof (proponderance of proof) that is required to make it's case of murder.