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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Are you sure? When did the firearm come out?? It could not have been how Zimmerman described. He said Trayvon's knees were underneath his arm pits. It was demonstrated that had that been the position, Zimmerman would have never been able to access his gun. So...when did the gun come out?? Could it have been that Trayvon, having seen a gun, crapped his pants and then fought for his life?? I mean think about that for a minute. What makes more sense: Trayvon stating, "You got me" after being shot OR upon seeing a gun pointed at his chest?

Just something to consider.




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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]
It was Zimmerman's unauthorized actions that caused the situation to escalate into a violent confrontation... Without the gun he would have never done that and this topic wouldn't have occurred... Why is it you folks refuse to acknowledge something so obvious.. The man killed a 17 year old boy he was hassling because he felt 10 feet tall when carrying his gun...



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Wrong!

Here is exactly what you said:




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



You started off with an incorrect premise and went all crazy from there.

Just stop it.




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hypervigilant
It was Zimmerman's unauthorized actions that caused the situation to escalate into a violent confrontation...


Whoever throws a punch is actually the one who chooses violent confrontations.

Walking up to someone on the street doesn't require authorization, it's legal.
Hitting people is not legal.
Shooting someone who won't stop hitting you is legal.

The court even agreed he didn't need authorization to approach someone walking on the street/sidewalk.
They agreed he didn't break any laws.

Answer this question please:
Do you believe you have the right to punch people you don't like that act weird in your opinion?



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Wrong!

Here is exactly what you said:




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



You started off with an incorrect premise and went all crazy from there.

Just stop it.



It's a correct premise.
The court sided with it thus our verdict.

If any rights exist, the right to self defense is inherent and apparent.
I even linked you to the wiki that explains it in depth, even the history behind the concepts.

Did you read it? I am betting no.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 


He shot a person, age refference is only there to elicit emotion. If a gun comes into play immediatley then the shot would have been fired earlier, before the blows to zimmermans face. Kind of hard to pick up a persons head with one hand and hit it on the concrete, kind of hard to make multiple facial impacts on both sides with just one hand. had a gun been in play prior to the assault, at least one of trayvons hands would have been busy keping the gun away.. Yet both hands had scrapes consitent with striking closed fisted.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   
This is how bad things have become:

People claim we don't actually have a "Right to self defense" but it would "be nice if we had one".
Yet they argue completely against "The Right to self defense" and deny it's valid proven existence in our current reality.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


While you were off about it being in the Constitution it is in the Declaration of Independence:




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


It is also prevalent in Natural Law, and Common Law.



As I stated earlier this was not a hate crime and I don't see any reason for the DOJ to get involved.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


There you go again; posting inaccuracies again. The court decided nothing. Seriously, you have no understanding of our justice system. The Judge (the court) is a mediator. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. They make NO decisions.

Quit making stuff up!!!!



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by XTexan
 


I didn't say it was "IN" the Constitution.

I said it's "Constitutionally Protected".

That means all rights in the Constitution listed are automatically protected by the assumed "Right to Self Defense".
It's by default.

This means that "defending any of these rights from unreasonable harm" is legal even by deadly force.
Including the right to revolution on the grounds of protecting Constitutional authority if it is abridged/curtailed.

Read the wiki people it explains it in depth.
edit on 15-7-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The court decided NOTHING. Quit showing your ignorance. You are embarrassing yourself.

It is OK if you only went to school until the 9th grade.

I accept you just as you are.

Just check yourself before you make any further stupid posts.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is how bad things have become:

People claim we don't actually have a "Right to self defense" but it would "be nice if we had one".
Yet they argue completely against "The Right to self defense" and deny it's valid proven existence in our current reality.


I agree.
And I'll raise you
a 100 year conspiracy.

It's right on time for step 25.


Mike



2013-2023 (25). Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


There you go again; posting inaccuracies again. The court decided nothing. Seriously, you have no understanding of our justice system. The Judge (the court) is a mediator. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. They make NO decisions.

Quit making stuff up!!!!


The "Judge" isn't the "Court", the judge is "part of" the "court". The "Judge presides over the court", etc.
'Court' = Game field and procedure / 'Judge' = Referee / Administrator

Still no apologies for those personal attacks earlier I guess? I am actually hurt by that by the way because I did and still do like you and will forgive you.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by XTexan
 


I didn't say it was "IN" the Constitution.

I said it's "Constitutionally Protected".

That means all rights in the Constitution listed are automatically protected by the assumed "Right to Self Defense".
It's by default.

This means that "defending any of these rights from unreasonable harm" is legal even by deadly force.
Including the right to revolution on the grounds of protecting Constitutional authority if it is abridged/curtailed.

Read the wiki people it explains it in depth.
edit on 15-7-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


Ah gotcha... Actually I was trying to back you up by showing that its a common mantra in multiple systems of law. Trust me I know all about my rights including the right to self defense.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by XTexan

Ah gotcha... Actually I was trying to back you up


Thanks, I actually kinda assumed you may have been doing just that.

I just wanted to make sure to clear the air because my words are being twisted.
You can go check my exact quote to make sure.
The distinction between the two phrases "In" and "Protected" is subtle and easily twisted if not clearly ironed out in the open.

So I actually made the reiteration as a secondary rebuttal to the original accusation.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


What the heck??

Please, elaborate. Here is a quote from your post:




2013-2023 (25). Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I don't know maybe I am dense but what the heck are you talking about??

I am not trying to ridicule. Please don't take this wrong. I say this with the utmost of respect: Are you off your meds?? Just curious. I am a little worried about you.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is how bad things have become:

People claim we don't actually have a "Right to self defense" but it would "be nice if we had one".
Yet they argue completely against "The Right to self defense" and deny it's valid proven existence in our current reality.


I agree.
And I'll raise you
a 100 year conspiracy.

It's right on time for step 25.


Mike



2013-2023 (25). Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Number 25 Eh?

That's a very well worded explanation for exactly what is happening here:
"(25). Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.” "

Thanks for sharing that.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


What the heck??

Please, elaborate. Here is a quote from your post:




2013-2023 (25). Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I don't know maybe I am dense but what the heck are you talking about??

I am not trying to ridicule. Please don't take this wrong. I say this with the utmost of respect: Are you off your meds?? Just curious. I am a little worried about you.


You nearly prove him correct by the exact content of your post.

"???"
Then "Personal attacks" ensue. "You must be crazy, go take meds"?
Oh it's SO RESPECTFUL to call someone crazy when they actually are using full English and not saying anything violent or threatening?

His post essentially says that the goal to destroy the USA will be achieved in part by causing the public to "be ignorant of law" and then demanding something "like Constitutional Law" as they don't realize it already exists. Thereby seeking to dismantle the Constitution in order to create "a Constitution".

The trick here is that the "new Constitution" won't have any real human rights with any valid protections.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Whatever. Lucky for you, a homeboy drove up to try to save you.

You have made ridiculous statements in this thread that have no basis in reality.

Yeah, keep double and triple talking. Trying to rehabilitate yourself. It is not working. You displayed your complete ignorance regarding a subject that you are not qualified to opine on seeing as you don't have a command of the facts.

Lucky for you there are message boards and chat rooms for you to bloom. You most certainly wouldn't be taken seriously in the real world.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Let me just say that I'm entirely disappointed with most of your ignorant reactions to this mundane puppet show we call the Zimmerman trial.

Here in this thread we see many members who you would usually see criticizing the very agencies and institutions that lead to giving this man an innocent verdict quoting every bit of filth they spew as truth. We also see the very same members trying to force their opinions by claiming that you are "spineless" or refuse to "stand up to injustice" by not supporting a man who is already home-free.

Let me just add that his main defense was a computer simulation of EVENTS THAT CANNOT BE COMPLETELY VERIFIED.

I will also add that you have all been manipulated perfectly, played like a flawlessly tuned piano.

Watch the nice distraction, it makes it easy to forget any real issues. Post a thousand Zimmerman threads.

By the way, is there anyone else that is disturbed that there are members on ATS who are so supportive of this law system that is obviously not efficient and allows many corporations and officials to walk away from their increasingly insane charges?

Drop your morals, its the LAW!

I think people here may be far more ignorant than I feared.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join