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: 73
157
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


I might be helpful to you to read and understand the laws that apply to this case.




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



I disagree with Sharpton's take on it - although I also think Zimmerman's story is full of holes, and I'm not alone in also finding it odd that you can kill somebody and then find yourself the only reliable witness and thus beyond reproach -
The system worked the way it's supposed to. The fact that TM's witness wasn't reliable isn't GZ's fault. When you tell the truth you don't have to try hard to keep your story straight.



but it's nonsense what the right are saying about him and Jackson stirring hate. Both have called for restraint and peaceful protest.
Of course they are calling for restraint. If they called for violence they would lose their soapbox. I'm glad they at least got that right. However, they're also continuing to stoke the flames by appealing to the DOJ to keep going after GZ. The trial is over. Most people would move on but Sharpton and Jackson aren't done shamelessly milking this issue for personal gain. The jury ruled. The issue should be over.
edit on 15-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Vrill
You can thank the media for the Zimmerman verdict. Just like the Casey Anthony verdict. And just like O.J. Simpson. There is no such thing as a fair trial when the national media gets involved.

Its funny how they took a run of the mill shooting and turned it into a huge national deal. If it was the other way around and Martin shot Zimmerman, this would have been a non-story. It would have just been a footnote in the local paper in the particular area.

You can go around to the many ghetto's around the USA and find cases like this. Why this case? Because a black guy was shot by another race? What about the hundreds of black on black deaths that take place monthly? Why not put those into the spotlight too?

So what is really going on here? Seriously. I dont think its as simple as media lottery either.


Yep. Just go to any communist city throughout america whether it be los angeles, detroit, new orleans, philadelphia, new york city, chicago, washington dc, etc and gangbangers will have you for lunch. I got robbed 200 bucks in times square when me and my cousin got out of grand central station. Two black dudes approached us and threatened us.

Seriously how many ms-13, crypts, italian mafia dudes, russian mafia, aryan brotherhood deaths happen each day? WTF doesnt anyone care about that? Why dont the parking meter maids go get them? Why does rahm emanuel need to call the national guard in chicago? And the media is all over this single, selective case like moss on a tree.


I'm black and got robbed by white guys... twice! I guess it's ok for me to say that every white person living in Columbia, SC is a redneck thief out to have blacks "for lunch"? I live in NE Washington DC by the way... my next door neighbor is white, I see white college kids walking down my street EVERY DAY possibly getting off the Metro, laughing, joking, and and lot of times drunk... I think they live around the corner. I see black people doing the same thing... even the guys you'd probably call "thugs" or "gangbangers" right at the ned of the street hanging at the corner talking. These white people walk past them EVERY DAY with no problems.

Stop stereotyping... please... nobody is out to get you! If you get robbed, it's by chance, no matter where you live or the skin color you are. You are not a target because you're white. Plenty of black people get robbed too!!!



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Ummmmm, you do realize that only one gang out of all the ones he mentioned is a black gang right? Well, that is not even correct, because there are other than just black crips.
edit on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:31:59 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


I might be helpful to you to read and understand the laws that apply to this case.


Oh... I do understand that the right for Martin to defend himself against a creepy man should apply to how he reacted and why he proceeded to beat the crap of Zimmerman. Apparently nobody really cares that this could have lead to a gruesome and deadly situation with a creepy child molesting freak attacking two innocent children in their residence had Zimmerman not been Zimmerman but actually a "creepy" man. The problem is Martin isn't even alive to tell his mindset in why he chose to defend himself... because the "creepy" man killed him and is now walking away... free of charge. It's completely dispicable.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 

People could 'what if' this into anything but that isn't what happened.

A person does not have the right to attack someone because they think they are being followed. That's the law.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Ummmmm, you do realize that only one gang out of all the ones he mentioned is a black gang right? Well, that is not even correct, because there are other than just black crips.
edit on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:31:59 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


My response was directly related to his first paragraph... no relation to the second and mentioning of specific gangs. In the first paragraph, he related gangbangers and his robbery by black people.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by SilentKillah
 

People could 'what if' this into anything but that isn't what happened.

A person does not have the right to attack someone because they think they are being followed. That's the law.


But he WAS being followed, he didn't just "think" he was being followed, he was. And Martin could have feared for his life just as equally as Zimmerman... especially if he happened to see that Zimmerman was carrying a gun after asking Zimmerman "why are you following me" which was clearly hear in one of the tapes. But... we can't hear Martin's side of the story, can we? Because he was killed by that creepy man following him!



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 




Oh... I do understand that the right for Martin to defend himself against a creepy man should apply to how he reacted and why he proceeded to beat the crap of Zimmerman.

You are not allowed to beat someone up because they look 'creepy'.
You are not allowed to beat someone up because they ask you a question in a public place.
You are not allowed to beat someone up because they follow you in a public place.
If you beat someone up for any of those reasons, you are committing a felony.

Edit to add:



But he WAS being followed, he didn't just "think" he was being followed, he was.

Forget about the 'think' part. People are allowed to follow you in public places. It is not illegal.
People can photograph you, videotape you and ask you questions in public places.... It is all very legal.



edit on 15-7-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Many of these people do not understand that they cannot make up their version of the law and have it upheld in court. And of course reading the law is not going to be done by them for whatever reason.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
One thing I hope happens is that they file a civil suit against Zimmerman and stop him from making money off this situation. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


So what? You are chasing boogeymen, and seeing racism where there is none. It is racist to state two black men robbed you now?



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SilentKillah
 




Oh... I do understand that the right for Martin to defend himself against a creepy man should apply to how he reacted and why he proceeded to beat the crap of Zimmerman.

You are not allowed to beat someone up because they look 'creepy'.
You are not allowed to beat someone up because they ask you a question in a public place.
You are not allowed to beat someone up because they follow you in a public place.
If you beat someone up for any of those reasons, you are committing a felony.

Edit to add:



But he WAS being followed, he didn't just "think" he was being followed, he was.

Forget about the 'think' part. People are allowed to follow you in public places. It is not illegal.
People can photograph you, videotape you and ask you questions in public places.... It is all very legal.



edit on 15-7-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Purposely following someone is called stalking. Stalking is a form of harassment and intimidation. Stalking can be used as a criminal offense as determined by the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 which defined it as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to -
(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

Stated right there in plain sight... Martin could have feared for his safety and thus accoring to Florida's law is able to stand his own ground and defend himself.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 




Purposely following someone is called stalking. Stalking is a form of harassment and intimidation. Stalking can be used as a criminal offense as determined by the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 which defined it as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to - (A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; (B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

Do us a favor and look up the definition of stalking.
Here, I will make it easy for you:

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.

legal-dictionary

See the part of the definition that says 'repeated'?
Zimmerman and Martin had never met before.
Go to a judge and try to get a PFA sworn out against someone that has never met you, heard of you or had any contact of any sort with previously.... he will laugh at you... at best. He may question your sanity.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


So what? You are chasing boogeymen, and seeing racism where there is none. It is racist to state two black men robbed you now?


Never said anything about racism... only said that he shouldn't be "stereotyping" based on locality. Stereotyping individuals based on culture and locality is not racism. He took a few places and stated that most people there "will have you for lunch" because the person he responded to does not look like them. Not only that, but he may not even know the race of the person which he responded to. I'm not bringing up race other than saying that I'm black and got robbed by white people in response to him saying that people in Washington DC and other localities "will have you for lunch".



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SilentKillah
 




Purposely following someone is called stalking. Stalking is a form of harassment and intimidation. Stalking can be used as a criminal offense as determined by the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 which defined it as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to - (A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; (B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

Do us a favor and look up the definition of stalking.
Here, I will make it easy for you:

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.

legal-dictionary

See the part of the definition that says 'repeated'?
Zimmerman and Martin had never met before.
Go to a judge and try to get a PFA sworn out against someone that has never met you, heard of you or had any contact of any sort with previously.... he will laugh at you... at best. He may question your sanity.


"Repeatedly" is broad in that since. You can repeatedly see someone by losing sight and seeing them again. If a car is chasing you around the city, I don't think any judge would say that the person wasn't stalking and harassing you.

Here's another definition to add:


stalking/ˈstɔkɪŋ/ Show Spelled [staw-king] Show IPA
noun
1. the act or an instance of stalking, or harassing another in an aggressive, often threatening and illegal manner: Stalking is now a crime in many states.


I think Zimmerman's "F'ing punks always get away" statement show his aggression toward not knowing why this kid was in his neighborhood. Also notice that the word "repeatedly" is not associated.

Here's another:



adjective
2. of or pertaining to the act of pursuing or harassing: Stalking laws have alleviated some problems for famous people.


And a few more definitions related to animals:


stalk2 /stɔk/ Show Spelled [stawk] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1. to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
2. to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.
3. to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner: Famine stalked through the nation.
4. Obsolete . to walk or go stealthily along.
verb (used with object)
5. to pursue (game, a person, etc.) stealthily.
6. to proceed through (an area) in search of prey or quarry: to stalk the woods for game.
7. to proceed or spread through in a steady or sinister manner: Disease stalked the land.
noun
8. an act or course of stalking quarry, prey, or the like: We shot the mountain goat after a five-hour stalk.
9. a slow, stiff stride or gait.


dictionary.reference.com.../

You can try to distort Zimmerman's actions all you want... but in the mind of a terrified 17 year old with a 13 year old brother at home and no parents, the guy was STALKING him! I've been followed when I was a teenager, and I called the police when I got home saying that I was stalked at the park. Cops never sayed "well... technically he wasn't stalking you because that's the first time you saw him". I gave the description and the cops had park police to watch out for him at the park behind my old house.
edit on 15-7-2013 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2013 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Funny how his phone call with his girlfriend didn't reflect that oppressive fear. You went home and called the cops, he decided to assault someone.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


How can you in the same post accuse others for distorting the facts while you yourself are distorting the very meaning of stalking?

Either you are having a hard time with the definition and letter of the law with stalking or you are intentionally obfuscating it to fit your agenda either way you are just plain wrong.

They tried to throw every charge they could at George and if they could they would have used stalking but it does not fit. The way you are using it every person on the highway would be guilty.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


How can you in the same post accuse others for distorting the facts while you yourself are distorting the very meaning of stalking?

Either you are having a hard time with the definition and letter of the law with stalking or you are intentionally obfuscating it to fit your agenda either way you are just plain wrong.

They tried to throw every charge they could at George and if they could they would have used stalking but it does not fit. The way you are using it every person on the highway would be guilty.

Yes!
They threw in child endangerment and manslaughter in at the last moment... why didn't they stick stalking in there?
Simple answer... He didn't stalk Trayvon in the legal sense of the word.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


double

post
edit on 15-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
157
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join