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 JuniorDisco
reply to post by butcherguy
Oookay. Glad you're not in charge, that's all I can say.
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
They were not arguing. Martin flat out attacked him. It was justifiable homicide.
It doesn't make it o.k. for 2 people who are arguing to kill one another. It is not even comparable.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
An argument that leads to an attack is in no way similar to someone who outright attacks you.
It takes 2 to argue. It only takes one to attack.
Those differences are clearly defined.
I’ll tell you what. Go out and try to prove your theory. Go get into an argument with someone and kill them and then tell me that they let you off for self-defense. After all if it is as easy as you say it is then there shouldn’t be a problem.
It's unfortunate that you're taking the lack of evidence as evidence and refuse to explore other possibilities.
You cannot 'explore other possibilities' because the evidence lead to 'other possibilities'.
You cannot make up stuff.
You cannot say to the jury 'there might be something else that we don't know about'.
You must go only on the evidence.
Black eye, broken nose, cut on the back of the head.
Is the jury to believe GZ did these things to himself? Is that what you believe?
Originally posted by SilentKillah
And seriously... tell me how you don't know that a small argument didn't turn into a fight in this case? No witnesses... only one flawed story from the man that lived.
Facts:
Martin: Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: What are you doing around here?
Possibility from Martin who's DEAD:
Martin: None of your [snip] business. Stop following me.
Zimmerman: Come here you [snip] punk (grabs shirt)
Martin: Get the [snip] off me (push)
Zimmerman: I said come here you [snip] punk (grabs shirt with both hands) Wha...
Martin: (punches Zimmerman)
Zimmerman: (stumbles back)… (reaches behind his back while lifting his shirt)
Martin: You reaching?! (pucnches Zimmerman)
Zimmerman: (falls on his back)
If you were the one on the ground taking the beating what would you have done?
Look at the short amount of time it took the jury to reach their decision. That tells you it wasn't even close.
tell me how you don't know that a small argument didn't turn into a fight in this case?
One one party is dead and there are no witnesses, then the hearsay from the single party must be fact right?
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by SilentKillah
Well, since you decided to jump into this to I'll give you some .. .
Martin had no injuries aside from the gun shot wound that he had coming to him. So to say that Zimmerman choked him is shot completely down in flames.
Plus you are right, lack of evidentiary evidence as far as marks goes is a Fact. If there had been injury the coroner would have noted it during the autopsy.
It has absolutely nothing to do with taking anyone’s word. It is about Accepting the Facts of the Autopsy.
He also had no clue as to Martins past, so throwing in that MMA garbage does nothing for your position.
It is obvious that there was no argument. It was an attack. Martin was not the innocent child that the prosecutor was making him out to be. He was a thug and damn proud of it. I honestly think that he went home before the attack to drop off either criminal tools or stolen items.
You keep talking like there were no witnesses. There were in fact witnesses. It appears as though you did not like the answers they gave. Maybe that is why you are so against the little thug getting his a$$ capped.
Originally posted by SilentKillah
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:
*snip*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).
Originally posted by SilentKillah
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!
Originally posted by SilentKillah
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.
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
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?
I don't even know who the jury is... unless they're on this forum, I can't say anything to them. One thing that I do know however... a kid is dead... and they know that too. They also know who killed him. He's guilty in my mind. So for you and your buddy Zimmermans sake, be glad that I wasn't on the jury. I would not let up... period. I know who's dead and who killed him, and I don't believe the story... it's HEARSAY... Period.