Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Zimmerman was not obviously under the influence of anything. The only reason they knew that Martin had drugs in his system was from the autopsy.
Zimmerman was under the influence of two psychotropic medications, 40 mg of Adderall and I think it was Trezadone, an anti-anxiety, anti-depressant medication.
This was reported by Zimmerman to the physician's assistant the next morning as the drugs he was taking daily at that time.
Who cares? What does it matter? It matters because there are a lot of people on this thread who think it matters what was in Martin's blood stream but, like you, don't think it matters what was in Zimmerman's. That's so illogical it isn't funny.
Unless you were there, you have no idea if Martin acted "civilized"---whatever that means when you're being followed by a creep. You also don't know what Martin did or didn't do. He could have tried to run but Zimmerman picked up his speed to keep up with him. To suggest he should have ignored Zimmerman is laughable. The defendant was stalking him. That is a fact that even George doesn't deny. You don't ignore a stalker. Stalkers are dangerous.
Illogical is the thought that fat, soft, out of shape Zimmerman could've caught up with Trayvon Martin.
True on both sides. The fundimental issue is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". And that IMO comes down to two areas:
1) Who initiated the physical confrontation (aka threw the first punch)? We will never really know, we (or rather, the jury) need to make conclusions from the evidence.
2) Was Zimmerman, in his position, reasonably "in fear for his life or great bodily harm"? That is the criteria for the use of deadly force in self defense.
As to the first one...the evidence and testimony does not contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin assaulted him (threw the first punch). Neither does it demonstrate that he did. That is a conclusion the jury must come to based on the evidence and testimony presented. Reasonable doubt there? Sure.
As to number two, that's very hard to argue. Who could possibly believe that a person that has overpowered them, has them pinned to the ground and is pounding them in the face and slamming their head on the concrete...would not be capable of inflicting great bodily harm or death? Is that a "reasonable" conclusion for someone in that position? Honestly, for anyone with an open mind, that would be pretty clear. Who would not use any means available to them to stop such an attack?
This jumps off the page and if I read this again, I am going to pound/slam/bang/smash my own head against the wall. There is no possible way that you can take a coconut and smash it against cement repeatedly and not have it break open let alone a head. This did not happen to GZ's head. There were two very tiny cuts. If his face was punched repeatedly, he would have looked as Rocky Balboa did at the end of that movie of the same name and GZ"s face did not look like a beaten pulp.
That being said, IMO GZ is guilty of negligence and irresponsibility (while in possession of a lethal weapon), which would not sound all that horrific if there was not a 17 year old in the ground as the end result.
I'm not stuck on the jury finding him guilty of murder in the 2nd degree and I never have been, but he should be held accountable to the point of never being able to legally possess a firearm again. He is not a logical person and he has more than proven that. If he wants to place himself in precarious situations, this is his option, but no one else should pay the price for his stupidity just because his gun gives him a false sense of authority and larger gonads.
True on both sides. The fundimental issue is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". And that IMO comes down to two areas:
1) Who initiated the physical confrontation (aka threw the first punch)? We will never really know, we (or rather, the jury) need to make conclusions from the evidence.
2) Was Zimmerman, in his position, reasonably "in fear for his life or great bodily harm"? That is the criteria for the use of deadly force in self defense.
As to the first one...the evidence and testimony does not contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin assaulted him (threw the first punch). Neither does it demonstrate that he did. That is a conclusion the jury must come to based on the evidence and testimony presented. Reasonable doubt there? Sure.
As to number two, that's very hard to argue. Who could possibly believe that a person that has overpowered them, has them pinned to the ground and is pounding them in the face and slamming their head on the concrete...would not be capable of inflicting great bodily harm or death? Is that a "reasonable" conclusion for someone in that position? Honestly, for anyone with an open mind, that would be pretty clear. Who would not use any means available to them to stop such an attack?
1) Who initiated the entire situation? Would Trayvon have ever attacked Zimmerman if he had not been followed by car, and then on foot, by an adult man that we know he perceived as a threatening, menacing adult man. How do we know? Because he ran to get away from Zimmerman, and because of his conversation with Rachel. We don't even need to guess!
2) And Trayvon, the victim, do you think at any point, perhaps when he saw that Zimmerman was drawing his gun, that he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm? This is the criteria for the use of deadly force in self-defense.
It matters what is in Martin's bloodstream because HE was the attacker. Zimmerman was not stalking anyone. He was being a good neighbor and assisting the police to eliminate crime in HIS housing complex.
Again, you forgot to add the words, "In my opinion." Good neighbors don't go around following teenagers after dark without identifying themselves as neighborhood watch personal---in all of George's interviews this is an established fact. He just followed Martin in a manner that made him appear creepy to any open minded person. Good neighbors don't kill teens outside their neighbor's windows, a teenager who neighbors say played catch with their kids in that very place where he died.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
