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: 87
157
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Where's the BUTTON???,,it was on his Hodie,,,why did we not ever once see ,,,,the BUTTON,,up close,,,,was there a bullett hole in the BUTTON,,,OR GUN RESIDUE??,,,,whers the button?




posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

A T T E N T I O N




Yes, this is a hot topic. No reason to make it personal. Please keep your comments on-topic.

Thanks,

argentus



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Here is another story that spells it out:


A judge later rejected Alexander’s Stand Your Ground defense, saying that she could have escaped "through the front or back door," according to court records. Corey’s office offered a plea bargain that would have sent Alexander to prison for three years, but she rejected it, hoping to convince a jury she was defending herself.


Marissa Alexander, Mom Facing 20 Years, Shot At Abusive Husband In Anger, Prosecutor Says

And this tiny bit of information:


It took a jury 12 minutes to find her guilty.


Marissa Alexander, Florida Mom, Faces Mandatory 20 Years In Prison After Failed Stand-Your-Ground Defense

So you see, a jury, when presented with the facts of the case, found cause very quickly, there was never any doubt.



There's allot of interpretation in what is often referred to as "intent" and contexts of the law. It will take years (and many trials) for people to understand what the precedents are for standing there ground. The Zimmerman and Alexander cases are happening because the defendants applied their own interpretations of the law, acting upon emotions or compulsion, thereby stretching the boundaries. The general public doesn't understand the application of law and it can get pretty ugly. These trials will help many realize that there's a standard reasoning process and a moral liability in taking someone's life. Its extremely ludicrous to think that any self defense law can allow someone to act provocatively or in such a manner as to justify intimidating or killing people. I have no doubt that the stand your ground law will be repealed. I think that the Zimmerman trial was a good test for the sort of visual we need to understand that people will abuse laws like this.
edit on 21-7-2013 by g2v12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 

Could you help me out with something? I understand that the Alexander case may have involved some interpretation. But why do you think the Zimmerman case does?

Zimmerman didn't apply his own interpretation of the law, he was strictly within it as it is written. "When you're getting the stuffing beat out of you, and you can't escape, deadly force is allowed.

There is no "moral" liability in taking some one's life, there is a legal liability, or none.

Its extremely ludicrous to think that any self defense law can allow someone to act provocatively or in such a manner as to justify intimidating or killing people.
That's not what happened here.

I have no doubt that the stand your ground law will be repealed.
Why? Florida doesn't want to, the Feds can't, and it wasn't part of the Zimmerman case anyway.

I think that the Zimmerman trial was a good test for the sort of visual we need to understand that people will abuse laws like this.
There was no abuse of any law.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Posted By Shadellac -
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.




George may already have done this. That's the point.


That is a sorry excuse for a damn weak response.

You go out and do it. No one knows for sure exactly what happened so we can't say there was even an argument.

We want to know for certain. Afterall you are certain. .. . . aren't you?



Are you really asking me to murder someone to prove my point? Are you a moron?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



Are you really asking me to murder someone to prove my point?

I am Not asking. You are the one suggesting that you know Exactly how to get away with it.

Now, put your money where your mouth is.

Else, you might appear to be a Moron.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



Are you really asking me to murder someone to prove my point?

I am Not asking. You are the one suggesting that you know Exactly how to get away with it.

Now, put your money where your mouth is.

Else, you might appear to be a Moron.


You realise that it's possible to prove things by logic as well as action, right? If you told me that the police in Houston were incompetent and gave me examples of why I wouldn't then ask you to prove it by robbing a bank.

I know you are struggling to get to grips with this, but the Zimmerman verdict makes killings of innocent people slightly more likely. Coupled with Florida's harsh penalties for gun use, people will conclude - probably rightly - that they are better off killing someone they are having an altercation with and ensuring their side of the story is the only one that reaches trial.

Yes, good guys are now freer to kill bad guys. But bad guys are also now freer to kill good guys and then claim self defence. After all, how will you know the difference?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



Are you really asking me to murder someone to prove my point?

I am Not asking. You are the one suggesting that you know Exactly how to get away with it.

Now, put your money where your mouth is.

Else, you might appear to be a Moron.



I know you are struggling to get to grips with this, but the Zimmerman verdict makes killings of innocent people slightly more likely.


That is really ignorant. If he got away with cold blooded murder then maybe, but he had witnesses seeing him being beaten within seconds of the shot.

That is why he was free. That is pretty hard to fake, and if that's the case then the subsequent likely shootings you are imagining would be justified the same. People have known about the SYG and self defense laws long before the Zimmerman case. If they are planning a murder they are more likely to have gotten the idea from the law over the case if that is their motive.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Rubbish. It's undeniable that Zimmerman benefited hugely from Martin not being able to tell his side of the story. Z's story changed in various details as time went on and personally I don't believe him in every regard. But that doesn't matter because there was no counterparty - he alone was able to provide the narrative.

In Florida you get 20 years for firing a gun even if nobody is hurt. If you think that people won't glean from the Zimmerman verdict that it's easier to avoid those 20 years if the other guy is dead then you're deluding yourself.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





In Florida you get 20 years for firing a gun even if nobody is hurt.

Not always. Plenty of people shoot in Florida without even being arrested. It is not illegal to shoot in Florida.

The case that you are alluding to (and cherrypicking) was a case where a woman was inside the home, went out, and came back in with a gun. Then she let loose a couple of rounds inside a house that had children in it. Who wants to condone that sort of behavior?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Obviously I mean in a situation like the one we are discussing. 20 years is the statutory tariff.

You appear to be ignorant of the details in the Alexander case, but that's not particularly important. The fact remains that Florida's penalties once you are convicted for doing something illegal with a gun remain very harsh. That coupled with the Zimmerman self defence tactic makes killing the counterparty very tempting.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




You appear to be ignorant of the details in the Alexander case

Throw that out and no specifics?
Seen that kind of post before....



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I'm not interested in discussing it, particularly. It's not relevant to the fact that penalties for gun use in Florida are extremely high - 10-20-Life. Add that to the fact that you'll probably get off if there's no one to refute your story and you see why some people might have a think about pulling the trigger. Especially bad guys.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I'm not interested in discussing it, particularly. It's not relevant to the fact that penalties for gun use in Florida are extremely high - 10-20-Life. Add that to the fact that you'll probably get off if there's no one to refute your story and you see why some people might have a think about pulling the trigger. Especially bad guys.

Then maybe you shouldn't have thrown the mention out of my ignorance of the details of the case... it kind of makes you look like you wanted to smear someone and couldn't back it up then.
Zimmerman= Not guilty

Was there anything stopping a person from shooting someone in cold blood and claiming self defense before the Zimmerman verdict? No.

Can it still be done? Of course.

It has happened before.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy


Then maybe you shouldn't have thrown the mention out of my ignorance of the details of the case... it kind of makes you look like you wanted to smear someone and couldn't back it up then.
Zimmerman= Not guilty


I could back it up but as I say it's irrelevant. I was talking about the facts of the law, not a particular case.


Was there anything stopping a person from shooting someone in cold blood and claiming self defense before the Zimmerman verdict? No.

Can it still be done? Of course.

It has happened before.


I don't know if you've noticed, but the Zimmerman case has been in the news quite a bit. I said that it makes killings more likely, and partly this is because it will popularise that logic. It also provides more (and high profile) precedent.
edit on 22-7-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


You have been told before but somehow you missed it.

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.



Self Defense has been a adequate defense for every state not just Florida. It wouldn't have mattered where it had happened in the US the result would have been the same as in NOT GUILTY. By reason of self defense.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


You have been told before but somehow you missed it.

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.


Perhaps you can point me to where I said it did?




Self Defense has been a adequate defense for every state not just Florida. It wouldn't have mattered where it had happened in the US the result would have been the same as in NOT GUILTY. By reason of self defense.


I only brought up Florida because the harshness of sentencing makes killing your potential counterparty more tempting. Keep up.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
"killing your potential counterparty more tempting.",,but that is when,,Thou Shalt Not Kill,,,enters our minds,,,,,its kinda inbred in us.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

I understand that there are others who know much more about the case then I do, perhaps you are one of the many who do. So, help me out.

But that doesn't matter because there was no counterparty - he alone was able to provide the narrative.

I had thought there were at least three counter-parties. One, the forensic ballistics expert, who showed that Martin was above and leaning over Zimmerman when the shot was fired. Two, the medical witness who said that the injuries to Zimmerman's head were serious enough that he should have been taken to the hospital immediately. Three, the eye-witness who saw Martin straddling, on top of Zimmerman, raining blows down MMA style.

Did I misunderstand you? Or were there counterparties?

By the way, Zimmerman didn't testify. How in the world could he have provided the narrative to the jury?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
but he had witnesses seeing him being beaten


Witnesses saw a fight, they didn't see who started the confrontation whether it be physical or verbal. Evidence of bruises or a struggle is not evidence of innocence. Zimmerman clearly was on the losing end of the fight, it doesn't mean he didn't physically and verbally incite it. The jury however believed his testimony and that's it.


People have known about the SYG and self defense laws long before the Zimmerman case. If they are planning a murder they are more likely to have gotten the idea from the law over the case


While SYG allowed for people to defend themselves to the point of killing somebody whom they felt their life was under threat from, the view has always been that it was still subject to evidence that such an event took place. However there was never any evidence to match Zimmermans testimony that night when police decided to release him without charge. Only evidence of a struggle between the two from witnesses and previous audio where Zimmerman reported Trayvon "running" after he had supposedly seen Zimmerman following him.

Zimmermans case really follows in closely with John Spooners case:


A 76-year-old Milwaukee man who said he was seeking justice when he shot and killed his teen neighbor after accusing the boy of burglary was sentenced Monday to life in prison with no chance of parole.

www.superiortelegram.com...

Spooner came out of his house and approached 13 year old Darius who was taking out the garbage. He accused Darius of stealing his guns, he then pulled out a gun and Darius slowly began to back away, he then shot him in cold blood. Thankfully because of a surveillance video it clearly showed that Spooner pulled the gun out at him and fired point blank without any confrontation at all from Darius. Imagine if Darius had reacted to Spooner when he pulled out his gun and attacked him in an effort to save himself and then was shot. Then Spooner claims 'self defense', witnesses report a fight, Spooner claimed he 'feared for his life' and he is released that very same day without charge due to 'lack of evidence' in the same way as Zimmerman. Where would you stand in that case too?

Like it or not this case has far reaching implications. There's not a single comparable case involving a non-black victim where the killer was released without charge within a matter of hours, not one to compare to in the same way as Zimmermans. People point to the Roderick Scott case in Greece New York as a comparison, however even that shooter was immediately charged and appeared in court, and the person he killed was actually committing a crime that night in which Roderick reacted. Don't forget the event that sparked the outrage in all this, the way police reacted that night to Trayvons death.



new topics

top topics



 
157
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join