44 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
thanks for posting this
It helps expose the media bigotry against Zimmerman, and their coverup for Trayvon.
News video on it.
I tell you one thing,Facebook doesn't like it......
Both Wayne and I posted a similar video to that today on our Facebook pages and shortly after,they both mysteriously disappeared.
DOJ needs to know
that this will become plastered all over the internet if they try to do a "civil rights" lynching on Zimmerman after he escaped the first one they setup for him.
Cured his cough though.
Here you go, Tony.
The money statement:
In addition the autopsy report revealed moderate beginning signs of brain damage, and mild liver damage associated with prolonged use of DXM or in street lingo "Lean " in an otherwise healthy young man. 2006 ABC NEWS - It's more than a drug; it's a culture. It's what's known on the street as "Lean," a highly addictive cocktail of cough syrup, Juice or soda, and candy (see Watermelon Juice, Skittles, Robitussin) so potent it makes you "lean" over when high.
He'd also been smoking pot.
Thanks,as I suspected,you can't put garbage like that.......
in your body without f'n up your brain and liver.
I also suspect long term use would manifest itself as paranoia and uncontrollable anger,much like "Roid Rage", which would be consistent with what happened.
It's very interesting how much information people neglected to mention in order to advance their narrative of innocence.No matter what concrete evidence is provided,there will still be hard core apologists that refuse to believe it.
The latest bunch of racist BS to go viral
1. The prosecutors displayed the iced tea and Skittles during the trial.
2. If Trayvon had been white, his purchases would not have had you all automatically assuming he was about to cook up some kind of drug.
3. Why would he take his "ingredients" to his dad's fiance's house, where he expected to see his father?
I'll just file this in the same bin with all that "I have proof that Obama is a Muslim!" crap.
Typical of a liberal response
Facts mean nothing to any of you.......your 'rose colored glasses' only work one way.
Show me the facts proving he was planning to cook up a drug with his 7-Eleven purchases.
What about his Facebook remarks
where he specifically referred to it, Josh?
First post here
>>>He mentioned "Lean" often on social media>>>
I said Facebook, but doing a google search for 'travon martin lean cocktail' shows other posts that TM was actually talking about it on Twitter (which I don't use).
Here is just one of many links where other 'tweeters' have seen it......
If you needed proof that TM was abusing those products, you would have to go on Twitter and find his own words rather than take someone else's for that, such as mine, since I don't know anything about Twitter.
In any event, this is all 'evidence' that the DA's office didn't want to come out in the trial that would have exonerated Z right off the bat but because activists and politics got involved, they forced a tax paid for trial that wasn't even necessary, let alone running a man's life for nothing. Agendas are all that matters anymore........
"Ruining a man's life for nothing"
Zimmerman's life got "ruined." Trayvon Martin's life got snuffed out. Who do you think got the worse of their encounter?
As to your link, that's just a couple of people on the Internet tossing out their suspicions. Those posts mean no more than yours or mine do. I don't use Twitter either, so I guess this is one more accusation of yours with nothing to back it up.
Perhaps someone here in SE
who IS familiar with Twitter and how you can search for prior tweets can locate the proof, Josh. In any event, TM chose to backtrack after Z according to the phone records time line which put him right at his father's girlfriend's unit and that same time line put Z at the "T" of the crosswalk going back to his car, but two or three minutes later, TM was in Z's face (literally).
BTW.....when people do drugs, don't they get the 'munchies', even if the items he purchased weren't for finishing the 'cocktail' they are noted for? Marijuana was found in TM's system. We just don't know what else was found because the report has never been publicized as far as I know.
"Munchies" depends on the drug used
Marijuana does increase appetite (hence its use with cancer patients). Cocaine has the opposite effect, acting as an appetite suppressant.
Another effect of marijuana is that it does NOT produce aggressive behavior, unlike cocaine and alcohol.
And if the tox report wasn't publicized, you wouldn't have known there was marijuana in his system. No other drugs were found. Nice try though.
The tox report
WAS partially publicized........the liberal media refused to report on it because it didn't fit their agenda regarding this case. How do you think I knew about it? The judge refused to let it come into the trial. NOBODY wanted to paint TM as the thug he really was, Josh.
And surprise, surprise.....the 'lean cocktail' DOES have as a side affect aggressive, combative behavior.
We don't know if any of that cocktail was found because the entire tox report wasn't publicized and it would be political suicide to make the ME release it NOW. There was loads of evidence that the jury and the public never heard about (either the liberal media refused to report it or the judge denied it) regarding TM and his past, Josh.
Do a google search regarding his text messages and pictures on his phone, for instance....he was bragging about his fighting ability, he used slurrish language more often than not (blame it on his culture????? Not hardly, when whites don't get the same benefit of that doubt), showed off pictures of handguns (not saying they were his, but they weren't pics downloaded from the internet). He was on suspension from school......for what?
He had two thirds of a drug cocktail on his person when he died.......it wasn't all that long ago, Josh, that if you were stopped for a traffic incident and Zig-Zag papers were found in the car, you would have been up on drug paraphernalia charges, even if no MJ was found at the time. If it walks like a duck.........
If only one of them were to live that night
which one do you believe should have lived? Trayvon? Zimmerman?
Not gonna play that game
If Zimmerman had done what the dispatcher wanted him to do, they would both still be alive.
He WAS doing that....
going back to his car when M jumped him.....and if M had kept going on to his dad's unit since he was so close instead of doubling back, both would still be alive, too.........Keep perpetuating the lie you absolutely NEED to believe, Josh. 3/4 of the country believes the jury got it right.
I think the jury got it right too
They were constricted to finding on two charges, and they didn't feel the criteria for either one had been met. They followed the instructions they were given, and ruled within the parameters of Florida law. They got it right -- legally. The issue isn't with the jury; it's with the law.
And he wouldn't have had to go BACK to his car if he hadn't disregarded the police dispatcher's request by getting out of his car in the first place.
Tell me, what law...
...would you pass that would have made Zimmerman guilty? The law that says if you see a young black man walking in your neighborhood you MUST remain in your vehicle with doors locked?
I'm not sure what sort of problem you have with the law
but what this boils down to is a definition of provocation, normal or reasonable response to it and at what point the response is no longer tolerated as being legal. Generally, it becomes illegal at the point where an assault takes place. Even when assaulted, one must limit their response to what is appropriate according to law. It really doesn't come down to who committed the first act of assault but who carried it to the point of requiring extreme measures to end it.
Now the definition of assault is rather vague as it doesn't necessarily mean that bodily injury has occurred. Assault can be just a raised fist accompanied by a verbal threat. It can be someone grabbing another to impede their movement. What we don't know, though some seem to be sure, is if Zimmerman committed an act of assault on Martin. The evidence is quite strong that Martin did commit both assault and battery on Zimmerman but all we have to go on about TM was that he was annoyed by thinking he was being watched. A jury is not at liberty to fill in the blanks as to what else Zimmerman might have done to justify the swinging of his fists. The idea of innocence unless proven guilty requires that they don't do such.
The part that said.....
.....that the jury could not consider anything that happened before the fight started. If they could have considered the entirety of the encounter they'd have been able to rule on a confrontation that Zimmerman initiated. It's not self-defense if you start the fight.
would it be OK then for them also to consider
what each person was doing in his life to compare likelihoods of who might have done or started what actions? Nothing much was presented about who or what Trayvon was at that point in his life, while Zimmerman's life was sifted like fine flour in a sieve to see if they could point at anything detrimental to paint him with.
But Josh, you're not saying anything I didn't allude to
Ask yourself what starts a fight. When I ask it of myself, it's the first one to commit an act that could injure. That means swinging a fist, some object (such as had Zimmerman swung his flashlight), kicking, etc. Anything verbal doesn't count. Staring at someone doesn't count. Following them doesn't work. The only non-physical thing I can think of would be to deliberately block someone's path in order to prevent them from going to where they were trying to go. That does constitute assault. In that case, an appropriate response could be to shove them aside or knock them down and run. Pummeling them isn't an appropriate response. Neither is shooting or stabbing them.
Except you keep missing the
most important point, Josh.....the dispatcher, if you listen to the call, specifically asked "Where is he now"? Z left the car at that point to find an address on the front of the building where he last saw M and was walking back to his car after being told that they didn't need him to follow M. He wasn't following any longer, but you refuse to accept what the tapes themselves showed was going on.
Just remember, if Josh
gets the snot beat out of him in his own neighborhood one day, we can all say it was because he obviously deserved it for being in the wrong place at that time.
Do you just invent this stuff, or is some Conservative
BS Machine like Breitbart or Daily Caller making it up for you, or perhaps you listen to Glenn Beck.
I didn't make up the time lines, Rob
The defense brought that all out in the closing statements......along with the stop clock that counted down those long four minutes available to TM to get to his dad's unit....and HE chose to turn around and confront Z, not the other way around.
As for the rest of your sarcastic crap.......bite me.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)