So, you’ve got nothing, then. Figures.
I think it’s pretty despicable to accuse someone of chasing, attacking, and murdering someone and then, when someone shows you evidence that it didn’t happen like that, instead of showing your evidence that it did, to make jokes about it.
You are our beacon for fair and impartial debate, shining ever before us, inspiring us by your example.
In that case, we’re all fucked.
I’d say less of a beacon and more of a wet firecracker.
And here we have confirmation.
First of all, I LOL’d because you are exactly right. Second, what is “Tot-mom territory”?
Regards
-Bouncer-
That’s because you’re a slut. Just sayin’ is all.
Kindest Regards, 
-Bouncer-
I just looked over the last couple of pages of that thread. I am so glad I didn’t get drawn into that. Bitching that Zimmerman didn’t get drug tested? Really?
Yeah, why da fuck anyone would be concerned about whether a person prescribed Adderall and Temazepam had been taking his med’s on the night he mistook a kid walking home from the shops as a burglar he’d seen 3 weeks prior, and then shot him dead, is completely beyond me.
Can someone explain what all that is about?
Go on, tell me *“You don’t know he thought he was a burglar, he just said he thought he looked suspicious!” * Yeah, that’s why he had to mention seeing him outside a house where he’d already reported seeing somebody acting black and suspicious.
You can be concerned with whatever you want. The law does not take your concerns into account. In my 15 years in law enforcement the number of times we have drug tested a suspect is exactly zero. And it is not legal to do so without a judicial order. Since drug use is not an element in any crime that was being investigated. And since there appears to be no probable cause to indicate drug use a judicial order (which would be highly unusual to begin with) would be pretty much impossible. In my state you can’t even ask for consent without a reasonable suspicion. So people are arguing over something that can’t be done legally, is never done but some still think it should have been done in this case. Lets have a state enact a law in which they make it legal to drug test every suspect during an investigation or even after an arrest and watch the outrage. No way it would pass constitutional scrutiny and the ACLU would be all over it.
I bet Z will be quick to bring up his med’s when he’s found guilty and MOM is pleading mitigating circumstances.
In the (unlikely) event he’s found guilty he’d be foolish not to. What’s your point?
My point is, why wouldn’t it be relevant whether a person prescribed mood-altering drugs had been taking them on the night they killed someone? Do you really think that’s the sort of thing people tasked with investigating these things should be ignoring?
Why do you think the police on the scene had any reason to suspect he was taking any sort of mind-altering drugs? Even if they did, it’s been repeatedly explained to you that they can’t just drug test for the hell of it.
If he was acting like he was on drugs, that’s a different matter (although you surprise me by being anti-drugs), but he’s under no obligation to tell the police about them unprompted.
Doesn’t make it constitutional to force him to submit to a blood test. As a detective there are a lot of things it would be nice to know about a suspect in an investigation.
They didn’t at the scene of the crime before they’d started any kind of investigation, obviously, but the way you are saying it, they should have just let him go home on the basis of his horrendous… wait, did I say “horrendous?” I meant, insignificant, injuries.
Had they accessed TM’s phone before they let the battery charge die, they’d have known who he was and that he’d been chatting to his g/f moments before he’d been killed, and that’d have changed the complexion of Z’s treatment remarkably, don’t you think?
You’re calling verifying why a young man died “for the hell of it”?
Some drugs are impossible to detect just by looking at someone. Strange, but true.
He shouldn’t need to be forced. If he genuinely wanted to clear up the whole mess, he should have been happy to do such a simple, minimally intrusive test if he knew it’d help bolster his case. Only a person with something to hide would worry excessively that something might be found that goes against them.
If Z is making an affirmative defence he “may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another’s use of force was unlawful and that the defendant’s conduct was necessary to protect himself.”
Surely part of that demonstration should include that he was fit to be carrying a gun that night?
By his own admitted behaviour, he obviously very nearly wasn’t, as he alleges that it was almost taken off him, and it was only pure luck really that he’s here to tell his tale and Trayvon isn’t stewing in a jail awaiting trial for slaying the poor, conscientious neighbourhood watch guy who mentored little black infants.
Yes if it were not for those pesky 4th and 5th amendments my job would be much easier.
Your job isn’t meant to be easy.
But, you evidently (cool word, huh?) think that his job should not be hindered by those “pesky 4th and 5th amendments”.
He isn’t.