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: 290
25
<< 287  288  289    291  292  293 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by firemonkey
 




The person who finishes the fight isn't always the one who started it


Using your logic then GZ might not have started the fight.


True...we don't know...that is the issue.

The only one left to say who started the fight is the guy who was following Trayvon and was carrying a gun and killed the only other witness.

No jury should believe anything Zimmerman says...he has a clear motive to lie in order to save his butt.




posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

I'm sorry but I can't believe anything Rachel Jeantel says. She was caught telling lies. And she has a HUGE bias. I don't believe anything she said. She's been discredited.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
firemonkey is a troll who has no dog in this race. They are not even from the US. What people are missing about this trial is it is all about americans right to defend themselves. The outcome will set precident and have rippling effects throughout the us. So if someone has no dog in this race then all they are doing is trolling.
edit on 13-7-2013 by LeaderOfProgress because: (no reason given)


I'm from the US, born and raised, why would you think I'm not?

That is a very odd comment.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
Yes, if I was on the Jury I would convict him without a doubt.
There is ZERO evidence that Martin was the aggressor. .

There is ZERO evidence that either one was the aggressor. We simply do not know what happened. And not knowing what happened means that no one should go to jail.


We know 100% for fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

If we know nothing else, we can't use anything else and he should go to jail.


I know you'd LIKE it to be that simple, but it isn't. There is proof Zimmerman was assaulted. Other than the gunshot wound to trayvon and some scrapes on his knuckles, there is no proof Trayvon was assaulted. So not only is there a reasonable doubt that it was murder, there is ample evidence it was self defense. So no, he shouldn't go to jail.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
No jury should believe anything Zimmerman says...he has a clear motive to lie in order to save his butt.

If you don't want to believe anything he says, then fine. Provide evidence that he started the fight.
That's all you have to do. Prove he started the fight with Martin and that will mean he's guilty of
manslaughter. Go ahead and post the info ....
If you can prove it then I'll change my mind back
and say he's guilty of manslaughter.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by firemonkey
 


They weren phone polls I believe and also a one vote per ip address net poll. You can find them one was CNN, and one was HLN (and trust me HLN wants him to be guilty so they would have preferred different results).



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
We know 100% for fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
If we know nothing else, we can't use anything else and he should go to jail.

We know 100% for fact that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense.
If we know nothing else, we can't say he should go to jail for self defense.

The question for manslaughter .. was Zimmerman responsible for the event happening?
The answer .. we don't know who threw the first punch so we don't know who was responsible.

Simply saying that 'he got out of his vehicle so he's responsible' is wrong.
He had the legal right to do so. And the lead investigator said he did nothing wrong when he got out.

Both Zimmerman and Martin did stupid things that night.
But none of those stupid things raises to the level of Manslaughter.
Prior to the trial ... I thought they would. But as it turns out ... they don't.



Once again
, we DO know who throw the 1st punch. The same person who ALL the punches.

Where is any evidence that a punch was thrown at Martin? ( "Maybe he threw one and missed...")

Nope. Can't speculate. Have to go on the facts and evidence.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by firemonkey
 


There is zero evidence Zimmerman was the aggressor. State has burden of proof. You can't convict because there is no proof TM was the aggressor you can only convict if there WAS prove GZ was. And there isn't.

I think you meant all Martin did was go to the store, then wander around a neighborhood in the dark and rain looking at houses for 45 minutes, then ran, made racist commets (showing ill will), then viciously assaulted a man and possibly tried to kill him.
edit on 13-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


That's fine if you see it that way, I don't.

If you are going to use the self defense DEFENSE, then you have to reasonably show that it was in fact self defense...they didn't do that...they simply claimed self defense and everything else is up in the air.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

www.wftv.com...

You got the number from the live stream from yesterday. They did a poll. About 75% of the people now believe that Zimmerman is not guilty. The poll results are not up today. They were up yesterday. If anyone wants to go hunt and peck through this thread, you'll find my post with the poll numbers. I'm not going to go do it ....



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
Yes, if I was on the Jury I would convict him without a doubt.
There is ZERO evidence that Martin was the aggressor. .

There is ZERO evidence that either one was the aggressor. We simply do not know what happened. And not knowing what happened means that no one should go to jail.


We know 100% for fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

If we know nothing else, we can't use anything else and he should go to jail.


If I follow someone, profile them, call 911 and make the remarks Zimmerman did about him, tell them I'm tired of "them getting away", and then I shoot and kill the person.....yeah...I think self defense is a very flimsy defense.

That means self defense should be removed from the laws. That means that if someone attacks you, you hit them and they die, you are guilty.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
We know 100% for fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
If we know nothing else, we can't use anything else and he should go to jail.

We know 100% for fact that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense.
If we know nothing else, we can't say he should go to jail for self defense.

The question for manslaughter .. was Zimmerman responsible for the event happening?
The answer .. we don't know who threw the first punch so we don't know who was responsible.

Simply saying that 'he got out of his vehicle so he's responsible' is wrong.
He had the legal right to do so. And the lead investigator said he did nothing wrong when he got out.

Both Zimmerman and Martin did stupid things that night.
But none of those stupid things raises to the level of Manslaughter.
Prior to the trial ... I thought they would. But as it turns out ... they don't.



Difference of opinion...so we will see what the jury thinks.

I think Zimmerman was soley responsible for the events of that night, you don't...we will see what the jury thinks.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by firemonkey
Yes, if I was on the Jury I would convict him without a doubt.
There is ZERO evidence that Martin was the aggressor. .

There is ZERO evidence that either one was the aggressor. We simply do not know what happened. And not knowing what happened means that no one should go to jail.


We know 100% for fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

If we know nothing else, we can't use anything else and he should go to jail.


That's absurd. We know another fact 100 percent you failed to mention. We know 100 percent Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman so Zimmerma killed him in self defense. We can't use anything else, he should go free.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
If you are going to use the self defense DEFENSE, then you have to reasonably show that it was in fact self defense...they didn't do that...t


Sure they did that. They showed it was self defense. They proved it with forensics and eye witness accounts. Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him up. Zimmerman had numerous head wounds. He felt his life was in danger. So he shot the person beating him up. CLASSIC self defense.

The ONLY thing that could mess that up is if it was discovered that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. Then it would have been Martin acting in self defense and Zimmerman would be at fault with Murder 2.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey

That's fine if you see it that way, I don't.

If you are going to use the self defense DEFENSE, then you have to reasonably show that it was in fact self defense...they didn't do that...they simply claimed self defense and everything else is up in the air.


How you see it is irrelevant.

That is how the law is supposed to see it per Florida law.

That is all that is relevant for this case.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by firemonkey
 


They weren phone polls I believe and also a one vote per ip address net poll. You can find them one was CNN, and one was HLN (and trust me HLN wants him to be guilty so they would have preferred different results).


Links?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
Difference of opinion...

Well .. not really. It's not a matter of opinion to say that 'whoever threw the first punch' was the aggressor. Whoever did that is responsible for what happened. Nothing else matters .. not Zimmerman walking the neighborhood .. not Martin walking the neighborhood ... ONLY whoever threw the first punch. that's it.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by firemonkey

That's fine if you see it that way, I don't.

If you are going to use the self defense DEFENSE, then you have to reasonably show that it was in fact self defense...they didn't do that...they simply claimed self defense and everything else is up in the air.


How you see it is irrelevant.

That is how the law is supposed to see it per Florida law.

That is all that is relevant for this case.


It is relevant, because the jury members are just regular citizens just like me.

If it was only about the "law"...we wouldn't have a jury...the judge would make all the decisions.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by firemonkey
 


You have that quote messed up.

Anyway, what you describe is not self defense.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by firemonkey
 


So what? Just because he has a motive to save his life doesn't mean it's not the truth. Look at it this way. If someone was getting beaten the way Zimmerman was and he killed his attacker and he was telling the truth (just hypothetically he was in reality telling the truth) do you think he should go to jail?

Also you were wrong, the witness on the phone with Trayvon said Trayvon confronted Zimmerman and another witness SAW Trayvon beating him. Ti am starting to get the troll vibe from you, and I thought the Mods got rid of them all : T



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
It is relevant, because the jury members are just regular citizens just like me.

If it was only about the "law"...we wouldn't have a jury...the judge would make all the decisions.


What do think appeals courts are for?

They are there, in a large part, because the law has made accommodations for the ineptitude of jurors.

So I will say it again, hoping that one day you will get it.

Our personal feelings and interpretations are not relevant to the law.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 287  288  289    291  292  293 >>

log in

join