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: 67
25
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Wrong. He didn't do it because he couldn't. You are aware that the reason that rule exists is because when someone is within 21 feet they can supposedly be on you before the gun is drawn.. there is no "backing up" of course. That's absurd. Martin was much closer than 21 foot, he had no hope of stopping the sucker punch. You are in denial.


No, that would be you. The point of having a 21ft rule in your mind when carrying a gun is to remind you that anyone within that range COULD be on you in an instant and stab you, punch you, take your gun off you, etc. Hence, if someone you are suspicious of gets within that distance, it is common sense to back away if the opportunity is there. Are you denying that George had any opportunity to back up when Trayvon allegedly asked if he had a problem? In a situation where you are approached by a complete stranger who has followed you in his vehicle for the last few minutes, if that person then heads towards you on foot, the only reason you let them within striking distance is if you are ready to be doing the striking.
edit on 30-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Yes I am denying that Zimmerman had a chance to back up. Without a doubt. Martin snuck up on him, and when someone speaks to you from behind you naturally turn around. When he turned around Martin was waaay closer than 21 feet. There wasn't a chance to move especially with Martin prepared to strike and giving no real warning just speaking then punching.

Again, believe what absurd notions you want, my theory is backed up by testimony and evidence and Zimmerman will go free because of it.
edit on 30-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


What's the question? I will answer.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
How many parents are familiar with hearing their offspring scream in fear?

I have never heard my daughter scream in fear .. but if she ever did I would absolutely recognize her voice. It's a mother thing. Unless you are a mom .. you wouldn't get it.

So, we have George's mum saying it was him, and Trayvon's saying it was her son. As an understanding mother, how do YOU decide which one is more likely to be correct? It seems you are siding with George's mum because the dad agrees too, but maybe you have a better explanation for your reasoning?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


LOL we never said he couldn't be racist. We gave his black heritage and job tutoring black youth as evidence he probably isn't. No one meant because he has black heritage he couldn't be racist, just that it would be a reason it's less likely. Also there is absolutely no evidence he is racist.
I can't believe you read that and thought we meant he literally was incapable of being racist because he had black heritage. That is ignorant.

So tell us, now that I have discarded that inane though from your brain, do you sincerely believe black people can't be racist or as racist? Just answer straight up.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Common sense. It isn't between both mothers. It's between Zimmermans mother and father and martins father. Martin's mother wasn't from the area and so she didn't hear the recording til after the father had heard it. So zimmermans parents say its george, martins dad says it isn't his son. Then later when he's with the wife they start conspiring and when they hear it together they say it is.

Remember Trayvons dad heard it and commented on it first.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


In my experience, black people are way more racist than white or hispanic people. And this is from someone who lives in the South.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dudeman351
 


Before this trial I might have said that statement is a blanket statement that could be considered racist, but it seems to be true. Watch hln.. when they have people judge who did better for the day in court you can figure out what will be said by the black panelists. They always vote for prosectuion as the winners, white panelists are the only ones that will sometimes give it to defense, but not always.

No one on that channel asks the real questions though or uses their brain except two guys. One guy who is zimmermans neighbor, and the other is just a guy that considers both sides.

Did you read that article I posted to riffraff I think a page or two back? Tell me that woman that wrote that isn't biased and most probably a racist.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Didn't the witness the other day confirm it was George on the bottom yelling for help? The witness actually saw that happening.
edit on 30-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


He saw Zimmerman on the ground (which would leave one to presume he was the one yelling for help), but couldn't say with certainty it was Zimmerman yelling for help.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Yes I am denying that Zimmerman had a chance to back up. Without a doubt.

Don't you think that's a bit of a ridiculous statement to come out with, considering you wasn't there to see it happen, and there is no known video recording of the entire altercation? Wait, what am I even asking you that for? Of course you don't.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Martin snuck up on him, and when someone speaks to you from behind you naturally turn around. When he turned around Martin was waaay closer than 21 feet. There wasn't a chance to move especially with Martin prepared to strike and giving no real warning just speaking then punching.

Okay, let's just pretend George has told the truth to the best of his memory. Here's a snippet from his first statement at Sanford PD. You can read it for yourself here - www.txantimedia.com...



Zimmerman: And then when I walked back towards him… I, I saw him coming at me and I went to grab my phone…I don’t remember if I had time to pull it out or not.



What do you think he meant by the emphasised bit of his quote?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Again, believe what absurd notions you want, my theory is backed up by testimony and evidence and Zimmerman will go free because of it.
edit on 30-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Testimony? Ha! Have a good read of that linked transcript and try and see George's story from a non-defence angle, if you can, and you'll see it is full of inconsistencies that need to be addressed.
edit on 30-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Common sense. It isn't between both mothers. It's between Zimmermans mother and father and martins father. Martin's mother wasn't from the area and so she didn't hear the recording til after the father had heard it. So zimmermans parents say its george, martins dad says it isn't his son. Then later when he's with the wife they start conspiring and when they hear it together they say it is.

Remember Trayvons dad heard it and commented on it first.


What he said was an emotional sounding "No!" when asked if that was his son's voice yelling. He wasn't even asked to elaborate, or asked twice, that's how keen they were to sweep this under the rug.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


I would if evidence wasn't supporting Zimmerma's walk through including most of the prosecutions star witness' new testimony. Evidence supports Zimmerman never throwing a punch. If he didn't throw a punch then he definitely didn't throw the first one. He said he was suckerpunched and he and rachel said Martin approached Zimmerman.

So nope, I have no doubts.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Didn't the witness the other day confirm it was George on the bottom yelling for help? The witness actually saw that happening.
edit on 30-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


Did the witness see how they got in that position? It certainly wasn't by George being sucker punched and him landing straight on his back there.
edit on 30-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Oh so you believe in the super absurd "police in on it conspiracy. " the police didn't do that. Martins family and attorney saw an opportunity to make money (starting with donations and copyrighting the dead sons name) and so they and their attorney coerced b.s. from Jeantel and after they got their million they left her to squirm on the wtiness stand. They ran a scam on the tax payers.

As for his statement he could've meant several things. He says that, but he also says he was ambushed. He could have simply meant Martin go in between him and his truck and so he had to steps forward. Confrontations don't happen in straight painted paths.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


How does anyone get on top of another person in any and every fight? It started with the sucker punch from Martin. Seriously it's like you have a personal vendetta against common sense. Or maybe you just like asking pointless questions.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


I would if evidence wasn't supporting Zimmerma's walk through including most of the prosecutions star witness' new testimony. Evidence supports Zimmerman never throwing a punch. If he didn't throw a punch then he definitely didn't throw the first one. He said he was suckerpunched and he and rachel said Martin approached Zimmerman.

So nope, I have no doubts.

Zimmerman doesn't need to have thrown a punch for Martin to have the right to put up a fight, he only has to grab hold of Trayvon's clothing to stop him running again and that's sufficient provocation to hit until they let go.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


How does anyone get on top of another person in any and every fight? It started with the sucker punch from Martin. Seriously it's like you have a personal vendetta against common sense. Or maybe you just like asking pointless questions.


It didn't start with the sucker punch from Trayvon. If that ever even happened, it was over 30 ft away, according to George. Let me just ask you something... have you ever even been in a fight where there was nobody around who was going to stop it? I actually know from experience what it is like to be hit first and hit hard and come out as the victor... without having to kill my attacker on any occasion, so does that give you any insight to why I'm so critical of George's actions throughout that night?.
edit on 30-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


I would if evidence wasn't supporting Zimmerma's walk through including most of the prosecutions star witness' new testimony. Evidence supports Zimmerman never throwing a punch. If he didn't throw a punch then he definitely didn't throw the first one. He said he was suckerpunched and he and rachel said Martin approached Zimmerman.

So nope, I have no doubts.

Zimmerman doesn't need to have thrown a punch for Martin to have the right to put up a fight, he only has to grab hold of Trayvon's clothing to stop him running again and that's sufficient provocation to hit until they let go.


Well there hasn’t been any testimony to suggest that happened the prosecution sure hasn’t tried to use that narrative.

Can you please just stick to the facts? Sure we can all come up with different scenarios but they are all BS unless there is something to support them.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


How does anyone get on top of another person in any and every fight? It started with the sucker punch from Martin. Seriously it's like you have a personal vendetta against common sense. Or maybe you just like asking pointless questions.


It didn't start with the sucker punch from Trayvon. If that ever even happened, it was over 30 ft away, according to George. Let me just ask you something... have you ever even been in a fight where there was nobody around who was going to stop it? I actually know from experience what it is like to be hit first and hit hard and come out as the victor... without having to kill my attacker on any occasion, so does that give you any insight to why I'm so critical of George's actions throughout that night?.
edit on 30-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)


Can you show us where you came up with the 30 feet away part? That doesn’t make any sense considering how dark it was and the prosecution’s star witness testimony stating a short interval between their two sentence exchange of words and what she believed to be a hitting sound.




top topics



 
25
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join