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: 21
101
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bruteforce13
 


I don't think it has anything to do with how bad the wounds were or were not.

The problem is that you are asserting that he should have just laid there and taken' an @$$ whippin' cause gettin' an @$$ whippin' ain't that bad. .. . . unlessen your a damn sissy.

That is what you are really saying, and for you to suggest such a thing would indicate to me that If you were in Trayvon’s shoes you would be dead as well.




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bruteforce13
 


In every situation you gave, it would still not be lawful to punch you. If someone is staring at you inappropriately, you can call the police, leave, or even question them about it. You can not however punch them. Why is this so difficult to understand?

If you can give ridiculous strawman scenarios, so can I. I man comes running up behind me as I am walking down the street. I think he is being confrontational so I turn and punch him in the jaw, get on top of him and start pummeling. Totally legitimate right. I mean, he was being the aggressor running towards me not identifying himself.

Well what if it turns out he wasn't running for me, he was just trying to catch the bus and I was in his path. Or maybe I dropped my wallet and he is trying to return it.

Too bad right, he had it coming.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


yeah your right i probably would be dead cause if someone was seriously following me in a suspicious manner id turn around and ask them what there problem was too.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bruteforce13
 



I can go to a park and stare at some mans young female child like im lusting after her. Lets not forget its not against the law to stare at someone. Ill keep staring at her till the father comes at me and ask me what my problem is!!! Ill tell him something that provokes a attack. Once he punches me ill pull out my gun and shoot him. I FEARED FOR MY LIFE!

Think about what the hell you just said.

There would be no need for him to even get up. He could just shoot you right there. BECAUSE. . . He feared for his daughter’s life. And as the law goes you are allowed to act before the target does if you THINK your life is in Danger. Now it could be argued that the daughter was Not him but that is a mere matter of semantics.

The Bottom line is that your @$$ would be a Toasted Cheese Sandwich before you ever got to pull your gun.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom



If I decide to drink and then decide to get in my car, I have made two decisions and committed two actions. If I hit/run over a person and kill them, would I not be charged with manslaughter?

Zimmerman decided to open his car door. Zimmerman subsequently ignored a qualified law enforcement employee's direction and decided to follow TM. His two actions led to the eventual death of a human being.

To me, both examples are mutually interchangeable.


They are not. Drink and driving is a crime, regardless if anyone gets hurt. Getting out of your car even if a non emergency operator asks you not to is not. If no one got hurt would this had been a crime? No.

You also forget that this operator testified at trial and said he instruction could have been confusing and been interpreted as asking Zimmerman to get out to see which way he had gone.

The operator had no more legal authority to tell you what to do than say, and neighborhood watchmen. So I can assume that if a joe smoe tells you he is a watchman and to leave, you will obey post haste.




You see, Zimmerman chose to place himself voluntarily into a situation where he thought there would be a high probability of risk. Why else would he have a gun on him?


So if you have a gun on you you are looking for trouble? So those pictures where Martin has a gun mean he was looking for trouble right?

Maybe he had a gun because he was afraid because there were a lot of breakins in the neighborhood.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Think about what the hell you just said.

There would be no need for him to even get up. He could just shoot you right there. BECAUSE. . . He feared for his daughter’s life. And as the law goes you are allowed to act before the target does if you THINK your life is in Danger. Now it could be argued that the daughter was Not him but that is a mere matter of semantics.

The Bottom line is that your @$$ would be a Toasted Cheese Sandwich before you ever got to pull your gun.


WRONG!!!!!

Wow I am seriously scared of some of you people. If someone is staring at your daughter, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOOT THEM!!! You do not even have the right to punch them.

You can leave, call the police, or asked them what they are doing.

Maybe the just have a lazy eye and it looks like they were staring? Maybe they are autistic? You can't kill someone because you think they are looking at your daughter.

If the grabbed the girl, or possibly exposed themselves or committed some other crime, then under the stand your ground laws you would be able to attack.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
It was a perfect storm in the making. On one hand you have an over-zealous neighborhood watch person (wanna-be cop who had tried to get into law enforcement unsuccessfully). On the other hand, you had a young, dumb, full of cum teenager (dressed as a hoodlum) who over-reacted to the situation. Hence, they got into an altercation where one had the upper hand (or armament).
Zimmerman got off easy on this one. It should have at MOST been manslaughter. He did end the life of another human being. Martin should not have been wearing such clothes in a supposed "gated community". It only brings attention.
That is what I get from the gist of this situation, unfortunate as it is.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 




You apparently did Not even get that.

It was sarcasm.

edit on 17-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: Was Laughing to hard to spell correctly



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


Apologies then. Sometimes with some of the people who are serious in here are saying its hard to tell the difference.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


I wanted to reply with something just as rediculous as the post.

Sometimes I am just amazed at what I see on ATS.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Zimmerman is innocent. He was part of neighborhood watch and fell upon a predator.

Lets just say I got it wrong in the beginning, I mean somewhat, because I did not realise this happened in a gated community and that such watchgroups are normal.

The media and government are stoking the flames of a racial war in america and that is pure evil.


Hypothessing what could of happened is immatterial as none of these issues were brought into the courtroom. I think the OP is grasping at straws or does not comprehend the full picture yet. MANY PEOPLE HAVE FALLEN VICTIM TO THE MSM, yet again!


It wasn't even a special case to begin with. Many inter-racial crimes happen all the time but get no publicity. Inter-racial crimes are no different than intra-racial crimes, but some people want to big deal of this for their own reasons.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
America is sick with cancer, this is the medicine the people at the top are prescribing to ease the pain. I rebuke Karl Marx's statement "religion is the opium of the people." And I state, "Media (manipulation?) is the opium of the people." Have you dosed today?

Sincerely,
Brotherman
edit on 17-7-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
ok you all claiming that we can just go start fights and then murder and claim self-defense are morons. Its what the Brady campaign said after the law was passed, it does not happen that way. GZ is guilty of manslaughter and easily could have been proven that way, but those were not the charges filed.

Also those yelling that we are insinuating GZ should have sat back and taken a beating are also pretty damned cowardly to suggest it is ok to shoot the attacker. When an unarmed individual is fighting you, you fight back with "reasonable force". Shooting the person is not reasonable force.

Ill use myself as an example over the years. I have frequently been around people that most would call "questionable" individuals. Very aggressive hotheads who love to look for any reason to fight. This has also resulted in my becoming involved in some of these fights. I have carried a gun on three of these occasions.

In all 3 occasions nobody knew I was carrying a weapon. I have a lot of respect for the gun, and I know that in self-defense, a gun should truly be a weapon of last resort, not a tool to make a victory easy (unless you are at war). Out of these three fights, I was truly only came out on top in one. I got beat down pretty bad in one, and the other we both just kinda had to call it a draw.

only in the incident when I got beat down badly did I actually tell my friends after the fact that I was armed. And when they said "Hey dave man, why didn't you just pull the gun out?" The first thing out of my mouth was BECAUSE IM NOT A LITTLE B1TCH! Even in a fight where I had my ass handed to me like a fool, pulling the gun out was never even on my mind. The only reason I ever carry the gun is in the off chance someone else threatens me with a weapon, or if I witness a crime that I reasonably believe I can assist in stopping. It has yet to happen in my life, but that does not mean it wont. I am only 28 years in, with hopefully at least another good 30 to go.

If this man George Zimmerman is such a hero to some for shooting an unarmed teenager because he was on the losing end of a fight, then you must think the kids from the Columbine massacre deserve a temple and shrine for your daily prayers.

This case is only getting the attention it has because it puts gun ownership and regulation back on the table. That was the goal from the very first day the event went down and blipped on the White House radar. Now the parents are going to be sobbing (for good reason)on God news how many talk shows over the next year, with a little bit of encouragement of course from high places.

there are those of us that will always believe the official story. Then there are those of us who can often see the official story for the lie it is and the agenda it serves from the get go as clear as day. You just have to practice at removing your biases that most deny they have from clouding your vision.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willtell
It’s easy and simple.

Even if Trayvon started the fight (which I don’t concede because Zimmerman has been caught in lies) he is innocent because by the same “stand your ground law” he felt under attack by Zimmerman stalking him. Therefore he felt he had to defend himself by attacking his unknown stalker. Remember Zimmerman didn’t admit that he identified himself to Trayvon as a neighborhood watchman. So how was Trayvon to know who this guy stalking him was . . . he may have been a criminal or sex pervert or whatever.

So we know Trayvon had no idea who he was. If hypothetically Trayvon did attack Zimmerman it wasn’t out of ill intent it was out of fear and self defense. He died because of the illogical actions of Zimmerman not anything he did out of ill intent.

BUT we only have Zimmerman (a known self-serving liar) as a witness to his own actions and Trayvon’s)
That is at lease manslaughter even by the barbaric law of the jungle they call stand your ground!

So it is very likely that Zimmerman had the gun pulled on the kid and the kid panicked and went after Zimmerman. In that case Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at least.

Ask yourself this question. Why do people give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt: thinking Trayvon was involved in criminal activity therefore he had the right to frighten and stalk Trayvon, but Trayvon out of fear of this creep stalking him didn’t have the right to self defense?
You see the double standard here?

While Trayvon as an individual being stalked had more proof to himself that Zimmerman was the person with criminal intent (since he was creepily following Trayvon)

In fact it was Trayvon who that night was brave and noble not Zimmerman who displayed himself a paranoid possible bigot profiling an innocent teenager, who at best lost a fight he started and resorted to killing an innocent kid.

Case Closed


Where is your basis of proof that Zimmerman was stalking Martin? When is a concerned neighbor doing a neighborhood watch stalking anyone? Prove your accusations. You like the prosecution cannot only voice an opinion therefore you have no case! Just like the prosecution another jury would acquit Zimmerman because you have no proof nor a case...

And why didn't this punk go home wasn't he 75 yards from his house? He was a thug and he had a chip on his shoulder gonna show this "crazy ass cracker" he was a bad ass and instead ended up meeting his maker. Poor ignorant bastard didn't know when to stop thugging... Give it up you have no evidence hence you have no case!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
ok you all claiming that we can just go start fights and then murder and claim self-defense are morons. Its what the Brady campaign said after the law was passed, it does not happen that way. GZ is guilty of manslaughter and easily could have been proven that way, but those were not the charges filed.



I will assume you are just ignorant of Florida law and this case, so I will endeavor to explain. In Florida criminal trials the jury may consider the actual charge and any lesser charges. In this case, the prosecutors actually added manslaughter and the jury did deliberate on that and decided that based on the jury instructions, Mr. Zimmerman did not commit manslaughter either because it was clearly self defense. The judge did deny the option of adding in child endangerment as well as some other charge that did not fit under this sort of case.

I think it boils down to the fact that the jury believes Mr. Zimmerman believed his life was in danger and he defended himself. You have the right to defend yourself with reasonable force which is dependent on each situation.

If I come up to you and shove you, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot me and get away with it unless there is a reasonable person would believe I was threatening their life. You might shove me back. Or lets say, I come up and hit you and you hit me and I fall down. You cannot then jump on me and start beating the living crap out of me because I am no longer assaulting you.

In concealed carry classes, many scenarios are discussed. One example they give about even pulling your gun out is weighing the present danger. If a man is standing 200 ft from me holding a machete and says, "I'm going to kill you", I cannot pull out my gun and start shooting at him because no reasonable person would think he could hurt from there. Now, if that man is say 10 ft from me holding a machete and says that and begins moving forward I can pull out my gun, warn him and if he continues to come towards me, I don't have to wait until he is lopping off my head or arm before I pull the trigger.

Each situation is different, and you cannot use more force than necessary to end a confrontation. I think the big problem was once Zimmerman was down, Martin got on top of him and beat the crap out of him which made him fear for his life. Had Trayvon come up and hit him he might not have even been arrested for assault which is what that would be. As it was, Trayvon was the one who pushed this into the critical situation that it became.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
He was not in fear of his life, its just the nice thing to say to convince people he was justified in shooting an unarmed teenager because he was too much of a little ho to fight back. It is not as if he was opposed to violence as his past violent criminal charges have shown. I have been in many fights, and never felt that my life was in danger, even when I had my ass handed to me. Anybody with the kind of hotheaded violent background he had does not fear for their life out of a physical scuffle. Go ask anyone who has been in a lot of fights who has lost a fight if they feared for their life.

And unlike most people, I will admit I was ignorant of the fact that manslaughter was added. How terrible then that the jury did in fact come to the conclusion it arrived. A sad conclusion, one which I do believe is wrong, but have come to accept. What I prefer to focus on now is how this case will be used by the administration to continue the fight against the second amendment as they lick the heels of their masters the money men.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
His father was a magistrate no surprise the charges were dropped.


Exactly which charges were dropped?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 
You really don't have a clue.

revolutionradio.org...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I took a CCW class in VA over 10 years ago, being taught by a Capital Police officer...The one thing I remember still crystal clear was him telling us that: Bottomline, if you must pull your gun to defend yourself, aim directly for the middle of their chest, and shoot to kill. He continued..There are two reasons for this...First..to immediately stop the aggressor...second..so that there will only be your side of the story to explain.

My Humble Theory:

Zimmerman had an attack of elephant balls brought on by that safety-less gun on his hip with a bullet in the chamber(I mean really, is this how pious good guy neighborhood watch guys roll these days???)...because we all can bet our last dollar that if he hadn't had that chambered piece on his side he would of kept his butt in the truck...So he hops out follows Trayvon till Trayvon, knowing it definitely ain't the police, so he takes the initiative and attacks first to gain the upper hand...Zimmerman (no doubt planned for this moment, played it out in his head a thousand times) tucks his head allowing Trayvon to ping away at the back of his head( if you really think he was getting his head slammed in the concrete I got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn)...falls to the ground(on purpose) where Trayvon again pounces going for the finish(not realizing he's being baited in for the kill shot) ...btw,,,no doubt the entire time Zimmerman is screaming his head off for help playing it up for surrounding audience..where finally, while on the ground Zimmerman pulls the heater and blasts him in the heart..upon which he immediately rolls him on stomach pulls his arms out to the side so he can put the handcuffs on him when he suddenly remembered he wasn't a cop again...then went in to victim mode and the rest is history.

Impossible! you say? Sucker! I say. All we got is his version, if only Trayvon had been hit in the shoulder, I would love to hear his version of how the fight went down...I honestly believe the only people that believe Zimmermans account(that don't have biased to root for Zimmerman from the rip) are people who have never been in a street fight. To believe his account, is to believe that he basically was that dummy they had in court, that he totally went limp, and that Trayvon was a 6'5 tall 280 pound monster having his way with him. Note to Floridians: Always bring gun to fist fight..shoot to kill as soon as other person gets the upper hand.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 




It’s easy and simple.


And wrong. Let me tell you why:




Even if Trayvon started the fight (which I don’t concede because Zimmerman has been caught in lies) he is innocent because by the same “stand your ground law” he felt under attack by Zimmerman stalking him.


Zimmerman did not use stand your ground as a defense. It was standard self-defense.

Stand your ground does not give you the right to attack someone who is following you. It only absolves you of the obligation to retreat.




Therefore he felt he had to defend himself by attacking his unknown stalker. Remember Zimmerman didn’t admit that he identified himself to Trayvon as a neighborhood watchman. So how was Trayvon to know who this guy stalking him was . . . he may have been a criminal or sex pervert or whatever.


You cannot attack an unknown stalker. You can call the police, run away, ask him why is he following you, but when you attack, then it is an assault.




Ask yourself this question. Why do people give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt: thinking Trayvon was involved in criminal activity therefore he had the right to frighten and stalk Trayvon, but Trayvon out of fear of this creep stalking him didn’t have the right to self defense? You see the double standard here?


Yes, and this double standard is called "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Courts absolutely should be biased towards innocence.

And a creep stalking you is no license to attack him, thats just absurd. You can legally follow people around.




manslaughter


Its not even manslaughter until you can prove criminal negligence, and there is no evidence to do that. And since Zimmerman had injuries corroborating that an attack occured, good luck trying to prove manslaughter. It would not fly, not in Florida and not anywhere else.

This argument has so many holes in it that it boggles my mind how this BS got 94 flags.
edit on 17/7/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join