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.

 

The Zimmerman Trial

page: 18
25
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Page 8 of this thread, let me see if I can link the post from my phone.

Poster was Wonderboi, perhaps halfway down the page, you can clearly see stained knees, particulay his left knee, closest to the camera, on Martin's kaki colored pants.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If the lighting weren't so bright, it would be even more obvious.

The clothing will be produced as evidence in the trial, they also took Zimmermans' clothing, he telephoned his wife to bring him something to wear.


edit on 27-6-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


You can't "clearly see" any such thing. At best, you can see a little bit of dark staining below the left knee, possibly indicative of him being forced down on one knee at the pavement area, maybe, but nothing like what you'd expect had both his knees been pressing down hard on soft, wet grass.
edit on 27-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Yes, you clearly can if you desaturate the photo. Which I did, simply, even on a cellphone. Did you?

I know the answer, it really was rhetorical. That's fine, you can have your opinion.

He would have no stains there however, if he was laying on his back, to allow for him being shot in the chest, countering witness testimony obvioysly. But now, we have him hypothetically being forced down on one knee. Creative, I give you that!

As I said, the clothing will be produced in the trial as evidence, so patience, grasshopper. It will come.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

So ... Zimmerman describes Martin as 'black' to the dispatch and he's supposedly a racist for saying that. But it' is okay for Martin to use racial slurs when describing Zimmerman.
Geeeze .. double standard much? Give the racist teenage punk a pass ... but slam the adult hispanic guy for saying the word 'black' when describing Martin.

And you see nothing wrong with that? Really?


I'm not sure you really understand how racism works.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
I'm not sure you really understand how racism works.

Oh please ....


Zimmerman was called a racist and a bigot because he described a person in his neighborhood watch as 'black'. That's a description to a dispatcher, not racism or bigotry. But posters here are giving Martin a free pass for using the racial slur 'cracker'. (Crazy-ass cracker). That's obviously a derogatory racial slur.

Hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Clearly it's you that doesn't understand how it works.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Yes, you clearly can if you desaturate the photo. Which I did, simply, even on a cellphone. Did you?

I know the answer, it really was rhetorical. That's fine, you can have your opinion.

He would have no stains there however, if he was laying on his back, to allow for him being shot in the chest, countering witness testimony obvioysly. But now, we have him hypothetically being forced down on one knee. Creative, I give you that!

As I said, the clothing will be produced in the trial as evidence, so patience, grasshopper. It will come.


You wouldn't need to do any desaturating if his knees really had been grinding against wet grass for as long as he's supposed to. And, just for the record,did you know grass is green, not brown?
edit on 27-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


That's just speculation. Anyone alive knows that sometimes the same situation can leave different amounts of staining. It's just your worthless assumption that there should be more.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Might be a silly thing to say, but I've just listened to Martins' friend (the girl) give testimony, and I could barely work out what she was trying to say. I appreciate the courtroom must be a strange experience for that girl, but you'd have thought the prosecution would have coached their 'star witness' to speak clearly.

Always interesting watching a major US court case - they're not televised here in the UK.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I know the jurors are, but I thought the witnesses might be as well. I know they banned witnesses from being in the court room during the trial which is why Zimmerman's parents weren't allowed in.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
I'm not sure you really understand how racism works.

Oh please ....


Zimmerman was called a racist and a bigot because he described a person in his neighborhood watch as 'black'. That's a description to a dispatcher, not racism or bigotry. But posters here are giving Martin a free pass for using the racial slur 'cracker'. (Crazy-ass cracker). That's obviously a derogatory racial slur.

Hypocrisy.


Zimmerman was not called a racist because he described martin as black. And 'cracker' hardly carries the racial freight of the epithet Zimmerman was initially have thought to have employed. (For the record I don't think he actually did).

I'm sure you're one of those people who think that logically "racism is racism, whoever it's aimed at". But this ignores the structural foundation of racial politics and how it's being used in this trial ("The real racists are the blacks!") to discredit the case against Zimmerman.

Put bluntly, racism (or more accurately verbalised racism) isn't a simple set of signifiers that are either 'allowed' or 'not allowed' in some kind of mathematical vacuum. Which is why 'whitey' doesn't carry the same currency as 'n--ger'.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


I have read all of the stuff from that paper. It was speculation no better than HLN. I asked you to simply tell me what the inconsistencies are here for all of us to read. No one else here is going to go read that stuff. Just please share with us the alleged inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story here where we can all read them and weigh in.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


You know the answer to that as well as I do. He likely didn't get a chance. Martin ran before he can yell to him earlier and assaulted him before they could talk later. I am sure had Martin not jumped him and had a conversation at a distance then he would be alive today. If he would have just stayed back and say "why are you following me" he would be alive. Zimmerman didn't have a gun out drawn obviously or Martin wouldn't have dared an attack.
edit on 27-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

Riiiight ... racial slurs used by black people against white people aren't really racist or bigoted or at least not as much as when white people use racial slurs. Sure. Got it. :shk:



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Clearly it's you that doesn't understand how it works.


Except that I do. And I also understand how people like you are using it in this case to open up a line of attack on the evidence against Zimmerman.

Clue - it's a lot harder to be racist against someone who spent several hundred years oppressing - and in many cases actually enslaving - another ethnicity. I know you won't like this, and you'll have some 'common sense' talk show radio host take on the matter, but that's why you don't get to make up the rules.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

Riiiight ... racial slurs used by black people against white people aren't really racist or bigoted or at least not as much as when white people use racial slurs. Sure. Got it. :shk:


Yes. Because - and I'm simplifying a lot because of format, time and interlocutor - black people didn't spend a significant portion of history selling white people like cattle purely because of their skin colour. Can you really not see that this isn't a level playing field?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Clue - it's a lot harder to be racist against someone who spent several hundred years oppressing - and in many cases actually enslaving - another ethnicity.

Clue - slavery ended in this country 150 years ago.
Clue - you are making excuses for anti-white bigotry/racism displayed by Martin.
Clue - racism and bigotry is racism and bigotry. Perps of racism/bigotry come in all colors.
Clue - what Martin said was bigoted and racist. Pure and simple.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

Oh stop. Racism and bigotry is racism and bigotry. Perps come in all colors. You are giving a free pass to Martin on his racial slurs (crazy ass cracker) because of Martins skin color.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


I asked you to name those inconsistencies. Don't send me to a blog, just tell me here for everyone.


i posted a google page filled with links for you to read, the orlando sentinel has several articles detailing george zimmermans inconsistencies. did you even bother clicking on the link i posted?


here ya go from the very first link from a simple google search

george zimmermans inconsistent statements


Lol.. yeah those don't hold up. Those are such minor inconsistencies. It was dark explained why he said bushes (if he did) immediately after he shot someone (a traumatizing event which happened minutes earlier). Also I like that the original lie by the Star witness for prosecution is still in there "16 year old girl" BUZZZ wrong she lied about that and said she lied in the interview where she said Trayvon said "why are you following me" so that's b.s.

Next the dispatcher did say something like "can you see him" or some other phrase that actually held more implication that the defense noted could be taken as a suggestion to look for him, he was recalling from memory at the time so it's not really a big deal and honestly not a complete inconsistency.

Moving on Zimmerman said he was following him and when he was told he didn't need to do that he stopped. He started to follow to see if he could see him again but clearly you can't be in true pursuit of someone you have lost track of.

the other alleged inconsistences from that site. the covering of the mouth: Zimmerman shot Trayvon as he was trying to cover his mouth so there would have been no muffled cries, those cries were from before the attempt.
The one about the severity of the injuries compared to the attack is actually not an inconsistency and later on it was shown that he did have plenty of injuries.
No defensive wounds on Zimmermans hands is not an inconsistency. That just means he didn't get his hands between them in the time Trayvon was beating him.

Every single one of the alleged inconsistencies from your outdated, poor piece of journalism (complete with lies from the girl on the phone with Trayvon - she was closer to 18 and lied about her age saying she was 16 which is still in the article) squashed easily.

What's funny is that those barely even qualify as inconsistencies. You really think Zimmerman is guilty based on literally like 4 miniscule mistakes? They really are nothing.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


What on Earth are you talking about. That is completely ignorant. There is zero evidence against Zimmerman. Are you trying to imply that it's harder for black people to be racist against white people? If so that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Let me be clear though. I am not attacking evidence against Zimmerman because there is no evidence to attack. Name a piece of evidence or credible testimony and i'll owe you a coke.

And now you don't understand how racism works. This case had nothing to do with race until the media, prominent black talking heads, and racist groups like the New Black Panthers made it one. Actually I am seeing more racism coming from black people on this topic than white people that is for certain. It's funny because in this case telling a dispatcher a black person is "black" is racist while a black kid calling a hispanic person he thinks is white a"creepy ass cracker" is not.

I can't wait for this man to go free so he can get on with his life. These idiots and liars have taken a toll on his health and his finances.
edit on 27-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Crazy-ass cracker. Right in line with Martins language that he tweeted ...
So it wasn't a one time slip of the tongue ...

Daily Caller Obtains Trayvon Martins Tweets

Martin tweeted under the handle “NO_LIMIT_NIGGA,” an account that was closed shortly after his death.


Trayvon Martin Tweets
edit on 6/27/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed link



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join