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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Oh there was also a Hispanic man beaten.
www.dailymail.co.uk...
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.
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.
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?
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?
Was GZ life in direct jeopardy? Did TM have any deadly weapon on him and threatend to use it?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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)