again, you twist my words because you have no rational argument. i never said trayvon was an angel. i just said focussing on his THC use is irrelevant and a red herring for the moral-crusader brigade, i.e. those which have no business intervening in a court of law. your line of hypothetical argument that "he could have been withdrawn from a substance, making him angry and prone to attack" is patent nonsense - fearmongering and fantasy from someone who is clearly habitually afraid of 'drugz'. no scientific basis. that's all i've said. and now you come around and say i'm making out drugs to "make everyone happy and awesome", or i'm saying "trayvon was an angel". lol jesus christ. please go read a book on debating technique.
if zimmerman was drunk at the time, yes, i would be interested in that in the legal proceedings. that's because alcohol directly impairs judgement. and zimmerman shot and killed someone. therefore it is relevant in the matter of causation or aetiology. not complicated. if trayvon was the one in the dock having killed zimmerman, and he was high on a substance, yes i'd be interested then, too. someone having "trace elements" of THC in their bloodstream whilst minding their own business, strolling home, is not the same thing.
if zimmerman was drunk at the time, yes, i would be interested in that in the legal proceedings. that's because alcohol directly impairs judgement. and zimmerman shot and killed someone. therefore it is relevant in the matter of causation or aetiology. not complicated. if trayvon was the one in the dock having killed zimmerman, and he was high on a substance, yes i'd be interested then, too. someone having "trace elements" of THC in their bloodstream whilst minding their own business, strolling home, is not the same thing.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-26 05:07:42)