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: 41
78
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 





Why don't guys like you ever get outraged about the Mexican vs Black race wars that have been going on in LA for years?


That is not the topic of this thread.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


He says coon clearly at 2:20



And the dispatcher clearly tells him not to follow right after.


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



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


He says coon clearly at 2:26



And the dispatcher clearly tells him not to follow.



Please tell me you're kidding. Nothing about that is "clear" at all in fact it is the single most UNCLEAR section of the entire 4 minute tape and no I don't hear "coon" being clearly said at all.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by HereAgainGoneTomorrow
 





There you go again,,,chased? Where in the statements does it say he was being chased? Also, can you please quit tossing the race card around. It only adds to the ignorance of your posts!


There is an audio recording of Zimmerman admitting to chasing Martin.


Agree. This is the type of evidence people should be addressing.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak

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.


Now your playing with words and not even doing so properly. Again, you exhibit your complete lack of understanding of Law.

Assaulting someone is putting your hands on someone, in any way, against their will. By definition, "subduing" someone is still assault if you touch them in any way to do it.

The difference between assault and "subdue" is a matter of perceived threat in the person committing the act.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

Updated: Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 6:19 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 5:47 PM EDT



ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.

Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.

And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.
www.myfoxtampabay.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Sonnny1 I long for my nation to poise first, gather the facts and act after knowing the whole store...all I am seeing here for the most part is knee jerking onto a runaway bandwagon out of control and liberal positions to include POTUS killing the character of of a man not even charged with a crime 29 days after the fact
edit on 24-3-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by rufusdrak

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.


Now your playing with words and not even doing so properly. Again, you exhibit your complete lack of understanding of Law.

Assaulting someone is putting your hands on someone, in any way, against their will. By definition, "subduing" someone is still assault if you touch them in any way to do it.

The difference between assault and "subdue" is a matter of perceived threat in the person committing the act.






It is you that obviously have no understanding of American law. It's the same for a bouncer in a club they are allowed to escort out and subdue but not beat someone to a bloody pulp, for instance use strikes to the face etc. You're really reaching and it's only exposing your ignorance on the matter.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


I apologize. Try 2:20

he whispers "fu*cking coons" clear as day.

Unless, you know, he was just cursing something in a whisper for no reason.

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



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


Again, this witness did NOT observe Martin attacking Zimmerman first.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Sonnny1 I long for my nation to poise first, gather the facts and act after knowing the whole store...all I am seeing here for the most part is knee jerking onto a runaway bandwagon out of control and liberal positions to include POTUS killing the character of of a man not even charged with a crime 29 days after the fact
edit on 24-3-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)


When did Obama kill the character of Zimmerman? When did Obama condemn him? Sources?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


I apologize. Try 2:22

he whispers "fu*cking coons" clear as day.

Unless, you know, he was just cursing something in a whisper for no reason.




Was in this thread earlier and I'm totally of the opinion that Zimmerman is guilty and murdered this kid in cold blood...

I have to say that it is not as clear as day what is said.

It's pretty much the only word in the entire call that is not clear.

Coons, cops, c*nts??

Hard to tell.

While it sounds like Coon.... it's impossible to be 100% so we're really filling in the blanks.


ETA:

I have to say listening again a few times, it does sound more like coons.... is this a cleared/cleaned up version?

The one I listened too earlier was a bit crackly/staticy at that point?

Hmmmm

edit on 24/3/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by HereAgainGoneTomorrow
Your doing it again....you have no idea of how the system works do you? The Police do not judge innocence or guilt. When they have facts that a crime has been committed, they charge and arrest the "accused". The Police, at the time of this incident, had witness statements and DID NOT have facts that a crime was committed.

If facts arise later, the prosecutor will issue an arrest warrant for the accused and have the police arrest them. If the family wants an inquiry, they can request it. Even a Grand Jury Investigation, which is the direction this case has gone.

Got it....hope you understand it now????


I am not doing anything again. What you are doing is ignoring the content and context of my post and attacking one word to form a debate over while ignoring everything else.

I know exactly how the system works. The Police investigated. They ruled the shooting was "justified". By making that ruling it means, Mr. Zimmerman is innocent of any wrong doing. I am not using the word innocent in the context of a courtroom trial.

Do YOU understand now?


Police don't make rulings.....Zimmerman was/is innocent, remember that little Constitution thingy?....Words in the legal world mean everything! I would have thought since, "you know exactly how the system works", you'd understand that??? Innocent until proven guilty is our right prior to going into a "Courtroom Trial", so the meanings stands the same!

I suggest, when expressing yourself, you should be clear and decisive with your statements. Others can easily misinterpret their meaning.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
You still discussing this psyop garbage?

Racist guy murders a 7th grader and gets away with it. This type of evil happens all the time in the south. Its just the Marxist globalist megacorp media is using this as a tool.
Marxist Leninist King of America Obama is using this tragedy to score political points like expected from a glorified corporate pimp/commisioner.

Come on people this is a obvious race divide game. Its right out of thier ancient playbook.

We obsess over who's fault it is while TPTB start illegally waring against iran and syria.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


I apologize. Try 2:20

he whispers "fu*cking coons" clear as day.

Unless, you know, he was just cursing something in a whisper for no reason.

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


Clear as day?
Keep telling yourself that. That is literally inaudible/unintelligible. But whatever helps you sleep better at night.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Sonnny1 I long for my nation to poise first, gather the facts and act after knowing the whole store...all I am seeing here for the most part is knee jerking onto a runaway bandwagon out of control and liberal positions to include POTUS killing the character of of a man not even charged with a crime 29 days after the fact
edit on 24-3-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately,I am seeing the same.Both men have become pawns,in the media game.Pawns to Obama,and his "personalizing" the situation. A man is dead,and local authority's are being looked at, as perpetrators to a crime. The only crime is this. Guilty before proven innocent.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


Yeah keep putting those
faces up.
I'm glad you find it funny.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Some of you are so gullible it is ridiculous. You read something put up by someone you do not even know, who is NOT a journalist to begin with, who is giving you their OPINION based on what other, non-qualified, people have to say...The sad part is that none of this is in line with the evidence.

In cases like this, look to reputable sources and the evidence. And the evidence does not point to what this thread is trying to make you believe. It doesn't make sense anyway. The guy with the gun is the one who started this entire mess, and he killed someone, therefore should be punished. The other guy had done nothing wrong. He didn't attack the guy with the gun. And even if he did, he is not the one who started it. But he didn't so it really doesn't matter. This vigilante should not have pursued this kid to begin with, as he was doing nothing wrong. That is NOT how America works.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Double Post...Please Delete.
edit on 3/24/12 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


I apologize. Try 2:20

he whispers "fu*cking coons" clear as day.

Unless, you know, he was just cursing something in a whisper for no reason.

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


Clear as day?
Keep telling yourself that. That is literally inaudible/unintelligible. But whatever helps you sleep better at night.

I have said that word before, what am I guilty of being racist?. maybe, am I human YES I AM, am I pretending not to be?, NO I AM NOT.




top topics



 
78
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join