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.
If we follow our laws and rules, incitement alone doesn't matter. It may wound our sympathies, and passion for vengence, but it is within our laws.
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.
Actually it's wildly different, and had the boy come running at Spooner, Spooner still would have been convicted.
Zimmermans case really follows in closely with John Spooners case:
That's not quite correct either.
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.
Under mounting pressure, the city of Sanford, Fla., has released a letter to the public about why George Zimmerman, who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager in the city last month, was not arrested. The letter calls the death of Trayvon Martin “morally appalling.”
“Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense, which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony,” the letter, signed by Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr., says. “By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time.” (Caps are theirs.)
Originally posted by charles1952
If we follow our laws and rules, incitement alone doesn't matter. It may wound our sympathies, and passion for vengence, but it is within our laws.
Actually it's wildly different, and had the boy come running at Spooner, Spooner still would have been convicted.
That's not quite correct either.
Have I claimed they are evidence of innocence? If so, I apologize for my error. But, they are evidence that it was reasonable for him to fear death or serious bodily injury. Can we agree there?
If you have nothing more to add other than the same old excuse that his bruises were somehow evidence of his innocence then I have no further need to bother responding.
Of course it's within our laws and rules. Politicians are threatened on a nearly hourly basis. Cooperate on this vote or issue, or (whatever threat follows.) "No justice, no peace," may be considered a threat. Zimmerman's life has been and will continue to be threatened. Some threats are excessive enough to be illegal, but most are not. Free speech has something to say in this situation, does it not?
By 'incitement' I am speaking about making a verbal threat to somebody even against their life if they do not cooperate. That is not within our laws and rules, no civilian has the right to do that, that is what we have the police for.
Citizen's arrests are perfectly within our law. That's not what happened here, but under certain circumstances our law does allow "capture."
Physically trying to apprehend somebody in an effort to 'capture' them even though they were well within their right to be where they are is not within our law.
Do you believe the City Manager and the Police are all lying when they said that with the evidence they had, Florida law prohibited them from making an arrest?
Thus far however, it's just testimony from him that this actually happened and nothing more. This is all he had that night and police released him without charge that very same night. That to me is not right.
If all Spooner had was a bruise, and he was armed, (although how Spooner let the kid get close enough to bruise him, I can't guess.) and he had an escape route, he would have a very difficult time claiming self-defense, even without the video. I'd vote to convict him.
It's not 'wildly' different at all and you'd be sitting right here on this forum making excuses for Spooners defense as well.
May I refer back to the witnesses and physical evidence obtained by the police?
You really have nothing aside from Zimmermans testimony.
Ok, let's make the big assumption that the police were lying, and they didn't do a good investigation. I would assume that a good investigation would have given different results. What happened? The State looked at it, a new police administration looked at it, the FBI looked at it, DOJ has looked at it and probably still is. The result is that all of those "good" investigations found nothing that the "bad" investigation missed which might affect the result.
And thank you for linking me to the Sandford police initially claiming they did a thorough investigation that night, of course they'd claim so after the outrage, what else was to be expected? Do you think it would've been within their police departments interests to admit they messed up?
I haven't gone looking. NOW I HAVE. CHECK HERE FOR THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF IT. www.abovetopsecret.com...
You want to know the striking thing about the way police initially treated this case? There's no other case like it where the victim was white. Nobody here can seem find one. And yet people like you continue to argue that police were following common procedure. Isn't that interesting?
Originally posted by InstantRemedy
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
A 17 year old used the racial slur "cracker" (SHOCK)
That does equate to deliberately propagating racial tension all over the media and the web, not in the slightest.
It also is not an excuse for him to now be dead as in "See? He was the racist one, he deserved it"
In this case his use of that term is fear based and is a mild slip of the tongue compared to what is being fueled in front of our eyes which is very obviously deliberate.
If Treyvon was a little racist, it was probably due to incidents like this.
So you're saying the word Cracker isn't of racial use - would he use it on anyone who isn't white?
And to top it all off, "it's not his fault".
Ugh. Trying too hard.
Originally posted by charles1952
But, they are evidence that it was reasonable for him to fear death or serious bodily injury. Can we agree there?
Of course it's within our laws and rules.
Any person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in
“Reasonable force” is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat.
Politicians are threatened on a nearly hourly basis.
Zimmerman's life has been and will continue to be threatened.
Citizen's arrests are perfectly within our law.
Do you believe the City Manager and the Police are all lying
If all Spooner had was a bruise, and he was armed and he had an escape route, he would have a very difficult time claiming self-defense, even without the video
Ok, let's make the big assumption that the police were lying, and they didn't do a good investigation.
So, even we accept your idea that the police messed up, nothing would have changed had they conducted a perfect investigation.
I haven't gone looking. NOW I HAVE. CHECK HERE FOR THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF IT. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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 that night and appeared in court to account for his actions
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco
Yeah right. If Martin had been there and survived the shot he would have have made Zimmerman's case, but in reality though Zimmerman wouldn't have been on trial, but Martin would have. It was a clear case of self defense. All evidence shows that. The inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story were so incredibly negligable that the officer that actually wanted to charge Zimmerman with something agreed there was nothing suspicious or unusual about the small changes and that he believed zimmerman's story. Nothing could have really changed the outcome. That's why he was released in the first place and only arrested a month and a half after when Angela Corey created a false arrest warrant.
Originally posted by charles1952
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?
Proud of what? Zimmerman shooting a 17 year old kid? That aside. This whole trial was just a ploy, a tactic to divert the attention away from the real political scandals going on in D.C. Come on man are you really proud of this?
Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by litterbaux
For the first time - in a very long time - I am proud of my country.
He benefited hugely from Martin not being there
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
He benefited hugely from Martin not being there
Um,, .. No ... He benefited Hugely from shooting a Violent Attacker who was assaulting him.
This is Not a matter of telling right from wrong instinctively.
This is a matter of a verdict based on fact and "Reasonable Doubt". Those who dispute the verdict are the ones who Apparently can Not tell the difference from right and wrong. Unfortunately.
Trayvon was Not an innocent little child as his supporters would have you believe. If you think so you might want to take a little time and do some research on him. Believe me there is plenty of information about him all over the Internet.
While you are doing research on that take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the laws of that state. You might find it quite helpful in determining why it is that the Majority backs the verdict.
If the other guy is dead, and in the absence of strong eye-eitness accounts, how are you going to get enough evidence to jail the evildoer?
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
The right wing and gun enthusiasts start combing your past for evidence that you are violent, and everything I've done is brushed away. I tell the judge that you hit me, I was terrified and killed you. There won't be any other evidence. On reasonable doubt I'll get away.
Originally posted by butcherguy
The same way that you get evidence with other crimes. Fingerprints, DNA, cellphone records, inconsistencies in the interviews and testimony of the accused.
People need to be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
Some people get away with robbing banks. Should we make it illegal to enter a bank just for that reason?
So really, in my theoretical murder, how are you going to put me away? You got next to nothing.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by JuniorDisco
So really, in my theoretical murder, how are you going to put me away? You got next to nothing.
Yep....
Your theoretical murder. The one where there is zero evidence of any kind.
Here's a news flash for you... they happen every day. They are called 'unsolved'. Try a google search, you will find that there are a lot of them. Even cases with multiple eyewitnesses go unsolved, and they are cold blooded killings where the perps wouldn't even have a chance of using self defense as an excuse. Still they remain unsolved.
So you want to 'strike a balance', limiting the use of self defense as a reason to justify homicide, just because the state has no case???
I am glad that you are not making any laws.