Respecthelect
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,470
- Reaction score
- 969
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
When the Medical Examiner testified Trayvon's THC levels were too low to intoxicate, the judge ruled them out (May 2013). The M.E. changed his story yesterday to say Trayvon's levels were indeed intoxicating. When Zimmerman changes the tiniest part of his story (e.g. knowing "stand your ground") the prosecution calls him a liar. When their M.E. does it, he's a star witness.
The judge should have let Trayvon's illicit drug use in, since it was a key element of the encounter. Zimmerman initially followed Trayvon, because he said it looked like Trayvon was "on drugs." If it wasn't for Trayvon's illegal drug use, he'd still be alive. Like hitting a man when he's down, Trayvon was the sole cause of Trayvon's death.
The fact that Trayvon made a hobby of beating up homeless people by his own admission, could also have come in. But, there was an argument that the homeless beatings were unrelated crimes and there was no prior conviction. Although there should have been, since Trayvon posted his homeless beating videos on his facebook page. Trayvon's homeless beatings are public knowledge (look it up yourselves), but the media refuses to present these facts to the public. A public where almost half are happy to pick up pitchforks and falsely accuse an innocent Zimmerman. What country do we live in?
Big government needs to stop persecuting innocent citizens like Zimmerman. Zimmerman, a volunteer, doing watchman's work for free. The prosecution is a big government mob with pitchforks, nothing more.
The prosecution started talking to Dr. Bao about toxicology on purpose. They knew there would be an objection and that would plant that seed in the minds of the jurors. Now they're thinking...wait...why can't we hear about Trayvon's toxicology results?
You mean the defense started talking about it, right? Or am I missing something?
Makes ton of sense to have that included. Judge allowed school records from 2 yrs ago for George, cause she thought they were relevant, BUT NOT any info on TM's drugs, which shows his state of mind....even after GZ stated that the guy looked and acted like he was on DRUGS! Wow,,,,,what is wrong with this picture Judge???I missed this portion of testimony, but a legal analysis on HLN indicated this is grounds for appeal and there is a good chance that the appeal would be granted.
According to her, someone being on drugs when it could be relevant to the encounter and an individuals mental state is almost universally allowed into the trial.
I missed this portion of testimony, but a legal analysis on HLN indicated this is grounds for appeal and there is a good chance that the appeal would be granted.
According to her, someone being on drugs when it could be relevant to the encounter and an individuals mental state is almost universally allowed into the trial.
Makes ton of sense to have that included. Judge allowed school records from 2 yrs ago for George, cause she thought they were relevant, BUT NOT any info on TM's drugs, which shows his state of mind....even after GZ stated that the guy looked and acted like he was on DRUGS! Wow,,,,,what is wrong with this picture Judge???
It wasn't allowed in at this specific time, as it is basically irrelevant right now.Makes ton of sense to have that included. Judge allowed school records from 2 yrs ago for George, cause she thought they were relevant, BUT NOT any info on TM's drugs, which shows his state of mind....even after GZ stated that the guy looked and acted like he was on DRUGS! Wow,,,,,what is wrong with this picture Judge???
It wasn't allowed in at this specific time, as it is basically irrelevant right now.
When it becomes relevant they will ask again. And then the Judge will be hard pressed not to allow it in.
The issues are different.You may be ab so lute ly correct here Excon. Here's the part I'm still confused about however. Once the Judge KNOWS, via Dr Bao's own testimony, now even HE feels the amount of THC in TM's blood *was* enough to impair his function, *and* she holds a Richardson's hearing on that VERY question, how can she preclude it from being admitted?
I'm not an attorney and I don't even WANT to play one on tv, I will admit maybe I'm just getting the cart before the horse. Maybe the Richardson's hearing was simply to settle the accusation the state knew Bao's opinion changed and instructed him NOT to discuss same.
When the defense brings up the toxicology report then she can again rule on whether it's relevant and thus can be presented. I thought the reason for precluding it in the first place was the state was saying the levels were not enough to impair.
I guess we'll find out. O'Mara didn't seem real concerned.
I missed this portion of testimony, but a legal analysis on HLN indicated this is grounds for appeal and there is a good chance that the appeal would be granted.
According to her, someone being on drugs when it could be relevant to the encounter and an individuals mental state is almost universally allowed into the trial.
The issues are different.
Yes, the Richardson hearing was to determine if the Prosecution withheld the knowledge that he had changed his mind. That is all.
So it doesn't come in at this time as it does not matter to the Dr.'s testimony.
It was precluded in the first place because, in general, ™'s prior bad acts are irrelevant unless it can be shown they were.
When it become relevant, that is when the Defense will again ask for it to be admitted.
That is when the Judge will be hard pressed to exclude them, and if she does, and he is convicted, becomes possible reversible error on appeal.
It has to be directly relevant.Maybe I watch too much Law and Order, but it seems to me a nation that proudly proclaims innocent until proven guilty, that the accused would have every chance to prove that their actions were justified.
For instance, going to character of the 'so called' victim here:
What kind of person was he?
Was he prone to violence?
Was he a drug user?
Did he glorify a culture of thuggery?
What were his grades in school?
Was he ever suspended?
What was on his social media?
All of these things are being withheld from the jury, and I think for a reason. This is a political case, and our prisons are littered with people that thanks to organizations like The innocence project are being proven to be there wrongly. Our system is one that has gone from seeking justice, to one that just wants convictions, and if politically expedient all the better.
It has to be directly relevant.
Most of these things you mention, are not directly relevant.
Which is what I said.Well, maybe not, but I just heard that the tox report is now allowed.
It was precluded in the first place because, in general, ™'s prior bad acts are irrelevant unless it can be shown they were.
When it becomerelevant, that is when the Defense will again ask for it to be admitted.
That is when the Judge will be hard pressed to exclude them, and if she does, and he is convicted, becomes possible reversible error on appeal.
Which is what I said.
The M.E. changed his story yesterday to say Trayvon's levels were indeed intoxicating.
Actually the M.E. did NOT say that. The M.E. said that he now thinks that the level may have been high enough to have had an effect (which may or may not be the same thing as being intoxicated). Dr Bao gave the impression that the level was very near some borderline between being noticeable and not noticeable to the user.Once the Judge KNOWS, via Dr Bao's own testimony, now even HE feels the amount of THC in TM's blood *was* enough to impair his function,
"First, let me explain what opinion is..."When Zimmerman changes the tiniest part of his story (e.g. knowing "stand your ground") the prosecution calls him a liar. When their M.E. does it, he's a star witness.
IIRC, the jury was out of the room when that all came up.They knew there would be an objection and that would plant that seed in the minds of the jurors. Now they're thinking...wait...why can't we hear about Trayvon's toxicology results?
Actually the M.E. did NOT say that. The M.E. said that he now thinks that the level may have been high enough to have had an effect (which may or may not be the same thing as being intoxicated). Dr Bao gave the impression that the level was very near some borderline between being noticeable and not noticeable to the user.
So it's different on two counts from what you say he said.
just an fyi that may help you.
IIRC, the jury was out of the room when that all came up.
You brought him by talking about what he said.LOL My friend, please don't bring Dr. Bao into a discussion on logic and what he said was opinion or fact.
You brought that one up. I don't think I mentioned anything of the sort.Just FTR, and I don't really care to get into the "pot is safe" discussion.
That topic isn't one I broached.Nor do I care to discuss the legal definition of "impairment" relating to levels of THC in one's blood stream.
I am saying no such thing....I would ask if you are asserting levels of THC in your blood stream equal to that which TM's had, in no way shape or form caused him to act in a manner his "normal" inhibitions would have precluded?
You brought him by talking about what he said.
You brought that one up. I don't think I mentioned anything of the sort.
That topic isn't one I broached.
I am saying no such thing.
I said what I meant to say. You mis-characterized what Dr. Bao said.
I do not have any specialized knowledge which allows me to convert from ng/ml (or w/e the unit was) to a degree of intoxication.
I did not say anything even remotely close to what you're asking me about as far as what effects pot had on TM.
:shrug:
I did mention the way that pot is thought of (afaict--I didn't look up surveys or anything) and speculate from there the effect (or lack thereof) of that view on the jury.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?