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

page: 312
105
<< 309  310  311    313  314  315 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Well all of that rest on whether or not you believe Zimmermans account.

I don't. His scratches prove nothing, Ive not seen any pics or records of a broken nose. And if even if his nose was broke....that doesn't prove anything at all. It prove he had a scratch.........

But like I said, I don't believe not one Zimmerman has said. I take that back, I believe one word he said.......'Are you following him'.........................'Yeah' ......... that's the one word I believe.


So just to clarify your admitting your bias and dont care about any facts because somehow you determined through your crystal ball hes guilty. NICE thats the exact problem with public opinion they think they know what happened and in reality know very little. People like you send Innocent people to jail because you let emotion overcome logic.




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Im discussing the case as I see it with the evidence available.....

You can see evidence the way you choose to, I will see it the way I choose to.....We all have the same information, so don't claim to know more than me or anyone else....we know just as much as you do, and you know just as much as we do........

This is forum of public opinion....I find it you funny you are going to attack someone on a public discussion forum for expressing their opinion........

Why is so offensive to you when someone takes an opposite position to you?.....I agree with the prosecution, you agree with the defense, it seems......how does that make me any different than anyone else? It doesn't you just wanted to argue with me.
edit on 30-4-2012 by fbluth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by fbluth
 

you know, just in case you didnt read all of the thread, which I happen to think you did, and have been around all along,
this is a post of mine from pages back



we have to remember that when somebody commits a crime...judgement gets passed by the community, thats what we have done here, but when the perp goes to trial we have to check our moral feelings at the door of justice. we cannot blind the letter of the law with moral feelings because we all see things as individuals, this is part of how humanity works. we do see things differently so, by checking our feelings at the door, the letter of the law can then judge the individual charged of the crime.... this is why there is argument on this thread



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Airmchair quarterbacks and all. How many times I have heard anti gunners change their tune, once their family, or they themself get attacked. Then all of a sudden people have a right to self defense, people have a right to arm themselves. Like I said, people only care about rights, when it affect's their own personal bubble.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


I stated in my first post I read the entire thread...I'm sorry I didn't remember you one post in a 300 page thread...it was like reading a book......

However, just because a court case has started doesn't mean the court of public opinion goes away....I'm not on the jury, and have no chance of being on the jury......so I will always be allowed to have my opinions based in public opinion.

the letter of the law can judge him, and the rest of us can judge him out here....we as the public, don't owe him anything when it comes to our opinion...........even if he is acquitted, we can always think he is guilty. Isn't that a great thing about America?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by fbluth
 


Oh yeah, it's #ing wonderful that the media can drag someone through the mud before the trial. That way, if they are found not guilty, we can always have scumbag racists like the NBP putting prices on their heads. It's great people can judge others, because the idiotbox smears them all over national news. It's neato, that talking heads on the idiotbox can make # up about people, with little consequences at all. What a wonderful world we live in!



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by rebellender
 

just because a court case has started doesn't mean the court of public opinion goes away....I'm not on the jury, and have no chance of being on the jury......so I will always be allowed to have my opinions based in public opinion.


by all means continue to express yourselves completely and freely, heck sign em all on at once and lets have a good conversation.
What have we not covered here?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
A bunch of "community leaders" go on national TV, and spin a compelling, but fictional story on the idiotbox, to guilt FL into assigning an overzealous lunatic prosecutor... The first prosecutor looked at all the evidence and decided there wasn't any to support any reasonable prosecution, that should have been the end of it.

Here is how the idiotbox events played out:

Dumbass talking head "12 year old Trayvon Martin was minding his own business, and happily skipping home. Out of nowhere comes this crazy huge white guy, who relentlessly hunted poor Trayvon down like a dog! Trayvon was executed for no other reason, but having some skittles and being black on a friday! Gather your pitchforks folks! He claims it was self defense, but look at this video captured by a calculator! No dirt or blood, he is a goddamn liar! RAGE RAGE RAGE! Let's play this doctored, I mean original 911 tape for you folks. He said coon, RAGE RAGE RAGE! More at eleven."

Great story, right out of a Grisham novel, and just as fictional as well. Great job MSM! Sadly there really are people out there, that think news channels have integrity, and journalistic morals, of a few decades ago



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender



I could go on and on, but you get the idea. I'll say again that I am not taking sides, and am actually appalled by the actions of people on both sides of the fence (The "justice for Trayvon" assaults aren't doing anyone favors, for example). However, I really don't appreciate the rampant double standards everyone is throwing around (particularly in the pro Zimmerman camp), and I fear the resulting implications of this. I am really hoping this is not reflective of people's true colors and biases, ESPECIALLY people on a forward thinking and progressive website such as ATS.
reply to post by solarjetman
 


So in your opinion its a true tragedy of Human Genocide, for which we lap it up like its the pages of The National Enquirer?



It's a tragedy that a community of what I would like to think of as enlightened, think-outside-the-box types actually share the same inherent biases and prejudices that the rest of the de-evolved sheeple possess. My only guess is that people at ATS only do this because they find it "sexy" to take the alternative opinion, even if it makes no sense; even if it means buying into absolute double standards; and even if it means ignoring my post about it and pretending I didn't call them out on it.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 




It's a tragedy that a community of what I would like to think of as enlightened, think-outside-the-box types actually share the same inherent biases and prejudices that the rest of the de-evolved sheeple possess. My only guess is that people at ATS only do this because they find it "sexy" to take the alternative opinion, even if it makes no sense; even if it means buying into absolute double standards; and even if it means ignoring my post about it and pretending I didn't call them out on it.

1+1+1+1+1 first sentence
1+1+1 second sentence
1+1+1+1+1 second sentence part 2

now let me count them. You have 13 over used cliche's in 2 sentences to make a judgmental point to call out everybody that doesn't agree with you in this thread
I have tried my best to keep agenda out of this thread and when I did figure out the reason all posters see the subject differently and point out that when you do get this in court which you all agree you want, you feel its not good enough and you further persecute those that dont share your common interests.
well hells bells,
Get a ROPE and hang Zimmerman, and while you are at it hang me too, by your judgement I should be hanged also,
Go on,
get 2 ropes now.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 


Can't speak for everyone, but I know I ignored you because you didn't make any good points really. And now you are angry only one person responded to your diatribe, and calling people that don't think like you devolved biased sheep. Also implying that people are only calling out the lies and BS the media spouted, because it's sexy? So you would rather everyone kept their mouths shut, and let the media smear someone.... Got it.

Congratulations, you got me to respond. You want me to take apart your post, even though you are basically saying the same thing that was said hundreds of times in this thread? Ok, I got my computer running some simulations, I got a few minutes to kill.

1)Dig a little deeper, you will see the truth for what it is. Poor people go to jail the most, because they can't afford to pay a few hundred grand to hire a good defense liar. A lot of poor people are minorities, but poor white people get treated unfairly as well.

They get stuck with a public defender, who not only defend their clients poorly, but push as hard as they can for people to make a plea bargin, so they don't have to do any real work, and you know, defend their client. I speculate, that a whole lot of back scratching goes on between court appointed defense liars, and the prosecutors, but that's mostly speculation.

The only reason I throw speculation out there, is because the Trayvon lovers are throwing out speculation to try and prove their case. Why shouldn't I throw their tactics right back at them?

2) I care about neither one's past personally, they are both irrelevant in a spur of the moment confrontation in a life and death situation. As long as the Tray supporters think it's fair to bring up Geaorge's past, why wouldn't others dig into Tray's past and show he is not the 12 year old angel that the media tried to portray him as? Turnabout is fair play, no?

3)Talking about assholes getting away, and walking down a sidewalk in your community... Nothing illegal or immoral in that. How can you claim, without any evidence, that he was still on Tray's trail? Zimmerman said he lost Tray, went to make note of the house number where he last saw him at. Then he turned around, and headed back toward his truck. Tray confronted him from the side sidewalk, suckerpunched him, then jumped on top of him and continued beating him up. Witnesses back up the beating up part, no witnesses to contradict the suckerpunch part. So why the assumption he is lieing? How else can you see poor defenseless Trayvon end up on top of a grown man, beating him, without sustaining any damage himself? If George punched Tray, he would have done some damage. Do you think the cops might have looked at his knuckles, and the kids face for signs of injuries indicating a fight, and not an attack? Or are you one of the people that think their is some huge cover-up conspiracy going on, or claim the cops are complete retards that don't know how to do their jobs?

4)The original PA reviewed the facts, and decided their was no evidence to contradict his version of the events, and enough evidence that told the same version. The PA decided to not prosecute a man for defending himself. It would have been the end of it, if not for the media giving airtime to community leaders, telling made up tales and forcing them to hand the case to an overzealous prosecutor. A prosecutor that is known for charging 12 year old kids as adults for murder, known for charging a lady for firing a warning shot in her ceiling, when a violent man broke into her home. Why would they choose her? Because she is probably the only one that would try and prosecute a guy for defending himself perhaps?

I see no double standards at all here. If the Tray bandwagon can make stuff up, and say it over and over, they can't cry foul when other people do the same.
edit on Tue, 01 May 2012 00:56:58 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Im discussing the case as I see it with the evidence available.....


Actually no, you are not. What you are doing, along with a few others, are trying to force the facts to fit your story and it does not and cannot work that way.

Please explain how the evidence (that has been confirmed) supports your position. To date the info / facts I have seen tend to lean towards Zimmerman. As I stated unless the PA has a smoking gun no one knows about, nothing that has been argued so far supports the charge against Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman was the evil bad guy then why didn't Trayvon run away? As people like to constantly point out, trayvons size, less weight, athletic active background should have made escape from Zimmerman guaranteed, yet for some reason that never occurred.

People point out Zimmerman failed to listen to a dispatcher.... ok
Trayvon failed to listen to his girldfriend who told him to get away.

Could it be possible we are only get partial facts from the gf? Could it be possible he told her he was going to confront Zimmerman and she didnt want him to? Was he trying to show off for her by acting like a bad ass with her on the phone?

Its obvious (to use your terminology) that Zimmerman was not perceived as a threat by Martin. That conclusion can be surmised based on Martins failure to get away, failure to listen to his gf's advice, failed to call 911 and report a suspicious person following him etc etc etc.



On a side note -

Are you and Pizzanazi the same person?

Your posts, choice of certain words, logic and defensiveness appear to be identical with each other, up to and including the almost exact same wording on zimmermans guilt and bias.
edit on 1-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by solarjetman
 




It's a tragedy that a community of what I would like to think of as enlightened, think-outside-the-box types actually share the same inherent biases and prejudices that the rest of the de-evolved sheeple possess. My only guess is that people at ATS only do this because they find it "sexy" to take the alternative opinion, even if it makes no sense; even if it means buying into absolute double standards; and even if it means ignoring my post about it and pretending I didn't call them out on it.

1+1+1+1+1 first sentence
1+1+1 second sentence
1+1+1+1+1 second sentence part 2

now let me count them. You have 13 over used cliche's in 2 sentences to make a judgmental point to call out everybody that doesn't agree with you in this thread
I have tried my best to keep agenda out of this thread and when I did figure out the reason all posters see the subject differently and point out that when you do get this in court which you all agree you want, you feel its not good enough and you further persecute those that dont share your common interests.
well hells bells,
Get a ROPE and hang Zimmerman, and while you are at it hang me too, by your judgement I should be hanged also,
Go on,
get 2 ropes now.


Whoa. Okay, first off... I'm not even going to count whatever cliches you were tallying up, because frankly attacking my language and choice of words is an ad hominem and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Second, I wasn't asking for anyone to agree with me, but just to be sure you understood, I am NOT saying Zimmerman is without a doubt guilty, NOR am I suggesting we hang him and anybody that disagrees with the "court of public opinion." All I am really trying to do is point out to the pro-Zimmerman camp, who currently seem to be the most vehement and representative group in the thread right now, that they seem to be just as biased as those in the fervently pro-Trayvon camp. I think both agendas are wrong, because they are both formulated from a significant amount of speculation-- we simply don't know enough actual facts yet.

Third, I'm not sure who you are referring to who feel that the case going to court isn't good enough-- for me personally, I was initially outraged that this was a case that was about to be swept under the rug like many others with a similar story. Now that they have reopened the investigation and are going through the events in a more thorough manner, I am PERSONALLY content-- but now, let's wait and see what happens as the evidence unfolds.

edit on 1-5-2012 by solarjetman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 




What a well written post.

This spells it out in a nutshell.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by solarjetman
 



I'm glad I officially made it into this thread! Haha...well, let me start out by thanking you for taking the time to respond. You threw a lot at me, so please allow me to address everything because it seems I didn't make my points very clear, and also you're putting a few words in my mouth.



And now you are angry only one person responded to your diatribe,

First, I am not "angry" that I didn't get a bunch of responses-- just because I pointed it out doesn't mean I'm angry about it. Also, I'm not sure how my post reads like an emotional rant to you-- I've tried to coherently break down double standards citing specific examples. If you don't agree with my points or argument, then that's fine, but I don't know see how you're going to dismiss the entire post as a "diatribe."



and calling people that don't think like you devolved biased sheep. Also implying that people are only calling out the lies and BS the media spouted, because it's sexy? So you would rather everyone kept their mouths shut, and let the media smear someone.... Got it.

I might have come off a bit harshly here, and I apologize for that, but you're twisting my words a bit here too. I'm not equating people at ATS who "don't think like me" to devolved sheep, but rather I am saying some of the arguments people are bringing to the table here share the same kinds of speculations and biases that the MSM-brainwashed masses buy into, only that these biases express themselves in a way that support the "underdog." Calling out the lies and BS is good, but call it out both ways.




1)Dig a little deeper, you will see the truth for what it is. Poor people go to jail the most, because they can't afford to pay a few hundred grand to hire a good defense liar. A lot of poor people are minorities, but poor white people get treated unfairly as well.

I agree that there is most certainly a class issue regarding convictions and sentencing in courts. How much deals with race and how much deals with class is a topic thats probably best saved for another thread, but wouldn't you agree it's safe to say that there is no clear cut line for "beyond reasonable doubt"? That's really the only point I was trying to make-- the line seems to be entirely dependent on who the defendant and who the the alleged victim is.



Why shouldn't I throw their tactics right back at them?

As I stated to rebellender, I think both tactics are foul. Why can't you take the middle ground and see both sides as entirely speculative?




I care about neither one's past personally, they are both irrelevant in a spur of the moment confrontation in a life and death situation. As long as the Tray supporters think it's fair to bring up Geaorge's past, why wouldn't others dig into Tray's past and show he is not the 12 year old angel that the media tried to portray him as? Turnabout is fair play, no?

I think you're missing my point here, but I'm glad you view both as irrelevant, because at least it's a consistent point of view for both Zimmerman and Trayvon. What I am suggesting is that people are taking one variable-- history of violence-- and calling it irrelevant for one person and obvious proof of violent disposition for the other. Isolating this one variable alone, it is clear that there is a double standard going on in some people's arguments.



3)Talking about assholes getting away, and walking down a sidewalk in your community... Nothing illegal or immoral in that. How can you claim, without any evidence, that he was still on Tray's trail? Zimmerman said he lost Tray, went to make note of the house number where he last saw him at. Then he turned around, and headed back toward his truck. Tray confronted him from the side sidewalk, suckerpunched him, then jumped on top of him and continued beating him up. Witnesses back up the beating up part, no witnesses to contradict the suckerpunch part.

Again missing the point. Look, I'll say for the third time that I'm not trying to argue that Zimmerman was in the wrong. I'm just saying that if you are going to attack speculation, then don't use that same exact kind of speculation to formulate your argument. When I stated, "Zimmerman follows Trayvon, talking about assholes getting away, to the point of getting out of the car, against dispatcher's recommendation, running after him. Fight and death ensues" that's not my personal argument, that's the argument thats on the table, which I followed up with the pro-Zimmerman response of "there's nothing wrong with that." That's fine, and you're right, there is a time lapse that occurred between his actions and the confrontation. Let's even say he DID follow the dispatcher's suggestions. Fair enough.

If you are going to defend Zimmerman by stating the reality that a time lapse occurred, thereby not making him the aggressor, then are you not also forced to accept that a time lapse occurred between the initial punch and the witness' account of Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman? How is this smoking gun evidence that Trayvon jumped/suckerpunched Zimmerman? How is this evidence that he waited in the bushes? NONE OF US WERE THERE.



So why the assumption he is lieing? How else can you see poor defenseless Trayvon end up on top of a grown man, beating him, without sustaining any damage himself? If George punched Tray, he would have done some damage. Do you think the cops might have looked at his knuckles, and the kids face for signs of injuries indicating a fight, and not an attack? Or are you one of the people that think their is some huge cover-up conspiracy going on, or claim the cops are complete retards that don't know how to do their jobs?

I'm not assuming he is lying, but I am not assuming he is telling the truth either, especially when multiple stories are on the table. Poor and defenseless? I never said that either... but if you're asking me how else could he be on top, well just using my imagination maybe Zimmerman swung and missed, and started losing the fight. Maybe Zimmerman made an aggressive move but didn't actually swing, which led him to believe he got suckerpunched. Maybe Trayvon himself was trying to apply SYG himself, but alas didn't have a deadly weapon. Who knows? However, I do feel the cops mishandled the situation, and a lot of information is going to come out as the evidence rolls out, but until then I am withholding judgement altogether on who really started it, because we weren't there, no witnesses saw the first swing and all we have to go by is the killer's interpretation of events.



4)The original PA reviewed the facts, and decided their was no evidence to contradict his version of the events, and enough evidence that told the same version. The PA decided to not prosecute a man for defending himself. It would have been the end of it, if not for the media giving airtime to community leaders, telling made up tales and forcing them to hand the case to an overzealous prosecutor. A prosecutor that is known for charging 12 year old kids as adults for murder, known for charging a lady for firing a warning shot in her ceiling, when a violent man broke into her home. Why would they choose her? Because she is probably the only one that would try and prosecute a guy for defending himself perhaps?

You raise a good point about the current prosecutor-- it does seem like such a choice could only hurt their stance, image-wise. Maybe this wasn't as good an example, because I'm not isolating anything here, I'm more addressing the overall sentiment and bottom line of this whole story, which is that a teenage boy, even if he were troubled, is now dead. That should be a tragedy just as the way Zimmerman may have found his own life ruined by public scrutiny is a tragedy. But rather than seeing the whole thing as a mess, people are becoming illogically polarized, which is exactly what TPTB want from us (I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same people are behind both sides of the news stories). Regardless, if this were a final draft argumentative essay, maybe I would cut this one out




I see no double standards at all here. If the Tray bandwagon can make stuff up, and say it over and over, they can't cry foul when other people do the same.

Making up stuff is bad, period. Why can't there be a middle ground?

Let me ask all of the pro-Zimmerman people this: are you guys really arguing that Zimmerman is CLEARLY innocent, or are you arguing that there simply isn't enough to prove that he is guilty? I have less of a problem with the latter-- time will tell on that-- but some of the more venomous posts I've seen here and elsewhere attacking Trayvon have led me to believe it's the former...
edit on 1-5-2012 by solarjetman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I will take that as quoted for truth



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 


I am not even really pro zimmerman, I am pro justice. I believe strongly in the natural right of self defense, and am a strong believer in our right to bear arms. If it were up to me, open carry would be legal everywhere, for everyone over 18, that hasn't been convicted of unlawful gun violence.

The other reason I got involved, I saw a guy being bullied by the MSM, plain and simple. I know how much that sucks, so I don't just let it go when I see it. I have lost like 15 facebook friends over it, I don't care. When I see some bull# hit my newsfeed, I call it out. Anyone that knows me enough to try and friend me should know that.

What does it say about our justice system, that some leftwing wingnuts can go on the idiotbox, and tell half truths and outright lies that riles up the gullible, and then make demands? Isn't that the very definition of terrorism right there? I thought the US didn't tolerate or cave to terrorists demands?

What about the flip side? If someone is being investigated, and people go on the idiotbox and riles up the masses to demand the case be dropped? Are they gonna cave to that too?

Kangaroo court indeed.
edit on Tue, 01 May 2012 08:26:58 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Well all of that rest on whether or not you believe Zimmermans account.

I don't. His scratches prove nothing, Ive not seen any pics or records of a broken nose. And if even if his nose was broke....that doesn't prove anything at all. It prove he had a scratch.........

But like I said, I don't believe not one Zimmerman has said. I take that back, I believe one word he said.......'Are you following him'.........................'Yeah' ......... that's the one word I believe.


That didn't answer much of my question. At what point do you feel that a person can defend themselves from an attack? Does the person need to be on the very cusp of death? Do they need to wait to ensure that the other person is doing enough damage? When can someone use deadly force, ignoring all of the fact regarding this case?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   


Let me ask all of the pro-Zimmerman people this: are you guys really arguing that Zimmerman is CLEARLY innocent, or are you arguing that there simply isn't enough to prove that he is guilty? I have less of a problem with the latter-- time will tell on that-- but some of the more venomous posts I've seen here and elsewhere attacking Trayvon have led me to believe it's the former...
reply to post by solarjetman
 

not Pro-Zimmerman but rather Pro Innocent until proven guilty by a court of Law. That means your judgement of poor little 12yr old Treyvon needs justice and big bad old Zimmerman should have known better than to get out of bed that day, Zimmerman needs to go to the chair attitude that Zimmerman is guilty, the thoughts and expressions you incite through all your profiles, thats what I am arguing with you about, all the preconceived hatred generated by your side, all the lies all the media lies and scandal. Remarks by the President him self.

Zimmerman is innocent until proved guilty. Thats the way impartial justice works.

Thats the way impartial justice would work for you!!
edit on 1-5-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
It boils down to this people,
can you prove zimmerman knew how to bait someone into
hitting him so he could kill them legally?
That is what the victims side wants you to believe.

If you can not prove that with REAL evidence
you can not prove murder.


Do not buy into this media circus.
they know everything there is
on the story and decide to *release
it drip by drip and get the people so angry
they want to go kill someone, and right when
they are about to do it, so they can not be blamed
for instigating it THE MEDIA is finally forced to put up
the truth or shut up. We are at that point.





top topics
 
105
<< 309  310  311    313  314  315 >>

log in

join