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.

 

George Zimmerman Wants You To Pay His Legal Fees

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
Why do people defend George Zimmerman, a sad sack of horse manure?

Even if you think the guy's innocent, he's clearly a pathological liar that should be locked up.


You know that "goddamed pieced of paper" that one of our recent presidents referred to? yeah....thats why.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


In that case, let's just continue to defend whites, latinos and everyone else when they're accused of shooting black people.

Zimmerman might just get by on a mistrial but it doesn't excuse what he did.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


In that case, let's just continue to defend whites, latinos and everyone else when they're accused of shooting black people.

Zimmerman might just get by on a mistrial but it doesn't excuse what he did.


How about lets defend PEOPLE and not worry about race.

My original postulation was that were it not for race, this case would not have received the grass roots campaign to have it pursued from a completely political viewpoint at the state level.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Who were the people who defended this man then?

I demand to know if they're tied to white supremacist and/or patriot groups.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Who were the people who defended this man then?

I demand to know if they're tied to white supremacist and/or patriot groups.


Why are you demanding it from me? You are the armchair analyst....go Google and find out.

LOL



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I based my assessment off the initial response of myself and others I discussed this with. It was, in everyone's opinion initially (of the group i have just referenced) a racist act of homocide. The facts have come to show that this is not so. The initial media reports sensationalized this as a racial issue.

I don't understand why you find it funny that I would draw a parallel. It isn't the exact same situation, no. But it is close enough for you to understand why I am saying what I am saying.


Your assessment is super outdated though, the media only tried to make this about race in the beginning. It failed horribly, lol. About a couple weeks after this all came out everyone knew Zimmerman's race. The media was just playing up different angles to get their ratings up, nothing new there. The black community clearly is not just upset because Zimmerman was portrayed as white in the beginning. The whole situation was just shady, it has elements of racial profiling, Martin was unarmed, and the police did not do a full investigation. The entire thing was mishandled and people have a right to be angry about it. And what occurred as a result of all that anger was a full investigation, problem solved.

Your parallel is funny to me because while its similar enough to get the gist of what you mean, the criminal justice system is heavily biased against black males. Also, Zimmerman is in nowhere near the amount of danger a black man would be in during the 60s for murdering a white kid.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Your assessment is super outdated though, the media only tried to make this about race in the beginning. It failed horribly, lol. About a couple weeks after this all came out everyone knew Zimmerman's race. The media was just playing up different angles to get their ratings up, nothing new there. The black community clearly is not just upset because Zimmerman was portrayed as white in the beginning. The whole situation was just shady, it has elements of racial profiling, Martin was unarmed, and the police did not do a full investigation. The entire thing was mishandled and people have a right to be angry about it. And what occurred as a result of all that anger was a full investigation, problem solved.

Your parallel is funny to me because while its similar enough to get the gist of what you mean, the criminal justice system is heavily biased against black males. Also, Zimmerman is in nowhere near the amount of danger a black man would be in during the 60s for murdering a white kid.


RE: my assessment...yes it is dated. And I have noted the folly in my initial reaction. But the first rule of propaganda is to land the first hit. No one will ever pay attention to the retraction, and the first impression prejudices the remaining interactions. This is why I make my assessment...because of known psychology of propaganda.

Now, I am not accusing the news of implementing a propaganda attack, but that regardless of their motives that is what ended up happening.

RE: the police investigation...i would presume that they saw the same Zimmerman we saw photos of. The man had his butt whooped. Good. He was obviously on the losing end of the fight up until the shot was fired. Having said that....

....do we notice how the news really hasn't played the 911 calls in context to what was happening? That they stoked the fires of the accusations of profiling?

I am not making a case for or against Zimmerman. I am saying that, if the story Zimmerman says is true, it was self defense. It was a case of an enraged Martin seeing the gun in its concealed location while he kicked the snot out of Zimmerman, and stated, "Oh, you're gonna die tonight" while reaching for it.

And I am also saying that there is nothing that refutes Zimmermans story, and that the evidence actually supports it.

This could be a case of Zimmerman isolating and harrassing Martin because he was black. Or it could be a case of Zimmerman conducting a civic duty and observing, and a young man feeling like he is being singled out and confronting Zimmerman. No one here knows these facts. The general consensus in the first page of posts is that this man is "trash" and deserves to die for his crime.

Obviously you see my concern here. Lets say Zimmerman is exonerated....will he have the chance to live in peace? I mean, look at the general feeling about him? If it turns out that it was something like Martin having a chip on his shoulder, confronting Zimmerman, and then getting killed....would that change the general opinion of people? His legal troubles are just the first hurdle. His public trial has already been completed.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

RE: my assessment...yes it is dated. And I have noted the folly in my initial reaction. But the first rule of propaganda is to land the first hit. No one will ever pay attention to the retraction, and the first impression prejudices the remaining interactions. This is why I make my assessment...because of known psychology of propaganda.


That only works if the story is no longer in the spotlight when retractions or corrections occur. The Zimmerman case was still a hot topic when news outlets started releasing new information. This includes photos taken that night, Zimmerman's criminal history, Martin's disciplinary history in high school, Zimmerman's racial makeup, and recent photographs of both. All of those things are in the general public's consciousness.


RE: the police investigation...i would presume that they saw the same Zimmerman we saw photos of. The man had his butt whooped. Good. He was obviously on the losing end of the fight up until the shot was fired. Having said that....do we notice how the news really hasn't played the 911 calls in context to what was happening? That they stoked the fires of the accusations of profiling?


What? Lol. There were several different 911 calls played by media outlets. Some were from Zimmerman himself and others from concerned neighbors. All of them were played in context, I mean everyone understands what was going on that night, it pretty impossible to play them out of context. The only recording that was questionable was the one "enhanced" where people claimed to hear Zimmerman call Martin a coon. His calls to 911, do support the assertion that he was profiling Martin. Even without the calls though, its pretty evident Zimmerman was profiling Martin. He saw a black male wearing a hoodie and thought criminal, he admits this himself. But of course he adds things, like Martin was casing houses, lol.


I am not making a case for or against Zimmerman. I am saying that, if the story Zimmerman says is true, it was self defense. It was a case of an enraged Martin seeing the gun in its concealed location while he kicked the snot out of Zimmerman, and stated, "Oh, you're gonna die tonight" while reaching for it.


You are pretty biased, even though you claim not to be, kind of like fox news lol. Zimmerman approached Martin first, he also has a history of temper problems and being overzealous, yet it makes more sense that Martin attacked him? That Martin was "enraged." Even though Martin had no history of violent behavior? I don't buy it. I also don't see him saying "you're gonna die tonight" that sounds like something out of a movie.lol.


And I am also saying that there is nothing that refutes Zimmermans story, and that the evidence actually supports it.


Thats not entirely true. Almost all the witnesses contradict Zimmerman's story. The one that did back up his story changed it. Some portions of his story are pretty impossible to refute though seeing as the other person involved was killed.


This could be a case of Zimmerman isolating and harrassing Martin because he was black. Or it could be a case of Zimmerman conducting a civic duty and observing,


He did a lot more than observe.


Obviously you see my concern here. Lets say Zimmerman is exonerated....will he have the chance to live in peace? I mean, look at the general feeling about him? If it turns out that it was something like Martin having a chip on his shoulder, confronting Zimmerman, and then getting killed....would that change the general opinion of people? His legal troubles are just the first hurdle. His public trial has already been completed.


Nothing about Martin's history supports the idea that he would attack Zimmerman, however if he did I find it funny that you think it would have to be because he had a chip on his shoulder. Because you know all black men are angry and have chips on their shoulder. It couldn't be because he was worried about his safety or anything like that. If he is exonerated he will have to move and lay low and he can live very peacefully.
edit on 22-8-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
don't you guys realize this motion is a standard "tactic" ??
Zimmerman has amassed $30g in living expenses because he's been in hiding for months now.
since the state is paying for this nonsense of a prosecution, why shouldn't we foot the bill for the pending dismissal of charges ??


www.thenewamerican.com...
If the defense succeeds during the hearing, the criminal charges against Zimmerman would be dropped and he would be protected from civil actions related to the fatal shooting.
- snip -
Analysts say Zimmerman has a very good chance of succeeding at the hearing despite statements issued by an attorney for the Martin family. Numerous prominent experts including Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz have slammed prosecutors for continuing to pursue the charges and for concealing key information in the case that favored Zimmerman.
- sinp -
In the meantime, Zimmerman is living in Seminole County, Florida, like a “hermit,” his attorney told reporters. He is also running low on funds for his defense and may ask the court to declare him indigent
this indigent filing is textbook tactics considering Zimmerman has no income at present.

i am a little confused by the premise of the donation site (as i never visited), but, wasn't it promoted as a defense fund ?? if not utilized for such, isn't there an area of "fraud" that would cover such behavior ??



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by khimbar
 


what part of lying in court,
concerning his finances
have you failed to comprehend?



How is this proof of 'proven pathological' lying again as you claimed? Or have you 'failed to comprehend' the meaning of the word pathological?

Thank you.
edit on 22-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by khimbar
 

Why does any criminal have legal fees? Because they are cowards who instead of owning up to what they did have to waste everyone's time attempting to get off.


Yes, absolutely right. I mean if the media have him convicted anyway, that's good enough isn't it.

Why bother even having trials? Why not get people accused, convicted and executed right there on TV too?

And if they don't own up to 'what they did' and you know, waste time trying to prove their innocence, then we just let the people decide in a big phone poll?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Ummm, I don't think this is just a tactic, I cannot find any high profile cases like this where someone who is clearly middle class tried to be declared indigent. Spending 30,000 on living expenses in a span of 5 months(probably less) in a county where the average income is only about 50,000 does not make sense, no matter how you spin it. Especially considering his wife could still be working, she is not on trial. I mean they have spent 50,000 on private security so clearly they could follow her to work if need be. The article you linked is not relevant to the topic of this thread. And again, in what universe does the public pay for the defense of the criminal outside of a public defender? Lol. I mean if this was the case a lot of poor people could have received much better representation on the public's dime. Its an asinine proposition. Also, ZImmerman's prosecution is not costing the tax payer any extra money, prosecutors make a salary which will be paid irreguardless of how many cases they work. So.....

Im not sure if what Zimmerman did with his defense fund could be considered fraud, all that probably comes down to the wording on the website where the donations were made. But shortly after he got the money he was telling his wife to pay off credit card bills while telling the court he was broke, scumbag, lol.

edit on 22-8-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
Yes, absolutely right. I mean if the media have him convicted anyway, that's good enough isn't it.

Why bother even having trials? Why not get people accused, convicted and executed right there on TV too?

And if they don't own up to 'what they did' and you know, waste time trying to prove their innocence, then we just let the people decide in a big phone poll?



Really? Let me clarify. When I said criminal, I mean someone who committed a crime and is trying to get off. I'm not speaking about people who are innocent and are trying to prove it or people who get convicted even though they are innocent. Im talking about criminals. lol.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal


Really? Let me clarify. When I said criminal, I mean someone who committed a crime and is trying to get off. I'm not speaking about people who are innocent and are trying to prove it or people who get convicted even though they are innocent. Im talking about criminals. lol.


Right I understand, thanks for the clarification.

What you mean is, after a trial to establish whether people are criminals or not then we decide who we allow a trial. We have a pre-trial trial to work out who is allowed, in your world, to defend themselves with a trial? As only innocents are allowed to defend themselves?

That how it works?
edit on 22-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 

-_- No. I'm not talking about personal opinion. I am talking about people who actually DID commit a crime and instead of facing the music try to get off. Thats it, I don't know how else to say it.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by khimbar
 

-_- No. I'm not talking about personal opinion. I am talking about people who actually DID commit a crime and instead of facing the music try to get off. Thats it, I don't know how else to say it.


Right. I get it.

You mean people who actually really 'did' a crime don't get a chance to defend themselves at all, we just lynch them and string them up.

Can I ask, just curious, how do we know who actually 'did' a crime?

And who decides on who 'did' commit a crime? And their punishment?


edit on 22-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
George Zimmerman, made famous after murdering an unarmed teenager in Florida,


LOL. He didn't "murder" anybody, he saved his own life when a black thug was trying to kill him.
Nice try though...

Do you know how many blacks have been killed by other blacks since Saint Skittles was killed?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 

Lol, if someone commits a crime, they know they committed said crime. When they are caught they have two choices, either deal with the consequences or waste time in court trying to fight them. Its as simple as that, nothing to read into.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by Cito
 


Im sorry what? Lol. You had trespassers on your property one night and shot at them therefore you support Zimmerman? I dont understand your logic. Martin was not trespassing on anyones property and this has nothing to do with gun rights....what is your motivation for supporting him?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Duh - Martin was attacking Zimmerman and trying to kill him? That's a pretty good reason to support Zimmerman, isn't it.

Anyway, all this rubbish about 'racism' would be SOLVED overnight if whites were allowed to simply SEPARATE from non-whites - those whites who are actually stupid enough to WANT to live around non-whites would be free to do so, the 99% of whites who don't want the Jews' 'diversity' would sit back and laugh at you as you plunged into third world hell.

This entire story was hyped up by the media because it's yet another stick the Jew-owned media can shake at white people, to keep us afraid and under their power. We're under their power because we are being FORCED to 'assimilate' with millions of hate-filled, parasitic non-whites, and EVERYBODY knows it. It's FORCE. MOST white people want to live in an all white country, otherwise, why have we spent the last 50,000 years living in all white countries, and fighting wars to keep the non-white invaders OUT?




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join