I am not sure I like this 50 volt guy... But smoking pot is potentially not an "okay" crime... Who sells it ? Who trafficks it? Are these people and is that an industry that it is ethical to put money into. Just because it's only illegal due to daft moral posturing, does not mean it is not part of the black market & all the things that brings with it. Whether your grandma smokes it iis irrelevant... My grandma wore fur, is fur ok because a sweet old lady was involved?
I like a smoke but I make sure I know who grows it
tbh I don't know a lot about this case, but is there evidence to show that this guy was walking away when he was shot? And was he shot some distance from the property - if so the guy needs to go to jail. And there really is no 2 ways about it
50 volt let's just be up front here... What are your political beliefs?
Pot is completely irrelevant. It's drift in this thread. This 50 Volt guy is trolling, and trying to derail this thread. And asking him about his "political beliefs" is opening a giant can of drift.
if you're trying to bring "character" into a legal discussion, you're going to have to apply the character analysis to ZIMMERMAN, not Martin. Zimmerman is the one who initiated the aggression. It's obvious that this all just went incredibly wrong for Zimmerman. He made a bad choice, didn't listen to the cops, didn't let the cops do their job, and took matters into his own hands even after being told not to, and now a kid is dead. Zimmerman may be a really good guy, but sometimes really good guys make incredibly stupid decisions.
if Zimmerman was out walking at night, and Martin jumped him and, therefore, was the initial aggressor, then Zimmerman would probably have a good defense. But, at this point his attorneys are only trying to spare his ass from Murder 2 and, again, at some point they're going to feel compelled to lean toward involuntary manslaughter or something like that. Let's watch this play out and see. But all this other silly drift is just that; silly.
Last edited by allegro; 05-18-2012 at 11:20 AM.
I'm not saying it's relevant - so you're right in that sense. I just see people saying that smoking pot is not in of itself a bad thing - but it very well can be; I'm saying smoking pot is not ethically above board, as the Pot industry is facilitated by criminals. I've never seen breaking bad & I only have knowledge of the drug trade in the UK so I could be completely and utterly wide of the mark here, but it's not entirely friendly folk that produce & traffick the stuff.
Anyway why do you bring up wal-mart? Yes both Wal-Mart and the drugs trade are unethical. It would really only be relevant to draw that comparison if I had been sticking up for big business in the same post. As it is you're just saying "something else is bad too". Yeah ...and?
I'm saying that because it can be said about just about any consumer product it makes no sense to single out pot in this instance however you just admitted its irrelevant so lets move on.
Oh my days... it makes sense to single out pot use because people in this thread are saying pot use is not unethical.
I need a brandy!
Drift.
(Ten characters.)
haha! I'll give you that...
come think of it, people in grey tracksuits are usually pretty mental
If there was pot in his bloodstream, I'm pretty sure that would only make him dangerous to a bag of Skittles.
Also, I'm sure the Wrigley company ain't lovin' its product being associated with a murder.
lol... just to clarify, I'm not saying pot use has any bearing on this case, I'm just saying it's incorrect to say that it's squeaky clean to consume products produced & distributed by elements of society that are willing to transgress social conventions & common morality to make a profit
and yep, that could include anything from trainers to coke to videogames.
just give up, it's too horrible to take in how shitty we are. Either accept, let go or make excuses :P
As an aside, and then we really should stop the drift: here in the U.S., not all pot is grown by murderous drug cartels. A lot of our very best pot is grown in Washington state, and Oregon, and California, or in people's garages and basements, under grow lights. And if pot was legalized, and taxed like booze, which is a far more harmful and deadly drug, the crime associated with drug trafficking would nearly cease to exist. But, again, this is drift in this thread and if someone wants to start a "LEGALIZE POT" thread, we can point to it.
Whether or not Martin was a squeaky-clean Jesus-loving honor student or a normal occasional pot-smoking kid with average grades is not relevant to this case in a court of law. If he had a rap sheet a mile long that included 15 burglaries, it might still not be relevant; because police instructed Zimmerman to stand down, but he pursued Martin as if he, Zimmerman, WAS the law, and when Martin defended himself, Zimmerman shot him, and none of this would have happened had Zimmerman done what the cops told him to do.
Last edited by allegro; 05-18-2012 at 09:53 PM.
oops, double post.
Last edited by Jinsai; 06-23-2012 at 03:31 PM.
No, especially now that there's this speculation about whether or not the Skittles and flavored iced tea were intended to be part of a Robotussin cocktail called "Lean"
Regarding that reenactment video, his version of the phone conversation with the 911 operator is already inconsistent with the reality of what we've heard from the recording... and outside of the calls to the police, the only witness still alive is Zimmerman. Either way you look at it, his version of events that we can verify is untrue.
Please go into specifics for me, Jinsais.
Last edited by Amaro; 06-23-2012 at 10:22 AM.
The point where he gets out of the car and says "shit, he's running." Naturally, he doesn't reenact that part of his conversation, or the part where he said "these assholes always get away." In this version, he says he's getting out to "check a street sign???" He also leaves out the part where the dispatcher asked him "are you following him?" and he said "yes" and the dispatcher says "um, we don't need you to do that."
He omits the part where the dispatcher said NOT to follow him, and instead he's changing it up to imply that he was basically instructed to investigate further? I think it's safe to say that his version of events is not entirely reliable.
Last edited by Jinsai; 06-23-2012 at 04:07 PM.
Okay...I hear what you're saying now. When you clearly hear George getting out of the car (after he notes Trayvon is running), pretty soon after the dispatcher then asks if he is following Trayvon. If he's being truthful to where he parked before getting out, you now have to visualize the distance he had to cover from his story in the reenactment. One question is how far George continued to go, while still on the phone call, after being told to stand down. The only indicator I can hear is when George is about to give the dispatcher his home address, but refrains because he didn't know where Trayvon might be. That tells us George is far enough towards wherever he last saw Trayvon generally at. Did George try to follow him, or was he actually trying to recover a street name, or was it a bit of both?
At this point, in conjunction with one witness account (John), and the voice screaming "Help!" now really linking to be George's, I'd have to say I generally believe what George said took place in the second half of Trayvon and George's "encounter." I don't think he would've had the gun drawn at any point prior to anything physical... It seems unlikely George would be on the ground screaming that long if the gun was already exposed. The first half of the encounter is obviously where it's tough to say much with confidence... Basically square one--who really started anything once one saw the other face-to-face.
Can someone please tell me what the fucking deal is with the phone convo Trayvon had with his girlfriend? I mean it isn't even being referenced in transcript, as far as I know. Has it been talked about any? What the fuck...
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman#Martin.27s_friend
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/i_know_he_was_scared_trayvon
Why didn't Trayvon just continue down the cut-through to his dad's? I believe his dad's house was just at he end of that stretch. Was he that out of breath, to where he like crouched somewhere to take a chill where George didn't notice when passing by the cut-through at first?
Or did Zimmerman lie about going straight in that direction on foot and in fact make a shortcut through the side of the cut-through, catching up to Trayvon?
http://bcclist.com/2012/03/27/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map/
http://bcclist.com/tag/murder/
Last edited by Amaro; 06-23-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Zimmerman went on faux news and told Sean Hannity it was God's plan that Martin was killed that night.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1684878.html
Can I punch this asshole in the face now?"Is there anything that you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayon that night?" Hannity asked. "Do you regret that you had a gun that night?"
"No, sir," Zimmerman, 28, replied. "I feel that it was all God's plan and not for me to second-guess it or judge it."
Who the fuck is 'Trayon'?
Ha! For the record, I copied and pasted that directly from the article; I didn't type it out myself. So I can't take the blame for that one.
Sorry to drag this up but either i didnt make myself clear or you didnt catch my point
I wasnt saying pot use is inherently bad, but buying it can be in certain (most) legal environments. I never said anything about pot use having a bearing on his character so the sweatshop analogy, if not irrelevant, certainly does not apply to the point I was making
My point was ; black market goods are very rarely without ethical baggage, it is incorrect to say that purchasing weed is always above board
So this 'ethical baggage' that you're saying pot has. . . is it really heavy enough that we should accept past use as evidence that Martin was so violent that he would just attack Zimmerman unprovoked? No way. And that's why it's irrelevant. And that's what everyone keeps missing. Zimmerman forced Martin's hand when he attempted to detain him. You don't get to just stop strangers on the street and try to hold them there. That's a crime in and of itself, one that you're free to defend yourself from.
And yes, Zimmerman says that he never attempted to detain anyone, which is the most far fetched thing I've ever heard given his conversation with police. What's more likely, that yes Zimmerman tried to play policeman and detained T, or that T attacked Zimmerman for no reason whatsoever?
This motherfucker just won't stop, huh?
"Zimmerman suing Trayvon Martin's Family, Publisher & Prosecutors for $100 Million"
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...238030539.html
One of these days Zim will get his...many, many years too late.
this guy, Martin Shkreli, and Donald Trump are like the unholy trinity of evil sad fucking men.