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: 82
157
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


The point I am trying to make is that there are some people that wont be happy until there is rioting.



I actually think you are correct there. Some people simply appear to have been waiting for the next excuse for a riot. Guilty or innocent, this was just one court case.

Personally, i stand by my question at the top of page 81 - how can juries be selected? That is completely unethical and wrong as it isn't a reflective jury of the defendants' peers. That is a far bigger indictment on the Justice System than any individual verdict in any single trial.

Personally, i am still on the fence, despite another day of reading news and comments about this particular case. I do think the "Stand Your Ground" Law has been undermined by this trial though as i am sure when it was dreamed up, no one envisaged it being used in this way.......




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Oh there was also a Hispanic man beaten.
www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 





only doubt is.. if it was GZ screaming or TM.. i still believe it was TM... as the creams stopped after the shot was fired


That is the stupidest thing I have heard on this thread yet.

Of course thescreams stopped. Trayvon stopped administrating the beating just as soon as he took the bullet.

Too Bad.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by SilentKillah

Originally posted by miconATSrender

If anyone was to commit a felony assault by punching me in the face, I would shoot my attacker.


Punching someone in the face is usually a misdemeanor unless the person either has multiple misdemeanor assault charges or uses a weapon such as brass knuckles, a brick, or something of that nature. You're saying you'd kill someone over a misdemeaner... meaning it's likely that your life weren't threatened enough to kill according to the courts. Just so you know to think twice before this actually happens if you look at someone's girl at a bar and he punches you.



Done with an intent to commit a serious crime or a felony; done with an evil heart or purpose; malicious; wicked; villainous. An aggravated assault, such as an assault with an intent to murder, is a felonious assault. A simple assault, such as one done with an intent to frighten, is not felonious

legal-dictionary

Martin told Zimmerman he was going to kill him.

If you are going to say that it is Zimmerman's word against a dead person's.... well, maybe Trayvon shouldn't have thrown a punch to begin with, and went straight home to his father's girlfriend's home where he was staying.


Not talking about Zimmerman with my response... did you read what he said? micon... stated he would shoot someone for punching him in the face. Nothing to do with anything you're responding to.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone here that this is simply the legal system trying to make itself appear as infallible by influencing public opinion via the media.

The only reason this became such a big issue is because it came directly into your house and invaded your mind through your TV.

Most of the crap people and things you see on TV you wouldn't let into your front door if they came a knocking.

Everything is based on faith and ignorance, faith IS ignorance.

Get rid of your TV, turn off the computer, learn to think again for the sake of your children.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Oh there was also a Hispanic man beaten.
www.dailymail.co.uk...


There's bound to be some idiots doing stupid things. But the fact remains that

- the forecast widespread rioting remains a fantasy. Oddly it almost seems as if it was Zimmerman supporters hoping for it in order to bolster their view of black people

- Sharpton and Jackson (amongst others) have notably called for calm, restraint and non-violent protest. This despite the same crew mentioned above claiming that they have been agitating for riots. Again, odd.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 




Not talking about Zimmerman with my response... did you read what he said? micon... stated he would shoot someone for punching him in the face. Nothing to do with anything you're responding to.

If you punch someone in the face, there are many states where you would be justified in shooting them.
Some people don't realize that it is an agressive act to punch someone in the face, and that it is dangerous.
Maybe if more people were shot for punching people in the face, other people would learn that it is better to be polite.
Sorry if you don't understand the point that I was making.
You said that punching someone in the face is a misdemeanor. It can be, but in many cases it is charged as a felony, due to intent or the severity of the injuries to the assaulted party.

edit on 16-7-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by SilentKillah
*snip*
Every person on the highway does not have the intention of stopping me, approaching me, or anything else. They are trying to get to their own destination... not to my destination. Zimmerman did... he followed, ran after, and confronted him. If someone were to follow me to my residence, with intentions of approaching me, s/he would be stalking me.


What you state isn't what happened, according to the evidence and witnesses. Jeantel, Martin's friend, stated that he was practically home. The place he was staying is not the place the incident occurred. Check this map:



The incident occurred up neat the "T" intersection - up a little from the "G" in the picture. The place he was staying was way down the row, at the "D" in the picture. If, as his friend stated in court, he was practically there, how did he get to the place where this happened? There isn't any evidence suggesting that Zimmerman dragged him up the path to that location. Clearly, he went back, of his own volition. The same witness stated that Martin, not Zimmerman, spoke first, though what she claims was stated changed between various statements and her testimony on the stand. His own friend's testimony supports that he was the aggressor in this case. He didn't even call 911, which he could have done, had he felt threatened. According, again, to his friend, they spoke a lot after he saw that someone was watching him. Even watching him, and following (though Zimmerman didn't actually follow) isn't stalking, by the legal definition. link Nor can you attack someone that IS actually stalking you. You report them. You don't walk up, confront them, and punch them in the nose. This happened in a neighborhood. People have a right to walk there. Zimmerman had every right to walk there. Walking, even watching someone else walking, is not a crime. Assaulting someone is a crime. That's what the evidence shows happened here. The solution is for young people to be taught that physical violence isn't a solution to any perceived threat or offense. It's a common issue these days, with kids fighting in locker rooms, on school buses, and many other places. That is the real problem. That's what should be addressed.



Never said it was at his house by the way. I wasn't trying to make my point using the exact scenario on a highway in my vehicle. But since people can't understand when a person tries to be brief using a similar scenario, I'll elongate it:

I'm driving down the highway. I-95 to be exact just passing the Virginia border into North Carolina. My destination is Raleigh, NC. I'm in the left lane and must get over to take my exit onto NC-64. I drop my drink on my lap causing me no lose focus while I'm merging right. I get situated and continue driving. I see some idiot behind me flashing his lights, speeding up close to my bumper, and slowing down. I take my exit onto NC-64. The idiot also takes the exit continuing to flash lights and be a moron. I usually don't do this, but I decide to take NC-64 business exit so that I lose this guy. I speed up, get around some cars, and take the exit. Looks like I lost him. Oh no... I need gas, so I stop at the Citgo gas station. As my tank gets full and I'm about to leave, I see the car pull up behind me and some guy giving me the finger. I walk to his window and ask "what are you following me for"?... Some stuff happens (who knows what since I'm dead and you're hearing his story only (but , and he says that I just went off and punched him when that's truly not how it went). Now I punch him in the face because I don't feel safe. He reaches for his gun behind his back, I hit him again. He falls down, I pound his head because he is going to shoot me. I want to knock this guy out. He's stronger and is able to lift himself and my weight up enough to grab the gun, and he shoots me.

I'm dead... and I deserved it right? Nope.. he stalked and harassed me, then killed me because he was pissed off that I accidently cut him off (yes, different thatn Zimmerman, but he needs a reason to follow).



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Or maybe more people will realise that as long as they ensure their opponent is dead they can kill with impunity and claim self defence.

That could easily be a consequence as well.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by SilentKillah
I believe that I have the right to ask that person "why are you following me" which we clearly hear Martin ask. I then believe that if I'm already scared because I was being stalked... and I see a gun, which Zimmerman obviously had, and that person that was following me is not a police officer, that I should not take the risk of wasting anymore time and should defend myself by taking an offensive stance in the matter.

I'm saying that we don't know whether Zimmerman accidently, or purposely made his weapon visible... and we will never know Martin's side of the story. I'm saying that Zimmerman could have easily lied saying that his events are correct, when for all me know he could have went to pull his gun on Martin initially when Martin asked "why are you following me". Martin could have attacked in self defense of a man reaching for a gun. But we will never know... Martin's dead and his killer walks.


To act in the manner you describe would make you a criminal. Someone walking behind you and asking a question (which isn't even what happened that night) isn't a crime, nor is it grounds for assault. Where I live, you can legally OPEN carry a gun, meaning, it's visible. If I were walking at night, behind someone else, carrying a gun in that fashion, and they saw it, they do not have a right to come up and punch me. A person does not have to be a cop to legally carry a gun. Carrying a gun doesn't make you an open target for assault, either. So, it doesn't matter if the gun was visible or not; Martin still committed a felony assault on Zimmerman. That is what the evidence shows, and that is why this isn't a murder case. Self defense isn't murder.

Here's a scenario for you:

Say Zimmerman hadn't had a gun that night. He exits his car, thinking the dispatcher wants him to (which the dispatcher said was feasible), to see what way "the guy" went. Martin knows he's being followed, doubles back, and confronts, then attacks Zimmerman. In this scenario, Zimmerman has no gun, his cries for help go unanswered, and Martin kills him by continuing to smash his head against the pavement. Would you demand justice for George, and that his killer be placed in prison?


Let me just say this... you have issues if you are thinking that I'm saying carrying a gun makes you a target. I'm clearly saying that in the tape we can clearly hear Martin ask Zimmerman "why are you following me". I'm saying after that, nobody knows what happened and I don't think Zimmerman told the whole truth! I think Zimmerman probably said "what are you doing around here". Martin probably responded "none of your business". Zimmerman probably attempted to force him to say something and probably reached for his gun. Martin probably then attacked!

If it happened the way you said it, Martin would be in jail... probably for 1st Degree Murder. If not first then 2nd. Even in your version, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would still at minimum get 2nd Degree Murder. That's why the black community is upset!



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
If I had to guess at what happened, I'd say that Zimmerman approached Martin aggressively and the exchange (as recorded) occurred. I suspect that Zimmerman then got Martin by the lapels or somesuch and initiated a bit of a shoving match. Martin then fought back, more effectively than George expected, and so he shot him.

I don't buy Zimmerman's story of Martin leaping out of nowhere and clocking him. It doesn't really fit with the recordings and it just seems wildly improbable, no matter how much of a 'thug' he was. I also don't think that 17 year olds often attack people and try to beat them to death for virtually no reason. On the other hand escalations of pushing and shoving can turn out like that easily.

We'll never know. But Z's story stinks to me.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Was GZ life in direct jeopardy? Did TM have any deadly weapon on him and threatend to use it?
I think it’s easy to think manslaughter if you’re not in that situation yourself. Try to look at it this way. If you had a loved one, let’s say your wife, and she had a gun, and was having her head bashed into the concrete. If she didn’t know whether or not she was going to be killed, would you want her to use that weapon to defend herself? And if she did use the weapon, do you think she should be charged with manslaughter and have to spend a signifigent time in jail because of it? And let’s say your wife was pregnant. Would you want her to use that weapon if you knew it was going to save her and your baby?

Again, I think it’s easy to think differently when you’re not in that situation.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

In this scenario, Zimmerman has no gun, his cries for help go unanswered, and Martin kills him by continuing to smash his head against the pavement. Would you demand justice for George, and that his killer be placed in prison?


Of course.

But if Martin said that Zimmerman tried to shoot him and that he acted in self defence, and was let go, would you accept the verdict?



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by SilentKillah
The fact of the matter is... I've never... ever... heard of a black person dragging white people behind a pickup truck by the legs. Yet, I don't make generalizations and statements to my friends saying "go to Mobile Alabama and they'll have you for lunch".


I believe that was a case in Texas, and those guys got the death penalty, which they deserved. That was murder. Self defense isn't. Zimmerman shot in self defense. If he was black, and Martin white, I would say the same thing, based on the same evidence. Would you?


You're replying to an entirely difference side conversation. Stemmed from the Zimmerman case, but not related whatsoever.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Spider879
 

There are some important points in the story of the woman who fired warning shots which you might have missed. From your source:

Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment.

Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."

In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."


When she left the house she was free to go to the neighbor's, call the police, or just walk away from the whole situation.


The garage is part of the house. It's her house and she stood her ground in her residence by going to another room which stores cars to get a gun. No different than her going to her closet to get a gun. Lets also not forget that the man held her hostage in the bathroom just before this happened.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Or maybe more people will realise that as long as they ensure their opponent is dead they can kill with impunity and claim self defence.

That could easily be a consequence as well.

If you live in a world where children are raised with no discipline or self control, I could see where you would believe that.
I think that is a problem with today's society. Not a polite society that we have today.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Or maybe more people will realise that as long as they ensure their opponent is dead they can kill with impunity and claim self defence.

That could easily be a consequence as well.

If you live in a world where children are raised with no discipline or self control, I could see where you would believe that.
I think that is a problem with today's society. Not a polite society that we have today.


I thought an armed society was a polite society?

But anyway, I don't really get what you mean. You suggested there might be a good outcome in terms of how people act - that they will think twice about punching somebody. I just pointed out that there might also be a bad outcome, in that people are more likely to kill if they know they can get away with it. It's got nothing to do with politeness.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

First, impolite people (like Trayvon was being when he jumped George) would be culled from the herd. The remainder of the people that would tend towards being impolite might think twice and not punch someone in the head, just because they felt like doing it.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





I just pointed out that there might also be a bad outcome, in that people are more likely to kill if they know they can get away with it.


That is Untrue.

Now people will be more likely to kill when they are being robbed in daylight, or being raped in an alleyway, or being car jacked or a whole list of other things.

This has been enough to educate the populous. It has set a new precedent .. . .

Do Not take S[Snip]T off of a Thug. "Stand your ground".

If this would happen more often we might see a decline in the crime rate.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SilentKillah
 




Not talking about Zimmerman with my response... did you read what he said? micon... stated he would shoot someone for punching him in the face. Nothing to do with anything you're responding to.

If you punch someone in the face, there are many states where you would be justified in shooting them.
Some people don't realize that it is an agressive act to punch someone in the face, and that it is dangerous.
Maybe if more people were shot for punching people in the face, other people would learn that it is better to be polite.
Sorry if you don't understand the point that I was making.
You said that punching someone in the face is a misdemeanor. It can be, but in many cases it is charged as a felony, due to intent or the severity of the injuries to the assaulted party.

edit on 16-7-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Only case that it can be a felony is if the fight intensifies and a weapon is used instead of fists... oooorrrr, the initial attacker has multiple assault charges... I've already stated that. I've been through this when I punched a teacher in the face for instigating my assault by getting in my face and deliberately spitting while talking and urging me to fight. My charges were dropped, but they could only go for misdemeanor assault because nothing but a fist was used.

The point that I'm making is just as simple as this... getting punched in the face is not a case for shooting someone... especially after you've followed them and instigated the agitated behavior that caused the person to punch you.

But yes... lets just go all cowbody gun slinging and shoot any and everyone that fights. That makes the most since... especially when they're teenagers with high hormones and mixed emotions. Lets keep preventing these wanna be/pretend/online gangsters and thugs from growing up, maturing, joining our nation's armed forces, changing their lifestyles, and becoming successful men in the future. All because we'd rather carry guns and stalk teenagers because their clothes are baggy and they have a hood up in the rain while walking through our neighborhood.



new topics

top topics



 
157
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join