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.

 

FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 



There are things that are illegal about following. How you think that makes following a crime is beyond me.

I am glad that I am not bent enough upstairs that your statement here would begin to make any sort of sense.
I guess it made sense to you?

The first sentence says that there are things about following that are illegal. Something about the act of following is illegal ( I don't know what it is, but you are saying it).

Your second statement blames me for thinking that following is a crime.
Let me remind you that I have been stressing that following is not ILLEGAL.





3 posts in a row and you are still talking about it so yeah, you are the one that cannot drop it.
All this post does is call me crazy. OK.




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 

There you go again.
Making things up.
I didn't call you crazy.
I just pointed out that two consecutive sentences in your post contradict each other.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 



For starters, physically following me into my home is illegal.


It is called trespassing.
If you call the police, they will arrest the person on charges of trespassing, not following.
A person can follow you home, videotaping you the whole way, right up to your property line. If they cross the property line uninvited, they are guilty of trespass, not following. It is pretty simple.

It is so simple that I am confident that you understand it.

So I will stop feeding you now, Little Trollkin.
edit on 16-7-2012 by butcherguy because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 

There you go again.
Making things up.
I didn't call you crazy.
I just pointed out that two consecutive sentences in your post contradict each other.


No they don't and no you did not.
I know you think you did but you just keep failing.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
It is called trespassing.

Which is facilitated by following and following alone in this scenario, thus pointing out one the things that is illegal about following people.


If you call the police, they will arrest the person on charges of trespassing, not following.

Because there is no charge for following. Following in and of itself is not illegal. How many times you really want to have this same conversation over again?


A person can follow you home, videotaping you the whole way, right up to your property line. If they cross the property line uninvited, they are guilty of trespass, not following. It is pretty simple.

Actually that varies from state to state and what they INTEND to do with that video can also make it a crime. You know they cannot profit financially from my image, right?



It is so simple that I am confident that you understand it.

So I will stop feeding you now, Little Trollkin.
edit on 16-7-2012 by butcherguy because: Spelling


I thought the same about you but all you do is repeat yourself and call me names.
Wow, stunning argument. We have been over and over this. You are just going to keep playing dumb and I am not going to get stupid so either give up or start a thread just about this.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


Autumnal, hows it going? how are you, I have missed our banter, troll feeding and the like, what have you been up to?
4-6-2012 wow what a coincidence?
edit on 16-7-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by habitforming
 


Autumnal, hows it going? how are you, I have missed our banter, troll feeding and the like, what have you been up to?
4-6-2012 wow what a coincidence?
edit on 16-7-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

I had an idea, but I wasn't sure,
Nice catch on the date!



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Yeah I was thinking about that....

First its the murder charge by the state..... When it looked like that case was going nowhere we all of a sudden have the FBI doing a race / hate crime investigation... When that didnt work we have this lady coming forward making claims and not surprisingly she cant give the interviewers specifics.

As far as statute of limitations go it depends on the state, the crime and when that crime was committed.

In my state a misdemeanor crime is generally valid for 1 year from the date of occurence.
Felonies range from 0 years uo to 35 with a few not having any statute of limitations.

The limitation on prosecution as well as punishment if found guilty has to be based on the law at the time of occurence.

The BTK serial killer form Kansas missed the death penalty by a few years because of legal issues that challeneged the death penalty punishment.

6 and 8 years old at the time of the supposed occurence... I really can't see that being investigated. The other question is why now? If its such an issue why did they wait until Zimmerman was in a legal fight to bring it up?

This one thing the release of this info does do is supportsa the claim by the defense to have the judge removed from the case. Defense filed a motion to have the info provided by witness #9 withheld from the public because it had no bearing on the case and can pollute the jury pool so to speak. By rejecting the motion and allowing the info to be released, coupled with the judges comments at the last bail hearing, it almost appears as if the prosecution and the judge are intentionally trying to sabotage themselves.

Next step.... Gag order.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


I think they are taking exception to the 16 and 18 year old incident. But still.....

....this girl says she "felt powerless to stop it". What does that mean? How do you feel powerless? A girl that is 2 years younger than a boy is often physically larger and stronger than the boy.

This charge smells fishy. Not only that, it is prejudicial to the case at hand Even worse, the charge is a BS charge. I have yet to meet an adult woman or man who thinks that the charge has any validity....they were just kids.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
REMINDER

Stick to the discussion topic: FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

Enough with the off-topic personal jabs. Lots of good perspective in this thread, unfortunately mixed with bad manners.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I think they are taking exception to the 16 and 18 year old incident. But still.....

It is not even a factor to consider in this case.... Its a posion pill to the potential juror pool and nothing more. Prior bad acts are not admissible in court, let alone accusations of a criminal nature that were never reported, investigated, charged / adjudicated on.

I dont think people understand how accusations and the judicial system work. Its not as simple as being sworn in and stating this person did this to me. They have to give details, specifics... This date, this time, this location, these actions occured, this is what he did, this is what I did, etc etc etc.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
....this girl says she "felt powerless to stop it". What does that mean? How do you feel powerless? A girl that is 2 years younger than a boy is often physically larger and stronger than the boy.

This comment of hers jumps out at me for a few reasons.. It reminds me of election years when we see people of the same party using the same talking points..

The argument she gave, she was powerless, he was bigger than her, stronger etc... The exact same points / words leveled at Zimmerman by Martin supporters. Her inability to give specific details is another issue. If this occured for as long as she claims she would be able to give specifics. The same goes with her charge about Zimmerman and his family being racists towards blacks who dont act white.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This charge smells fishy. Not only that, it is prejudicial to the case at hand Even worse, the charge is a BS charge. I have yet to meet an adult woman or man who thinks that the charge has any validity....they were just kids.

Agreed and the fact the judge allowed this particular info / statements to be released when they have nothing to do with the charges was just more ammo for the defense to have the judge removed for improper comments / actions that say anyhting but impartiality in the case.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

The same goes with her charge about Zimmerman and his family being racists towards blacks who dont act white.



This bothers me, too.

So they don't like a group of people. Not because of race, but because of behavior. Sure, it is put in an inflammatory way. But it is still, in essence, just disliking a behavior.

So its another character smear.

They are going to be hard pressed conducting any trial now, aren't they?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


It all depends on how this plays out and if it makes it to the inside of a court room for trial... I still do not think its will but thats me... I linked to the motion to have the judge removed a few posts up and its an interesting read. In addition to the judges comments and improprieties in terms of his opinion towards the client, the judge apprently ignored evidence that supported the self defense argument under stand your ground. The way the motion reads on that area is the judge took absolutely nothing into account when he is required to by the law.

With everything coming out, the evidence, interviews, the FBI report, forensic reports... I honestly do not see how the PA still has a case. 2nd Murder has specifics required in order to qualify with the main one being depraved indifference.

Its as if the PA strategy is taken out of the Custer plan from the Little Big Horn...

Its starting to look as if the prosecution knows their case has all but failed and now seem intent, with the help of the judge, to just do as much damage to Zimmerman as they can.

You have a PA prosecuting based on politics and not the law...
You have a judge who apparently has no problems being biased against Zimmerman and going on record with that view...
You have an investigator who committed a crime when he included a statement of fact in his PC statement that is not supported by any evidence...

Absent some smoking gun against Zimmerman I think this is going to end with the different agemcies involved asking Zimmerman how many zeros he wants after the 1 on the check they will be writing as a settlement for prosecutorial misconduct / malicious prosecution.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.

He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.

He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.


Its amazing that they want to go after Zimmerman while at the same time ignoring the groups calling for his head while offereing bounties to those people who deliver.

Amazing that the civil rights leaders have not denounced those groups.....

I am amazed Zimmerman has lated as long as he has without ending up in a padded room.

I personally believe that if we told the current group of civil rights leaders to sit down and shut up and allow the newer generation to get more proactive at the national level I think we could really see some major changes for the better. The current groups seems more interested in fostering hate / distrust in order to keep their own jobs and own interests at the top (namely themselves and not the community as a whole).

We have serious issues in this country and its not going to be solved by people who cant see beyond their own interests... The people are going to need to make the first moves on all sides to get things fixed.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Valhall
I wish I could tell what your point is. Are you saying that Martin was at fault because he didn't RUN?

Nope - not even close


Originally posted by Valhall
And a rape victim is at fault because she didn't run?

I have never made such statement / suggestion



Originally posted by Valhall
And a mugging victim is at fault because they didn't run?

I have never made such statement / suggestion.


Originally posted by Valhall
What the hell are you saying?


The response was directed at Habitforming and his thought process and this is evident if you read the post. I know you came across it since you quoted the entire thiing one post up. It also addresses the issue of people claiming Zimmerman confronted Martin when there is no evidence to support it. They also continually riase the issue of Zimmerman ignoring the 911 operator while at the same time Martin ignored his girlfriends advice to leave / run away.

Since we dont know who confronted who the counter argument could be Martin decided to follow Zimmerman while he was heading back to his vehicle. Instead of taking his girlfriends advice to run away maybe Martin ignored it and went after Zimmerman.


This can't be so because Zimmerman has admitted where he was parked during the 911 call and he admits moving his vehicle toward the direction Martin was walking after Zimmerman hung up from the call. He admits he got out of the car again and he admits he went down the sidewalk between the two rows of apartments in an effort to find Martin.

If you're going to ignore what he has already admitted to doing then it is fruitless to argue with you.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
If you're going to ignore what he has already admitted to doing then it is fruitless to argue with you.


I didnt ignore nor miss anything that occured. What you and the other are missing is the legal definition of stalking. I can post the info again or you can scroll back and find where I posted and explained it. Zimmerman did not stalk Martin - period.

The responses to my post from you ignored the previous posts with Habitforming. He is the one who brought up stalking and after I got done giving him the link to Florida Law he still wants to argue Zimmerman was stalking.

As I stated then and now, you dont get to just use your own personal opinion in place of the law simply because the law doesnt fit the particular argument / agenda.

There was no stalking involved...

However if you want to go down this road then why are you ignoring Zimmerman's other comments, like self defense, that h felt in fear of his life, that Martin was bashing his head into the ground etc etc etc...

In for a penny in for a pound...

Again you guys dont get to pick anbd choose what facts best support your agenda...

Court of Law, not public opinion.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Valhall
If you're going to ignore what he has already admitted to doing then it is fruitless to argue with you.


I didnt ignore nor miss anything that occured. What you and the other are missing is the legal definition of stalking. I can post the info again or you can scroll back and find where I posted and explained it. Zimmerman did not stalk Martin - period.

The responses to my post from you ignored the previous posts with Habitforming. He is the one who brought up stalking and after I got done giving him the link to Florida Law he still wants to argue Zimmerman was stalking.

As I stated then and now, you dont get to just use your own personal opinion in place of the law simply because the law doesnt fit the particular argument / agenda.

There was no stalking involved...

However if you want to go down this road then why are you ignoring Zimmerman's other comments, like self defense, that h felt in fear of his life, that Martin was bashing his head into the ground etc etc etc...

In for a penny in for a pound...

Again you guys dont get to pick anbd choose what facts best support your agenda...

Court of Law, not public opinion.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


I'm ignoring his other statements because they contradict the evidence. These admissions I point out coincide with the evidence.

I don't care about the legal definition of stalking. If I'm walking down a residential street or sidewalk at night and someone begins to follow me (actually drives and then gets out of their car to follow me, which Zimmerman admits) and it feels scary and then they approach me and further threaten me, then I am a victim of intimidation. Now, add to that the person that is doing this to me is packing heat, and you have a volatile situation brought on by the person who stalked me down - by definition, not legal vernacular.

Don't play word games. If I'm a woman walking down a dark street or sidewalk and being followed by a strange man who approaches me, I consider that to be stalked. Doesn't matter if your gimped up legal definition requires he did it more than once. AT THAT INSTANCE I feel stalked. And if I pull my pepper spray, nunchucks or brass knuckles to defend myself because I feel bodily threatened and the person stalking me is packing heat and pulls a gun and kills me, they are going to get charged with manslaughter at the least.

It appears the only difference in this almost definitive conclusion is that Martin was not a woman and only used his bodily force - no pepper spray, just physical defense.
edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm ignoring his other statements because they contradict the evidence.

Which is why you are a little lost on my posts, even though ive told you twice now that my responses were to habitforming.



Originally posted by Valhall
These admissions I point out coincide with the evidence.

While disregarding evidence that supports Zimmermans position.



Originally posted by Valhall
I don't care about the legal definition of stalking. If I'm walking down a residential street or sidewalk at night and someone begins to follow me (actually drives and then gets out of their car to follow me, which Zimmerman admits) and it feels scary and then they approach me and further threaten me, then I am a victim of intimidation. Now, add to that the person that is doing this to me is packing heat, and you have a volatile situation brought on by the person who stalked me down - by definition, not legal vernacular.

and once again your personal opinion cannot be substituted for a law that was not violated. In this case you ahve to look at the legalities of the actions in order to get to the truth. You CANNOT ignore legal jargon, let alone the law itself, in order to pick apart the actions of the people involved.

There is nothing illegal about Zimmerman being armed...
There is nothing illegal about Zimmerman following Martin...

As far as who confronted whom we have Zimmermans statements and no evidence that shows anything to the contrary.



Originally posted by Valhall
Don't play word games. If I'm a woman walking down a dark street or sidewalk and being followed by a strange man who approaches me, I consider that to be stalked. Doesn't matter if your gimped up legal definition requires he did it more than once. AT THAT INSTANCE I feel stalked. And if I pull my pepper spray, nunchucks or brass knuckles to defend myself because I feel bodily threatened and the person stalking me is packing heat and pulls a gun and kills me, they are going to get charged with manslaughter at the least.

Word games? lol - How about you actually read the exchange between habit and myself before jumping in the middle of a conversation you admitted you arent completely following.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about... If you did you would not be trying to justify a preemptive assault on someone whom you think might be a danger.

If you did what you stated here, you can be arrested for assault.. The other person, depending on your actions, could justify the use of deadly force to stop your assault.

I find it interesting though that while you want to try and pick apart the action that you, the same as Trayvon, never bothered to call 911. You opted to deal with it based on your own perception instead of the law. What you completely and totally fail to understand is once your action is done, its the LEGAL defintions that come into play to determine if your actions were justified. I am sorry but the excuse he is following me is not going to cut it when you pepper spray the guy. However when the guy you pepper sprayed pulls a concealed weapon and shoots you he will be able to justify his actions based on your actions. Following a person IS NOT illegal, so attacking a person who is not breaking the law becomes problematic for your little theatre drama..

Learn the law, understand the law, understand why we have it and why its in place and check the John Wayne actions at the door on how you think you would feel / act. I love it when people say what they would do.. When the time comes, those people do exactly the opposite if anything at all.


Originally posted by Valhall
It appears the only difference in this almost definitive conclusion is that Martin was not a woman and only used his bodily force - no pepper spray, just physical defense.
edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

And if we go back to the pesky law that you like to ignore we will find your argument is without foundation with your conclusion and justifications to act based on personal opinion and anything else but the law.

If you looked at the law you would know that a person does not have to be armed with a gun in order to justify a deadly use of force against that person.

Opinions are all fine and dandy except when they are substituted for the law, in which case they become irrelevent.

You cannot substitute law for your opinion simply because you believe following a person is a crime.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.

He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.


Poor guy.
How is Trayvon looking?
I hear this was all pretty rough on him too.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.

He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.


Poor guy.
How is Trayvon looking?
I hear this was all pretty rough on him too.


Yeah. It was. But since he is dead my concern for his condition only goes that far. And, as it relates to Zimmerman, until he has had a fair trial he won't have culpability for that.

That is, unless you are one of those that likes to have trials by media. I don't know. I know you filled up a couple of pages with arguing along with another member, but I didn't bother to read any of it because it was just a tit for tat. Then again, I guess if you are going to employ the fallacy of appeal to emotion in your little jab, I guess I made a good decision ignoring your previous posts here.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join