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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Originally posted by SM2
First off he was not "told" to not follow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by pizzanazi75
This is a cover up no doubt.
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.
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.