oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I thought to put this video up for people to learn a bit more about what really happened in the Zimmerman case such as what were the two items Tryvon had purchased at that 7-11. Yep,the main items of Lean or Purple Drank, as you will. So many things about that night were never told by the media and surely weren't put out to the jury by the prosecution. Well here is a chance to learn many things that I bet you didn't know about that trial.

I became determined to get this thing out when I heard Trayvon's mother talking to some black group today about the way the defense used "Stand Your Ground" as a defense. That law was never mentioned in the trial so it becomes pretty obvious that someone, like Obama or Holder, or both, wants very badly to get rid of that law. It is past time that some of the real truth gets out so here it is.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/68300-whittle/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%2310144&utm_campaign=07-26-2013%20IJ%20Review

MTZS Loc: CA

The Zimmerman trial was politicized to deflect from the GOVT. scandals and to arouse racial unrest, which could justify MARSHALL LAW IN THIS COUNTRY, don't you think? Unfortunately the mainstream media is no longer credible in their reporting. They are just serving the idiots of this country, to keep them uninformed. Intelligent folks research the web for reliable information like this one. Keep up the great work. Let us work hard to educate folks and maybe there might be hope for this country yet, before we turn into the big C......

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, MTZS: I just now noticed you. Sorry I missed your launching date. Welcome to 1PP. I look forward to your posts as I sense some substance. Keep up the good work.

Adagio

A couple of things you should maybe think about.
1. Just because the items that Trayvon bought at the store may be the ingredients that are used in this concoction, is not proof that this is what he bought it for. He was buying these for his younger, soon to be, step brother. Any Soccer Mom might buy the same items for her kids. Does that mean that she's buying them for a cheap thrill? Those items are legal. Any kid can buy them, so unless you want to assume that every kid that buys Skittles and an Ice tea is trying to get high, you really have no case here. What you have is complete speculation, which is exactly why that was NEVER mentioned in Court by the defense. O'Mara would never even think of going there. He's not that dumb. What you think, and what you can prove are two different things.

2. Stand Your Ground was NOT the defense in the trial, and the reason is that if George had lost, O'Mara would appeal the verdict by using the Stand Your Ground law. Since you can only use it once, he was saving it for the appeal. But aside from that, the Stand Your Ground law WAS brought up in the jury deliberation as stated by juror B37. She voted for acquittal from the very start, and spoke openly about that very law in the jury sequester. She stated in her interview with Anderson Cooper that George had a right to stand his ground, directly referring to the law. Unfortunately she didn't seem to think that Trayvon also had that right. She bought Georges story, despite the fact that nobody could support it as an eye witness to what happened. So...what appears obvious to you, has no substance in fact. But, I suppose if you hate Obama and Holder enough, it's not a stretch to think that you'd go there.

As for getting rid of that law. It should be dumped immediately. As we can all see, it's a license to kill. If you kill a kid, or anybody else...as long as there is no witness, you can claim Stand Your Ground, and get off. At least in Florida. That's exactly what Zimmerman did, and there was no reason to accept his story. Do you think for a moment that George Zimmerman gave an objective account of what took place? I doubt that you would be that naïve. Unless you're predisposed to accepting his word for some other reason, you have no logical or rational reason to accept the totally subjective account of what happened.

Adagio

>"The Zimmerman trial was politicized to deflect from the GOVT. scandals and to arouse racial unrest, which could justify MARSHALL LAW IN THIS COUNTRY, don't you think?"<

No. But if I were really paranoid, I suppose I might. Fortunately for me...I'm not.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, a-dog: It is not a paranoid idea. But beside from that you are way to positive about your grip on reality.

bahmer

Here we go again!!

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, bahmer: Well I doubt it. I just couldn't help myself for the moment.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

About every time I hear anything that Bill has done, I try to get it up here. I don't think he is ever wrong, but I am not a left leaner.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I sure as hell do dislike Obama and Holder enough to go after them but it is only hate in the eyes of a leaner. You are one of them aren't you?

The law you are so much against, because of what Obama and Holder say was never brought up in the trial. It may have been mentioned by jurors during their sequester but never at all in the trial. Ah yes, Holder wants very much to get rid of laws like that one but it is pretty obvious to we non-leaners why that is, too. Yep, I am naive enough to think Zimmerman told the truth but he didn't get to talk in the trial, did he?

Speculation to why Travon had those things from the store, you say? Why I believe that the man in the video mentioned that in the words of the doctor who did the autopsy the liver showed just what "Lean" would cause in a liver. Do you refuse to believe that part? If so do you think that Holder is a better doctor than the man who did the autopsy?

As for the law that our leaner leaders want to kill, why would the defense have used it for the very reason you throw out. Would you expect him to use it when he may need it later.

Of course, you don't know about the bloody head of Zimmerman which proved that the kid who had been in all kinds of trouble with the law and at school was really trying to hurt him bad. Naw, that isn't right, is it?

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, oldroy: That ought to hold him for a while till he can mentally masturbate and come up with a new line of bull crap that he pretends he believes.

Adagio

That's what my shrink told me. :shock: Now I think that the two of you are in collusion.

Adagio

>"I sure as hell do dislike Obama and Holder enough to go after them but it is only hate in the eyes of a leaner."<

And where is the demarcation point between your intense dislike...and outright hate? That isn't very clear to me.

>"You are one of them aren't you?"<

I don't know. Define "leaner". It seems today that anybody that isn't on the extreme right is considered a "lefty" or is that a "leaner". I think you may have coined a term.

>"The law you are so much against, because of what Obama and Holder say was never brought up in the trial."<

Let me help you here. I'm not against a law because of what Obama or Holder may think about it. I don't need to wait on their opinions to form my own. I'm against that law for the reasons I described.

>"It may have been mentioned by jurors during their sequester but never at all in the trial. "<

Oh...and we can all see how that made a difference in the verdict. LMAO...And I told exactly why it wasn't brought up at the trial. It was to be used in case he was found guilty. They would appeal the verdict and use the Stand your ground law as the basis for the appeal. You can only use it once, and they didn't want to waste it. And that really has no bearing on it since what took place in the jury sequester is all that matters in the final analysis. They are the ones rendering the verdict. If they decide that he had a right to stand his ground, then what possible difference does it make what was said in the trial? That's like saying that nobody mentioned that it was raining outside, but when you walk out the door...you get soaked. Telling the jury that they should not consider stand your ground as an argument is like telling somebody not to think about an elephant. You try real hard, but you can't stop thinking about an elephant. Now remember jury...don't think about stand your ground. Meanwhile juror B37 is saying, George had a right to stand his ground. Decision: Not Guilty. :thumbup: Right. Got it.

>"Ah yes, Holder wants very much to get rid of laws like that one but it is pretty obvious to we non-leaners why that is, too."<

You mean besides the FACT that it's a license to kill? What reason might that be?

>"Yep, I am naive enough to think Zimmerman told the truth but he didn't get to talk in the trial, did he?"<

Well...that's quite an admission. So you admit that you're so naïve that you actually think that any individual can be objective about the details of a trial in which he is facing a murder charge?? Lets see.....hmmm. George Zimmerman is on trial for his LIFE over killing a kid. The only witness to the killing, is George. And he's going to give an objective account of what happened. Of course...who's there to dispute it? Not Trayvon Martin that's for sure. Tell me something. How can anybody and that includes you, be objective about an event that you have a part in. The very fact of your being involved eliminates any possible objectivity on your part. You will always tell your version of what happened. That's called subjectivity. Now if you want to insist that you, and George Zimmerman are completely objective about events that involve them...I'm going to have to simply right you off as completely and totally intellectually dishonest. You...and George, and everyone else on this planet will always inject your bias. And if your life is on the line...you can bet that you'll fill your story to place yourself in the best possible light. To deny that, is to simple tell me, and everyone else that you are hopelessly prejudiced. But...we already knew that didn't we? :thumbup:

>"but he didn't get to talk in the trial, did he?"<

Oh..he had plenty of opportunity to testify. But his lawyers and he agreed...that's not such a good idea. So don't try to present this as a case of him not being able to testify. The prosecution could not force him to testify. I'm sure they would have loved the opportunity to cross examine him.

>"Speculation to why Travon had those things from the store, you say? "<

Yeah. Speculation. Do you think that any other kid or parent of kids is buying Skittles and Iced tea to make a strange brew to get high on?

>"Why I believe that the man in the video mentioned that in the words of the doctor who did the autopsy the liver showed just what "Lean" would cause in a liver."<

Trayvon Martin had traces of THC in his system. That's Pot. And THC stays in your system for weeks. There was NO report that indicated that Trayvon Martin was using any concoction that you are talking about. So yes...speculation. People like yourself love to grab a possible connection and then claim that it proves something, when it doesn't. It's called inductive reasoning. You take this and then take that and then take something else, and tell yourself that it all adds up to a conclusion that you want to arrive at. So you assume that your theory is proven, when it isn't. Here's a little lesson for you. Inductive Reasoning NEVER proves a theory. EVER. What proves a theory is conclusive is when all possibilities are ruled out, through deductive reasoning.

>" Do you refuse to believe that part? If so do you think that Holder is a better doctor than the man who did the autopsy?"<

That's a ridiculous question. Holder is an attorney. Not a doctor. However your doctor hasn't proven that any such thing was ingested. The autopsy indicated what I stated regarding THC. Not Skittles. As far as I'm aware, the Skittles and the Ice tea were unopened. I realize that you're desperately trying to portray that kid as a drug crazed wild man, but that's not true. Sorry. :-(

>"As for the law that our leaner leaders want to kill, why would the defense have used it for the very reason you throw out. Would you expect him to use it when he may need it later."<

First of all...what the fuck is a "leaner"?? Is that anybody that isn't a Right wing extremist?? As for why it wasn't used, I told you. What part of that didn't you understand??
They didn't use it because you can only use it once. Suppose they used it and he was found guilty. If they wanted to appeal the case, they couldn't use that defense again. So they held that as an option if they needed an appeal. Of course he would use it if they needed to appeal. Are you having a hard time grasping this?? That was their ace, and they were holding on to it in case they needed it later. What is there about this that you don't understand?

>"Of course, you don't know about the bloody head of Zimmerman which proved that the kid who had been in all kinds of trouble with the law and at school was really trying to hurt him bad. Naw, that isn't right, is it"<

Well...I would expect that George Zimmerman would have a bloody head or nose or whatever considering that the kid was fighting for his very life. Did you expect he would go down without a fight? George Zimmerman said that his head was slammed into the pavement 25 times. Do you actually think that he counted every time his head was slammed? In the midst of this fight, Zimmerman was actually counting 1,2.3...14, 15, 16, ...23, 24, 25...BANG! I don't think so. If you've ever been in a fight, do you count the number of times you were hit? Secondly, if his head was slammed 25 times...how come he didn't need any stitches. And no concussion?? Really?? Do you think you could have your head slammed into the pavement twenty five times and still remain conscious? Do you know what Bullshit smells like? So you think that George Zimmerman was objective about the entire encounter huh? And we all got an unbiased account of what happened?

Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others. And that's exactly what you're exhibiting. You're pre-disposed to believing this crap to the point where you are accepting the impossible. You cannot be objective about something that you are involved in. That's called Subjectivity. That's your view of things that involve you. You cannot remove yourself From yourself. It's impossible. You can't be objective about this since you are allowing your own prejudice to inform you against all logic.

Adagio

Sorry to disappoint you. Dealing with him and others of that ilk...which includes you is like toying with children. You aren't the first mental midgets I've encountered, and I'm sure you wont be the last. I mean..really..what a moron. The guy say's...yeah I'm naïve enough to believe that George gave me an objective version of what happened. That's like saying..Yeah I'm dumb as a fucking stump. I believe that George can do the impossible. Sure. Why not? I don't think either of you understand the difference between objective and subjective. And then you double down on it. Do you know just how lame you actually are??

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

I'm tired, but I thought you said somewhere in here, that there were no witnesses?
There was actually about a half dozen, perhaps you missed this part of the trial. There are other sources of this, I just randomly picked this one.


http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17306-trayvon-martin-witness-john-good-and-america