It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hear 100% Truth About The Zimmerman Case

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by Gazrok

I think Mr. Zimmerman followed and confronted Mr. Martin. (despite being advised to do otherwise)

Despite the heresay and press spin on this I just can't get that 911 call out of my head. The one where the dispatcher says, "-we don't need you to do that."

Case closed as far as I am concerned.

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
I think Treyvon Martin was a thug.
I think George Zimmerman is a wanna be cop.
I think Mr. Zimmerman followed and confronted Mr. Martin. (despite being advised to do otherwise)
- This is where "Stand your ground" should be disqualified as a defense.....
I think Mr. Zimmerman then killed Mr. Martin.
- However, since the "stand your ground" law is extremely vague, by the LETTER of the law, it could be argued he was justified in the shooting.
I think Mr. Zimmerman will be acquitted.
I think there will be riots in predominantly African American neighborhoods once this verdict is public.
I think the Police will expect this, and be prepared.

Hmmm..sounds to me like, two wrong guys, doing wrong, that turned out all wrong.

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:07 PM
This is going to be interesting on how this case plays out. Personally, I think they were both guilty. Zimmerman should have never continued following Trayvon Martin after the police warned him not to follow him. I think he clearly doesn't have a stand your ground case.

I think when Zimmerman confronted him, Trayvon assaulted him. The physical bumps and gashes on Zimmerman's head clearly proves he was physically attacked. It's going to be interesting on how the jury sees this. If Zimmerman is found not guilty because he's found to have killed Trayvon in self-defense, I wonder if this will cause a race riot like we saw with the Rodney King beating?

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:19 PM

Originally posted by GrantedBail

who is this guy? there is a disconnect here somewhere for me?

a few issues with this photo.
- his index fingers seem impossibly long.
- how is it possible to see his wedding ring reflection?
and if it is possible, why is the reflection of the empty chair
so shallow and short?
-there look to be too many people squashed into the available area in the background
and i don't know where the blonde lady directly behind zimmerman is supposed
to be or fit in.

what say you? what's going on?

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by NaturalDizaster

I'm from Cincinnati too, and even I know that things can turn sour in a heartbeat. I don;t think you really know what you'd do in that situation.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne

I say you're overthinking this.

Really, what possible relevance to the case do you think any of those questions have?

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by Gazrok

I think you are 100% correct.
As the trial unfolds .. we will see ....

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by LizardSlicks

When I was 16 if some strange man was slowly following me in a car for no reason and then got out to confront me, for no reason, and wasn't going to leave me alone, I would have felt threatened. I would have defended myself . I would have beaten him with my fists, for posing a direct threat to me. Maybe Trayvon should have apologized for being a black kid wearing a sweater and presented George with a set of handcuffs and asked to be placed under citizens arrest by him until he could legally clear himself in a court of george and prove he was merely getting snacks.

This is where you're wrong. Anyone can walk away from a confrontation. It's not the fact that George Zimmerman was wrong in following him, it comes down to who landed the first blow. I'm no lawyer, but I've been on a jury 3 times in my life. Two of them involving assaults, and in both cases the person landing the first blow was guilty of assault. Exchanging words no matter how demeaning, does not require someone to defend themselves physically. Zimmerman could have voiced as many racial slurs at this kid, but the minute someone makes the first initial physical contact, they're the one guilty of an assault charge. Trayvon could just have easily walked to the nearest residence, or called 911 on his cell phone to ask for a police officer to arrive at the scene.

You can't ignore the physical injuries found on Zimmerman. The question is whether Trayvon had any physical injuries besides the shot in the chest. If there was no physical injuries found on Trayvon, you have to come to the conclusion that Trayvon initiated the assault.

This does not leave George Zimmerman in the clear. It has to be proven that Zimmerman felt his life was threatened for him to use lethal force. In my opinion, anyone who is continually pounding someone's head into cement is taking a huge risk of causing the individual brain damage or it resulting in their death.

I think George is definitely guilty of causing the confrontation, but that does not make him guilty if he did not land the first punch. Words don't make you guilty, it's the physical confrontation that does.

The way you label George as fat, shows you've already decided his guilt.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by NaturalDizaster

HA! The ignorance displayed in this rant is hilarious!

It is all well and good to say that if a young adult is beating your head into the concrete you will simply let your shame of being beaten prevent you from defending yourself. It is quite another matter to actually be in that situation. Adrenaline pumping, the danger of being knocked unconscious, not to mention the strong instinct of self preservation that forces people to react.

There must have been many thoughts going through both of them. I know that I would be concerned with getting my firearm taken from me and getting shot with it, for example. Even so, if Martin knew he was innocent of any wrong doing why would he initiate an attack? Let the dumb rent-a-cop follow me. Who cares? I didn't do squat. You are right about the Darwin awards but you apply it to the wrong person.

So you consider hardened felons "real men". That says a lot about what you admire.

Still the part that cracks me up the most is the insults and false bravado. You should really be careful who you insult and who you judge. You might be doing it to yourself without even realizing it.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:14 AM

If Zimmerman is found not guilty because he's found to have killed Trayvon in self-defense, I wonder if this will cause a race riot like we saw with the Rodney King beating?

Oh, it most certainly will. A difference though, is that this time, the police will EXPECT it, so it will be quelled a bit quicker I imagine.

Any decent lawyer should be able to get Zimmerman off though, going by the vagueness of the law, and the details of the case as we know it right now. (morally, he shouldn't get off, but legally....) However, from what I've seen so far, I am really wondering how the heck this lawyer was chosen. Opening with a knock-knock joke that basically calls the jury a bunch of idiots is probably not the best move...just saying......

posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by butcherguy

You said the same thing as I speculating about Trayvon and his mother yet you re-state it as if there's a difference? Are you confused about something?

And as far as me "not wanting to answer some question", I barely understand what you're asking and in what context and the relevance. Here's my attempt to answer your senseless question: As a human, operating on the fight or flight response, the specific situation would be assessed and based upon my instinctual reaction, I would fight or fly. Don't really know what point you thought you were getting at.

reply to post by WeRpeons

What makes you think Trayvon could have simply walked into the nearest residence for help when the self appointed neighborhood savior deemed him one of those suspicious "a-holes that always get away" and that he looked like he wasn't supposed to be there and was not wanted there.

The physical injuries of George Zimmerman in no way indicate a fight for your life. Very minor injuries. John Good testified that he never saw Zimmerman being slammed on the concrete nor his head being repeatedly bashed into the concrete as claimed. The very slight scrapes/cuts on the back of his head are not the type that show any type of life endangering force such as repeated slamming that could risk brain injury, but rather the moving and twisting to attempt to wriggle out from the bottom position. You obviously have not a clue as to blunt force injuries or human skin. As testified by John Good, there was a short tussle followed by some wrestling where it appeared Trayvon had the dominant position over George, yet based upon the fact that there were no clear blows being delivered, George was still fighting as was Trayvon. It took the much bigger George Zimmerman approximately 8-15 seconds based upon Goods testimony to decide to pull out his gun and shoot Trayvon.

And how does me calling George fat have anything to do with my opinion that he's guilty? John Goodmans fat and I doubt if you substituted him for George in this situation this would have happened. I've decided his guilt based upon the facts. Not trying to be insulting but you are having a hard time following....

So in your beliefs you can engage in confrontation with a minor, take part in a fight with said minor, start losing the fight then shoot and kill him with no repercussions? Does that really sound remotely reasonable to you?

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by LizardSlicks

I'm not confused about anything. What I do notice in your posts is a condescending attitude toward anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion. I've clearly explained my perspective on the case and if you're confused, I'm sorry if you didn't understand the legal point I was making.

Quick point, Florida law clearly states that if you feel your life is in danger, you have a right to use lethal force. The law doesn't take into account any gray areas. It doesn't matter if George was even stalking him! The physical injuries are proof that Zimmerman was assaulted.

The majority of people would try to reason with someone who has a gun. The only reason Martin assaulted Zimmerman is because he didn't realize he was carrying a gun.

As for George confronting Martin, according to George's statement to police...

Zimmerman told police he was headed back to his truck to meet the police officer that non-emergency dispatch was sending to the area, when he was confronted by Martin. Zimmerman described the altercation as a life-and-death struggle that was sparked by the teenager jumping out from behind the bushes. Zimmerman said Martin jumped out and asked him if he had a problem, he said no, and then Martin said, “You got a problem now.” Zimmerman said Martin then punched him in the nose, which caused him to fall to the ground. "He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk," he said. "When he started doing that, I slid into the grass to try to get out from under him ... I'm still yelling for help."


Martin's actions before the confrontation was mischievous. When Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, he wasn't confronting Martin, he was just trying to re-locate where he went.

As far as your condescending remarks...These are your words.

To the idiots who still want to defend poor little georgie

Describing George in this condescending manner doesn't imply your opinion of George's guilt? ...These are your words...

Trayvon was of no danger to George and did not run up to his car and pull his fat ass out of the drivers side window.

The reason why you are confused is because you're having trouble accepting anyone else's opinion.
edit on 30-6-2013 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by WeRpeons

SIGH. You just rewrote what I already addressed. You failed to address my direct responses to what you initially wrote. Instead of responding to my replies to what you first said, you merely said the same things again! You are either purposely failing to reply to my response to you with new points because you have nothing, or are challenged in some way robbing you of the ability to debate. You make no points by simply restating something that I have already addressed and dissected. Read my posts and try again. If you come back with something worth my time I might give you another shot.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in