Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Judge Allows Evidence that Trayvon Martin was Suffering from Reefer Madness

 Yahoo News

In a defeat for the prosecution, Judge Debra Nelson ruled that defense lawyers can introduce evidence that Martin had the active ingredient of marijuana in his system when he was killed.

Toxicology tests showed a THC in Martin's system, and Zimmerman told a police operator just before the shooting that Martin "looks like he's on drugs."

The prosecution argued the evidence was prejudicial, and the defense countered that it was relevant given Zimmerman's observation that Martin could be on drugs.

Medical Examiner Shiping Bao initially reported the THC level was too slight to affect Martin, but Bao testified outside the jury's hearing last week that his further research in preparation for the trial indicated the drug might have had a slight but unknown effect.

18 comments:

  1. So Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin looked like he might be on drugs, and holy cow, he was right. Then the prosecution was able to get the judge to agree that this evidence couldn't be used.
    But then a prosecution witness made a contradictory statement, once saying it had no effect and another saying maybe it does. Can we say oops? And this guy is a doctor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having pot in his system is not "being on drugs." Are you that out of touch, or are you that determined to defend Zimmerman's every utterance?

      Delete
    2. This hitting a little to close to home, Mikeb?

      Delete
    3. Having pot in his system IS being on drugs. Pot is ILLEGAL in Florida as it is a controlled substance considered to be and proven to be a mind altering drug and depending on how much was in his system, his judgement could have been very poor. It may have made him aggressive, bold and paranoid.

      That's why pot is controlled for use in some states and flat out illegal for use in most others as well as being illegal federally. It not out of touch Mike, its just the facts and nothing but.

      Delete
    4. What drugs do you need to have in your system to be considered "being on drugs"?

      Delete
    5. Not "trace amounts of THC" that's for sure. But the funny part is the hypocrisy of pro-gun guys who generally lament the prohibition against marijuana but now pretend it makes Trayvon Martin some kind of a druggie like the proverbial angel dust attackers.

      Delete
    6. I don't approve of ANY mind altering illegal drugs, even legal alcohol, for human use. I just don't, period. If you use it then stay home and certainly stay away from me. I think I have made that perfectly clear in the past Mike.

      So even "trace amounts" amount to illegal use.

      I don't understand why anyone would want to use anything in the first place. That anyone would even want to just keeps escaping me. Nobody has ever successfully explained it to me. I get up and go to bed perfectly sober every day. I am fully aware all day and sleep well at night. I love life and work to make life better every day. Why would I want to screw that up? Why would anyone?

      Delete
    7. You may have mentioned that before, but I forgot that you're a completely abstemious man. So, I suppose there's no hypocrisy in your harsh assessment of Trayvon Martin, but I still think it's a bit harsh.

      Are you so severe in your judgment of other gun owners? Do you hold them to the high standard you set for yourself as far as mood-altering substances go?

      I do. You may have seen some of that in my past writing.

      Delete
    8. Yes I do hold them in high standards Mike, especially when they worked for me and guns were a requirement of their work. The handling of them, carry methods and types were all scrutinized. NO DRINKING, NO DRUGS were ever allowed on my properties even on their off time. If you left and came back under the influence, you were fired and never allowed to return. I have ZERO tolerance for this kind of thing.

      Certain pistols and rifles were barred on my properties like Glocks and those like them. Really any gun I deemed unsafe wasn't allowed.

      Certain calibers were not allowed, more for keeping ammunition uniform.

      Now that I have retired from all that does NOT mean that I have relaxed my views of responsible ownership and use.

      If you come around me under the influence and driving or carrying, I will take your keys and keep your vehicle and gun if you have one and take you home. You will NOT get them back until I see your completely sober and I chew your ass out about it. That's your first and last chance around me. After that, your going to jail!

      Anyone is welcome to be armed around me, anytime, anywhere, open or concealed carry as long as you are a responsible type. My view on a carry gun is no different than cell phone or a pocket knife. Its a tool to carry if you need it, if not then it stays where it belongs, on your hip.

      You have seen and read all this before Mike, just go back and read my posts from a year or more back.

      And here is another thing, like I said, it stays where it belongs until you need it. These cases similar to Martian/Zimmerman happen all the time across the country. This case is n different than many others that happen. The only difference here is the Jackson's and Sharpton's thought they had something but didn't and made a big deal out of it.

      Four kids died in Chicago yesterday from guns similar to this case, do we know their names? Nope! No mention, and why not? They were all black on black confrontations. Didn't even make some of the local news. Why?

      So I may seem harsh, so what. Its the truth, I will not make any excuse for it. I don't soften or smooth for any reason. If your wanting to try pot "just to see what its like" then your a pot head in the making and don't be around me. If your life is so lacking that you have to screw with reality, then there no hope for you. Deal with it!

      Delete
    9. Thanks for repeating it all, my memory's not what it used to be plus I read a lot of comments and posts. I think I'll remember your extreme position on substance abuse now.

      What did you mean about Glocks, though? I don't think I've heard that before.

      Delete
    10. Glock does not have a safety that is a safe feature. The safety is a small trigger within the trigger. That's a safety device? Not in my book! They may be drop safe but that is it. Other similar guns that are striker fired instead of hammer fired are also unsafe in my book as most of those do not incorporate a safety device at all.

      I only allowed hammer fired pistols, most of those are 1911 pistols, others like Bersa was also allowed. The pistols I allowed had two or more safety features on them. Or single or double action revolvers were allowed. The double action must have an exposed hammer, no hammerless revolvers were allowed.

      Most modern day rifles were fine, but calibers were limited, here again only to keep ammo sizes to a minimum variety, same with pistol calibers. I supplied the ammo, you supply the gun with my approval. Rarely did I approve a caliber that I didn't stock ammo for and if I did, you bought your own ammo, I didn't pay you back.

      No fancy add on allowed on the rifles either, no rapid fire stocks (they are fun to shoot by the way, but a huge waste of ammo) or add on or replacement trigger systems. AKs and ARs were fine as well as a 30 round mag. If fact those were the most helpful in varmit control. They are a safe rifle, just as safe or more so than a "standard" hunting rifle of the same caliber.

      I have explained all this before, but its been a long time back. I have also explained that once I buy a firearm, ANY firearm it remains with me for its usable life of that firearm. Once it becomes un useable it then becomes the property of the state of Texas with a proper transfer for destruction only. I don't sell or trade firearms for any reason. The only exception is family heirlooms to be handed down to my kids, and only when they get a CHL and show me responsibility of owning and use of them. Which they all have already done.

      If you think my position on drugs is extreme, my views on firearms is even more so, in my own opinion.

      To sum up, no drug (or alcohol for that matter) should EVER be used or abused. Unless a doctor prescribes it, and then NO firearm use!!
      Some guns should NEVER have been allowed for manufacture because of their obvious safety flaws or the lack of a safety at all.
      The second civil right should apply equally to everyone in this country, no local or state laws should EVER over be written as they only conflict with the Constitution.
      The Constitution already deals with people that break the law to remove the second civil right and other civil rights from law breakers.

      KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is always better that 26,000 laws that are confusing, unenforceable and conflicting. And a proper Constitutional lawyer can always take down all of them, has worked for me.

      Delete
    11. Thanks for telling us all that again. Are you sure you've said it before? I owe you an apology for having thought of you as just another gun nut uninterested in what's right.

      What you didn't go into however is how far the government is allowed to go in enforcing those standards that you personally hold. Do you agree with me that marijuana users should be denied gun rights? How about those who drink too much when it becomes documented by a DUI, for example.

      Would it be too much for me to hope for agreement from you on my one strike ideas?

      Delete
    12. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to alter reality with chemicals lose there ability carry, maybe even own firearms. In most states that is already a standard. Drug users are already denied. A couple of states with the new laws enacted, I don't know how that is treated. But I simply cant trust a drug users judgment. Alcohol use is something that can be debated I suppose simply because its a legal product, I don't condone its use at all however. But in Texas the legal alcohol limit for a CHL while armed is 0.000000%. In other words none. And again, don't be around me drinking even one swallow of anything.

      A DUI indicates a problem someone has with alcohol. And again, its a judgment problem that should remove those who carry and in some cases own firearms. In Texas a DUI conviction less than five years old will prevent you obtaining a CHL. If you have a CHL, a DUI conviction will cause the CHL to be revoked.

      One strike, here again that concept is debatable. It depends on what the infraction could be. This is something best left with law enforcement and courts. But I can see some instances where it could be, should be and already is enforced. Accidents happen, and will happen to anyone.

      A true accident I don't look at as being irresponsible. Being irresponsible is a different category. Believe me, I have worked thru dozens of accidents over the years with the guys that worked for me. No one ever got hurt but the potential was there. Just like accidents with trucks, cars horses, knives, ropes,,,,,,,, heck the list is endless. I treated accidents with firearms the same way I treated accident with knives or anything else for that matter. Anything has the potential for injury or death.

      But it wasn't hard to see the difference between an honest accident and being irresponsible. Being irresponsible got you fired. I guess you could call that as my way of "One strike and your OUT"!

      I am not sure as to what standard that you refer to that I personally hold that Government should enforce?

      Delete
    13. You and I are a lot closer than I thought. Why does it seem we're always arguing?

      Delete
    14. A lot is fundamental differences of opinion. I would rather not argue Mike, but discuss rationally these differences. I am not attempting to change your mind but get you to understand me. The reason some of my posts are so long.

      I have my outlook on life, others have theirs. That's being an individual. I don't like being dumped into the same basket of wrong doers as I don't want what they do to affect me. I wont use derogatory terms to describe people who disagree with me, that is unproductive and divisive. I believe in a rational discussion.

      I research and verify, I have others, a staff, to research for me and I still verify. I take things I cant verify with a grain of salt and usually wont comment on that subject.

      I don't like government intrusion, I believe in individual responsibility. I have as much as forced responsibility on some people and found that they will take to it like a duck on water when they find its much more liberating and productive in doing so rather than looking to others for their needs. Besides gun ownership and use of that responsibility, the rest is a whole other subject.

      I would rather, MUCH rather we discuss Mike, than argue. I don't want to offend anyone, including you, and wont use insulting terms or derogatory remarks, like Guy Cabot AKA Jadegold for example. How you want to respond to others is their business and yours, not mine. I have always been in the belief of respect given is respect earned.

      I don't always agree with "my side" and by the same token I do agree with some points on "your side". I don't like sides, it builds fences.

      Delete
    15. Thanks, I like your style more and more.

      Delete
  2. THC, like alcohol, meth, acid, etc. all affect the behavior of an individual. Zimmerman was giving his observations to the dispatcher, who would then pass the information on to responding officers. The prosecution went to great lengths to use many of his utterances to make it appear that he was racially profiling Martin. One TV network even overstepped their "artistic license" in order to sell that to the public.
    The reason this information is admissible at all is that the medical examiner gave conflicting testimony as to what effect it could possibly have had on Martin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have a lot of experience with drugs, but my understanding is that THC in the blood is not usually consistent with attempting to murder people with bare hands.

      Delete