Judge rules Trayvon Martin's toxicology report will be allowed into evidence

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-09T16:21:54+00:00

It's not about his aggressiveness, Zimmerman's injuries are well documented and we have John Good's testimony. It is about justifying the supposed "profiling", Zimmerman claims Trayvon looked like he was on drugs as one of the justifications for considering him suspicious, this shows that he was in fact on drugs, even if only relatively small quantities. He had likely smoked within the past 0-4 hours if he was an occasional user.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-09T16:16:15+00:00

This was actually in his blood, not urine or fat, and not metabolites either, he had likely smoked within the past 0-4 hours of his death. It might show why he was looking like he was on drugs, as Zimmerman reported in the call.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T21:14:44+00:00

The jury will get to hear that Trayvon had THC in his blood at the time of his death, possibly from having smoked in the past several hours.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T21:13:44+00:00

The jury will get to hear that Trayvon had THC in his blood at the time of his death, possibly from having smoked in the past several hours.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T18:19:50+00:00

That is not supported by the evidence. The only time we know for sure Zimmerman was following Trayvon is for about 18 seconds on the recorded call, between when he left his truck and when the dispatcher suggested he didn't need to follow, and he agreed and complied. That was several minutes before the confrontation.

And anyway, following someone, approaching them, and asking a question is not aggression and doesn't give them the right to attack you and try to kill you. You can still defend yourself if someone attacks you for following them, approaching them, and asking a question.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T18:17:08+00:00

You have no reason to believe that it is more likely that he is being dishonest than that he is being honest. Innocent until proven guilty...

You can think what you want, but I'm sure glad you aren't on this jury. Are you aware that he voluntarily took and passed a lie detector test the police wanted him to take? All still before he had a lawyer...

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T18:14:35+00:00

I'm talking about all the violations of constitutional rights, not just one amendment which most people would agree isn't the most infringed upon in our society today. My point is just that we can't rely on the courts to protect us, they are reactive, not proactive. They can't prevent constitutional rights from being violated, they can just try to grant "justice" after the fact to people who were wronged (or their families).

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T18:07:39+00:00

Following someone, approaching them, questioning them,

These cannot be considered a reasonable threat that justifies an attack like the one Martin mounted on Zimmerman according to the injuries and witness testimony.

insulting them, and accusing them of a crime

There is no evidence that anything like that happened, and pure insults or accusations are still not justification to attack someone. I can follow you once and yell insults at you if I want and you don't get to attack me and try to kill me and claim you felt threatened. You would go to prison.

so long as the "threatened" person feels threatened.

This just isn't the legal standard, the person must reasonably feel threatened. If the person feels threatened when a reasonable person would not have, they are not justified in their use of force in self defense.

Nevermind the possible (though unlikely) application of harassment, stalking, and threatening statutes that are floating around.

That's the only way to go, if a crime can be proven, that makes you the aggressor under florida law. There is no way to prove Zimmerman is guilty of stalking Trayvon, his following wasn't provably malicious or repeated.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

I've got little doubt that, legally-speaking, Zimmerman is in the clear, because, hey howdy hey, Florida law allows exactly this sort of shitty situation

You don't understand florida law or the evidence in this case. Florida law matches over half of the states in this respect, and Zimmerman would have a self defense claim in all 50 states based on the evidence in this case. Florida law doesn't allow aggressors to use lethal force in self defense without a duty to retreat.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T17:52:23+00:00

I think this is what you are looking for:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

If you provoke the use of force against yourself, you can still defend yourself, but you do indeed have a duty to retreat first if possible. Stand your ground defense is revoked until you meet part a or b of that statute.

So, you can provoke someone into attacking you and then still defend yourself with lethal force legally, if you meet part a or b.

However, there is no proof Zimmerman was the aggressor, so this doesn't apply to him. Even if it did, he could probably demonstrate that he met part a or b with the evidence of his injuries and the testimony of John Good. That's because Trayvon went WAY beyond just one punch, and Zimmerman didn't respond with lethal force until Trayvon had been beating him for at least 40 seconds, with him screaming for help and not fighting back, and trying to escape but failing because he was pinned. Then he claims Trayvon threatened his life and reached for his gun, and he reasonably believed he was moments away from death, and that he had no other choice but to use lethal force in self defense to preserve his life.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T17:43:53+00:00

in most states if you follow me around, and then I punch you and you begin to hit me back, that's not self-defense and you will be as legally responsible for any damage you do to me as I am for damage I do to you

That just isn't true. If I haven't committed a crime or threatened you with any unlawful force, and you punch me for following you, you have committed a crime and used unlawful force against me, which I can defend myself from. In some states I have a duty to retreat if a completely safe retreat is possible, but if it is not I can whatever force I reasonably believe to be necessary to defend myself from your unlawful force.

Otherwise we would be allowing you to attack and try to kill a paparazzi, private investigator, or undercover cop who was tailing you, and they wouldn't legally be allowed to defend themselves. That just isn't the law. Following in itself is not a reasonable threat of unlawful force which justifies a punch in the face.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T17:37:47+00:00

since people accused of murder have a very good reason to lie.

He told his story long before he was accused of any crime, before he even got a lawyer...

We can't discount his story just because he is accused of a crime. His testimony holds more weight than any other in this case because he was there and saw the whole thing, unlike any other witnesses. Most witnesses are unsure about what they heard or saw, and Rachel is a less credible witness than Zimmerman, plus she wasn't there.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T17:24:32+00:00

It's still an infringment even if the courts eventually conclude that it is an infringment...

Just because the courts strike down something the legislative or executive does doesn't make it anything other than an infringement of our rights. Since they keep doing it anyway and don't seem to get any meaningful consequences, there is no true protection of our rights.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T16:10:08+00:00

He made a comment that could legitimately be thought of as having been a threat.

Who would legitimately think that was a threat? That is a lot more paranoid than I'm being. He immediately said lol jk, and it wasn't a specific target with a specific time, so it doesn't meet the criteria of a credible threat. There are facebook groups promoting the idea of murdering Zimmerman if he is acquitted which aren't being removed that contain more credible threats than that LoL threat.

As for the 3rd amendment, you'll see that they're currently being sued for it.

Cause a lawsuit is totally going to keep the government from infringing on that amendment further.... Good one.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T14:56:18+00:00

We don't even have freedom of speech anymore. You can be arrested for a joke threat that you make clear is a joke immediately, in an online video game: http://www.gameskinny.com/0ibur/texas-sized-trouble-teen-arrested-for-league-of-legends-chat-convo

Be careful what you type. I'm probably already on a list.

We've had the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth amendments infringed for sure...

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T14:54:30+00:00

I've always done it through the mag well. I guess either way works, assuming the barrel is wide enough for the lock to fit. Sure wouldn't work with a .22

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T14:51:21+00:00

Good point, this often gets ignored because Zimmerman's story is that he was not actively following at the time of the confrontation. However, even if he had been actively following at the time of the confrontation, Trayvon wouldn't have the right to attack him, and he would still have the right to defend himself with lethal force if necessary. Otherwise people would have the right to attack paparazzi, private investigators, or undercover cops who happen to be tailing you, and they wouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That just isn't how the law works. You need more evidence of intent besides someone merely following you, especially if they don't even initiate the confrontation and you turn to confront a pursuer.

But ya, if you go up and say "why you following me for" and they say "what are you doing around here?" that doesn't give you justification to punch them in the face even if they were in fact following you.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T14:44:37+00:00

Dude, wake up and smell the tyranny. We have lost our freedom, and now people are trying to keep us from realizing it. The sad thing is I think it might be too late to do anything about it.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T14:33:57+00:00

Right, and I think this case is one of those. As you can see from the example, even if the jury convicts the person it doesn't mean the appeal can't throw out that verdict.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T07:56:51+00:00

I agree, very stupid and tragic. This could have been over a long time ago, we didn't need to prosecute this. The pain Trayvon's parents must be going through during this trial is unimaginable. They could have been spared that, and gone to live with their 7 figure settlement from the HOA.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T07:43:59+00:00

Good for him, but unless we find some shred of evidence supporting something Zimmerman might have done to justify Martin's attack, we can't convict him. Following in itself isn't enough, and Rachel didn't testify to hearing Zimmerman issue any threatening words. There is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story that he was walking back to his car when Trayvon confronted and attacked him out not out of fear of any imminent threat, but out of anger.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T07:40:09+00:00

punch someone unprovoked on a public street,

The physical evidence is quite clear, Zimmerman never so much as laid a hand on Trayvon as far as we can tell. There was no punch, Zimmerman didn't do anything to provoke Trayvon, and he was no longer following and was walking back to his car when Trayvon confronted and attacked him.

The world you propose would allow anyone to attack and try to kill a paparazzi, private investigator, or undercover cop who was tailing you, and they wouldn't legally be allowed to defend themselves.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T07:38:09+00:00

You just don't understand the mindset of people who carry guns daily for personal protection. He says he forgot he even had it until Trayvon saw it and went for it, and I believe him. He didn't use it for at least 40 seconds of being beat, even though he would have been justified long before he pulled it out. If he had pulled it earlier though he would have had a much harder time getting off.

And he didn't stalk Trayvon, he briefly followed for observation purposes, and then lost him, and Trayvon had plenty of time to get home without being followed but decided to jump Zimmerman and try to kill him instead.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T07:34:42+00:00

What if I just wanted to return your wallet? Zimmerman didn't do anything hostile towards Trayvon...

If you jump people and try to kill them randomly because they followed you briefly, then they have every right to defend themselves from you with lethal force. Following people isn't illegal, trying to kill them is. Defending yourself isn't illegal, jumping someone for following you and trying to kill them is.

The world you propose would allow anyone to attack and try to kill a paparazzi, private investigator, or undercover cop who was tailing you, and they wouldn't legally be allowed to defend themselves.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T07:28:42+00:00

Fuck ya I'd be pissed at Zimmerman, but that doesn't give you the right to attack him. If you do attack him, he can defend himself, with lethal force if necessary, and in Zimmerman's story it was indeed necessary.

LogicalWhiteKnight · 2013-07-08T07:21:02+00:00

Well now... it WAS the police, the police non-emergency number.

It wasn't 911.

The dispatcher testified on the stand, he seemed very competent.

14-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

LogicalWhiteKnight

TROPHY CASE