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: 316
105
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


Well obviously I have to remind people, because in case you haven't noticed, the tone of this thread has evolved QUITE a bit from page one.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


So you complained about people bringing up Tray's accounts earlier, and falsely accused me of thinking it was evidence, but you see it as some victory here that you found his account? You see his account from years ago as evidence. You are a hypocrite.

It's too bad that it has nothing to do with defending yourself from an attack. You can't come up with any evidence against the man, so you got to take personal snipes. I find that very telling of your bias in the case and overall immature attitude.

It don't matter if he was the grand dragon of the KKK, even the grand dragon of the KKK has the natural right to defend his life from an attack.
edit on Wed, 02 May 2012 04:06:26 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Let me get this straight...
If Zimmerman were the Grand Dragon of the KKK, and he killed this kid claiming that he got attacked, with no witnesses available to confirm this (let me repeat that, NO ONE other than Zimmerman is claiming Trayvon threw the first punch), you'd believe him without even a flinch? And anyone who disagrees with that story is biased and anyone who takes a stand against it is the very definition of a terrorist?

Mad world!



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 


Yes, you got it. There is a witness putting Tray on top, beating Zimmerman, which backs up his story. Sorry if I don't jump on the bandwagon, of thinking that attacks on a person's character, is some kind of evidence in a case of defending yourself from someone on top of you beating you.

How many times do I have to say it? Tray's past means nothing to me, Zimmerman's past means nothing to me. When the shooting happened, Tray was on top of an armed man beating him, and paid for it with his life. Had he not paid with his life, he would have probably ended up finding out that he is not as gangsta as he thought he was, he would be just another pretty suburb boy, doing favors for bubba to survive his jail term. Some people learn harder than others that life is not like a schoolyard. You do not go around fighting people like a little kid in real life. You end up in jail or dead.
edit on Wed, 02 May 2012 06:17:40 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
But as I stated earlier, if you are going to argue that Zimmerman's initial pursuit of Trayvon doesn't necessarily make him the aggressor because of the time lapse between then and the fight, then doesn't it follow that the witness' account putting Trayvon on top doesn't necessarily make him the aggressor because of the time lapse between the first swing and the moment the witness saw something? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm seriously just trying to follow the logic here. It is a double standard in my eyes.

Regarding the KKK comments, I'm not sure you are serious or just trolling at this point-- I know you've been saying background doesn't matter, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm pretty sure being the highest ranking member of the most famous hate group in the history of the country is a bit different than some offhand twitter and myspace comments from years ago.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 


Tray lost George, he had a huge head start on him. He could have gone home and called 911 and reported some dude was following him acting suspicious. The cops could have put two and two together, and explained what happened to both of them. They would probably both laugh about it.

Except he didn't go home, why not? Because he wanted to up his street cred a little, and have something to tweet to his homies and girlfriend?

Bringing up some stuff a guy said 7 years ago, and trying to act like it has something to do with what happened here is a pathetic attempt at character assassination. These pathetic attempts are all you guys got? Because there is no evidence to prove him guilty of anything other than defending himself from a guy on top beating him. So you try your best to make him look like a monster, to somehow justify the assault that took place. It's pathetic and sad.

Seriously, he was just trying to make it home with some skittles and ice tea, right? What reasonable innocent reason can you think of, that keeps him out in the rain, instead of going home?
edit on Wed, 02 May 2012 05:56:01 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I like how you dismissed my initial long post as not really making any good points, yet here you are reciting nearly verbatim the very double standard I called out. I think I'm gonna just start quoting myself already because I don't feel like retyping things over and over.



3. According to Zimmerman's account, he shot Trayvon as he was getting his head bashed against the sidewalk -> "He shot him because he feared for his life. You can never say there was intent to kill Trayvon, because you never know what's going through people's heads especially in extremely intense environments. Don't judge Zimmerman's assessment of his head wound either-- how could you? You never know if it'll kill you!"

and yet...
Trayvon could've technically sprinted to his home in less than a minute, if you line up all of the timestamps of everything he would've been in the clear (as if he'd ever be able to calculate all of this in a matter of seconds)-> "What terrible judgement of him! Why didn't he run home? Why didn't he politely answer to Zimmerman in a respectful manner? Well it's obvious what was going through his head-- it must've been because he felt he needed to prove something / get street cred / whatever so he chose to wait around and beat Zimmerman up instead (and or wait and surprise attack him).


If we are to look at the variable of poor judgement and cloudy decision-making in highly intense situations, then why is it that Zimmerman's judgement is perfectly reasonable while Trayvon's is totally unacceptable? Bear in mind that I'm not implying that Trayvon chose to ATTACK Zimmerman here, I'm simply talking about a decision not to run home, even if technically speaking, he could've made it. And yes, knowing that you are being followed at night in the rain by yourself in an unknown neighborhood IS a highly intense situation.

Here's one reasonable innocent reason that could keep him out in the rain-- maybe Trayvon didn't want the unknown follower to see him walking into his house? Maybe he wanted to be absolutely sure he lost the man and saw that he gave up his pursuit and headed home, but they ended up crossing paths? I'm throwing ideas out here, but are they any less valid than your idea that he wanted to impress his girlfriend and get some street cred?
edit on 2-5-2012 by solarjetman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 


Ok so let me get this straight here. We got the foaming at the mouth racist, proved by 7 year old myspace posts of course, stalking innocent unarmed Trayvon. Trayvon loses him, but instead of going home and calling the cops, he decides to sneak around a bit, just to make sure. Then they bump back into each other, out of pure chance, the racist attacks, but he is way to slow for super Tray, and misses. Then Tray uses his super speed, takes the racist madman down, starts pounding him while simultaniously screaming help at the top of his lungs. Then the vilian laughs his evil laugh, and shoots Tray.

Is that the story you got in your head? And by the way, this story is now copyrighted by me. Grisham eat your heart out, I got a bestseller on my hands now

edit on Wed, 02 May 2012 06:41:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by solarjetman
 


Ok so let me get this straight here. We got the foaming at the mouth racist, proved by 7 year old myspace posts of course, stalking innocent unarmed Trayvon. Trayvon loses him, but instead of going home and calling the cops, he decides to sneak around a bit, just to make sure. Then they bump back into each other, out of pure chance, the racist attacks, but he is way to slow for super Tray, and misses. Then Tray uses his super speed, takes the racist madman down, starts pounding him while simultaniously screaming help at the top of his lungs. Then the vilian laughs his evil laugh, and shoots Tray.

Is that the story you got in your head?


Cool story bro. A little humor never hurt anyone, and that was well written entertainment. Care to take a few breaths, apply some reading comprehension, and thoughtfully answer my question without the smart-assed undertones?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
What question? That it's reasonable to think that Tray was scared, and being chased down by the relentless George, but he thought it was a great idea to sneak around in the rain, instead of entering his house, and putting a door and a deadbolt, between him and the stalker? Well, that sure as hell isn't what I would do.... Is that what you would do?

Oh and here was a showstopper question that I feel got unfairly overlooked a few pages back.


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?


And one more question, relating the the one quoted in a way. Do you think it's fair, to economically punish people, for daring to defend themselves? Needlessly dragging someone into the court, forcing them to hire a defense liar, is economic punishment in disguise...... By proxy it's telling people that you better just call the cops, and hope they make it in time.
edit on Wed, 02 May 2012 07:24:15 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


This:


If we are to look at the variable of poor judgement and cloudy decision-making in highly intense situations, then why is it that Zimmerman's judgement is perfectly reasonable while Trayvon's is totally unacceptable?


Regarding the showstopping question, I think it's a good question to ask. In my personal view, I would take a few steps back by first addressing the issue of deadly force ie. gun ownership itself. I think it is a very powerful tool that can be used for good or for evil, and with that power comes great responsibility. Without insinuating anything about this case specifically, I would say that whoever qualifies to carry should not only require a clean record of previous weapon use, but also needs to have a very keen understanding about controlling confrontation, defusing situations and taking preventative measures to avoid escalation. I think it takes a great deal of mental maturity to use it wisely in all situations--something even law enforcement fail to do from time to time-- and I think that with the license there should be that agreement that responsibility falls on you to reasonably control confrontations. With all of THAT in place, however, if someone who carries still ends up finding themselves in a life-threatening situation, I don't have a problem with them blowing some brains out before they find themselves in critical condition.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 


What judgement are you bringing into question? The judgement of trying to protect your neighborhood? If more people had the balls to be proactive, neighborhoods would have never been overrun by gangbangers and drugdealers etc. Why should people just sit idly by, while people come into your neighborhood and rob and terrorize the place?

If you are talking about the judgement of shooting an attacker on top of you, then there is no judgement involved. You are not thinking critically in that situation, you are going off instinct, and training if you happen to have any.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Regarding the showstopping question, I think it's a good question to ask. In my personal view, I would take a few steps back by first addressing the issue of deadly force ie. gun ownership itself.


In a perfect world, that might be reasonable. But we all should know by know what happens when you turn a right into a privilege.

There is a high price for these freedoms, some believe they are worth it and others don't, thankfully I'm glad the founding fathers had the foresight to see why it would always be important to have the ability defend yourself from harm, as well as, government gone bad.

Some really just don't appreciate the fact that our armed citizenry is probably the only thing standing between us and even greater political "ism"s.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
george zimmermans myspace page is confirmed!

georgey you got some splaining to do!!!!! this is not good news for zimmerman!


Splaining about what? He's free to say and espress his opinions... What's so damning that it will hurt the case or even be considered as evidence?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


i complained because trays twitter acount was HACKED by racists that posted all kinds of crap on there and some of you bought it hook line and sinker! probably all the people that starred you.

you are just mad because zimmermans myspace has been validated as his OWN WORDS!!!

you see the difference???????????????



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I'm curious. If I am racist and someone attacks me from the race I have an issue with, does that mean I have different rights when it comes to defending myself? Should we exclude this if the racist is from the minority?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
if you are a racist and you left a paper trail it would be rather hard to deny that you did in fact racially profile someone.

all this time i was saying this was not a racially motivated incident. his own racist ramblings show that he is a racist. anybody that says otherwise is blinded by their love for zimmerman. how can anyone say they get a knife pulled on them by EVERY mexican they run into? he totally proves his idiotic racial profiling attitude. you guys are just pissed that your boy did not act purely in self defense. do not worry about your right to bare arms or your rights to self defense, they will not be taken away because of this idiot, unless you are a racist with ramblings on websites that can be traced back to you and you go out racially profiling people and looking for trouble you will be fine.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
if you are a racist and you left a paper trail it would be rather hard to deny that you did in fact racially profile someone.

all this time i was saying this was not a racially motivated incident. his own racist ramblings show that he is a racist. anybody that says otherwise is blinded by their love for zimmerman. how can anyone say they get a knife pulled on them by EVERY mexican they run into? he totally proves his idiotic racial profiling attitude. you guys are just pissed that your boy did not act purely in self defense. do not worry about your right to bare arms or your rights to self defense, they will not be taken away because of this idiot, unless you are a racist with ramblings on websites that can be traced back to you and you go out racially profiling people and looking for trouble you will be fine.


You are the one rambling nonsense... Having an opinion is not against the law, nor is observing the actions of people around his community... If Hispanics are the main problem that he see's in the neibhorhood, why not point it out? You're grasping at invisible straws here...



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


i am not here to provide "evidence" i am not a lawyer, this is not a court of law this is a forum. i am providing my opinion based on the info and details i have heard so far. according to some of you armchair perry masons any evidence that comes out against zimmerman is "hearsay" not admissible etc. etc. as more and more mounting details become available it is painfully obvious that george zimmermans idiotic irresponsible racist actions led to the tragic death of trayvon martin. imo he is guilty of manslaughter.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


how do you explain him saying he was gonna get his biker boys to handle a situation, that they would do a few years and never rat on him?

how do you explain him bragging about getting off on his various charges?

how do you explain his charge from the ATF? thats a new one to me?

how do you explain him calling the girl he beat up his ex-hoe?

what kind of an innocent neighborhood watchmen talks like that?

again how do you explain him saying that EVERY MEXICAN he runs into pulls a knife on him? i mean that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. if that is true show me proof of one just one police report that zim made against a mexican pulling a knife on him!!

i would hate to have a racist idiot like that protecting my neighborhood!!

if you defend this guys racist opinions i would hate to hear yours.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join