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: 169
105
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Deranged74
 


There is no eyewitness or video so we have to go by the evidence. Are you going to say he is guilty because there is no video? See because I am going to go with the evidence to avoid possibly imprisoning a man that defended himself, you want to jail him on the chance (against the evidence) that he wasn't defending himself.

Your logic is the bad logic.

There is an eyewitness that saw Zimmerman under Trayvon. Usually the person that strikes first ends up on top and has the advantage. Plus there was no damage indicating Trayvon was hit at all (considering how stout Zimmerman looks I would say if he punched you it would show), and finally there was evidence that Zimmerman took damage in a fight. I am sorry evidence leads to Trayvon starting the fight.



Are you saying he is innocent cause their is no video.. Your logic is bad logic.

A 1000 different ways this coulda played out that would make Zimmerman in the wrong.


He could have tried to detain Martin, he could have shoved martin and martin fought back, etc etc

Point is you do not know what happened and neither do i..

The difference is you give the benefit of doubt to the living who pulled the trigger, i give it to the dead who took the shot.

Wait and see on April 10 th if he gets charged or not then see.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee
 


What is the point of trying to hold on to two points that do not matter? Ok, say theoretically you are correct, that doesn't make him guilty of any crime. In the end what matters is who started the altercation and if the shooting was justified, evidence suggests it was. So what led to that point really doesn't matter. Not in real life, and not in a court of law.


Who's to say they don't matter?

If he is arrested and charged - - everything that happened in that time period will matter.

Lawyers will use anything and everything they can get away with. The 911 calls are admissible as evidence.

It does not matter that you don't think it matters. It doesn't even matter that I think it does.

It matters what the lawyers think matters. And what the judge allows.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


What part of why didn't he pass Zim going TO the store are YOU missing?If Zim had of seen him leaving then he would have known he belonged there,hence kid sneaked out because he was up to no good....my idea is as plausable as yours,like it or not.....you've tried and convicted Zim already and you hate anything that might shift the results...like the kid being a thief on the hunt


I came home from the store today and my neighbor who was home did not see me leave.
Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Was George staking out Martin all day or have you no idea what that complex looks like or where he went BEFORE he went to the store. How long was he out and which way did he go?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
This entire controversy gets deeper with each passing day.

Due to strong emotionalism, we'll probably never know the truth, though.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
As long as the truth is heard and allowed to stand and be accepted, whatever it may be,then all will be well...but there are elements, many on here,who already KNOW the " truth" and won't accept anything else that contradicts what they " know" so I don't have much hope,except I get in a few shots when the riots start



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Deranged74
 


No the point is you are accusing him of being guilty and talking as if the burden of proof is on him to prove he is innocent. That is wrong. You have not been taking an unbiased stance. He can't be charged if their is no PROOF of a crime. So you want him to be brought in before it has been proven their was a crime. That is the thing with this case so many people don't understand. First there has to be proof of a crime to make the arrest. Then there has to be proof of guilt before a conviction.

People keep saying corruption because he wasn't arrested, but there was no proof of a crime so it is not. They have continued to investigate and still no arrest warrant that I am aware of so it doesn't look like they have found anything implying guilt.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Only ptob I live in rifle country and we don't get much in the way of riots out here



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
After Katrina a couple of local thugs decided to hit a clothing store that had the windows blown out ... And no lights of course...only prob is under martial law they weren't stealing they were looting....they each got 15 years for stealing 3 Tommy jackets....idiots...I like martial law



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


They don't matter because they just don't even matter.

You are basically trying to say the butterfly effect is in play with that "he created the situation" nonsense. It could never be used in court, it's actually downright absurd.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee
 


They don't matter because they just don't even matter.

You are basically trying to say the butterfly effect is in play with that "he created the situation" nonsense. It could never be used in court, it's actually downright absurd.


Zimmerman did create the situation that resulted in a death.

We shall see - hopefully - when it goes to trial.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


It would be unfair to reach any conclusions about Mr. Zimmerman's guilt at this stage, but it is likewise unfair to Trayvon Martin and his family to find Zimmerman innocent. It sounds as though Mr. Zimmerman admitted the shooting, said it was self-defense, and the police accepted his version and sent him home with the gun used in the shooting! Suppose there is evidence that a man committed a murder and he claims to have an alibi -- and "there is no evidence to contradict the alibi"? Does he go free or is he charged and required to present competent and believable evidence of the alibi. The shooting here is admitted. Charges must be filed and the defense has to be proven -- not accepted based solely upon the version of the perpetrator.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Deranged74
 


Because in this case where he admitted the shooting, and there is no actual evidence that it was a crime because witnesses say it was self defense, the person is damaged, and he tells his story then they can't lock you up! It was determined it wasn't a crime. They don't let you rot in jail until they investigate and create charges. They can't arrest you for charges that don't exist yet.

They took him in and questioned him that night. There were multiple witnesses that corroborated his story. If the news hadn't spun this so hard at the start no one would be arguing this case this much. Don't you think it's strange they investigated this and cleared him, and now they have been investigating it for a few weeks and there are still not charges?

The fact is the evidence shows that he is telling the truth.The shell from the bullet he fired was still in the gun so that means it was either against his body or someone had their hand on the gun disallowing the casing to eject.

Everyone cried it was an outrage that he wasn't locked up, but that is absurd because you only arrest someone after there are charges.

Also, I am not sure it is true that he got to keep his gun, at least he didn't go home with it.
edit on 4-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No he created nothing. It takes two to tango as they say. He was involved in a situation, but he had no control over Trayvon's actions which had just as much to do with the end result as Zimmerman's. You can not prove otherwise because that is absolute reality. These kinds of arguments show the bare bones desperation of the new left in their attempts to convict a man they should actually be fighting for.

The new left wing is the old right wing. That is why we are in this political pickle.
edit on 3-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


I am done. I do not do "ping pong" posting.

I know what "Letter of the Law" is - - we will wait to see what happens.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Deranged74
 


The fact is the evidence shows that he is telling the truth.The shell from the bullet he fired was still in the gun so that means it was either against his body or someone had their hand on the gun disallowing the casing to eject.

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


So did I miss some breaking CSI news where the shell was found "jammed" in the slide? or is this a hyperbole of "finding a shell at the scene"

Because the only info "I" can find is that a shell was found BUT his magazine was full, so he had a CHAMBERED round in his gun as he went out on his "errands".

Please correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GhettoRice
 


I know only a fool carries a gun with an unloaded chamber if it is to be carried in any situation where it may be needed(personal defense ,enforce a law,etc)I cant conceive of any single situation I'd carry a firearm that wasn't loaded and instantly ready .....gun without a bullet on the chamber in a holster on my side or on my ankle? Joke ,right?


SM2

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhettoRice

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Deranged74
 


The fact is the evidence shows that he is telling the truth.The shell from the bullet he fired was still in the gun so that means it was either against his body or someone had their hand on the gun disallowing the casing to eject.

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


So did I miss some breaking CSI news where the shell was found "jammed" in the slide? or is this a hyperbole of "finding a shell at the scene"

Because the only info "I" can find is that a shell was found BUT his magazine was full, so he had a CHAMBERED round in his gun as he went out on his "errands".

Please correct me if I am wrong.


first I heard of that as well. Ya know having a full mag and another in the pipe does not make him guilty of anything except being prepared. i carry concealed almost everywhere i go, and I also load in that fashion. Full mag and one in the pipe safety engaged.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GhettoRice
 


I read somewhere that the empty casing was still inside the chamber. I will try to find it.
It's not an extremely hard thing to have happen if you have ever fired a gun. It's possible for them to not be kicked all the way free all the time without an obstruction, but it could also indicate he fired with it against him, or there was a hand on the gun.


SM2

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
to be fair here in this debate, if this was the case, there would be bruising on the area of the body where the spent casing struck, and no, it is not common to have the casing not eject completely. if you have a weapon and this is happening, you really need to take it to a gunsmith, because it is not functioning properly. I mean yes, it does happen without an obstruction from time to time, it is usually a defect in the round though, it is not all THAT common. You are arguing, if I understand this correctly, that possibly, Mr.martin's hand was over the ejection port of the pistol, a Glock if I remember correctly, which tend to eject from the port at about 1 o' clock. If that was the case, there would be significant burns and a wound from the impact of the case, not a serious impact wound, but still a wound, there would also, more than likely be a cut in his hand due to the action sliding back to eject and slamming forward again.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Bullypulpit
 


In the wild wild west

reply to post by SM2
 


I know it doesn't automatically make him guilty, and I do understand it can save time in an altercation but even as an owner myself I wouldn't feel comfortable with a loaded carry and no manual safety, I see it more as a careless act unless he had a pushlock holster. (I never trust "my finger is my safety")

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


This is true, there are a few possibilities for the gun to jam, after a proper investigation residue results will show if someones hand was over the gun or why it might have jammed. I also don't see it against possibility that after firing the first shot the next chambered round was ejected and put back in the magazine hence the "full clip".



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join