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.

 

A Lesson in Jumping to Conclusions (the Trayvon Martin shooting)

page: 33
74
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deranged74
WHERE IS ALL THIS BLOOD you Zimmerman supporters where screaming about. This is the nail in your coffin here. Guy supposedly was in a fight for his life that same night ,, claiming the back of his head was banged against concrete and has no badges on the back of his head and no blood anywhere!!!!

Wow he has the healing power of Wolverine!!!!!
edit on 28-3-2012 by Deranged74 because: (no reason given)

Did a little work on this.
Look under the left eye you
can clearly see bruising, and
his nose looks pretty damn crooked
if you ask me. His nose is not normal,
that is for sure. You can see the injuries
a little better this way. It does look like
he is injured.

Also on the police report
the officers attest to him
having bruises and blood,
signs that he had been in
a struggle. Now surely not everyone
of the cops are lying, and the eye witness,
the 9-11 calls speak for themselves zimmerman
is screaming for help. The video was leaked by
someone.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
A real black on black genocide is going on and they hold a hoddie rally here in Detroit for someone who got killed over 1000 miles away.

Meanwhile just a few short miles away the Detroit cops were digging up these two victims of black on black genocide. I think this is the very definition of irony.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Well this topic has a few replies. I was telling my girlfriend last night, you know this story has become what I'd call a distraction story. Seems like they don't do anything in order to get the most out of it. It has become quite a stir and really distracts the general public from important stuff like the elections and economy ect. The evidence of this I find in my act of yet again making another post on it. Which means I've been thinking about this story way too much.
Anyway heres another story from RT not sure if anyone has seen it. The guy from black panthers that issued the bounty for GZ has been arrested.

­On Monday Hashim Nzinga was imprisoned for an unrelated weapons charge

RTnews



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TruckDriver69
 


I agree. I believe the media and public figures are playing this for all they can and it's sad. There are deaths every day and they don't get a second look. I don't like it any more than you.

It doesn't make this case any less worth investigating. All of them deserve justice. There was a case just last year not far from where I live where a man was shot in broad daylight in his truck in front of City Hall by a cop. Almost a year later and no more details about why have come forward, that I am aware of.

It's sickening but it doesn't make this case any less worthy of attention.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
OKay, so I guess this thread is moderator approved. With 33 pages, I aint got time to read everything, so forgive me if someone pointed this out already...

A person does NOT need to sustain injuries of a certain severity, or injuries at all to be justified in shooting their attacker. They simply need to feel like their life is in danger, and be given verbal threat to the effect that he is about to be attacked. Let's say for example that Trey-Trey said something like "I'm gonna kill you, punk," and then reached into his pocket while stepping rapidly toward Zimmerman. If ZImmerman does not feel like he can turn and escape Trey, he has the full force of the law behind him to defend himself with equal force, even if that force is implied by physical actions and verbal threats. That my friends, is sufficient justification to shoot him to stop the attack or impending attack.

Zimmerman technically does NOT even NEED to be wounded, yet you all are screaming that his wounds aren't severe enough to justify killing someone? Ask any cop.

Do your homework before you start race baiting and posting garbage.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
OKay, so I guess this thread is moderator approved. With 33 pages, I aint got time to read everything, so forgive me if someone pointed this out already...

A person does NOT need to sustain injuries of a certain severity, or injuries at all to be justified in shooting their attacker. They simply need to feel like their life is in danger, and be given verbal threat to the effect that he is about to be attacked. Let's say for example that Trey-Trey said something like "I'm gonna kill you, punk," and then reached into his pocket while stepping rapidly toward Zimmerman. If ZImmerman does not feel like he can turn and escape Trey, he has the full force of the law behind him to defend himself with equal force, even if that force is implied by physical actions and verbal threats. That my friends, is sufficient justification to shoot him to stop the attack or impending attack.

Zimmerman technically does NOT even NEED to be wounded, yet you all are screaming that his wounds aren't severe enough to justify killing someone? Ask any cop.

Do your homework before you start race baiting and posting garbage.


so if you are being stalked by a citizen with a loaded gun you have no right to defend yourself? if treyvon had a gun instead of skittles would he have been justified in shooting zimmerman dead?

neither of us know what truly happened that night, but you should at least do your homework before you start your race baiting and posting garbage.


edit on 28-3-2012 by elitegamer23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You are not a law enforcement officer working on this case. You do not know what evidence exists


No, we don't know what evidence exists, the police department certainly didn't bring up any credible evidence to close this case and let Zimmerman off, right on.


As to your question, which is a stupid one: A male assaulting a female is considered to be potentially deadly, with NO gun.


It doesn't matter, there are many dangerous females out there that can most definately inflict an equal amount of harm as any other male. The fact that Trayvon was a male should not at anytime justify the fact he was killed, what nonsense.


so a female has an easier time justifying the use of a gun in defending herself.


I was not talking about the female pulling the trigger, but if Zimmerman was a female, I wouldn't see this case any differently.


Since you have the male as the attacker with a gun, he would be charged because he had the gun and he could have defended himself without it.


So what you're saying is that essentially because Martin was a male, the killing was justified in this case?


If you meant to say that the girl shot the male


If you read back to my reply, you'll see I clearly didn't say this.

Thankyou for honestly answering my question though, I think your position is clearly biased, but I appreciate the honest response



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
All the GZ crucifiers was he not treated at the scene of the crime?? Obviously there would be no blood. Also the police report states one officer recognized blood, scraps, and bruising on GZ's head. Congrats for listening to the same people who still post the "child" pictures of this young man. Want too see what TM really looked like??

______beforeitsnews/story/1939/020/Was_Trayvon_Martin_a_Drug_Dealer.html

sorry I do not know if there is a certain way to post links



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


I don't see anything? Then again the video is bad. Apparently Zimmerman was slammed to the side walk multiple times that he required stitching, so claims him and his lawyer. Hopefully the EMT's will be able to account that night.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
OKay, so I guess this thread is moderator approved. With 33 pages, I aint got time to read everything, so forgive me if someone pointed this out already...

A person does NOT need to sustain injuries of a certain severity, or injuries at all to be justified in shooting their attacker. They simply need to feel like their life is in danger, and be given verbal threat to the effect that he is about to be attacked. Let's say for example that Trey-Trey said something like "I'm gonna kill you, punk," and then reached into his pocket while stepping rapidly toward Zimmerman. If ZImmerman does not feel like he can turn and escape Trey, he has the full force of the law behind him to defend himself with equal force, even if that force is implied by physical actions and verbal threats. That my friends, is sufficient justification to shoot him to stop the attack or impending attack.

Zimmerman technically does NOT even NEED to be wounded, yet you all are screaming that his wounds aren't severe enough to justify killing someone? Ask any cop.

Do your homework before you start race baiting and posting garbage.


so if you are being stalked by a citizen with a loaded gun you have no right to defend yourself? if treyvon had a gun instead of skittles would he have been justified in shooting zimmerman dead?

neither of us know what truly happened that night, but you should at least do your homework before you start your race baiting and posting garbage.


edit on 28-3-2012 by elitegamer23 because: (no reason given)


I am using a hypothetical scenario to explain what criteria need to be met to consider a shooting 'justified' as self-defense. If you did not pick up on that, then I don't know what to tell you.

As for your hypothetical scenario - no, he would not be justified. Zimmerman did not attack or verbally threaten Martin, according to what we've heard. If Zimmerman had drawn his gun and told Martin that he was going to shoot him because he didn't belong in the neighborhood - yes, he would be justified in exercising self-defense.

This is real simple stuff, dude. It's practically common knowledge, so I don't know where the debate is coming from here. You all think Zimmerman needs to fry because he shot a black kid, plain and simple. As though black teenagers are somehow held to a different standard.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You are not a law enforcement officer working on this case. You do not know what evidence exists


No, we don't know what evidence exists, the police department certainly didn't bring up any credible evidence to close this case and let Zimmerman off, right on.


As to your question, which is a stupid one: A male assaulting a female is considered to be potentially deadly, with NO gun.


It doesn't matter, there are many dangerous females out there that can most definately inflict an equal amount of harm as any other male. The fact that Trayvon was a male should not at anytime justify the fact he was killed, what nonsense.


so a female has an easier time justifying the use of a gun in defending herself.


I was not talking about the female pulling the trigger, but if Zimmerman was a female, I wouldn't see this case any differently.


Since you have the male as the attacker with a gun, he would be charged because he had the gun and he could have defended himself without it.


So what you're saying is that essentially because Martin was a male, the killing was justified in this case?


If you meant to say that the girl shot the male


If you read back to my reply, you'll see I clearly didn't say this.

Thankyou for honestly answering my question though, I think your position is clearly biased, but I appreciate the honest response



If you meant to say that the girl shot the male


If you read back to my reply, you'll see I clearly didn't say this.

That's why I said "If you meant to say". Comprehension skills..?

Otherwise, you just do not understand what I was trying to get across. Seriously, read the post and try to understand. There is no bias. It's not MY opinion. This stuff is common knowledge among cops, lawyers, people who hold CCWs like myself. It is pretty standard across many states, with small deviations here and there. The criteria needed to justify deadly force in an act of self-defense is well-known. Google it.

Just because you think that something "isn't fair" because someone is "black" or "young" or possesses some other characteristic, doesn't exempt it from the criteria. If ZImmerman meets the self-defense criteria and the evidence/eyewitnesses corroborate it, guess what? No charges - it's self-defense.

We'll all find out in the next day or so I'm sure.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
As for your hypothetical scenario - no, he would not be justified. Zimmerman did not attack or verbally threaten Martin,


How do you know he did not threaten Martin? Did Zimmerman tell you this? Because Martin can't certainly speak for himself. Aren't you the one insisting that we don't know the details of that night? As I am aware, Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon Martin but was told by the police dispatcher to stay put, he didn't listen. He persued Martin and even reported that he was chasing after him, Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to do so. Trayvon was unarmed and he being chased by some guy he doesn't know in the middle of the night with a loaded gun. Whether Martin started the fight first? Zimmerman claims this was the case, he is the only one that can account for that night, but in the end all we have is a dead unarmed back kid who had skittles in his hand and Zimmerman.

Trayvon every right to feel threatened for being followed and confronted by some random man with a loaded gun, you don't agree? That's perfectly fine, Zimmerman will finally get to use your excuses come his day in court. Atleast we know he has to appear in court now, he ain't getting off that easily.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You know he is going to court because it is the only way the Media and the Police can not be held accountable for whatever the decision is right?
edit on 29-3-2012 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You know he is going to court because it is the only way the Media and the Police can not be held accountable for whatever the decision is right?
edit on 29-3-2012 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)


No, I think he's going to defend himself in court because he has not demonstrated exactly where this was merely defense. You and the others here may feel he doesn't have to defend himself, I and many others do. If you intend to so readily take the life of an unarmed person, you need to be held accountable, especially in the case that there is no evidence indicating that the unarmed person harassed or threatened you in anyway. If Zimmerman is innocent, he'll get his day in court, no sweat.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
As for your hypothetical scenario - no, he would not be justified. Zimmerman did not attack or verbally threaten Martin,


How do you know he did not threaten Martin? Did Zimmerman tell you this? Because Martin can't certainly speak for himself. Aren't you the one insisting that we don't know the details of that night? As I am aware, Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon Martin but was told by the police dispatcher to stay put, he didn't listen. He persued Martin and even reported that he was chasing after him, Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to do so. Trayvon was unarmed and he being chased by some guy he doesn't know in the middle of the night with a loaded gun. Whether Martin started the fight first? Zimmerman claims this was the case, he is the only one that can account for that night, but in the end all we have is a dead unarmed back kid who had skittles in his hand and Zimmerman.

Trayvon every right to feel threatened for being followed and confronted by some random man with a loaded gun, you don't agree? That's perfectly fine, Zimmerman will finally get to use your excuses come his day in court. Atleast we know he has to appear in court now, he ain't getting off that easily.


HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL

LOOK.
IT.
UP.



edit on 29-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: Holy F*CK doesn't anyone read posts and comprehend them??



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by elitegamer23

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
OKay, so I guess this thread is moderator approved. With 33 pages, I aint got time to read everything, so forgive me if someone pointed this out already...

A person does NOT need to sustain injuries of a certain severity, or injuries at all to be justified in shooting their attacker. They simply need to feel like their life is in danger, and be given verbal threat to the effect that he is about to be attacked. Let's say for example that Trey-Trey said something like "I'm gonna kill you, punk," and then reached into his pocket while stepping rapidly toward Zimmerman. If ZImmerman does not feel like he can turn and escape Trey, he has the full force of the law behind him to defend himself with equal force, even if that force is implied by physical actions and verbal threats. That my friends, is sufficient justification to shoot him to stop the attack or impending attack.

Zimmerman technically does NOT even NEED to be wounded, yet you all are screaming that his wounds aren't severe enough to justify killing someone? Ask any cop.

Do your homework before you start race baiting and posting garbage.


so if you are being stalked by a citizen with a loaded gun you have no right to defend yourself? if treyvon had a gun instead of skittles would he have been justified in shooting zimmerman dead?

neither of us know what truly happened that night, but you should at least do your homework before you start your race baiting and posting garbage.


edit on 28-3-2012 by elitegamer23 because: (no reason given)


I am using a hypothetical scenario to explain what criteria need to be met to consider a shooting 'justified' as self-defense. If you did not pick up on that, then I don't know what to tell you.

As for your hypothetical scenario - no, he would not be justified. Zimmerman did not attack or verbally threaten Martin, according to what we've heard. If Zimmerman had drawn his gun and told Martin that he was going to shoot him because he didn't belong in the neighborhood - yes, he would be justified in exercising self-defense.

This is real simple stuff, dude. It's practically common knowledge, so I don't know where the debate is coming from here. You all think Zimmerman needs to fry because he shot a black kid, plain and simple. As though black teenagers are somehow held to a different standard.


wow did i say anything about zimmerman needing to FRY or anything about a black teen?

short answer, NO.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICAL

LOOK.
IT.
UP.


This argument really convinced me! I wonder, if you held your hands on your ears, while you typed this...
I hope, that at least everybody accords that there should be an investigation in this case.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by V4SL4ND
 

Your post is another example of jumping to conclusions.
For everything you posted, I can easily find other 'facts' that counter them.
We have no idea which 'facts' are true and which are not.

Case in point - George Zimmermans father and Trayvon Martins girlfriend are giving conflicting statements in regards to that night. Is Trayvon Martins girlfriend telling the truth about what she heard over the phone or is she making it up to cover for her dead boyfriend? Is George Zimmermans father telling the truth about the first hand info he has or is he making it up to cover for his son. Both statements can not be true ... so which one is it? WE DO NOT KNOW.

George Zimmerman's father claims Trayvon Martin beat his son, threatened his life

Trayvon Martin Girlfriend statement about phone call


Originally posted by omegacorps
MY one question. what do the potential " Jurors " think?

... and how will they find jurors who haven't been tainted by the spin and hype.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Sigh, this is getting pathetic. Now ATS/Americans can diagnose head injuries by just looking at security footage. He was seen by a doctor prior to his trip to the station, of course they would clean him up. Does anyone else notice that he is indeed handcuffed? The whole police prefferential treatment argument is garbage.

Does anyone remember the Shondra Levy/Gary Condet incident back in 2001? All the media did was provide non stop cover of this story, until the disaster came. What major event are they distracting us for?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23
i think when the op made this thread he was jumping to conclusions in thinking that zimmerman was totally innocent , cut n dry.

WRONG. Go back and actually read the thread. I did NOT say that Zimmerman was totally innocent. I said that there was information at first pointing to him being guilty and now there is information pointing to him being innocent and next thing you know we'll have more 'guilty' info followed by more 'innocent info'. READ THE DAMN THREAD.

Oh ... and YOU jumped to the conclusion that I'm a guy. I am not.



nobody on ATS has all the facts, so all of us are simply jumping to conclusions. i learned my lesson, did u op?

I have no lesson to learn with this.
I am the one who did not jump to conclusions with it.
I am the one who has pointed out time and time again on this thread that no one has all the facts.

geeeeze people .. it's a long thread but read it before you post.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join