Leanin'

[hookemnick.livejournal.com]

Tea Watermelon fruit drink & skittles

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And IMHO, who cares? It's now legal in a number of states, and as long as he wasn't high and driving a car why would that matter? So he smoked dope. So did I at his age. So did most of my friends. Thank goodness we were hoodieless white kids or we might not have lived to grow up to be successful professionals.

I don't think it matters much at all, no. I think it gives a broader framework into Martin's frame of mind, however.

And as stated above, even assuming that he was going to use his tea and skittles to make a drug, that doesn't make any sense with his behavior. If he thought Zimmerman was a cop, why would he allegedly confront him?

It may have been why he initially ran. It may have been why he chose to call his girlfriend rather than the police. There are countless reasons as to why it would be a sensible first thought, as speculative as they are.

That narrative is a dog that will not hunt.

As I said, there's good reason why the information wasn't allowed in court. But given that the narrative for so many is that this is some harmless, innocent child who was stalked and killed by a vigilante for simply having a hoodie, some Skittles, and some iced tea? We shouldn't be afraid of any facts.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much my narrative. I think Zimmerman is a wannabee cop who saw his chance to be a big damn hero and when things didn't go his way, and he was going to get his ass kicked, panicked and shot Martin. That's the narrative that makes total sense to me.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The narrative might make total sense to you, but the narrative does not have any relationship whatsoever to the evidence. It's feelings, not facts.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Regardless of who did the approaching, Zimmerman did not have to get out of his car. That choice escalated the situation. And since the police were on their way, there was no reason he had to do so.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Regardless of who did the approaching, Zimmerman did not have to get out of his car.

Sure he did. The police dispatcher asked him where Martin went, and Zimmerman decided to find out where he ran off to. When dispatch realized it, they told him that he "didn't have to do that," and Zimmerman started heading back to his truck. The dispatcher testified in the case as a state witness, and said he could see how Zimmerman interpreted the intent of his statement.

Completely reasonable action, especially for someone with a relationship with the police and for someone leading a neighborhood watch. Context is key.

That choice escalated the situation.

What escalated the situation was not a reasonable attempt to track down the location of someone running away, but the runner coming back and attacking the observer. That's when the situation became violent, not before. You can't come back to a situation you've left or escaped from (whichever your perspective may be) and still claim innocence.

[hookemnick.livejournal.com]

That has a very "if she didn't go to the club, she wouldn't have been raped" feel to it. He was under no obligation to stay in his car.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Bullshit. In fact double bullshit. Zimmerman was following Martin around. Martin had just as much right as Zimmerman to be where he was. If anyone had a right to 'stand their ground' it was Martin. He had every right to confront a stalker. He had every right to defend himself. But of course, if Martin had a gun and had defended himself against a stalker we all know he would have been charged immediately. Because really, no one would believe that a teen might be frightened by being followed around by some white dude.

[hookemnick.livejournal.com]

Ah, my bad. I didn't realize you were there. Amazing how so many people know more than a jury who heard the entire case and earned their law degrees overnight. You believe only what you want to believe.

[prock.livejournal.com]

I especially like the part where you draw a parallel between "being raped" and "killing someone".

That's a pretty neat trick!

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Whereas your "Oh, he didn't actually HAVE codeine on him or in his system but obviously he was PLANNING to make drugs and get high" is completely objective and factual.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That the most likely reason for having watermelon juice and Skittles on him is to concoct a drug drink he is on record as using and creating before? Yes.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this is where any pretense you've ever given to objectivity flies right out the window. Your constant obsession with giving the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman - your insistence that because we can't know for SURE we can't make any judgments as to what happened... if you had any objectivity whatsoever you'd apply the same standards to your judgment of the dead kid.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Your constant obsession with giving the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman

Really? My "obsession," as it were, was to look at the facts presented. Coming up to the trial, I even deferred to a lot of you who insisted he was guilty, figuring we'd see some new/better evidence at trial.

It never came.

This is no longer about "benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman," but about reflecting the actual facts and evidence of the case.

Now, as for this:

if you had any objectivity whatsoever you'd apply the same standards to your judgment of the dead kid.

Tell me this: objectively speaking, if a person has a history of drug use, has a history of saying he likes "lean," and is then found in possession with two of the three ingredients, is it not likely (note the word here is very specific, and what I've used throughout) that he was picking up those ingredients for whatever this concoction is?

I'm not saying its a definite. I am saying that it was correct that it didn't hit the court case. But, hey, objectively speaking?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Tell me this: If a person has a history of excessive force/temper - like say prior arrests for assaulting a police officer and domestic violence... and if he has a prior history of vigilantism in that he appointed himself his neighborhood's "neighborhood watch" without approval or oversight from any NSA-affiliated organization... and if he had repeatedly called the police complaining of young black men in his neighborhood whom he assumed to be criminals... and he is then found standing over the body of a dead young black man whom he has shot to death after pursuing him through the neighborhood, is it not likely that his decision to pursue, confront, and kill that young man might be the result of racial bias and/or impulsive temper? Hey, objectively speaking?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sure, if those facts were true. They don't apply to Zimmerman, however, who does not have a history of excessive force or domestic violence, nor did he "appoint himself" the neighborhood watch, nor do they need approval or oversight to do so, nor did he pursue anyone through the neighborhood.

This is why you need to do your research before jumping to conclusions. God knows you've had enough time, objectively speaking.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

I'll grant that the domestic violence thing was not an arrest but a granted restraining order - my sentence gave the wrong impression. That he was arrested for assaulting a police officer is a matter of public record, of course.

He began making frequent phone calls to the police prior to the formation of the Neighborhood Watch in his community, and a volunteer coordinator was sent out at his behest to discuss setting up a Neighborhood Watch in late 2011. In the presentation that coordinator gave, she clarified that the Watch is NOT supposed to be a vigilante police organization, and that the job of the official "neighborhood watch coordinator" is not to pursue or apprehend criminals but to liaise with the police.

The NSA (National Sheriffs; Association, not National Security Agency, BTW) does not list Zimmerman's neighborhood watch as one of their registered groups, and their national policy explicitly instructs against carrying a gun while patrolling in a volunteer capacity.

And the hair-splitting as far as the word "pursuit" is kind of silly. He drove around following Martin through the neighborhood, and then got out of his car and followed him on foot. Whether you consider that to be a legitimate thing to do or not, it's still a thing he did.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That he was arrested for assaulting a police officer is a matter of public record, of course.

And the charge was dropped.

He began making frequent phone calls to the police prior to the formation of the Neighborhood Watch in his community, and a volunteer coordinator was sent out at his behest to discuss setting up a Neighborhood Watch in late 2011. In the presentation that coordinator gave, she clarified that the Watch is NOT supposed to be a vigilante police organization, and that the job of the official "neighborhood watch coordinator" is not to pursue or apprehend criminals but to liaise with the police.

Okay. And?

The NSA (National Sheriffs; Association, not National Security Agency, BTW) does not list Zimmerman's neighborhood watch as one of their registered groups, and their national policy explicitly instructs against carrying a gun while patrolling in a volunteer capacity.

So the Zimmerman watch wasn't listed with the NSA, nor does it have to be. What does this mean?

Furthermore, if it's not part of their "registered groups," why on earth would they be beholden to their national policy?

And the hair-splitting as far as the word "pursuit" is kind of silly. He drove around following Martin through the neighborhood, and then got out of his car and followed him on foot. Whether you consider that to be a legitimate thing to do or not, it's still a thing he did.

You still don't have this right. He "drove around" to go to the grocery store and spotted Martin. He then called the police. When the police asked where he was, he got out of the car to find out where Martin went - thus the misunderstanding of the instruction (which the dispatcher, under oath, understood how it could be construed the way Zimmerman did) and the further instruction of "you don't have to do that" after the fact once he learned Zimmerman had left his car and was "following" him.

So the "hair splitting" is more one of the difference between some guy chasing a kid around the neighborhood in a vehicle and on foot, and a guy on the phone with police attempting to ascertain the location of another suspicious person (because, as Zimmerman and those in the neighborhood had come to learn, "they always get away").

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

See, this is exactly what I mean. It's so important for you to argue every fine point of every detail about Zimmerman because we can't PROVE a pattern of anything and if we can't PROVE it how dare we say it, but a dead black kid has Skittles and a drink and all of a sudden the only reasonable "likely" conclusion is that he was high off his ass (in the face of all available toxicology evidence) and obviously engaged in criminal activity and looking for trouble.

There might actually be a perfectly innocuous explanation for every single one of Zimmerman's actions. But in that case there's sure as hell an innocuous explanation for Trayvon's convenience store purchases.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

ee, this is exactly what I mean. It's so important for you to argue every fine point of every detail about Zimmerman because we can't PROVE a pattern of anything and if we can't PROVE it how dare we say it, but a dead black kid has Skittles and a drink and all of a sudden the only reasonable "likely" conclusion is that he was high off his ass (in the face of all available toxicology evidence) and obviously engaged in criminal activity and looking for trouble.

Never claimed the latter. Why are you struggling with this?

A claim is made about Zimmerman that is false. Should I accept the false record, or correct it? I'll always go with the latter.

There might actually be a perfectly innocuous explanation for every single one of Zimmerman's actions. But in that case there's sure as hell an innocuous explanation for Trayvon's convenience store purchases.

I have said numerous times now that this was the case. The question is about likelihood. You've based your point of view on Zimmerman on false information. If I've done the same to Martin, I'd want to know about it.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

"And the charge was dropped.
"
Disingenuous. The charge was dropped as part of a deferred prosecution process, where Zimmerman had to take alcohol courses. Soooo yeah no.

[hookemnick.livejournal.com]

Where in the fuck are you getting your information? Jesus.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

That the most likely reason for having watermelon juice and Skittles on him is to concoct a drug drink he is on record as using and creating before? Yes.

Oh good grief. I drink orange juice. I drink mimosas. Every time I buy orange juice must I be planning mimosas?

He didn't have the codeine, or the tussin. And this isn't booze, PCP, or meth. Neither codeine or DXM would make him more violent.

Not sure what anyone hopes to gain by demonizing TM, but its sure strange to watch the impulsive attempts.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not sure what anyone hopes to gain by demonizing TM, but its sure strange to watch the impulsive attempts.

I don't see it as demonization, personally. I think we need to paint a more realistic portrait of both people - Zimmerman was not an all-consumed evil, Martin not some innocent, doe-eyed kid. Both claims are false and contribute to the severe amount of misinformation being bandied about.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Okay. By these standard, GZ was also not a saint:
http://politicalblindspot.org/george-zimmermans-old-myspace-surfaces-full-of-racist-statements-and-admissions-of-criminal-activity/

Noise, not signal, I suppose.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Without a doubt. You'll note I shared the HuffPo posting of that information earlier.