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.

 

Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

page: 52
157
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I don't normally respond to threads like these but like the mods said this topic is sensitive as it has some racial connotations, so care should be taken.

I don't think there was any racial 'discrimination' involved since racial profiling is not the same as contempt for other races.

I would say Martin was racial profiled which is ok since it is the same in a way as driving a red car or orange car. Statistically these are involved in accidents than any other and have more speed tickets as well, that is why insurance for vehicles with these colors is higher than others.

However, Zimmerman ignored law officials and followed his instinct and stalked the young man. Why did Zimmerman at some point leave his car and pursue Martin on foot? I dont know, that is beyond me.

But what is beyond me is that he shot him in the heart of all places. Couldn't he shoot him in the stomach or leg? or rather hold the gun and say "Freeze, punk i have a gun, get off me".

The fact that he shot him without first letting Martin know what kind of danger he was facing is what makes me horrified by the verdict. There is a reason why cops carry guns ( it is to make one think twice about resisting arrest, at least they let you know before they shoot you)

I have been involved in many fights but never have i went for my gun and shot anyone as a last resort. I pull it out to end fights, just to let know people that stakes are high and i don't want to fight.

Human life is too precious no matter how i feel about my enemy.

On this reasoning, I think Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood. Zimmerman didn't want to incapacitate Martin long enough for the cops to arrive. He killed him!

I judge him based on my experience, not on race or some florida based laws.

How many people have gone to prison for lesser crimes? and yet Zimmerman gets to walk?

That jury should be tried. period!


edit on 14-7-2013 by LiveEquation because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Well thats fine if you carry no expectations of your own conduct as far as personal honour and a desire to be fair in your dealings with your fellow man. But using a gun on an unarmed man is overkill no matter what the hell is happening at the time.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Blah blah drivel, drivel blah blah.

"Quick over there! A racist look!"


Pay no attention to anything relevant.....

Thanks for sharing



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos

Your take on this event is completely devoid of the facts, so it would appear that they aren't so simple, eh?

Try looking into the trial and evidence rather than quoting MSNBC or CNN, maybe you'll learn something about rushing to judgement when a man's freedom is on the line.

I'm not defending a 'child killer', I'm defending a man's right to defend himself from an attacker, which is what happened in this case.


no, i'm actually just looking at the facts.

i have no agenda, unlike many people commenting on this as personally it doesn't affect me or anything to do with my life.

i've read over this case many many many times becuase i was sure i was missing but i'm definitely not.

the facts.

man a) was armed and completely unprovoked approached boy b).

a fight ensued.

man a) shoots the unarmed boy b) dead.

those are the facts.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bates

the facts are very simple.


These aren't facts. If you presented these as facts in a court of law, you'd leave with your feelings hurt. Which is what these are...nothing more than your feelings.


one man who was armed started trouble with a boy who wasn't.
Can you prove that? Because not even the prosecution could, though the defense proved that it was Zimmerman on the bottom getting whupped.


the boy ended up shot dead.
Well, ya got me there, he is dead.


the man has walked free from court with the blessing of a huge amount of people.
Darn it! Ya got me there too. He was found not guilty by a Jury.


i'm sorry, but that just doesn't happen in a civilized country.
I would say that a civilized country hold fair trials, which this was.


why are so many people defending a child killer?
Martin was 17 yrs old. He was no child. Young man I could agree with.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 


The whole thing was handled with the intent for you to be all sensitive over one man actions impacting others. Although egregious, hardly worth fussing over and one of thousands of similar cases.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bates

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos

Your take on this event is completely devoid of the facts, so it would appear that they aren't so simple, eh?

Try looking into the trial and evidence rather than quoting MSNBC or CNN, maybe you'll learn something about rushing to judgement when a man's freedom is on the line.

I'm not defending a 'child killer', I'm defending a man's right to defend himself from an attacker, which is what happened in this case.


no, i'm actually just looking at the facts.

i have no agenda, unlike many people commenting on this as personally it doesn't affect me or anything to do with my life.

i've read over this case many many many times becuase i was sure i was missing but i'm definitely not.

the facts.

man a) was armed and completely unprovoked approached boy b).

a fight ensued.

man a) shoots the unarmed boy b) dead.

those are the facts.


You may want to rethink that summary of the facts, since you've apparently overlooked several key ones.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
So its ok to use a gun as self defense in a fist fight that you instigated?

This is crazy



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveEquation
So its ok to use a gun as self defense in a fist fight that you instigated?

This is crazy


The trial established Martin as the initiator of the physical altercation.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
ATTENTION ALL MARTIN SUPPORTERS:
YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO!!!!!!
at this point i have read approximately 100 post from people angry at Zimmerman and not one of those post were based on facts. you are all repeating MSM's LIES! dont be angry with the justice system, dont be angry at Zimmerman. get PISSED at MSM for lying to you, forcing you to follow their agenda, believing you are all too stupid to make up your own mind.

You know why there are no riots?

because you have to pick your battles, and deep down everyone knows this aint the one to fight.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


While I agree that blacks often take the racist charge too far, I think we should me some basic qualifications. I wrote this earlier:

I think it is extremely unfair to jump the gun and pretend that blacks aren't in a severely handicapped position with regard to social status. I mentioned earlier the effect of crack laws on the black community. Crack coc aine is pharmacologically identical to powder coc aine. But since crack became a "pandemic" in the 80's, there's been a 100-1 drug policy which punishes crack coc aine related offenses 100 times worse than powder coc aine offenses. The net effect on this policy on the black community is astounding. 1 out of 3 black men will spend time in prison in their life. Since crack is cheaper than powder coc aine, its mostly poor inner city people who are affected by this law; and it just so happens that the majority of these poor inner city people are blacks.

I just finished reading Carl Hart's (a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Columbia University) new book "High Price" and he exposed me to a few facts that I can't consciously ignore. First, crack laws make no sense. There is no pharmacological difference between crack and regular powder coc aine. The only discernible difference is the price; crack is cheaper than powder coc aine, which makes crack the drug of choice in poor inner city neighborhoods. Also, inhalation produces faster but shorter highs than snorting. Second, an inordinate number of blacks are serving sentences for crack related "crimes". As I mentioned earlier, there is something extremely counter-productive in the long term in putting repeat drug offenders in jail for a non-violent drug offense when the prison environment itself will end up turning them into general criminals.

There were times in the book where Hart exaggerates certain statements and makes interpolations that logically don't follow from the evidence. But one thing I CAN sympathize with (and this is the important thing) is the fact that the black community is still reeling from the effects of being second class citizens. It is absurdly naive to think that a mere 50 years after MLK that black society would all of a sudden be fully integrated into the system. They aren't; having been kept down for so many generations has inured them and insulated them from the American main stream. That 1/3 blacks end up in prison, largely because there are crack laws that help to keep so many of them in and out of prison, breaking up families, conditioning them to a reality that no one would want to live or be surrounded by, I think it is an actual (and not made up) moral imperative to help improve the status of this community.

Again, I agree that very often blacks can take it way too far. They get too emotional, and ascribe emotions and intentions to individuals that they didn't actually have. With regard to social institutions, I can agree that drug laws have affected this community far more than any other. Having suffered from 2nd class status for so long, can you blame blacks for wanting reformation in this area?

Having said that, I'm not fully apprised of other possible areas where blacks might be disadvantaged. On the other hand, it does seem that certain unspectacular blacks are credited positions which they might not otherwise deserve. In some ways, "affirmative action" seems to be a dismal failure. To put academically under performing blacks in programs that they barely had the credentials for - and simultaneously pruning from admission whites or others who had the grades to easily gain admission - has really just increased the black drop out rate. While I can understand the reason for such laws, there are better ways of dealing with their situation than artificially granting them access to programs which they're likely to struggle in.

To sum my position up. As you can tell, I'm a "middle of the path" guy. I speak with qualifications. I just don't jump on the bandwagon of conservative or liberal causes, mindlessly repeating the partisan line because thats the thing to do. Instead, I use my reason and my reason alone to figure our what is right or wrong. And I'm self aware enough and sincere enough to know when I'm fudging. I can acknowledge that blacks can sometimes take it too far, and thereby arouse ire towards them; at the same time, drug laws have ravaged this community like no other, and this has to change.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by vor78
 


Well thats fine if you carry no expectations of your own conduct as far as personal honour and a desire to be fair in your dealings with your fellow man. But using a gun on an unarmed man is overkill no matter what the hell is happening at the time.

Spoken like a true anti-gun Brit.

With your obvious anti-gun culture I expect a response like yours. You have to understand our laws and culture to understand why GZ was found not guilty by a jury of his peers (all women no less)

I believe the correct verdict was reached based on the evidence.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveEquation
So its ok to use a gun as self defense in a fist fight that you instigated?

This is crazy

At what point does a man getting jumped (as stated in testimony) show instigation?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by LiveEquation
So its ok to use a gun as self defense in a fist fight that you instigated?

This is crazy


The trial established Martin as the initiator of the physical altercation.


Correct me if im wrong but i thought there were no witnesses or video of the initial start of the confrontation.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Did you hear the government was spying on you?

No, was watching the Zimmerman trial on CNN.

OH, huh, yeah this Zimmerman guy, wow!

Did you catch what's happening in Egypt?

No, sorry, there's a documentary about how Trayvon may have known a guy who lived down the street from a known drug dealer.

Ah, ok....have fun with that. Oh but I was reading about how the IRS was..., eh never mind.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveEquation
So its ok to use a gun as self defense in a fist fight that you instigated?


Can you prove this? That would be interesting if you could and it could possibly result in charges against you for withholding evidence.

As the judge said multiple times during the hearings.

Speculation...Over-ruled.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
CNN won't give up. They are doing what they can to keep this bias alive. Wonder if they will lead the NAACP's civil violation hoopla.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
You would have seen more looting and rioting had they came back with a verdict of guilty. People celebrating, partying, out in the streets. Then it gets out of hand and some take advantage of the situation to help themselves to whatever they think they can get away with.
I now hope Zimmerman gets a mountain of cash from everybody he's going to sue, but I hope Martin's parents get half. But the blood sucking lawyers will get most of it, probably.
Hey, juries are probably the last thing we have left the government can't take away from us although I bet they wish they could. Agree or disagree, juries make honest mistakes or see that justice is served. They beat idiot judges, corrupt cops, greedy lawyers, moron politicians, media clowns or even tainted SCOTUS justices.
edit on 14-7-2013 by Dutchowl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Justice may be done yet:

Zimmerman likely will be tried again by the DOJ on civil rights charges, similar to what they did during the Rodney King incident.
Also, he is being sued for millions of dollars in a civil case where he will have to testify. There the burden of proof is less severe than the criminal case therefore he will likely lose as did Ojay in a similar civil trail.

All those people who sent him money may have to ante up millions if he loses that case.



new topics

top topics



 
157
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join