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.

 

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." - Obama. What the MSM isn't telling you.

page: 39
78
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
There is no such thing as "inciting a confrontation". By law any verbal incitement will never justify being assaulted. Zimmerman could have said anything to Martin and that still does not give Martin justification to assault Zimmerman.

If you believe Zimmerman ASSASULTED Martin first, well then I ask: where is your proof/evidence? You have zero. In America we have something called: Innocent until proven guilty.


Your understanding of the law is a bit flawed. There is no such thing as "inciting a confrontation" but there is such as thing as causing a chain of events which leads to the death of another person. This in legal terms is known an Involuntary Manslaughter. Which means :

The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally.


I have been very clear in saying that I do not believe that Zimmerman follow Martin with the intention of killing him. I do argue that by Zimmerman following Martin after being told not to do so, put into motion a chain of events which lead to the death of Martin. This now becomes an issue of was Mr Zimmerman negligent? I argue that yes he was under the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

Many states do not define involuntary manslaughter, or define it vaguely in common-law terms. Some jurisdictions describe the amount of Negligence necessary to constitute manslaughter with terms such as criminal negligence, gross negligence, and culpable negligence. The only certainty that can be attached to these terms is that they require more than the ordinary negligence standard in a civil case. With this approach the state does not have to prove that the defendant was aware of the risk.

Other jurisdictions apply more subjective tests, such as "reckless" or "wanton," to describe the amount of negligence needed to constitute involuntary manslaughter. In this approach the defendant must have personally appreciated a risk and then chosen to take it anyway.


Th emphasis is mine, I would suggest that Zimmerman, after being told not to follow Martin, was fully aware of the risk of a possible confrontation with Martin. By continuing to follow, after being told not to do so, means Zimmerman choose to take the risk anyway. That constitutes negligence on the part of Zimmerman.

The issue of did Martin attack Zimmerman is completely irrelevant. The legal question is was Zimmerman negligent? To what degree was he negligent? Did his negligence contribute to the death of Martin?

Involunary Manslaughter from Legal Dictionary




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MightyQuincunx
 


This sounds about right. Sad part though is that you posted this on page 38. As I type this response your post is already lost in a cesspool of other posts. Regardless I will star your post for being intelligent.

Raist



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy
 


We know that Trayvon was running away and Zimmerman was chasing him.


Now...since when is running away considered an agressive action???
It is not, it is considered evasive.

There is an eyewitness that places Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him.

That may be considered aggressive, I believe.


And that witness did not see the begining of the altercation....did they???

We don't know who started the physical part...but we all know who the aggressor was in the overall situation.

Young kid armed with iced tea and skittles running away from an armed adult.

But hey...it was just a black kid that looked like a thug...he PROBABLY deserved it.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Whoa! Facts and logic DO NOT belong in this thread, sir! You have been reported, and you are expected to cease and desist immediately!

/TOA



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by rufusdrak

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by rufusdrak
I don't quite understand the people saying Martin acted out of "self defense".

Can someone please answer, self defense from WHAT? Zimmerman did not physically attack Martin as far as ANY evidence whatsoever is concerned, so what is the self defense? From following him? So let me get this straight, proponents of this theory are saying the following:

In America, our law dictates that if you are being followed, you are allowed to violently and aggressively assault the party following you. This is "self defense" and is correct by law? Are you people serious with this? Under no circumstance should Martin have been allowed to assault Zimmerman even if Zimmerman was illegally following him (which he wasn't.)

I have no horses in this race, but to me it sounds very clearly that Martin had unjustifiably assaulted Zimmerman (yes, being followed does NOT by any law in the United States of America serve as justification to assault someone) and thus DID in fact gave full justification to Zimmerman to shoot him dead which is allowed in Florida Stand Your Ground law.


If you are being stalked by a person and you fear for the safety of your person then yes, you do have the right to defend yourself. Of course if Martin wasn't dead any debate on this would be able to be straightened out in court, but in general, yes.

I dunno about you but being followed by someone who is not a police official, in the dead of night, by car and by foot, would be enough for Martin to use Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, not Zimmerman!


No it wouldn't you're dead wrong and know nothing about law. You can't "defend yourself" by assaulting someone who has not assaulted you. That's a complete joke, you would get thrown out of any debate in the court of law with that utterly juvenile assumption.


Juvenile assumption?? If someone is chasing you, then you have a right to defend yourself. There's nothing juvenile about that.


I noticed you guys who are defending Martin continue to twist the facts to conveniently suit your bias. Where are you getting the fact that Zimmerman "chased" Martin? How do you construe "following" someone into "chasing" them. You do have a basic grasp of English don't you? You do realize the two words have 2 completely different meanings, right?
Once again you guys prove that you need to resort to stretching of the facts to make your points which is why your views are wrong and don't hold any water.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Thats just unfair. He was just saying he empathized with the family, which we can all do. People here are claiming he twisted and is using this to his gain, but none of his statements reflect that.

He did not condemn Zimmerman, he did not play any sort of race card. All he did was empathize with a grieving family and say "let the justice system handle it". How is that wrong? I dont understand.


Its Not FAIR?



So if its not "fair" why hasn't Obama played his hand in any of THESE CASES ?

Do theses Americans need to have their injustice,called upon by Obama,to see justice also ?

WHY isn't Mr. Peace Prize offering the same help for these people?

Injustice Everywhere

Picking and "choosing" his crimes to personalize,reeks of an agenda.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by The Old American
 





Except nobody but Trayvon and Zimmerman know who the first physical aggressor was. You're still working on assumption and not intelligence. You really need to stop now. It's getting pathetic.


Wrong. We have always known who the first aggressor was. Zimmerman chased down martin and cornered him. Sounds aggressive to me. It has been proven.

And great, an insult. Arent you mature.


You missed the word "physical", genius. Until you put your hands on someone, physical force is not justified under the law. But keep posting. It's getting kind of funny.

/TOA


Chasing down someone and corning them for NO REASON sounds physical aggressive to me. We have no idea who layed hands on who first. So stop acting like you do.


Wow, talk about twisting facts! I have never once said I think either started anything. I believe what I said was:


However, there is no evidence for or against Trayvon or Zimmerman throwing the first punch.


Your lies and assumptions are here for all to see, however. Again, please keep posting them. It's hilarious!

/TOA


No you did not say it outright. But you keep talking as if that was the case. But maybe you aren't and i am just reading to deep into it.

If I am doing that then I am sorry and I hope we can still be freinds



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by xEphon
 
Stalked?By Trayvon's girlfriends account Trayvon told her he was being followed he did not seem worried.When his girlfriend told him to run he said no he would just walk fast.Her next statement was that when Zimmerman approached he asked a simple question.(Sorry I am just stating witness accounts and not speculating)The next witness account (remember they were there and not you) states that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car.Now I am asking how can you turn this into stalking?By the witness accounts including Trayvons girlfriend's.Zimmerman was not being aggressive.I feel sorry for you as you have been decived by the MSM.If they didn't have a agenda and would post current pics of Trayvon and both sides of the story.I might see where you are coming from.If your opinion didn;t change with the whole story



Oh yes that MSM has my mind all warped. I've only been here since 2005 so the MSM must have me good!

All I've been saying, and will continue to say, is that pursing a person at night is not normal behavior and can be seen as aggressive. To me, who 'threw the first punch' is irrelevant in the sense that it was Zimmermans following of Martin, despite being told to back off, which was the cause of Martin's death.

And honestly, if we are to believe the witness stories, for all we know Zimmerman told Martin he was going into his truck to grab his gun which prompted Martin to attack him. We don't know. None of us know.

But this is what we do know.

Zimmerman followed Martin despite being told not to.
There was a confrontation.
Martin died.

And according to his girlfriend Zimmerman was being aggressive. But again, who knows because none of us were there, which defaults us to the basics. Zimmerman followed Martin despite being told not to.



Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. “Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”

edit on 24-3-2012 by xEphon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Fact: No where is there evidence or even hinted that Zimmerman "chased" nor "cornered" Martin as some of you are erroneously reporting.

Fact: his girlfriend told Martin to run and he replied that he would not which seems to insinuate that he was deciding to instead confront Zimmerman.


The reason we are winning this argument is because the evidence is on our side. You guys who are defending Martin continually resort to fabrication and twisting/stretching of the truth to make your biased claims.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
]No it wouldn't you're dead wrong and know nothing about law. You can't "defend yourself" by assaulting someone who has not assaulted you. That's a complete joke, you would get thrown out of any debate in the court of law with that utterly juvenile assumption.


Actually, again you are incorrect.

You CAN assault someone who has not assaulted you if you have a reasonable cause to believe that there is an immanent threat.

One can easily argue that by Zimmerman (a complete stranger) following Martin (a 17 year old walking alone) with a car before following on foot is an action that could be perceived as a threat by Mr Martin.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





we all know who the aggressor was in the overall situation.
If it was Zimmerman, what was the aggressive act? An attempt to communicate with a person that was being evasive?

Is there an eyewitness that observed Zimmerman being aggressive with Martin?

And it better be physical, because I can get in your face and talk nasty to you and you don't have any reason to get physical with me.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
Fact: No where is there evidence or even hinted that Zimmerman "chased" nor "cornered" Martin as some of you are erroneously reporting.

Fact: his girlfriend told Martin to run and he replied that he would not which seems to insinuate that he was deciding to instead confront Zimmerman.


The reason we are winning this argument is because the evidence is on our side. You guys who are defending Martin continually resort to fabrication and twisting/stretching of the truth to make your biased claims.


Zimmerman himself told 911 that he was following Trayvon after Trayvon tried to run away from him.

Zimmerman himself told 911 that Trayvon was running away.



Don't worry guys...just a dead black kid...no need to investigate further.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by xEphon
 
Stalked?By Trayvon's girlfriends account Trayvon told her he was being followed he did not seem worried.When his girlfriend told him to run he said no he would just walk fast.Her next statement was that when Zimmerman approached he asked a simple question.(Sorry I am just stating witness accounts and not speculating)The next witness account (remember they were there and not you) states that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car.Now I am asking how can you turn this into stalking?By the witness accounts including Trayvons girlfriend's.Zimmerman was not being aggressive.I feel sorry for you as you have been decived by the MSM.If they didn't have a agenda and would post current pics of Trayvon and both sides of the story.I might see where you are coming from.If your opinion didn;t change with the whole story



Oh yes that MSM has my mind all warped. I've only been here since 2005 so the MSM must have me good!

All I've been saying, and will continue to say, is that pursing a person at night is not normal behavior and can be seen as aggressive. To me, who 'threw the first punch' is irrelevant in the sense that it was Zimmermans following of Martin, despite being told to back off, which was the cause of Martin's death.

And honestly, if we are to believe the witness stories, for all we know Zimmerman told Martin he was going into his truck to grab his gun which prompted Martin to attack him. We don't know. None of us know. Not even the witnesses.

But this is what we do know.

Zimmerman followed Martin despite being told not to.
There was a confrontation.
Martin died.

And according to his girlfriend Zimmerman was being aggressive. But again, who knows because none of us were there.



Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. “Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”


You conveniently and selectively left out the actual facts and witness accounts. You said all we know is Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin died. Wrong, we know a lot more than that from eyewitness accounts. Plenty of people have posted these eyewitness accounts such as the fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, yet ofcourse conveniently you have selectively left that out and pretended it's not even in the equation which just shows your bias and proves why you are wrong and justice does not agree with you (which is why Zimmerman is free)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by ezwip
Zimmerman pissed off Travyon by annoying and stalking his ass. Zimmerman could have stopped and likely did when he realized he was about to get his ass beat. Travyon should have taken his ass beating like a man. I got in a two on one once when my buddy bumped into some gang bangers on the street. He then said do you have your metal on you? Yes, but I'm not going to use it because you just bumped into their ass on purpose. Then he ran off and I took my ass beating. Zimmerman is the problem here as Travyon wasn't bothering anyone. In this sick twisted logic I could have shot these two guys. Better yet they could have shot me. All I wanted to do was go play some video games. Common sense needs to prevail in these instances. Zimmerman and Travyon would be here today if Zimmerman had just taken some shots and not been a sissy about it. It's your own damn fault he was going to beat you up.
edit on 24-3-2012 by ezwip because: (no reason given)


What?

Well I think the 7 grader was shot by a racist and the kid didn't know that the area was as bad as it was. Zimmerman being a racist felt that the "evil foriegn tribe member" was invading his "territory". He ambushed him and attacked a 7th grader.The 7th grader fought for his life(explains zimmerman's bruises).The 7th grader got away from him. Zimmerman saw an opportunity like a lot of murderers do to kill their victim and get away with it.
Zimmerman shot an unarmed 7th grader then made up the story about self defense and such.

This was a planned hit with maybe a few porticipating members. But guess what. This happens all the time in the south.People getting murdered by racists and they cover it up or give them a slap on the hand.
It happens all the time. A lot of white people get murdered in the same fashion. But see the TPTB can't use that as a tool to divide and conquer like this story does.

We fell for this BS psyop again.

TPTB know americans are almost psychotically obsessed with race.They use this as a tool whenever we start to catch on to the truth. This also helps the Marxist Prince/King of america Obama.
The nwo as usual is laughing at us. They think this is a joke. It proves in thier warped minds that we are animals in need of a marxist globalist controllers(nwo).




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





So if its not "fair" why hasn't Obama played his hand in any of THESE CASES ?


Obama is not directly asked about every other case.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by rufusdrak
]No it wouldn't you're dead wrong and know nothing about law. You can't "defend yourself" by assaulting someone who has not assaulted you. That's a complete joke, you would get thrown out of any debate in the court of law with that utterly juvenile assumption.


Actually, again you are incorrect.

You CAN assault someone who has not assaulted you if you have a reasonable cause to believe that there is an immanent threat.

One can easily argue that by Zimmerman (a complete stranger) following Martin (a 17 year old walking alone) with a car before following on foot is an action that could be perceived as a threat by Mr Martin.


Now you are incorrect because you cannot "assault" someone you can perhaps subdue them. Martin by factual eyewitness accounts did far more than attempt to 'subdue' Zimmerman, he was on top of him beating him to a bloody pulp which flies in the face of justice so once again your argument is wrong either way.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





we all know who the aggressor was in the overall situation.
If it was Zimmerman, what was the aggressive act? An attempt to communicate with a person that was being evasive?

Is there an eyewitness that observed Zimmerman being aggressive with Martin?

And it better be physical, because I can get in your face and talk nasty to you and you don't have any reason to get physical with me.


Let's look at your logic.

Someone who is being chased by someone else has no right to "defend" themselves if they feel like they are in danger.

But someone who is actively chasing someone down has the right to shoot and kill that person if the tables get turned on them.


Great logic.



But the black kid was wearing a hoodie...and he was black...and a thug....no great loss right...Zimmerman probably did us all a favor



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Well at least their reducing their charges from Murder to Involuntary Manslaughter, lol. Speculators, just like in oil, only make matters worse!



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Love all the wild speculation and the public lynching of this neighborhood watch dude.

NO ONE on here knows what happened. NONE of the protesters gathering in angry mobs know what happened. Even the POLICE likely don't know exactly what happened yet, and that is what they are trying to find out. That's why there is an investigation. The witnesses, video, audio, all the evidence obtained will help reveal the unknowns, and at some point the police will make a determination of what they believe happened - based on the evidence - and whether any charges will be filed.

Until then, how about you all simmer down and let the detectives do their job.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by sonnny1
 





So if its not "fair" why hasn't Obama played his hand in any of THESE CASES ?


Obama is not directly asked about every other case.


Again,for a President to get "personal" in this PARTICULAR one,speaks volumes.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join