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.

 

Will Americans Stand Up If The DOJ Goes After George Zimmerman

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
There is no Martin people, Martin is dead.
There is only one Zimmerman person, that's his name.

Stop grouping everyone.
Stop putting people into label groups and HATING that entire group.

TWISTED IGNORANCE REEKS

I have my OWN view, I am NOT in a group!
I belong to no organization of any type, not even a corporation.

I am not "one of them".
I am ME.

ALL of you are individuals too! If you could wake up from the propaganda mind control programming for one minute you would realize that!!!




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Look people this case had not one thing to do with race. The reason people are so heated and tend to be classed as Zimmerman suporters, is due to the rammifications of his actions being made illegal. This case was about every person of every ethnic background's right to defend themselves. Had this of been convicted then people may very well have lost their right to defend themselves.

On a side note, I have only EVER had my hand on my firearm ready to use it, in situations that involved white people, never of any other ethnicities. I have dealings with every income class and every ethnic group on a daily basis due to my occupation. I stand by Zimmermans actions that night, because based on evidence, he was in the right.
edit on 15-7-2013 by LeaderOfProgress because: keyboard on crack



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


I don't even have a firearm.

I just know the Constitution and defend it.
That's the only reason I even stepped into this topic matter (this case) yesterday for the most part.
I have avoided the topic mostly this entire time because well, it's mostly fluff and sensationalist tripe on the media's part.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Quit lying. The court never said anything. Your loverboy's attorneys concocted a scenario. It was never proven. You are ignorant to suggest any of that was proven. Your boyfriend's alibi was what raised "reasonable doubt". Wait and see what the jury has to say. They will not be praising the man you adore with all of your heart. They will tell you that there was "reasonable doubt", period.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Quit lying. The court never said anything. Your loverboy's attorneys concocted a scenario. It was never proven. You are ignorant to suggest any of that was proven. Your boyfriend's alibi was what raised "reasonable doubt". Wait and see what the jury has to say. They will not be praising the man you adore with all of your heart. They will tell you that there was "reasonable doubt", period.


I myself do not know the man personally, but I alsp wouldn't mind meeting him. I have no adoration for him. I do however believe what the PHYSICAL evidence presented had to say about that night. I have never once defended his testimony. And of course they will say resonable doubt, now that they are out of sequester and can see what was going on I'm sure that the right thing is to say as such. Even if they did dissertate their true feelings, no one who is against the verdict will accept their answer.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Quit lying. The court never said anything. Your loverboy's attorneys concocted a scenario. It was never proven. You are ignorant to suggest any of that was proven. Your boyfriend's alibi was what raised "reasonable doubt". Wait and see what the jury has to say. They will not be praising the man you adore with all of your heart. They will tell you that there was "reasonable doubt", period.


I am married to a woman and don't cheat.

What does that have to do with my stance on the Constitutionally protected right to Self Defense?

If you are saying that all of this is a conspiracy I agree with you there. But on the surface, they made it look like one side was right and the other was wrong evidence wise. It could all be scripted and stuff sure, but the script clearly makes one side look lawful while the other side looks very unlawful.

You shouldn't let all this circus get you angry and insulting people randomly though. That's what they want, they want everyone to just lash out at each other and spew venom. Instability is the goal of all of this geopolitically speaking in my hypothesis.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


What physical evidence??? I am going to keep this focused. What is this physical evidence you speak of?????????



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


What physical evidence??? I am going to keep this focused. What is this physical evidence you speak of?????????


I know for a fact that have have given that in this thread within the last few pages. READ THE TRANSCRIPTS, WATCH THE VIDEOS. Fact is fact and though one can ignore it, doing as such will not make fact no longer fact.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I just don't understand how taking any side on a legal case automatically makes me a racist (or a homosexual as a post above insinuates).

Also that's kinda funny because racists are frowned upon but homosexuals are generally considered off -limits. Interesting mix of insults here.

It seems that folks aren't even willing to create a nice conspiracy theory to support their failed belief system at this point. If I believed differently I would have devised explanations already most likely, or been honest enough to change my position as circumstance dictated.

Getting mad doesn't fix anything.
Lashing out actually hurts one's self and it has zero affect on those insulted.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, I appreciate your thinking.

However, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding self defense.

We do however have the right to bear arms. That is enshrined in the second amendment.

I am not saying there should not be laws that allow a self-defense, defense. I am ok with that.

I do not, I repeat do not, think it is OK to instigate a confrontation and then claim self-defense. That law needs to be revisited and revised.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


What physical evidence??? I am going to keep this focused. What is this physical evidence you speak of?????????


I know for a fact that have have given that in this thread within the last few pages. READ THE TRANSCRIPTS, WATCH THE VIDEOS. Fact is fact and though one can ignore it, doing as such will not make fact no longer fact.


To trump a fact one must have overwhelming "Counter-facts" that grant more accurate interpretations.
Or they must prove the original fact as fraudulent with facts attesting to this.
Or that the facts were obtained illegally, etc.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, I appreciate your thinking.

However, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding self defense.

We do however have the right to bear arms. That is enshrined in the second amendment.

I am not saying there should not be laws that allow a self-defense, defense. I am ok with that.

I do not, I repeat do not, think it is OK to instigate a confrontation and then claim self-defense. That law needs to be revisited and revised.


You misunderstand entirely.

Having 1 right automatically implies that you are allowed to defend it by any means necessary.

What point is the right to life, if you cannot defend it when someone attacks you violently?

All human rights listed are legally defensible from attack.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Are you speaking of witness testimony to who was on top?? How, tell me how that tells you who was the one that confronted the other.

There is NO evidence to that. Only the words of Zimmerman. Who has been proven to be less than honest.

So don't go lying about all this proven evidence that Trayvon was the one who attacked Zimmerman.

There is no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that Trayvon was on top. I will submit to that. That doesn't mean he started the fight, it only means Zimmerman is a huge pussy and couldn't even handle a teenager without his firearm.

Yeah, fly the Zimmerman flag. He is embarrassing. What a punk.
edit on 15-7-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Zimmerman has a wealthy father that got him an expensive attorney that was able to cast reasonable doubt . He wasn't found to be innocent beyond a doubt because he was far from it... He would have been found guilty beyond doubt if he had been represented by a public defender... The guy willfully carried a firearm and killed a 17 year old kid and you people are whacked if you think you are able to justify his actions to any half way sane person.. He wasn't authorized to carry a piece on community watch and was in violation of policy....Some people are too damned stupid to even own a pea shooter and most of them are cowards that carry high capacity firearms to make up for their short comings... Zimmerman is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Please look over this wiki:
Human Right of Self-Defense


The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called reasonable force or defensive force, for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.


If you support any human rights, than you MUST support this one.


In most jurisdictions, defense of self or of others is an affirmative defense to criminal charges for an act of violence. It acts to provide complete justification.

"Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all." [2]



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You attempted to attribute self defense laws to our Constitution. I schooled you on that.

Everyone is aware of self-defense as an alibi for messing someone up or actually killing them. That is legislation that has been taken up by the states, each one having different parameters.

You said it was a right in the Constitution. Again, you get caught posting inaccuracies.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Are you speaking of witness testimony to who was on top?? How, tell me how that tells you who was the one that confronted the other.

There is NO evidence to that. Only the words of Zimmerman. Who has been proven to be less than honest.

So don't go lying about all this proven evidence that Trayvon was the one who attacked Zimmerman.

There is no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that Trayvon was on top. I will submit to that. That doesn't mean he started the fight, it only means Zimmerman is a huge pussy and couldn't even handle a teenager without his firearm.

Yeah, fly the Zimmerman flag. He is embarrassing. What a punk.
edit on 15-7-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)


Defending oneself stops when the threat is neutrlized, if trayvon had been attacked and was defending himself, then at the point in time in which he continued to attack, he no longer was defending and was comitting assault. If some one comes up to you and decks you then yes you can hit back but the moment that you have removed the threat you must stop. There was no evidence of a single blow landed by zimmerman, yet a multitude of evidence that zimmerman was beaten extensively. The fact that trayvon did not stop beating him instigated zimmermans right to use any means needed to stop the assault. What i just wrote has no need for any testimonies, it is the way it went down.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail

There is no evidence.


There is NO evidence I am racist or homosexual because I am not.

But you had no problem attacking me personally and saying those mean things to me.

What does it even matter anymore?
How can I believe anything anymore after something that over the top?
You didn't even apologize either it's messed up.

If am not a racist and in fact I have been fighting for equality and freedom of all humans this whole time.

This is on-topic because it reveals the true nature of this entire debate and what is really going on culturally here.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You attempted to attribute self defense laws to our Constitution. I schooled you on that.

Everyone is aware of self-defense as an alibi for messing someone up or actually killing them. That is legislation that has been taken up by the states, each one having different parameters.

You said it was a right in the Constitution. Again, you get caught posting inaccuracies.


No I never said that. You are avoiding the point.

I said clearly that if you have any "Rights" at all, it is implied you obviously must have a "Right" to "Defend your Rights".

Without "Self-Defense", "Rights" don't exist because the tyrant can get away with enslaving and beating everyone.

The Constitution actually just instructs the Government on what rules it has to follow. The "Rights" listed are off-limits specifically and they have to respect them. The Government cannot prosecute someone who was "Defending their Rights" because it is not criminal to do such. It is legal and protected by law.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
DOJ won't go after him. It was not a hate crime, and I don't see how it could be construed as such given the evidence and testimony. If it could then the jury would have nailed him for it.

There is very little evidence about how this confrontation went down, therefore giving a preponderance of reasonable doubt.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join