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: 254
25
<< 251  252  253    255  256  257 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Of course, it's perfectly reasonable if coming from "your team", but totally disgusting when coming from the "other team".




posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Did anyone else catch that nod from West (Defense) to one of the jurors leaving out?

Yeah I have. Can't really read into it but to me it looks like 'Man this takes too long'.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Of course, it's perfectly reasonable if coming from "your team", but totally disgusting when coming from the "other team".

You mean to tell me that even after 200 pages you are still surprised this is 'their' tactic?
I'm in this thread for less than 4 days and that is so obvious it's painful. Shameful, even.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by bbracken677
 


If the police stuck to that principle as strongly as you state it, they'd never be able to arrest anyone unless they were dumb enough to do it in front of a cop, or a trustworthy film crew.



Dude...seriously?

Huge difference between being arrested for the suspicion of having committed a crime, the arrest based on evidence collected. This is then followed by a trial which presents the evidence of this individual's guilt. If the prosecution has damning evidence that establishes the defendant's guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt then, and ONLY then, the jury finds that individual guilty.

Key concepts are: 1) arrest based on evidence collected (not popular opinion!!!), 2) the prosecution proves guilt, 3) beyond the shadow of doubt, 4) jury finds guilty. If the prosecution cannot or does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then the jury should find the defendant innocent.


I forgot about the part before the trial where the DA has to present enough evidence to warrant a court case, whereupon the case is scheduled etc....


edit on 12-7-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You are truly grasping here. Can you truly say that you have not had any doubts about any of the evidence?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by Logarock
 


Maybe one of the stories when it first came out sir, but the evidence presented at trial, said the gun was to the rear, holstered and in his waistband.

It's impossible to pull a gun out from the small of your back, while lying on your back with someone on top of you reigning blows down.


I remember him saying in the deposition or pre trial that martin saw his gun and tried to get Zimms gun. In fact the they actually wrestled with the gun for a moment. And that the gun was on the side.

Be that as it may, its not impossible to get a gun out of your back when you are down on your back. Tray wasn't that much stronger than Zimm and probably didn't have the weight to keep Zimm from getting his gun.
edit on 12-7-2013 by Logarock because: n

edit on 12-7-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





beyond the shadow of a doubt

I'm pretty sure you've just made that up. I know this because the actual standard is beyond reasonable doubt.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


It was holstered on his side not in the small of his back.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


At the beginning. My presumption of innocence then switched to Trayvon Martin's perspective and my thoughts changed completely.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Court back from recess..

Commentors said that Mark stated to the jury that 'following someone is not against the law', inhis closing remarks (I missed that part), and it was great since the judge had not allowed it as part of jury instruction.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Lol......
beyond a shadow of a doubt
Yeah, totally made up



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by suz62
 


I understand exactly what it means, and it's not meant to protect people like Zimmerman from responsibility for their actions.



wow

Let's burn the constitution since it should only apply to SOME PEOPLE as determined by myself.

We should also rename the country The United Socialist States of Amerika. Eliminate elections, create a "Leader of the People" who serves as long as "the Party" deems he should. We should eliminate trial by juries and just let a single judge dispense "justice" according to the dictates of "the Party".

FIRST: no system created by man, operated by man can be perfect....man will always find ways to screw a good thing.

Our justice system, as originally designed, is an awesome system. Does it, in practice, behave as designed? No...does it always represent Justice? Not always, obviously.

Since it is imperfect should we toss it and just go for anarchy? Or should we work to support its' potential and improve it as possible?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Interesting move, him doing the rebuttal.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
First words.. "The Human Heart".

This trial is a circus act. At least on the state's part.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Pros: Is that normal language? LOL does this guy live in a box

edit on 12-7-2013 by thesaneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I have not been watching the Zimmerman trial from start to finish; but I have been watching it for a few days.

It occurred to me this morning...that perhaps If Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman; that it is because Zimmerman pulled the gun on him while they were still standing; and Trayvon was trying to defend himself.

Was this ever mentioned during the trial?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
I have not been watching the Zimmerman trial from start to finish; but I have been watching it for a few days.

It occurred to me this morning...that perhaps If Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman; that it is because Zimmerman pulled the gun on him while they were still standing; and Trayvon was trying to defend himself.

Was this ever mentioned during the trial?


Nope.

Doesn't make since. Why?

Who jumps on a man with a gun pointed at them?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
These dramatic pauses are making me think it's a church sermon.

Hard to listen to.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Asking about every child's worst fear, I can honestly say being followed at night wasn't my worst fear, unless I was being followed by a clown.
I like how today they are emphasizing child about TM but yesterday the other prosecutor referred to him as a man on multiple occasions. He kept saying, 17yr old man.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Stick a fork in the case, it's finished lol. Instead of showing evidence of anything, he makes more stuff up. He assumes these jurors are emotional idiots, I think this will backfire.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 251  252  253    255  256  257 >>

log in

join