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.

 

Enhanced video of Zimmerman in police station appears to show injuries

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
I bet Trayvon's injuries are a bit worse.
My lord how far will they go to make us believe
Trayvon was the crazy man looking for trouble?


Truth is we have no way to know what the truth is in this case. The MSM did a great job spinning this into a Racial issue but it IS NOT the issue here. The issue is basically if we want to continue to be a society were a common man who has no mandate or legal authority to enforce law with lethal means. The constitution and the founders being of a different time in history where guns where a part of life made it legal to bear arms. The real issue here is weather we are going to allow people to kill others, justifed or not without repercusions. Mr. Zimmerman in my opinion should indeed be charge with something for taking another life. It seems to me Mr. Zimmerman at the very least is guilty of harassment.




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven

Originally posted by sealing
I bet Trayvon's injuries are a bit worse.
My lord how far will they go to make us believe
Trayvon was the crazy man looking for trouble?


Truth is we have no way to know what the truth is in this case. The MSM did a great job spinning this into a Racial issue...


Yes, I remember when they said Mr. Zimmerman is white. That would be like calling Mr Obama white.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Truth is we have no way to know what the truth is in this case. The MSM did a great job spinning this into a Racial issue but it IS NOT the issue here. The issue is basically if we want to continue to be a society were a common man who has no mandate or legal authority to enforce law with lethal means. The constitution and the founders being of a different time in history where guns where a part of life made it legal to bear arms. The real issue here is weather we are going to allow people to kill others, justifed or not without repercusions. Mr. Zimmerman in my opinion should indeed be charge with something for taking another life. It seems to me Mr. Zimmerman at the very least is guilty of harassment.


But the common man always had - and always should have - a mandate or legal authority to enforce some laws with lethal means. In practice and in most likely every jurisdiction I could think of, the "common man" has legal authority to use lethal force to protect himself or another if necessary. The law already says that someone isn't allowed to drag you out of a truck and nearly kill you for being the wrong colour in the wrong part of town at the wrong time, but that doesn't stop it happening to Reginald Denny. Removing the right to self defence will NOT stop the violence from people who have no intention of following the rules anyway, it will simply reduce your chance of surviving and for those that DO survive (because people will decide they'd rather live and so will fight back anyway) it will turn them from innocent victims into criminals and turn the criminals into victims.

There should be no conviction - or any other repercussion - for taking someone's life if it was done lawfully*. If he has committed other crimes at the same time then prosecute him for those, but do not throw charges around just because you think he needs to be guilty of something. Perhaps we should be considering "what is lawful?"

If someone else puts you in a position where you are at risk from their actions - they intend to kill you, or cause you serious injury, or don't really care what damage they do to you as long as they can complete their intended purpose - then the law should support you in taking whatever steps are reasonable and necessary for your own protection. If YOU are the person putting someone at risk and suddenly the tables are turned and you are the one in danger, should the law still protect you?

The issues in this case are simply (hah, "simply", I make myself laugh at times) (i) whether Zimmerman was in a position where he felt lethal force was necessary to protect himself (with all regard to local laws) and (ii) whether his actions leading up to the incident supported or negated any legal right to defence. To be honest, (ii) is probably the key - and most disputed - issue here.

Consider, for the sake of argument, that it is not disputed that Martin was at some point physically beating Zimmerman.

Was Martin put into the position where he felt he had to protect himself? If so, were his actions reasonable and necessary? This is where Zimmerman's actions become so important. If he was acting aggresively, or indicating that he was armed, or causing Martin to hear for his life, then Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin was within his rights to attack. If he thought Zimmerman was armed and likely to use it then lethal force was a viable option. When Zimmerman pulled that gun, in this scenario, he was not defending himself so much as justifying Martin's fears. Zimmerman may well have felt that his life was in danger, but in this scenario, Zimmerman had started with the intent to be aggressive and now he was seeing that intention through to it's inevitable but tragic conclusion. Martin was the victim, Zimmerman was the aggressor and culpable for his actions.

But what about the scenario that is now being put forward - that Zimmerman was returning to his truck, walking away from Martin. What was it about this action that could cause Martin to fear for his live, to believe that attacking Zimmerman was reasonable and necessary in those circumstances? Whatever Zimmerman had done up to that point, he had now broken the engagement and was leaving. Martin restarted the engagement, he took over the role of aggressor and Zimmerman was the victim. It was Zimmerman that was in fear for his life and responded as he felt reasonable and necessary in those circumstances, by drawing his firearm and shooting the aggressor.

The space of a few seconds can change everything. A few brief actions, performed in a different order, can change the dynamic between aggressor and victim.

And now I've run out of characters. Maybe I'll conclude in another post

-------
* By which I mean "reasonably" lawfully - some very bad people have made some very bad things "lawful" in the past, though these could not conscionably be considered "lawful" to the average person



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 


No matter what people say you will never notice your hypocritical statements. Compare this to ...suspension from school? These "People" will try anything to assassinate the character of the victim. Same thing happens to rape victims..."she deserved it!"

They use the boy's past to justify a shooting? Well lets take a look at Zimmerman's past? Does this prove anything? No? You will never listen. There is a reason for it....

In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." Both these felonies are considered third-degree. Due to his desperate attempts, the charges were reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then the only remaining charge was also completely waived off when he entered an alcohol education program.

Agent Paul Fleishman wrote that Zimmerman walked up to a pal under arrest and began chatting, refusing to leave. Zimmerman cursed him, Fleishman wrote, before pushing him and causing a “short struggle.”

Zimmerman — in applying to enter the citizens’ police academy — later disputed the official version of the event, insisting that the agent never identified himself. “I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regaurd [sic] as I hope to one day become. I would never have touched a police officer,” Zimmerman wrote.

Before the case was resolved, he was also involved in a domestic dispute with his ex-fiancée, hair salon employee Veronica Zauzo.

In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence. In retaliation, Zimmerman filed for a retraining order against Zuazo and both these claims were resolved with both restraining orders granted. (why did he still have a gun?)

His domestic troubles continued in October 2007, when Zimmerman called police to report that the tires of his Dodge Durango were slashed and he suspected his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend.

The man denied the claim and told officers he was so annoyed by text-message exchanges with Zimmerman that he was mulling a restraining order.

The next year, in 2006, Zimmerman was charged with speeding. However, that case was dismissed because the officer who charged him failed to show up at the court.

Over the years, his scores of calls to police showed he pursued shoplifters and errant drivers with zeal, reporting pit bulls, potholes, children playing in the street, open garage doors and “suspicious” youths — usually black males — loitering in the street.

He peppered his calls with jargon familiar to police. In one case, he chased a reckless driver while calling 911 — the driver later told police he was terrified that Zimmerman was going to attack him

Nevertheless, even supportive neighbors question the wisdom of taking a gun along on patrols.

That’s something that Miami Maj. Delrish Moss, who oversees the department’s community outreach unit, cautions against when speaking to city-organized citizen’s patrols. Leave the police aspirations and guns at home and focus on simply observing and reporting potential crime, Moss told them.

“In law enforcement, you always run into people who speak to you in cop jargon, in a way that you can tell they are some kind of frustrated cop,” Moss said. “For the most part, they are harmless and just love police officers, but sometimes, these conversations can be alarming.”



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by takaris7
 

And this proves, what?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Zimmerman lawyer cites "shaken baby syndrome" as Zimmermans defense....really??

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This photo released by ABC News.

abcnews.go.com...

ABC News
abcnews.go.com...
reports that the police report corroborates the evidence displayed by the above photo taken three minutes after the shooting, "The exclusive image shows blood trickling down the back of Zimmerman's head from two cuts. It also shows a possible contusion forming on the crown of his head. The original police report that night notes that the back of Zimmerman's head was wet, and that he was bleeding from the nose and head. "



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
he is standing up, making a phone call. you think he would be on the floor in a daze semi unconscious after taking that "life threatening beating". bleeding from cuts? i thought they were "life threatening gashes" too bad zim couldnt fight for more than a few minutes before pulling out a gun, one word. coward.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
he is standing up, making a phone call. you think he would be on the floor in a daze semi unconscious after taking that "life threatening beating". bleeding from cuts? i thought they were "life threatening gashes" too bad zim couldnt(sic) fight for more than a few minutes before pulling out a gun, one word. coward.


If you would read the link provided, you would have known that the witness stated that Mr. Z asked him to make a call.
"The photographer said that after the shooting, Zimmerman asked the photographer to call his wife."
abcnews.go.com...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
i heard that already but i didnt think that he was dialing the phone with the phone by his ear to have the photagrapher tell his wife that he just shot someone, why couldnt he just tell her himself, the phone is already by his ear.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i heard that already but i didnt think that he was dialing the phone with the phone by his ear to have the photagrapher tell his wife that he just shot someone, why couldnt he just tell her himself, the phone is already by his ear.

I see what your saying. That object below his right ear? I don't know what it is. If it is a phone, it's real skinny looking. Maybe he's talking to the police?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


It could be his pistol that he's holding in his right hand.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join