It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't know about that...there are different levels. A ton of people smoke weed, including many brilliant thinkers, poets, artists, engineers. I'm not calling Trayvon a brilliant thinker, but I simply don't think smoking weed is a big deal, and I certainly don't think that it is a "gateway" that makes someone prone to breaking the law in other more serious ways either.
My point was simply that the media can be biased in more than one way-- hence you don't hear about Zimmerman's Temazepam and Adderall prescriptions, whose side effects can include aggression and mood instability.
I feel kind of ridiculous having to explain why smoking weed isn't a big deal, but I'll be honest-- if this weren't Trayvon who were in question, I have a strong feeling none of us would even be thinking twice about this incredibly insignificant issue.
Originally posted by solarjetman
reply to post by seabag
You said that Trayvon was stoned. He wasn't. However, when the media repeats THC over and over without explaining that, people will think he was on drugs.
As I said, that's like showing an old pic of Zimmerman and Trayvon. That's not a LIE-- it is in fact pictures of the two-- but it's a distortion and drills an idea into people's heads. Make sense?
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by solarjetman
reply to post by seabag
You said that Trayvon was stoned. He wasn't. However, when the media repeats THC over and over without explaining that, people will think he was on drugs.
As I said, that's like showing an old pic of Zimmerman and Trayvon. That's not a LIE-- it is in fact pictures of the two-- but it's a distortion and drills an idea into people's heads. Make sense?
How do we know he wasn't stoned? I don't know that one can tell by the levels of THC exactly WHEN someone last used.
He may or may not have been stoned but he was a stoner! Is that better?
Originally posted by solarjetman
Why are you arguing with me about it being a big deal when you just agreed that "it certainly isn't a big deal?" This has nothing to do with Zimmerman's innocence or guilt. For all I know, Trayvon was guilty as sin. My ONLY point here is that this alleged "witch hunt" you guys are so adamantly fighting is in your head, because the same exact "witch hunting" MSN outlets will happily repeat THC over and over until people actually think it has anything to do with what happened that night. To single out something as irrelevant as THC out of hundreds of pages of evidence is just as bad IMO.
Originally posted by solarjetman
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by solarjetman
reply to post by seabag
You said that Trayvon was stoned. He wasn't. However, when the media repeats THC over and over without explaining that, people will think he was on drugs.
As I said, that's like showing an old pic of Zimmerman and Trayvon. That's not a LIE-- it is in fact pictures of the two-- but it's a distortion and drills an idea into people's heads. Make sense?
How do we know he wasn't stoned? I don't know that one can tell by the levels of THC exactly WHEN someone last used.
He may or may not have been stoned but he was a stoner! Is that better?
They said the levels were so low that it wouldn't have had any effect on him. Are you asking me if there is a difference between "he wasn't under the influence of drugs that night" and "he was under the influence of drugs that night?"
Would Zimmerman had been following, stalking, lets say Mormon Missionaries? No of course not. He stalked a black individual waring a hoody. That was racial motive.
Because of Zimmerman's racial motivation that lead to his act of stalking is what placed him in a position.
Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by popsmayhem
Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by popsmayhem
How was TM supposed to know that GZ was going to get out of his car and follow him?
Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by popsmayhem
So then you are saying that GZ father is a liar then? Would that be correct? GZ father said his son was sucker punched at the 'T' and knocked to the ground and TM got on top and starting beating him and pounding his head in the sidewalk for over one minute. TM body was found 30+ feet from the "T" of the sidewalk. GZ father and Dee Dee both say that words were exchanged, that is not an ambush.
So you are saying that GZ father is lying? Ok, I get it, you won't even believe GZ own blood relatives who have much more incentive than you to get GZ off and you think they are lying.
So, if GZ family is lying, the media is lying, all the witness, except John are lying, all the evidence is lying, and yet somehow GZ is not lying.
But you still failed to answer my question. How was TM supposed to know that GZ was going to get out of his car and follow him? Since GZ was still in his car when GZ said 'he ran'.....how would TM know where to hide in order to ENSURE that GZ found him? Why would TM run in the first place? Why not just confront GZ right at his car? I mean, wouldn't that ensure that he got to beat GZ a**? If TM wanted to beat down GZ so badly, why didn't he do it right there when GZ says 'he's coming to check me out'....why would he run to later 'ambush'?