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.

 

Why Zimmerman is Guilty

page: 16
101
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


What was Zimmerman convicted of?

Nothing.

He is an innocent man.

I'm glad you agree that the premise of this OP is wrong.
edit on 7/16/2013 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Stand Your Ground DOES give the legal right for anyone that feels threatened to defend themselves, or even to strike first, if they feel they are in danger.

Not exactly.
You have to be able to prove that there was a credable overt threat of some type. Following someone does NOT constitute such a threat.

Again, that is why photographers can get away with stalking celebrities, and when the celebrity hits the photographer, they go to jail.

There is no law that restricts your ability to follow someone, or to walk down the same path, at the same time, they are. Stalking is a very special case, requires repeated events, and there must be some evidence of a threat.


Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Trayvon Martin could have very well thought his life was in danger.

His legal options at that point were:
1)Get help. (call the police, knock on a door, etc)
2)Flee.
3)Verbally confront (tell him to back off and not come any closer)


I think the idea that Trayvon was shot and killed is plenty of evidence that Trayvon's life was in danger.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Trayvon Martin was walking through a white neighborhood, doing nothing wrong, and the watch captain is stalking him, I can see where he felt threatened.


And your statement is all assumptions. Assumption that Trayvon was indeed doing nothing wrong (in which in the eyes of law, presumes he wasn't). It is also noted that Zimmerman was also presumed to be doing nothing wrong (to assume 'stalking' already shows a bias in my opinion).



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
You have as much legal right to travel on public, or open private, land as anyone else.


This statement has reach for both sides, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong, and Zimmerman decided he was a criminal.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
I think the idea that Trayvon was shot and killed is plenty of evidence that Trayvon's life was in danger.

And Zimmerman's wasn't? Either you are being obtuse or just having fun at this point as you aren't engaging in discourse, rather you are engaging in irrelevant conjecture.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I think Zimmerman has FAS. Those eyes...Look at his upper lip, too.

One of the side effects of FAS is poor judgement making skills. If he had listened to police and stayed in his car, he wouldn't have shot Treyvon END OF STORY.

So yes, it is his fault this kid got killed. He took the law into his own hands, and put himself into a situation that necessitated the use of force (in his mind).

It's really that simple folks. If he would have waited for police and followed instructions, this wouldn't have happened. It IS his fault the kid got shot. End of story.

Also -- this whole thing has nothing to do with race. Zimmerman is part minority himself!


There was no instruction given. Fact. Had the comment you incorrectly believe was instruction ACTUALLY been an instruction it wouldn't have mattered because the operator said it after Zimmerman was already out of his truck so he was actually doing what you think was ordered of him.

You are also being racist by implying that only Zimmerman controlled the situation and implying that the black kid was to be expected to attack and had no control. "Zimmerman should't have gotten out" why? What does that say? Whether you realize it or not. In reality Martin comitted the only crime and assaulted Zimmerman and that was Martins dcision and it got him killed. Zimmerman was justified and because of that and he was found not guilty. A jury listened to every second of testimony then deliberated for hours upon hours with the evidence and came out with the correct decision, they did their jobs. Case closed.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
You have as much legal right to travel on public, or open private, land as anyone else.


This statement has reach for both sides, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong, and Zimmerman decided he was a criminal.


Conjecture and a wild assumption...



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Trayvon Martin was walking through a white neighborhood, doing nothing wrong, and the watch captain is stalking him, I can see where he felt threatened.


And your statement is all assumptions. Assumption that Trayvon was indeed doing nothing wrong (in which in the eyes of law, presumes he wasn't). It is also noted that Zimmerman was also presumed to be doing nothing wrong (to assume 'stalking' already shows a bias in my opinion).


Provide me something better, Trayvon was armed with skittles and an iced tea, Zimmerman had a 9mm



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by wwiilliiaamm
The problem is with the law as written.....

self-defense in the jury instructions... did he feel afraid for his life when he pulled the trigger?..... not five minutes before not two minutes before. etc. when he pulled the trigger.

the instructions are was got him off.

He is a killer who because of the system is free. There are many examples of guilty going free. He is just one more.


Think again.
It was Trayvon (in his mind) not Zimmerman who was under attack.

Trayvon was the initial victim (in his own mind) just as they are saying Zimmerman (in his own mind) was under threat.

How do we decide who is right and wrong?
Easy
Zimmerman started it; he (delusionaly) thought Trayvon was doing crime: so he stalked him and frightened him-- SUBJECTIVE TRUTH

Trayvon thought Zimmerman was stalking him: He was stalking him: OBJECTIVE TRUTH

Trayvon wins. But racism is powerful

The black boy is some kind of Superhuman monster




WillTell,

Regardless of what you believe, following somebody in a public place is not illegal. Really, it's not. Attacking someone physically and then mounting them and continuing the attack is. All TM had to do was keep walking home to his dad's house, he didn't have to confront then get into a fight with GZ. The only evidence of wounds on TM are on his hands and knuckles, which was consistent with him striking someone. The only evidence of wounds on GZ are consistent with being punched in the face and having his head impacted against something (concrete).

I know you don't want to believe it, but the evidence tends to support that TM attacked GZ, with enough force to injure GZ and knock him down without any fight wounds on TM. Add to that the testimony of the only eyewitnesses to altercation and it seems pretty obvious that TM was beating up GZ.

Your version of events doesn't add up with the evidence, who in their right mind would attack a person holding a gun with only their fists?? That's stupid. Why would GZ shoot someone just for the hell of it after calling Police? When the Police tried to fool GZ by saying there was a video recording the whole fight, GZ sounded relieved, knowing that it would support his version.

Both people GZ and TM, made bad judgment calls, TM bad judgement resulted in his death by attacking GZ. He didn't have to confront and fight, he should have just made it home.

A jury of our peers has rendered a verdict. Sorry that you don't want justice, you want revenge for someone who attacked another person physically. There's a lesson in that someone, but a lot of people fail to recognize it.



Pavil, you who are avoiding certain key pieces of evidence that refutes your superficial premise, such as none of GZs blood on Trayvon. That alone refutes everything you wrote!


I will refute all your points one by one.

I didn’t say it was illegal to stalk, that’s not the point.
It frightened the kid WHO WAS DOING NOTHING WRONG!
I brought this up to illustrate the point that people automatically dehumanize Trayvon (out of inner racism). I mean couldn’t he feel threatened that a stranger was stalking him and therefore go into a defensive mode? Stand your ground.
There is evidence of that.

Though you folks accept Zimmerman’s “stand your ground story” even though it is self serving and filled with lies and distortions.
Don’t you see the problem here?
If Trayvon did (something I don’t concede) attack him it was out of fear and desperation not as a criminal.
Can’t you people ever humanize Trayvon?
You never do!

Trayvon’s “wounds” were minor as were GZ’s\

“DNA results and Autopsy results would have to "prove" that Trayvon Martin actually "caused" Zimmerman's injuries in order for for anyone, including a jury, to conclude Zimmerman acted in self defense when he killed an unarmed Trayvon Martin. However, the DNA results and the Autopsy results do not support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin "caused" injuries to his face or head. Meaning, DNA results and the Autopsy suggest Trayvon Martin is not the "cause" of Zimmerman's injuries. So Zimmerman's alleged self defense claim might not fly with the jury since none of the forensic results suggest Trayvon Martin touched Zimmerman in any way, shape or form.
The Jury will see the DNA report shows that none of Zimmerman's DNA was under Martin's fingernails.
George Zimmerman was damn near bald on the night he followed, search for, then found and killed Trayvon Martin. In order for Trayvon Martin to grab Zimmerman's bald head tight enough to slam his head into the sidewalk over a dozen times, some of Zimmerman's DNA would have gotten underneath Trayvon Martin's fingernails.
The DNA results show none of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails:”
Daill Kos.

You wrote: “Your version of events doesn't add up with the evidence, who in their right mind would attack a person holding a gun with only their fists?? That's stupid. Why would GZ shoot someone just for the hell of it after calling Police? When the Police tried to fool GZ by saying there was a video recording the whole fight, GZ sounded relieved, knowing that it would support his version.”


That doesn’t prove anything. What do you expect him to do after being told that, confess.

The eyewitnesses did not universally say TM was beating up GZ, those witnesses were conflicting.

You wrote: “Why would GZ shoot someone just for the hell of it after calling Police? When the Police tried to fool GZ by saying there was a video recording the whole fight, GZ sounded relieved, knowing that it would support his version.”

No one is saying that Z just shot him. The point is that he pulled the gun on TM and tried to hold him for the police (this is the most likely scenario according to all the facts) and TM fought back. He panicked and may have cold cocked Z and screamed and Z shot him.

No one believes it was cold blooded murder.

Bottom line there is no forensic evidence TM even touched GZ.

Your last point is also wrong
5 white woman and a Hispanic woman are not TM’s peers!



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Well that's absurd. He had to assault someone to put himself in that danger.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 



Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
I think you need to start thinking!
Zimmerman had a gun Trayvon had a bag of candy

AND A CELL PHONE WITH THIS…..


So yeah, go ahead and run with the poor black kid coming home with a bag of skittles!

Doesn't fly with me bubb...!



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
If I was walking through a black neighborhood, on a cold rainy night, and a black man was following me, I would feel threatened.

You may feel threatened, but that does not give you the right to attack without evidence of intent.
What if you thought someone was following you, attacked them, then found out that it was someone running a delivery route that just happened to follow your path?

See where the problem here is?
You would have folks attacking old enemies just because they were behind them in line, and claiming self defense. You'd have crazy paranoids attacking any and everyone because they felt “threatened”. See what a slippery slope that is?

So the threat must be something credible, beyond just being followed.

As I said above, if you believe that you are being followed, your legal options are:
1)Get help.
2)Flee.
3)Verbally confront.

That's it, you cannot attack them, or you become the guilty party.


Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Trayvon Martin was walking through a white neighborhood, doing nothing wrong, and the watch captain is stalking him, I can see where he felt threatened.

Stalking requires repeated instances of following someone with the intent to harass them, and there must be some type of credible threat.

Again that is why paparazzi, and PI's get away with following folks all the time.
Hell, the paparazzi most likely caused Princess Diana's death, yet nothing was done to them legally because they have the legal right to use public property just as much as anyone does.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by votan

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Save it for the trial? The trial is already done and he has been acquitted? Are you just now hearing about the case? The only possible "trial" to come is a civil case being considered by the parents. They are going to try to get money from a guy who doesn't have much to begin with.


Im talking about Trayvon's trial.

George Zimmerman shot an innocent boy.



innocent boys don't double back to attack someone .


What was Trayvon convicted of?

Nothing?

Trayvon is an innocent boy.


What was George convicted of?

Nothing?

George is an innocent man.


"Did I make my point?"



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


This whole concept is so ridiculous they should move it to Skunk Works....oh yeah they did!

Give it up, it is over, done, finished, etc, etc.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 


Why are people claiming this was a SYG issue? Zimmerman's lawyers never claimed SYG as the defense only argued self defense.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willtell

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Willtell
 


The reason Zimmerman is not guilty is because the entire situation you just outlined is based on hypotheticals and what ifs. The law of the land states that the accused is innocent unless they can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no hard evidence to support anything you just said. If there were the prosecution would have presented it at trial instead of relying on their emotion based case. As someone who could have cared less about this case I must say that based on the evidence presented a not guilty decision was the proper decision.


The hard evidence is the fact that he Zimmerman instilled great fear in a 17 year old boy.
So much fear THAT THE BOY ATTACKED HIM. STANDING HIS GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How would your son or daughter react to a strange man stalking them on a rainy night?


If there was so much fear in him, then why is it that when he got to the house he was staying at, he did not go inside? The prosecutions main witness, Jeantel, said she told Martin to go inside and he said.... get this... "NO"



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
I think the idea that Trayvon was shot and killed is plenty of evidence that Trayvon's life was in danger.

He would not have been shot if he had not committed Aggravated battery, and pinned Zimmerman to the ground to cut off his line of retreat.

If Zimmerman had gone into the situation with any malicious intent, he would not have bothered to call the police to begin with, he would have simply confronted him.

You have to look at this case in the eyes of the law, who did what first and who had the legal right to do what at each point, not from the perspective of emotion like the media wants.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I haven't read all of the pages, but have seen all of the usual argument thrown around. Long story short, an armed adult shot an unarmed minor, there is no justification for this, it isn't right, it isn't even close to right.

Many of the people that have posted, while I may have disagreed with them politically, I still respected them. Several in this post have lost my respect. A grown ass man has no right to shoot an unarmed teenager, if you are that much of a wuss, then someone have mercy on your soul.

ETA: If Zimmerman had raped him, Zimmerman would be doing life.
edit on 7/16/2013 by BubbaJoe because: (no reason given)


So, an "unarmed" teen can assault a person, beat their head on pavement (proven), and the armed person can do nothing? Really? Martin WAS armed, with his fists and the pavement. Being a year under 18 isn't an excuse to commit a felony assault. When someone mugs you, be sure you check their ID before defending yourself. After all, teens never do anything wrong....
It Martin had killed George, he would be tried for murder, as an adult.

Attacking a person because you don't like their race (as in, calling them a "creepy *bleep* cracker") isn't right. It isn't even close to right.

Defending your life against an attacker, by any and all means necessary, certainly IS right. It IS justified.


Zimmerman outweighed Martin by 60 pounds, if he was not able to defend himself, he was due the asskicking he was receiving. If Zimmerman had not had a firearm, Trayvon would not be dead, didn't Zimmerman have some prior arrests? Why did he have a damn gun?



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willtell
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Blame the victim. Zimmerman had a gun and a car. Trayvon had candy.
You say Trayvon could have gone home. Zimmerman could have minded his own business. All we have are the self-serving lies of Zimmerman.
Why do you believe him?


Zimmerman was the victim. Of a felony assault.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join