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: 286
25
<< 283  284  285    287  288  289 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
We don't know who started the fight, so the "self defense" argument is out the window.

Um ... no.

We don't know who started the fight. THat person is the 'perp'.

That has nothing to do with the self defense aspect ... when Zimmerman shot Martin, who was on top of him and was pounding into him. THAT is self defense. No question.




posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



1) Where is the evidence that Trayvon initiated the attack? If Zimmerman started the confrontation, then it doesn't matter if he is getting his butt kicked, Trayvon has a right to defend himself as well.

2) I swear, have people not been in fights before? Those are not serious injuries...no matter who much people try to sensationalize it...those are not serious injuries at all.


So, where is the proof?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
TV NEWS REPORTING ..... the jury is working through lunch.
I would imagine lunch is being brought in and they are eating while they work.

(I kinda' figured they would)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The Kernel is curious. Was Mr Zimmerman able to remain in his vehicle and keep an eye on Mr Martin?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I think they just wanted to continue where they are while eating. I can imagine myself in a room deliberating and forgetting where we left off if we went out for lunch.

good call on the jury.
edit on 7/13/2013 by ugie1028 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
We don't know who started the fight, so the "self defense" argument is out the window.

Um ... no.

We don't know who started the fight. THat person is the 'perp'.

That has nothing to do with the self defense aspect ... when Zimmerman shot Martin, who was on top of him and was pounding into him. THAT is self defense. No question.


No, if someone assaults me and I defend myself and get on top of that person...that does not then give him the legal right to shoot me.

Normal fights do not give either party the right to pull a gun and shoot the other person. No one will ever convince me that Zimmerman was getting beaten so bad that his life was in danger.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
How do you turn a 15 minute walk to a store into an hour long walk through a neighborhood and end up past theplace you were staying?


And my question .... a 15 minute walk to the store .... and the father - Tracy 'Juice" Martin - didn't know his son was missing until the next morning? He didn't even notice? I guess his 'mistress' was keeping him too busy to notice that his teenage son wasn't in the house.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by seabag
 



1) Where is the evidence that Trayvon initiated the attack? If Zimmerman started the confrontation, then it doesn't matter if he is getting his butt kicked, Trayvon has a right to defend himself as well.

2) I swear, have people not been in fights before? Those are not serious injuries...no matter who much people try to sensationalize it...those are not serious injuries at all.


So, where is the proof?


TM punched him, straddled him, pounded on him some more, reached for GZ's gun and said "You're gonna die tonight". That would make any person fear for their life.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



What we DO know ..... Zimmerman shot Martin when Martin was on top of him, beating the stuff'n out of him. Eyewitness and forensic evidence say this is a fact. Zimmerman was in his legal rights to defend himself in this manner.


Not if he started the fight, which you already admitted we don't know who started the fight. Starting the fight doesn't have to be throwing the first punch...it can be as little as grabbing someone's arm, or putting your hand on someone's chest to attempt to hold them back.

We don't know who started the fight, so the "self defense" argument is out the window.


We also know that Zimmerman was screaming for help there was no way to know who started it, but all evidence suggests Martin. Then we know that the Neighbor Good spoke to them and despite someone being there Martin kept beating him. If we can't know who started it, but do know Martin was beating him profusely and the self deense was justified how could you possible convict. You want to put a man away for his life because you don't know if he grabbed at Martin (we know he didn't hit him) and al evidence points to martin as the aggressor and was proven as the one that initiated contact?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
the medical evidence that Trayon was NEVER attacked.

True. I forgot about that. THanks for the reminder. Martin had no evidence of being attacked.
No bruises. No cuts. No blood. On the other hand, Zimmerman was absolutely beaten up.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Cheesefleas
 



They both had every right to walk around that neighborhood. My point was it’s not illegal to follow someone and report suspicious activity! That’s what GZ was there to do as a neighborhood watchman!! People who think GZ was a predator should consider that, statistically, people who have a concealed handgun license are FAR LESS LIKELY to commit any crime than the average citizen. These are people who have gone through training on the appropriate use of deadly force and have had extensive backgrounds checks.


And as a neighborhood watchman, he was not instructed to act like the police, but he did. That is where GZ made the mistake...

I do not think GZ had the intent of killing TM, I think he made poor decisions.

The fact is, if GZ stayed in the car, he would not be in this predicament.




He killed a person with his gun because he was attacked and his gun was about to be used against him.

TM – “You’re gonna die tonight!!”


He killed a person with his gun because he was acting like a vigilante



A vigilante (/ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænti/, /ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænteɪ/; Spanish: [bixiˈlante]; Portuguese: [viʒiˈlɐ̃t(ɨ)], [viʒiˈlɐ̃tʃi]) is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority or illegal authority.[1]


The rest of the events hinge upon this fact.

And "you're gonna die tonight" is exactly what a person would say if they were trying to claim they were in mortal danger.

Interesting that a 17 year old said the exact string of words that would be the perfect self defense utterance.

I find that to be a fabrication, TM could not have uttered a tighter more legally damning statement and I doubt that testimony based on my experiences.

Also, I find it bizzare that GZ, with all his firearm experience did not have the situational awareness to have his gun drawn before TM could get within 10 feet of him.

I have yet to meet a person with a concealed permit who didn't practice the disapline which is 9/10th
Situational awareness.

Fact still remains however, he did not let the police take over

A vigilante (/ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænti/, /ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænteɪ/; Spanish: [bixiˈlante]; Portuguese: [viʒiˈlɐ̃t(ɨ)], [viʒiˈlɐ̃tʃi]) is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority or illegal authority.[1]



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
There are quite a few people here who seem to believe that physical fights are a way of life and a solution. If that is the case it would be a wise decision to study and learn about the laws in their state. The most successful law breakers tend to.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Was Mr Zimmerman able to remain in his vehicle and keep an eye on Mr Martin?

No. It was too dark. Dispatch said 'tell us what else he does' (paraphrase). The only way
Zimmerman could do that was to follow Martin. It was a dark and rainy night. So he
couldn't see from the vehicle.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Cheesefleas

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Cheesefleas
 


you obviously have no clue.

the 911 audio tapes. Have you listened to them? have you followed the trial from day one?


I have.

I especially like the part where GZ is advised to let police take over.

That is where he went from being a neighborhood watchman, to a vigalante.

He made a choice, and he is responsible for that gun going off.


You've made up your mind and you're not going to let the facts detract from your opinion.


It's pointless to try and explain it to you further.


Same can be said if you


If this happened in a bar GZ would be convicted of 2nd or manslaughter.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
How do you turn a 15 minute walk to a store into an hour long walk through a neighborhood and end up past theplace you were staying?


And my question .... a 15 minute walk to the store .... and the father - Tracy 'Juice" Martin - didn't know his son was missing until the next morning? He didn't even notice? I guess his 'mistress' was keeping him too busy to notice that his teenage son wasn't in the house.


Yeah, that blows my mind. Rachel Jeantel thinks "oh just another fight." The kid supposedly waiting on skittles just keeps playing games and goes to bed (despite having to hear police ambulance, commotion, and a gunshot and never mentions it. The parents never ask. Makes me wonder if the kid video gaming thought maybe Martin was going out and had plans to do something else. The kid never called about his skittles? Maybe they weren't for him? Maybe (rayvon said "ikm gonna make myself a little syzurp and practice a little b&e lol). Seriosuly hough.. NO one noticed?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
TV NEWS REPORTING ..... the jury is working through lunch.
I would imagine lunch is being brought in and they are eating while they work.

(I kinda' figured they would)


I think we'll have a verdict today. They seem to be close if they're working through lunch.

Let the fireworks begin!!!!

I don't hold out much hope for GZ after some of the high-profile verdicts that were outrageous (OJ, Casey Anthony, etc). Based on many responses in this thread, I think I would rather have trial by judge rather than trial by jury. At least the judge understands how to separate facts from emotion and understands the burden of proof. There are far too many morons in society to leave my fate in their hands.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cheesefleas
He killed a person with his gun because he was acting like a vigilante


A vigilante (/ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænti/, /ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænteɪ/; Spanish: [bixiˈlante]; Portuguese: [viʒiˈlɐ̃t(ɨ)], [viʒiˈlɐ̃tʃi]) is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority or illegal authority.[1]


Read that carefully. A vigilante is someone who undertakes law enforcement without authority. Exactly what law enforcement was Zimmerman taking over? Answer .. none. He was a neighborhood watchman. He called dispatch and informed them what was happening. They said 'tell us what else he does'. So that is what Zimmerman did.

Everything he did (that we know about) was legal. There was nothing illegal or vigilante about being on neighborhood watch. There is nothing illegal or vigilante about following Martin. There is nothing illegal or vigilante about letting dispatch 'know what else he does'.

Zimmerman killed Martin because Martin was on top of him beating him up.
It's just that simple. Forensics and eye witness testimony backs that up.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Cheesefleas
 


LOL, you can't take a firearm in a bar, but ignoring that.. what the hell are you talking about?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Not this judge. She doesn't like Zimmerman and would throw the book at him.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Cheesefleas
 


Where is the evidence he went vigilante? what evidence points to that? what hard evidence (Not speculation, not conjecture, not a theory.) but hard evidence... not guesses.



Well... He followed TM even though he was advised not to, he was behaving like the police which exactly meets the definition, unless definitions are on trial too??

A vigilante (/ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænti/, /ˌvɪdʒɪˈlænteɪ/; Spanish: [bixiˈlante]; Portuguese: [viʒiˈlɐ̃t(ɨ)], [viʒiˈlɐ̃tʃi]) is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority or illegal authority.[1]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 283  284  285    287  288  289 >>

log in

join