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: 85
157
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I've already proven that her husband's statement saying he had a restraining order was false. He got one after the altercation.

They are married... no restraining order... so she can go get her stuff. Especially since she had a working key and thought that he wasn't home since his car wasn't there.




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Oookay. Glad you're not in charge, that's all I can say.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Oookay. Glad you're not in charge, that's all I can say.

You have no idea.
Seriously.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Oh if that is really the case then sorry. I missed that.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


They were not arguing. Martin flat out attacked him. It was justifiable homicide.


How do you know this? You're just taking Zimmerman's word. For all you know, Zimmerman could have tried to choke Martin because he refused to answer "what are you doing around here" which initiated the struggle. It's unfortunate that you're taking the lack of evidence as evidence and refuse to explore other possibilities. Probably because Martin is a dangerous MMA fighting black thug out looking in people's houses... right?



It doesn't make it o.k. for 2 people who are arguing to kill one another. It is not even comparable.


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)



You are trying to compare apples and oranges.


Again... how do you know that apples are apples? SMH...



An argument that leads to an attack is in no way similar to someone who outright attacks you.

In either situation, all the murderer has to do is ensure that there are no witnesses, get a scratch on the head and a bruise or two, then claim "self defense... I feared for my life!!!!"



It takes 2 to argue. It only takes one to attack.

Again… my last comment.



Those differences are clearly defined.

One one party is dead and there are no witnesses, then the hearsay from the single party must be fact right?



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.


I've already explained a simple scenario using this case that may have some TRUTH to it. Fact is, we'll never know... and it's sickening that a killer walks!
edit on 16-7-2013 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Jul 16 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Wrong, The fact is he was found not guilty by a jury that had the facts presented to them and if they were to see all of the other evidence that the judge would not let in I think a lot more people would see the true Trayvon.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
lol, he was innocent and people still can't let it go. Is it just me or is this really funny watching everyone cry about the verdict of a trial that they wanted in the first place? If it wasn't for all the crybabies Zimmerman would have been free this whole time and the tax payers would have saved a lot of money. They would still be crying just the way they are now.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 




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?

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.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
the verdict was close, it was 3 for not gulity, 1 for murder 2 and 2 for manslaughter. they realized they had to come up w a verdict based on facts and evidence or lack thereof. 1 juror was crying when the verdict was read, no doubt she was sad that they had to let the murderer go. i am not arguing with the verdict in fact according to the lack of witnesses, evidence and facts you had to give a not guilty verdict according to florida law. no one saw the entire fight except for trayvon and zimmerman and no one will ever know the truth because trayvon is dead.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


I do not disagree that Zimmerman was found innocent. This just proves that the lack of evidence could not prove him guilty. But it is also fact that there were no witnesses that saw what happened to lead to the fight. Nobody saw Martin punch Zimmerman while he was standing. Nobody saw Martin tackle Zimmerman from standing position to the ground. Nobody heard what was said except for screams.

reply to post by samkent
 


It's funny that you say:


You cannot 'explore other possibilities' because the evidence lead to 'other possibilities'.


Don't we do this on ATS every day? Whether it's a UFO, possible bigfoot sighting, or paperwork of some secret government experiment... we're all thinking with different mind sets to draw a comclusion about things that we cannot determine. What evidence is there that says Martin attacked Zimmerman for NO REASON other than Zimmerman's word saying it??? I'm not saying there wasn't a fight... I'm saying that taking his manufactured story is not denying ignorance.


You cannot make up stuff.


I'm not making anything up. What I'm doing is no different than saying "I think that UFO video is a fake. Why is holding the camera in that direction before the thing even goes across the screen?" Or even "how can you claim that matians exist without posting a video?" I'm saying that there are possibilities that can be different coming out of Martin's mouth. Zimmerman is not a saint... and you're trusting his word like he's almighty.


You cannot say to the jury 'there might be something else that we don't know about'.


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.


You must go only on the evidence.


Or lack of evidence if you believe Zimmerman is innocent. Why because Martin can't speak for himself... his life has been taken away from him.


Black eye, broken nose, cut on the back of the head.


I got a black eye an broken nose from slipping on while walking through the woods to school when I was a kid. If I was a sicko with a gun, something bad could have happened to the kid I was walking with and I could have claimed self defense. Martin had nonoe of Zimmerman's DNA on him... this kid had none of mine on him. All that's available is my word. See how this works?


Is the jury to believe GZ did these things to himself? Is that what you believe?


Again... never said that there wasn't a fight, struggle, or beating that occurred. However, I believe that a similar scenario to what I posted is highly plausible. I think Zimmerman lied! See below:


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?


First of all, I wouldn't have followed the kid. If it's a random attack from me mindin my own business, I'd fight back. If my head were banged light enough to cause those minor scratches Zimmermand had on the back of my head, I'd probably laugh and say "that's all you got?" while I'm fighting to get in better position to show this guy a true fight! I don't own a gun, so I can guarantee I wouldn't be shooting anyone. Sold my gun when my daughter was born.


Look at the short amount of time it took the jury to reach their decision. That tells you it wasn't even close.


Because they believed Zimmerman's story as it was written in the police report. I simply wonder what Martin's story would be.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
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.


tell me how you don't know that a small argument didn't turn into a fight in this case?

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.

As far as the apples and oranges .. . comparing an argument that escalates into a murder is entirely different than killing in self defense when you are attacked.

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.


One one party is dead and there are no witnesses, then the hearsay from the single party must be fact right?

Most definitely in this case the victor has the advantage. There is no reason not to believe him Especially with the witness testimony.

Yes, Yes, the Killer has every right to walk Especially since he was attacked by a known "Gansta" that was out casing houses as future prospects.

By the way. . .. The Skittles and Tea that was found on his person are 2 of the 3 ingredients required to manufacture a codeine based drug.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

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.


Martin also had none of Zimmerman's DNA on him. So say that Martin punched Zimmerman is "completely down in flames" according you what you say here. To be clear... I feel Martin did punch him and broke his nose. The fight likely went as Zimmerman and witnesses said. The build up to the fight... not so much. But again... according to your logic, Martin MUST not have punched Zimmerman... no DNA on his hands.


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.


I don't think he was choked. I just said for all you know Zimmerman may have tried. Every time that someone touches you it doesn't leave a mark... especially if you can't get a good grip in a choke. You know that right?


It has absolutely nothing to do with taking anyone’s word. It is about Accepting the Facts of the Autopsy.


Facts of the autopsy say Martin didn't punch Zimmerman. Did they find Martin's blood on Zimmerman's shirt? Surely Martin blead after being shot... while ON TOP of Zimmerman... and gravity would have caused the body to fall on him, or at least some blood to drip. But I don't want to take it there. Just saying that there are no facts to this either, but I'll take Zimmerman and witnesses words for this part of the actions.


He also had no clue as to Martins past, so throwing in that MMA garbage does nothing for your position.


That was aimed at how you feel... not anyone else.


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.


Obvious?.. not really. To the gullible minded gun happy, I hate wanna be thugs maybe. Not to those who use logic.


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.


Show me a single witness that say BOTH PARTIES STANDING UP AND HEARD WHAT THEY SAID!

Better yet... to prove Zimmerman was attacked... show me a witness that SAW MARTIN RACING TOWARD ZIMMERMAN FROM BEHIND A BUSH!

Can't do it? Oh... no witnesses you say?

Not even going to touch the rest of what you say. You'd say the same things about me in my teenage years had you saw me on the internet. Never acted on anything I said... and guess what? I have a good job, make good money, have a family, and live a GREAT life. You have no clue who he really is just because of some text messages and facebook posts!



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


I really don't need to show any proof here.

The jury had all of the evidence they needed to acquit.

In addition the woman prosecutor has been indicted for falsifying an arrest warrant. Which, I might also add, he has a very good case for wrongful arrest. MSNBC is having their @$$es sued for manipulation and defamation. There are also other potential suits that will come out because of this. Everyone on the right side of the law did the Dirty to George Zimmerman. The outcome is proof that the justice system does work from time to time.

I sure do hope that he gets allot of money out of this whole ordeal. He deserves more than he will get I am certain of that. His life is pretty much ruined.

Though I am sure that he will sleep a little better now that he got his gun back.

I also wanted to add that that the Civil Rights claims that "Everyone" wants persued is going to fizzle and die because the claims are baseless. There no proof that this was racially motivated and in fact there is evidence that prove that it was Not racially motivated.

It is the end of the story.

Everyone should make their checks payable to George Zimmerman and put this whole thing in the past. Where it Belongs.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I found this interesting. It goes to the subject of the thread ...
CNN - Zimmerman Prosecutor Excused Potential Black Juror for being a Fox News Watcher



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




Thank you so much for posting that. It makes perfect sense and it destroys the argument but I bet we will still see it being made.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Yes! The 'Independent Jurors of ATS' are on the case to show the readers that Zimmerman is in fact guilty! Go get them boys! And then state your opinion like it matters and will affect anything.

People are so misinformed with their facts it's ridiculous. This trial should have never gone to the media, this trial should have never been turned into a 'race' debate.
edit on 16-7-2013 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

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).


Depends on who actually does what, and what the evidence shows. When we are not there, the ONLY thing we can do is look at the evidence and the witness reports, if there are any. The way the system works is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That's how it should work. Otherwise, any biased person running the system can jail anyone, for anything, at any time.


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!


You'll have to provide a link to this tape. I have listened to every single 911 call made that night, that was released. In not a single one can we hear ANY words from the two, other than the screams for help. Martin's own friend, who was far from credible, stated that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first. The point of the map is that, if Martin was back where he was staying, he had to have left there and returned to the place this happened, and confronted Zimmerman. When he had no fight injuries, and he clearly was the one confronting, all we can do, based on evidence, is find Zimmerman not guilty, and that this was self defense. If Zimmerman was black, i would say the same thing. Every person has a right to self defense.


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.


You brought it up, as an example, I believe, of supposed "injustice". I simply pointed out that those white men were given the death penalty, which, in Texas, means they actually DIE. That was the RIGHT thing in that case. The evidence proved it. It is related, because it shows that the system can work, and, I believe, often does. Not always, but often.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

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?


If the evidence supported his claim, I would. If Zimmerman had been shown to be racist (which wasn't shown at all), and people overheard Martin saying, "He's got a gun!" or something, sure. Just like with what we see now, I would base my opinion on the evidence. Are you familiar with this case? -
link

There, I think he had every right to have a gun there, and shoot. I would defend his right if he'd killed the punk that broke in.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   


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.


It's a real good thing you're not on the jury if that's how you think. It's like going into a case thinking someone is guilty because they're a certain race BEFORE you heard the evidence. You don't walk into a case as a juror with a prejudice or a verdict at hand. Simple as that, what a joke.

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




top topics



 
157
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join