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: 166
105
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join
share:
SM2

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
and under[current]USLaw Zim is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law and a lot of folks better get used to it...
edit on 3-4-2012 by Bullypulpit because: Dimocrat ranting


clearly not true. When one uses the "self-defense" defense, it is up to that person to prove that the shooting was lawful.

It really is the only law in america which requires one to prove that they are innocent.



That is not 100% accurate. Each states self defense laws are different. In Ohio for example, you are correct, in Georgia you would be 100% wrong, in Florida you are almost right. In florida, the burden of proof only lies on the defendant to prove or as the law states "articulate" that you were "in fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or to a third party or to stop the commission of a forcible felony. In states such as florida and georgia, and most "castle doctrine" states you also have no duty to retreat and you are immune from all civil and criminal prosecution if it is determined to be self defense. This applies any where you have a legal right to be, not just your home, vehicle or place of business.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SM2

I am open to the possibility that Mr.Martin was completely innocent. I am, however, also open to the possibility that Mr.Zimmerman could also be innocent, and the shooting was in self defense.


I believe the shooting falls under accident.

Zimmerman is still responsible for creating and escalating a situation that never should have been.


well that all depends. If he did indeed follow mr martin and assault him, then yes, he is guilty on all counts because then the stand your ground law is out. If however, he followed him, approached him, then left the encounter, he is not responsible legally. Once he attempted to retreat, by going to his truck, his duty of responsibility is now over, as he attempted to retreat. The use of physical force is not justified by words, so Mr Zimmerman, if his statement is accurate, did not put mr martin into a stand your ground situation. mr martin should have at that point either deescalated the confrontation or removed himself from it, instead, he followed (allegedly) mr zimmerman to his vehicle then proceeded to attack him (allegedly), if that is the case, the Mr Zimmerman was within the law to use deadly force, if the he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. I would say that having one's head slammed into the ground and being punched in the face repeatedly (allegedly) as meeting that definition.


We do not know what happened.

We do know Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman had stood down as "told" by 911 dispatcher and waited for Legal Authority.

That FACT is still a FACT.




First off he was not "told" to not follow. It was stated that they did not need him to, or something along those lines. Secondly, 911 dispatchers are NOT law enforcement officers. They are city or county employees depending on the locality. This REQUEST did not carry the weight of law. Him continuing the surveillance of Mr.Martin did not cause the shooting. What caused the shooting was either Mr.Zimmerman, or Mr.Martin assaulting the other physically which lead to the fight, which lead to the shooting. Now, common sense would say that he should not have followed, i probably would not have, but that was his decision. You can not say that him following him is what caused the shooting. That was not justification for Mr.Martin to allegedly attack mr zimmerman, not from a legal standpoint.


You're wrong. Him following absolutely did cause the shooting. Answer this for me. Had he not followed would the shooting still have happened?
edit on 3-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by SM2
 


Nobody ask you to respect Al Sharpton. Shoot the messenger much?

Yes I have been arrested. 3 times.So yes I do know a little about how the law works, just like the guest on Al Sharptons show that you refuse to believe just because of where the message was presented.
If you are handcuffed and held against your will you are kidnapped, unless you are arrested. If you would have watched the video and listen to the guest you would have known that it is a very important issue about the handcuff and the legalities of that. Watch the video it is explained very well, again, even if you don't like the messenger. Placed into custody and arrested are not the same thing. Maybe you should watch a little more law and order, maybe you would know at least a few basic things.

Im done arguing with you. You have proven you don't have the capacity to understand even the very basics of the law or this case for that matter. If you discount factual legal information just because of the messenger then we can't have a conversation/debate.....your mind is closed and thats like talking to a brick wall.



ok, i watched the video, the quest clearly said that zimmerman was arrested. Sharpton agreed that he was arrested. So what is the point? I agree he was arrested. then he was released because they were overruled and could not charge him. He was not "un-arrested " as you stated, he was released because the State Attorney told them they could not charge him, presumably because there was not enough evidence to prove it was not self defense at the time. There is no such thing as un arrested. You are arrested then charged, if they can not charge you, you are released, but you still have been arrested.


SM2

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SM2

I am open to the possibility that Mr.Martin was completely innocent. I am, however, also open to the possibility that Mr.Zimmerman could also be innocent, and the shooting was in self defense.


I believe the shooting falls under accident.

Zimmerman is still responsible for creating and escalating a situation that never should have been.


well that all depends. If he did indeed follow mr martin and assault him, then yes, he is guilty on all counts because then the stand your ground law is out. If however, he followed him, approached him, then left the encounter, he is not responsible legally. Once he attempted to retreat, by going to his truck, his duty of responsibility is now over, as he attempted to retreat. The use of physical force is not justified by words, so Mr Zimmerman, if his statement is accurate, did not put mr martin into a stand your ground situation. mr martin should have at that point either deescalated the confrontation or removed himself from it, instead, he followed (allegedly) mr zimmerman to his vehicle then proceeded to attack him (allegedly), if that is the case, the Mr Zimmerman was within the law to use deadly force, if the he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. I would say that having one's head slammed into the ground and being punched in the face repeatedly (allegedly) as meeting that definition.


We do not know what happened.

We do know Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman had stood down as "told" by 911 dispatcher and waited for Legal Authority.

That FACT is still a FACT.




First off he was not "told" to not follow. It was stated that they did not need him to, or something along those lines. Secondly, 911 dispatchers are NOT law enforcement officers. They are city or county employees depending on the locality. This REQUEST did not carry the weight of law. Him continuing the surveillance of Mr.Martin did not cause the shooting. What caused the shooting was either Mr.Zimmerman, or Mr.Martin assaulting the other physically which lead to the fight, which lead to the shooting. Now, common sense would say that he should not have followed, i probably would not have, but that was his decision. You can not say that him following him is what caused the shooting. That was not justification for Mr.Martin to allegedly attack mr zimmerman, not from a legal standpoint.


You're wrong. Him following absolutely did cause the shooting. Answer this for me. Had he not followed would the shooting still have happened?
edit on 3-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)


It may or may not have. From a purely legal standpoint, no it did not. The act of following a suspicious person is not illegal. However from a common sense point of view, i agree, he should not have, as I have stated, I personally would not have gotten out of the truck. I would have possibly positioned myself so that I could keep an eye on the individual, but I would not have confronted or followed on foot.

The act of Mr Zimmerman following Mr Martin did not legally justify Mr Martin allegedly assaulting Zimmerman from a legal standpoint.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

First off he was not "told" to not follow.


I know what the dispatcher said. Why do you think "told" is in quotes. Dispatchers are trained in specific phrasing. It protects them from lawsuits.

"The dispatcher is not law enforcement" - - - very convenient excuse.

Anyone who was not an over zealous wannabe Vigilante - - - would have no problem knowing what the dispatcher meant and heeded his words.

I do not care what the details of the shooting are. That can be sorted out in court.

Nothing changes the FACT that Zimmerman is solely responsible for creating and escalating a situation that resulted in death.

I understand "Letter of the Law". So don't think I don't.

This is a case that needs to go to trial.


SM2

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I am not saying it does not need to go to trial. I am just saying that the actual evidence that is available to us is not enough for a conviction. it is enough to take to a grand jury and see if they think it is enough, however, at this point a fair trial is all but impossible.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by SM2
 


Nobody ask you to respect Al Sharpton. Shoot the messenger much?

Yes I have been arrested. 3 times.So yes I do know a little about how the law works, just like the guest on Al Sharptons show that you refuse to believe just because of where the message was presented.
If you are handcuffed and held against your will you are kidnapped, unless you are arrested. If you would have watched the video and listen to the guest you would have known that it is a very important issue about the handcuff and the legalities of that. Watch the video it is explained very well, again, even if you don't like the messenger. Placed into custody and arrested are not the same thing. Maybe you should watch a little more law and order, maybe you would know at least a few basic things.

Im done arguing with you. You have proven you don't have the capacity to understand even the very basics of the law or this case for that matter. If you discount factual legal information just because of the messenger then we can't have a conversation/debate.....your mind is closed and thats like talking to a brick wall.



ok, i watched the video, the quest clearly said that zimmerman was arrested. Sharpton agreed that he was arrested. So what is the point? I agree he was arrested. then he was released because they were overruled and could not charge him. He was not "un-arrested " as you stated, he was released because the State Attorney told them they could not charge him, presumably because there was not enough evidence to prove it was not self defense at the time. There is no such thing as un arrested. You are arrested then charged, if they can not charge you, you are released, but you still have been arrested.


Are you kidding? what is the point? What was he arrested for? Where is the mug shot? How was he released after he was arrested? Who made the decision to 'un' arrest him, when arrested you are given a court date....not 'un' arrested.
It can't be both ways....if, like you say, he was arrested, that means he was charged, so what charge did the State Attorney tell them to 'un' arrest him for?
If they arrest you they already know they can charge you, thats what the arrest is about. Tell me one time someone has been arrested and cleared before going before a judge. I don't think you really understand what arrested, charged, questioned, released mean legally. That makes it difficult to have an conversation with you.
edit on 3-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


That's all I want. I know everyone has their own beliefs and theories and I have mine, but all that is really wanted is a fair trial. If the Grand Jury comes back without enough evidence to bring charges, so be it. If they do indict and it goes to trial, I'll be watching and whatever happens, happens.

What is not fair is that a life has been taken and the one who took it walked away. If he is acquitted, I'll be just as satisified with the outcome as if he isn't. At least all the evidence will be presented and a decision will be made.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
in a 15 month span he called 911 46 times.

they are announcing about 7 of the 46 911 calls that zimmerman had made recently 5 were about suspicious activity by people 1 was about an open garage door 1 is about a dog fight, guess what all the 5 calls about suspicious people, happen to be black people. i cant wait til they release the info about the other 39 calls.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Annee
 


I am not saying it does not need to go to trial. I am just saying that the actual evidence that is available to us is not enough for a conviction. it is enough to take to a grand jury and see if they think it is enough, however, at this point a fair trial is all but impossible.


Fair? Sorry - - but Trayvon doesn't get a Fair trial - - because of a Vigilante. He is dead.

I'm in Arizona - - I know about Stand Your Ground.

This was NOT Stand Your Ground on Zimmerman's part. He was aggressively pursuing a criminal - - because he had already Tried and Convicted Trayvon.

He took the law into his own hands - - pursued and confronted - - someone he had already Tried and Convicted as a criminal.

There are so many things wrong with what Zimmerman did. There has got to be something that he can be arrested and tried for.

This needs to go to trial.


SM2

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


well, if he was not arrested he would not been in handcuffs and stuffed into a police cruiser against his will. The lead investigator made the call to arrest him. Once the State attorney got involved, he made the call that there was not enough evidence to charge him, so they let him go. Now, we can argue if the state attorney is in someone's pocket or not, and that is not an out there in left field allegation. However, he was definitely arrested. The state attorney as you say "un - arrested" him.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SM2

I am open to the possibility that Mr.Martin was completely innocent. I am, however, also open to the possibility that Mr.Zimmerman could also be innocent, and the shooting was in self defense.


I believe the shooting falls under accident.

Zimmerman is still responsible for creating and escalating a situation that never should have been.


well that all depends. If he did indeed follow mr martin and assault him, then yes, he is guilty on all counts because then the stand your ground law is out. If however, he followed him, approached him, then left the encounter, he is not responsible legally. Once he attempted to retreat, by going to his truck, his duty of responsibility is now over, as he attempted to retreat. The use of physical force is not justified by words, so Mr Zimmerman, if his statement is accurate, did not put mr martin into a stand your ground situation. mr martin should have at that point either deescalated the confrontation or removed himself from it, instead, he followed (allegedly) mr zimmerman to his vehicle then proceeded to attack him (allegedly), if that is the case, the Mr Zimmerman was within the law to use deadly force, if the he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. I would say that having one's head slammed into the ground and being punched in the face repeatedly (allegedly) as meeting that definition.


We do not know what happened.

We do know Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman had stood down as "told" by 911 dispatcher and waited for Legal Authority.

That FACT is still a FACT.




First off he was not "told" to not follow. It was stated that they did not need him to, or something along those lines. Secondly, 911 dispatchers are NOT law enforcement officers. They are city or county employees depending on the locality. This REQUEST did not carry the weight of law. Him continuing the surveillance of Mr.Martin did not cause the shooting. What caused the shooting was either Mr.Zimmerman, or Mr.Martin assaulting the other physically which lead to the fight, which lead to the shooting. Now, common sense would say that he should not have followed, i probably would not have, but that was his decision. You can not say that him following him is what caused the shooting. That was not justification for Mr.Martin to allegedly attack mr zimmerman, not from a legal standpoint.


You're wrong. Him following absolutely did cause the shooting. Answer this for me. Had he not followed would the shooting still have happened?
edit on 3-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)


It may or may not have. From a purely legal standpoint, no it did not. The act of following a suspicious person is not illegal. However from a common sense point of view, i agree, he should not have, as I have stated, I personally would not have gotten out of the truck. I would have possibly positioned myself so that I could keep an eye on the individual, but I would not have confronted or followed on foot.

The act of Mr Zimmerman following Mr Martin did not legally justify Mr Martin allegedly assaulting Zimmerman from a legal standpoint.


Well plenty of legal experts disagree with you about that. The only person who says Treyvon was suspicious is zimmerman so to give him legal standing he would need to prove how he was being suspicious, walking home in the rain looking at the man following you is not very suspicious to me. Just because Zimmerman thought he was suspicious doesn't mean a thing, Zimmerman had already done his duty and notified the authorities....do you think Treyvon may have also thought Zimmerman was suspicious? I think he probably did. And what created the those feelings in Treyvon? ...... Being followed zimmerman. Zimmerman following absolutely cause this entire situation.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
in a 15 month span he called 911 46 times.

they are announcing about 7 of the 46 911 calls that zimmerman had made recently 5 were about suspicious activity by people 1 was about an open garage door 1 is about a dog fight, guess what all the 5 calls about suspicious people, happen to be black people. i cant wait til they release the info about the other 39 calls.


To be fair.

We don't know if Zimmerman called and said "suspicious black people" - - - or if he was asked if they were: White/Black/Hispanic - - and that's why it says Black on the report.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


well, if he was not arrested he would not been in handcuffs and stuffed into a police cruiser against his will. The lead investigator made the call to arrest him. Once the State attorney got involved, he made the call that there was not enough evidence to charge him, so they let him go. Now, we can argue if the state attorney is in someone's pocket or not, and that is not an out there in left field allegation. However, he was definitely arrested. The state attorney as you say "un - arrested" him.


So where is the mug shot? Where is the booking records? Once you are arrested, you are transported to the station, just as zimmerman was....he then should have hit booking. That is the first step in any arrest...no matter what the outcome. So where are those records and what were those exact charges?

If you are arrested you have those things.

Why did the State Attorney who made the call not to charge now step aside as well as the Chief of Police of Sanford...temporarily for now? Why did Zimmermans dad say he didn't mention he was a retired judge to the Chief or the State Attorney....when exactly did he not mention those things. This is a cover up no doubt.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


Zimmerman was NOT ARRESTED. He was detained by the Sanford PD, but not arrested.

The Sanford PD even state he was not arrested that night.

Zimmerman_Martin_shooting PDF
(link from sanfordfl.gov)

It's the fact the guy was never arrested after shooting an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business that has people outraged.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
This is a cover up no doubt.


It would be interesting if "they" could prove corruption and cover-up in court.

First it has to go to trial.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
This is a cover up no doubt.


It would be interesting if "they" could prove corruption and cover-up in court.

First it has to go to trial.


They have lots of evidence that sure is pointing that way. The FL State Attorney, if you ask me is the one to really focus on...he, just like alot of people on these boards, had such little regard for Treyvon Martin, that he just swept him under the rug, and they never ever expected this go national/global. They just assumed the parents would get over it and not ask questions and if they did ask questions they could squash them at the local level with stall tactics, etc....but now it has blown up and all eyes are on them. I really believe Zimmermans dad is probably connected to State Attorney Wolfisinger and he called in a huge favor for his son. I hope Treyvons lawyers can nail them all.


edit on 3-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
This is a cover up no doubt.


It would be interesting if "they" could prove corruption and cover-up in court.

First it has to go to trial.


They have lots of evidence that sure is pointing that way.


Suspicion and Proof are 2 different things.

Does sound like this Police Dept needs a shake up and cleaning.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Oh it could have absolutely made a difference. They would have notified him that the guy thought he was a suspicious character, they might have called Zimmerman back, and it would have changed the course of the case afterward and shown he was concerned.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Your second that third FACTS are actually your own personal speculations.
Do not make facts out of opinions.




top topics



 
105
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join