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.

 

Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

page: 104
105
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 



just because it reinforced it in Zimmermans mind is no defense


i'm not saying it is a defense. I'm explaining how situations like this can develop and escalate through actions & mentalities of the people involved. that is all.


It appears to me there is nothing that Treyvon could have done to avoid being shot....he was shot


so if he phoned the police when he noticed he was being followed that wouldnt have stopped him being shot?

if he walked up to the nearest house and asked for help that wouldnt have stopped him being shot?

if he walked up to zimmerman and made it clear he wasnt looking for trouble and tried to reason with zimmerman that wouldnt have stopped him being shot?
edit on 30-3-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


Zimmerman already had police on the way, so if Treyvon would have called he still would be dead.
We dont know how neighbors would have reacted...and how do you know he wasn't trying with all his might to get a neighbors house? He very well may have been....if the screams on the tapes are Treyvon then he was yelling for help.

According to the girlfriend he asked zimmerman 'why are you following me/do you have a problem?'....that seems like a logical response to me to direct toward someone following you.....

what did Zimmerman do to stop the stituation? Did he stand back and let the police do their job? No, why does he get so much slack?




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


yes zimmerman had already called the police I dont think someone would go looking to shoot someone or start a fight if he knew they were on the way,

if TM had called the police the police would have probably phoned zimmerman back and told him to stay away becase hes scaring the person.

for me it comes down to who hit who first. Personally I think TM hit zimmerman first.
edit on 30-3-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


yes zimmerman had already called the police I dont think someone would go looking to shoot someone or start a fight if he knew they were on the way,

if TM had called the police the police would have probably phoned zimmerman back and told him to stay away becase hes scaring the person.
edit on 30-3-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


I never said he set out to kill him...that still doesn't mean he isn't guilty of a crime just because he didn't set out to commit one.
And why would Zimmerman have listened the second time to leave Treyvon alone and let the real police arrive? He had been told once what makes you think the second time would have mattered?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


What would make you think Treyvon attacked first? His past run ins with the police and women that involved violence? Sorry i mistook Treyvons past for Zimmermans. Treyvons past may indicate some weed usage...he had skittles and tea...this matches his personality for munchies....Someone is dead after being followed, that seems to reflect on Zimmermans being the aggressor way more than Treyvon being the aggressor. Zimmerman, whether convicted or not, has a history of run ins with the law that involved violence. Treyvons record does not show the same patten. Yet you would side with Zimmerman, why is that?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 



He had been told once what makes you think the second time would have mattered?


he was not told not to follow him. he was told "we dont need you to do that" very easy for zimmerman in his frame of mind to interperate that as " we dont need you to do that- but you can if you want" and indeed there is no law against following him.

if the dispatcher was more forcefull and explicitley told zimmerman to cease following the situation might have been avoided.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 



He had been told once what makes you think the second time would have mattered?


he was not told not to follow him. he was told "we dont need you to do that" very easy for zimmerman in his frame of mind to interperate that as " we dont need you to do that- but you can if you want" and indeed there is no law against following him.

if the dispatcher was more forcefull and explicitley told zimmerman to cease following the situation might have been avoided.


And it might not have. It didn't work the first time.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


I dont think zimmerman would start a fight when he knew police were on their way. I think TM took offense to be followed or questioned by zimmerman and attacked him.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 




It didn't work the first time


you just repeated the claim the dispatcher told him explicitly to stop following . In my previous post i quoted what the dispatcher said. There was no first time.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


I dont think zimmerman would start a fight when he knew police were on their way. I think TM took offense to be followed or questioned by zimmerman and attacked him.


Well you just proved you don't think because Zimmerman did know the police were on their way. How did he know this you may ask? HE CALLED THEM, have you forgotten about that. So how can you say that with a straight face?
Why does Zimmermans past violent run ins with the law not matter to you? Isn't that an indicator to you that he could be the aggressor? He has been the aggressor before what official evidence do you have that Treyvon has any sort of violent history? Yet you still believe Treyvon attacked zimmerman, after he had already supposedly ran once before, according to the 911 zimmerman tape (zimmerman say he's running...i lost him), so why would he now decide to go back an try and start a fight? The girlfriend on the phone doesn't mention that in any way shape or form.
But it is obvious you have made up your mind of Treyvons guilt.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


He was advised to do something he did not do, if he had followed the advice he wouldn't have killed someone. How can you believe that if 911 would have called him back and said 'stop, your scaring that young man' ... that he would have stopped? He has already proven that he doesn't take advice that is given to him by professional, he prefers to do things his way. The police arrived with in 1 min of Treyvons phone call cutting off from girlfriend and him being shot. This all happened pretty quickly so where would you have found the time for the dispatch to call him back to calm his erratic emotions and for him to actually listen?

But I get it, for you Zimmerman must be guilt free cuz he says so.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


I never said explicitly, I said he was advised to not follow. I used my words carefully because I know people are arguing about that point. I know he could legally follow if he wanted. But the first time you say did not happen is when the dispatcher 'asked him nicely' not to follow and he chose to anyway....and you knew that. You are just playing games now.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
I think you are reading too much into the statement... rent-a-cop = anyone who is not a cop... in other words even a vigilante, as you described, would fall under...


OK, No need to roll your eyes. I was just going by your words. After all, I can't read your mind.

And in some discussions I've seen, people think Zimmerman was some sort of actual security guard or authority. I just wanted to be factual.


Well when the common knowledge was that he was a civilian who designated himself as a neighborhood watch patrol... I think I have a right to roll my eyes at your assumption that I did not know anything about the case. I was not part of those discussions you speak of so why put me in with them?

Anyways... try to keep an open mind when asking people questions on here... we are not all backwoods... and most of us frequent here daily...



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The MSM's got nothing on the twisting of stories
compared to some ATS angles. I get so confused trying
to figure out the truth sometimes.

Zimmerman physically looked pretty good getting out
of that squad car considering he was "brutally attacked"
by an unarmed kid, a foot shorter and 50 pounds lighter than he is.
Poor Zimmerman.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


you seem to making your own interpretation of what the dispatcher meant when he said "we dont need you to do that"

if he had said " i advise you not to do that" " please dont do that" then you might have a point. But he didn't and you don't

In fact what he said probably encouraged zimmerman to keep following not the other way around.
edit on 30-3-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Zimmerman's is to an extent, but he isn't the one they are trying to make us believe is an innocent baby boy.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Zimmerman's is to an extent, but he isn't the one they are trying to make us believe is an innocent baby boy.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by yeti101
 


What would make you think Treyvon attacked first? His past run ins with the police and women that involved violence? Sorry i mistook Treyvons past for Zimmermans. Treyvons past may indicate some weed usage...he had skittles and tea...this matches his personality for munchies....Someone is dead after being followed, that seems to reflect on Zimmermans being the aggressor way more than Treyvon being the aggressor. Zimmerman, whether convicted or not, has a history of run ins with the law that involved violence. Treyvons record does not show the same patten. Yet you would side with Zimmerman, why is that?


This is why I lean toward Zimmer starting the altercation... TM had no motive...

The way I see it... Zimmer saw the teen when he was driving around. Because there had been break-ins he thought he might look good by catching them and maybe get a spot on the force (motive). Then he followed TM, apparently not very good because TM called his GF and said he was being followed. Zimmer called dispatch, who then told Zimmer to back off, and POLICE were on the way. Zimmer figured he would take the collar and pulled up to TM and started interrogating him. TM pretty much told the man to bug off and started to walk away when Zimmer reached out and grabbed TM by the arm. TM then turned and hit Zimmer to try and get away. Zimmer then threw the teen on the ground and they began to struggle. Zimmer, in fear the suspect would get away, pulled out his gun and shot the teen. The neighbors heard the shot and ran outside in time to see Zimmer get off the teen, who was FACE DOWN. Because Zimmer was familiar with the process he claimed self defense, but yet the victim had no weapon, so what was he defending himself from? Fear of life would mean you thought you were going to die. Once Zimmer put his hands on the teen he was breaking the law. It does not matter what the teen said to Zimmer. He has no right to detain the suspect. Period...
edit on 30-3-2012 by SmArTbEaTz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


you seem to making your own interpretation of what the dispatcher meant when he said "we dont need you to do that"

if he had said " i advise you not to do that" " please dont do that" then you might have a point. But he didn't and you don't

In fact what he said probably encouraged zimmerman to keep following not the other way around.
edit on 30-3-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


How do you interpret it then?

If I was on the phone with 911 dispatch following someone and they ask me 'are you following him' and i say 'yes' and they say 'we don't need you to do that'....what else would I possibly think they meant?

How the 911 dispatch statements encourage him to follow him more?

I bet you my lifetime wages that when this goes to trial, and it will, if they call the 911 dispatcher and ask that person what they meant by 'we don't need you to do that' ... i bet they agree with my position.....wanna bet?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 



If I was on the phone with 911 dispatch following someone and they ask me 'are you following him' and i say 'yes' and they say 'we don't need you to do that'....what else would I possibly think they meant?


it could be interpreted as the dispatcher saying they dont need me to do it but if I want to be extra helpful to police and be the neighbourhood watch super hero i can continue if i want.

those words can be interpreted as a green light to continue.
edit on 30-3-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


How can you ignore witness testimony and corroboration by police and paramedics? Moments after it happened? Those things are more important than the manipulated stories several weeks later.

It doesn't matter if you set a chain of events in motion. Then you could blame it on Zimmerman's wife who asked him to go to the store, or Martin for ever being suspended from school. Honestly in the chain of events walking through the yards of a neighborhood at night could easily be considered suspicious enough to observe especially when you have had multiple robberies, burglaries, thefts, and a past shooting. Zimmerman had actually caught a thief in the past. Following someone, no matter how creepy, isn't crime and I don't think Zimmerman followed Martin much.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join