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: 326
105
<< 323  324  325    327  328  329 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I am not sure a trial is a given yet. Not sure about FL, but where my legal hiccup occured, the judge reserves the right to throw the case out after discovery, if he/she felt there was not nearly enough to proceed to a trial.


While that would be the responsible
and correct thing to do..

We know the mob rule and public opinion
will not let that happen.. LEST THEY RIOT RIOT RIOT
of course and threaten civil unrest if they are not given
zimmermans ..
edit on 8-5-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Lol if that's really why they are doing it, our country is screwed.... We are not supposed to give in to terrorist threats, and that is all that is. "Do this, or we will revert into animals and tear the city down." If that's not a terrorist demand, I don't know what is.....



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


You are aware that multiple blows to the . can cause death, right? You can threaten somebody's life without a weapon, if you're stronger than they are and you decide to bash their . on the ground repeatedly. You're sweet little Trayvon had a history of violence, including allegedly punching a female school bus driver in the face.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


i would like to hear more evidence about him punching a bus driver. was it a school bus driver? if it was there for sure would be evidence about it. even if it wasnt a school bus driver the driver for sure would have filed a report.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


also with your logic i could pull a gun and shoot someone dead if they push me, after all i could fall down and hit my . and die. if they punch me than for sure i can shoot them dead, after all there is the one punch of death.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by 27jd
 


also with your logic i could pull a gun and shoot someone dead if they push me, after all i could fall down and hit my . and die. if they punch me than for sure i can shoot them dead, after all there is the one punch of death.

Do you push a lot of people? Knock them down?

You do realize that this is not acceptable behavior, right?

If you push someone, knock them down, they hit their . and die..... you can be brought up on charges.
edit on 8-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
If you fear for your life, you can defend yourself. Nobody else can tell you , its you that feels threatened or not. If you can show you truly thought your life was in danger, then you "should" be ok. Yes, lots of room for gray areas for sure, but lets say you were in a dark ally , behind some houses at night, alone and a person had you blocked in and said to you Im going to kill you right now with my bare hands and there is nobody here to stop me or even know about it and started advancing on you, I would say you have the right to defend yourself at that point without a punch thrown or anything, because if you dont you might end up dead. The old adage is true, Id rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. I listen to my gut and if it yells at me, I will do what it takes to get out of that situation as anyone should.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
no i dont but according to the logic of an earlier poster i better not push anyone because that would give them the right to shoot me dead.

here is another thing, i believe the prosecution has old voicemails with trayvons voice to match up to the 911 screams. that could be a bomshell. here is why i believe the screams are not zimmermans.

1. zimmerman claimed that trayvon was trying to cover zimmermans mouth. if true why arent the screams muffled?
2. if the screams were zimmermans why did they instantly stop after the gunshot?
3. why the need to scream for help when you have a gun and are shooting your attacker?

think about it for a second, what makes more sense? A. you are being attacked and at the same time you are shooting the guy you are screaming for help or B. you are in a fight and you realize the guy you are fighting is about to shoot you.

i see a scenario where trayvon realizes zimmerman is pulling out a gun, perhaps that is where the struggle for the gun happens and thats when trayvon calls for help. zimmerman shoots trayvon instantly stopping the screams.

then there are the inconsistencies in zimmermans testimony.

1. zimmerman claims trayvon was circling his truck and that it scared him and he rolls up his windows.
2. if this is true and zimmerman was so scared why did he get out of his truck to follow trayvon?
edit on 8-5-2012 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2012 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
2. if the screams were zimmermans why did they instantly stop after the gunshot?
3. why the need to scream for help when you have a gun and are shooting your attacker?


I can answer these..

Because the threat was eliminated
it only makes sense he was screaming
for help so he did not have to shoot
treyvon or treyvon did not get zimmermans
gun and shoot him..



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wiz4769
If you fear for your life, you can defend yourself. Nobody else can tell you , its you that feels threatened or not. If you can show you truly thought your life was in danger, then you "should" be ok.


If that's the case, then Trayvon had the right to defend himself. Unfortunately, he didn't have a gun.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
this is the first time i heard about george zimmerman chasing trayvon..

5 things we learned at george zimmermans bond hearing...

"Prosecutors say they have evidence, including eyewitness accounts, that suggest Zimmerman chased Trayvon, who at one point turned around and attacked Zimmerman in self-defense 70 yards from the back door of the house where he was staying with his dad, and where he was returning after buying a bag of Skittles and an iced tea at a convenience store."



let me guess "its not illegal to chase someone."



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
2. if the screams were zimmermans why did they instantly stop after the gunshot?
3. why the need to scream for help when you have a gun and are shooting your attacker?


I can answer these..

Because the threat was eliminated
it only makes sense he was screaming
for help so he did not have to shoot
treyvon or treyvon did not get zimmermans
gun and shoot him..


but you cant answer this?

1. zimmerman claimed that trayvon was trying to cover zimmermans mouth. if true why arent the screams muffled?

or this

if zimmerman said trayvon was circling his car at the same time of the 911 call, how come he made no mention of that to the 911 operator?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
but you cant answer this?

1. zimmerman claimed that trayvon was trying to cover zimmermans mouth. if true why arent the screams muffled?

or this

if zimmerman said trayvon was circling his car at the same time of the 911 call, how come he made no mention of that to the 911 operator?


On the 911 tapes zimmerman was
heard telling the 911 op he was observing treyvon
and that treyvon was observing him.
The circle around his suv maybe was the circle back treyvon
did rigtht around the time zimmerman was ambushed..
Trying to cover someones mouth is not the same as doing it..
We know treyvon smashed his . in the ground multiple times
and there is proof of it via eye witness testimony and the wounds on zimmerman



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


It's bizarre how the media uses almost exclusively old photos of Trayvon when discussing this story. They keep trying to paint him as some innocent 'child'. He very well could have been the perpetrator in the recent break-ins and given Zimmerman good reason to be suspicious- at least more than what's being reported.


That's because Zimmerman looks white in the old photos, but in the new photos he looks Hispanic. I am not lying. That is the reason. They want to portray it as white-on-black, when it isn't.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


"In an audio recording of Zimmerman's call to police that night, Zimmerman says Trayvon is acting suspiciously and describes him as a black teenager when prompted by the dispatcher.

He does not say that Trayvon was circling his vehicle, but that's what he told police later that night and has consistently told authorities in subsequent interviews, according to the Sentinel's source.

Here, according to that source, is the sequence that Zimmerman provided:

Zimmerman spotted Trayvon, called a nonemergency police number and began describing the teenager. While he was doing that, Trayvon came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.

Zimmerman, though, never described that to the dispatcher."

inconsistencies in george zimmermans testimony...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
yeah i dont mind that, and i would also like the walking patrols to have some kind of an outfit or i.d identifying themselves as neighborhood watch. otherwise look what can happen you could freak out people who think you are following them, like zimmerman freaked out trayvon. if anything zimmerman should have immediately identified himself as captain of the neighborhood watch. according to the testimonies he did not do that.
edit on 7-5-2012 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)


This argument drives me nuts....

What is the point in arguing that neighborhood watch individuals should observe and report only and not get involved, to then argue for them to have a huge target bolted onto them in the form of an ID?

Many years ago when I worked security the mindset was to use a uniform that very closely resembled law enforcement. My argument was if you are going to make a person a target, then you better allow them the ability to defend themselves.

Do you honestly think that a person who is committing a crime is going to stop and take a moment to identify a person? Od you think they are going to closely scrutinize a uniform to determine whether or not they are law enforcement or just security?

Do you think a person is going to take the time to identify if an individual in plain clothes, who has some type of ID present, is plain clothes / off duty officer or someone else?

You don't get it both ways.. Its impossible...

If a member of a neighborhood watch program is doing their job, and sees something suspicious, and calls and reports it, and during that time frame are then targeted because they are reporting a crime (and we know some criminals don't like the idea of a person being able to identify them) then what?

If a person is observing and reporting and does nothing to bring attention to themselves, yet are targeted by criminals, those members have every single right to defend themselves.

Im fine with neighborhood watches having policies in place that prevent individuals from being armed while they do their job. However, policies do NOT trump state / federal law. The security job I worked was non armed.. Myself, along with a few others who carried commissions from other agencies, carried concealed, in violation of policies.

I will take a termination over a funeral...
I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by six...

A gun does not kill, a person manipulating that inanimate object kills.

A person is capable of understanding and observing neighborhood watch policies....
A person is capable of understanding and observing State / Federal laws when it comes to possession and carrying of a loaded firearm....

Please explain to me why you, based on your argument to date, are bound and determined to hold an individual accountable for exercising their rights under State and Federal law while ignoring the potential criminal actions of others involved?

Black people are not criminals....
Hispanic people are not criminals....
White people are not criminals....
Asian people are not criminals....

People who break the law are criminals...
Gun control does not work.... The only people who will abide by gun laws are law abiding citizens. Any argument that suggests a person has the potential to commit a crime is flawed because every single person on the planet has that potential.

Having the potential is not criminal.... Acting on the potential makes it criminal..

Please, you guys going after Zimmerman need to quit arguing a double standard, dismissing bits and pieces that dont support your argument while constantly harping on actions that have no bearing on this topic.

You either embrace and accept the law for all, or for none. Selective enforcement undermines your own positions.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
It was a long time ago when I was officially a part of a Neighborhood Watch.

But - - I do believe they did issue us ID cards.


Question - and in all seriousness - why?

What does the Id card do that its required?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by solarjetman
Just because there's a point in the fight where Trayvon is on top doesn't mean he threw the first punch as the aggressor, let alone suckerpunched/ambushed Zimmerman.


A few things -

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921) a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".


Translation - This type of situation must be viewed in the exact manner it occurred and without the 20/20 hindsight people are continually trying to use.

Also please understand the use of the words "or" as well as "and" when it comes to understanding statutes. When a law lists out the elements (actions required in order to be in violation of a law) you will see those 2 words. If it states "and" it means the part you just read as well as the section you are about to read are both required. If you come across the term "or" it means only sections, and not the entire list, is required.

Secondly, the major flaw in your argument, as well as a few others, is this -
Florida Statutes - CH 776 - Justifiable Force

IF Zimmerman was the primary aggressor throughout the entire incident, and at some point felt Martins actions placed his life in imminent fear, read 776.041 - Use of force by the aggressor

The reason states dropped this portion of Florida law when they adopted their own SYG / Self Defense / Castle Doctrine laws is because Florida law has no mechanisms in place in the SYG statute that forces a neutrality clause, so to speak.

Florida law relies on the suspect / victim / aggressor to justify their actions. Those justifications are based solely on what they "witnessed / observed / felt / perceived" at the moment the force was used. Evidence and eyewitness accounts come into play but its up to the State to argue the evidence does not support one version of events over the other.

In almost every other state there is no coverage for the aggressor. If a person is going to be an aggressor, they cannot claim self defense if they picked a person who happens to be more adept at survival. Florida allows for that distinction to be made and that is THE xruxt of the problem.

Flor those who wish to argue the SYG law does not apply, you still have the stand alone law of self defense (both laws have self defense built in but because one is attached directly to the SYG law and the other is not, its still a viable option if SYG is ruled a no go).

As far as the discovery phase goes the info there will most likely be restricted until the items are used in court. Keep in mind a motion for discovery, and the items the Pa turns over, does not mean that info is going to be used in court. The info / evidence in the discovery can be challenged in order to have it suppressed / removed all together.

Our legal system presumes a person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law by judge or jury.
The PA is required to make their case in terms of guilt by proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our legal system is designed to allow a criminal go free rather than see an innocent person convicted.

Most importantly its based on the law which favors neither side. Its not suppose to...

It can't.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


When a person experiences an adrenaline dump in a fight or flight scenario, memory is also affected. Its one of the main reasons law enforcement will not have an official statement from an officer until 2 to 3 days after an event like a shooting. Mind you law enforcement receives training when it comes to observation and focus in high stress situations. How do you think an individual who does not have that training is going to react?

The PA can raise those inconsistencies all they wish, and they will most likely do that. However it does not mean Zimmerman is / was lying and again, its not incumbent upon Zimmerman to justify his actions. Its incumbent on the state to show the version of events do not match while at the same time providing evidence as to why the stories dont flow the same.

Merely mentioning the discrepancies is not enough to prove guilt. They must show why those discrepancies are present - going down the road of the age old observation that a person is not capable of telling the same lie twice. Factor in a complex lie and its almost impossible to tell it twice.

The state can make all the accusations it wants. Proving those accusations is another story all together.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

I think I need to reiterate my position that I am not calling out the suckerpunch theory in an attempt to prove Zimmerman's guilt, I'm simply trying to show people that they are merely speculating about a suckerpunch. The bottom line is there is a few minute window after Zimmerman hung up the phone (or Trayvon's phone went out if we're counting that) and before the neighbors' 911 calls began, during which NONE of us have absolutely any idea what happened, other than at some point they met each other again.

I'm trying my best to reserve judgement until more information comes out, but until then all I'm attempting to do is dispel some of the more outlandish theories that seem to be surfacing repeatedly on this thread, "trim the fat" and reduce this to the only pieces of information and theories that may actually hold weight and aren't built entirely upon speculation. Even if Trayvon was absolutely the aggressor, turned around from his path and found Zimmerman, swung first and proceeded to beat the crap out of him and all eyewitnesses supporting this were 100% accurate and the others weren't, there still is no reason whatsoever to assume that Trayvon chose to make this strike by waiting in the bushes to ambush him, or hit him when he wasn't looking, other than "Zimmerman said so"-- hell, I don't even think Zimmerman himself said Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and ambushed him. If no one can point out where this came from, can we please eliminate it?

Thanks for the link on 776.041. I have a few questions:

1. Why would the law rely solely on the user of force's observation/perception of the situation given that, as you and others implied, it can be very easy in high intensity situations to subjectively miscalculate it's severity?

2. Part 2a is a bit mind-boggling to me. Please humor me while I attempt to make sense of this. Is this implying that, HYPOTHETICALLY, Zimmerman could've hunted Trayvon down, cornered him and said a bunch of threatening stuff to him, even attacked him, and if Trayvon fought back and knocked him to the ground, proceeds to bash his . in an attempt to knock him unconscious or whatever, Zimmerman entirely had the right to shoot him?

If so, where do you draw the line for the other guy? It would seem like there can only be one aggressor and one fighting in self-defense in any given situation, but this section is giving both people in the situation the right to justify self-defense, in which case, all else equal, the guy with the superior "force" is going to win.

Thanks again for the informative answers WITHOUT the needless name calling



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 323  324  325    327  328  329 >>

log in

join