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: 31
101
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


You should just save yourself the trouble. Those like him could care less about the facts.

Either they are trolling or they lack the mental fortitude to understand reality which is why they ask stupid questions everyone else seems to know but them.




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 


He didn't go to jail because they did not have the evidence to charge him with anything.

You just can't hold someone in jail without charging them.

So are you saying the jury was bought?

Because that is the only way this could have happened if you follow "Your Theory".

Certainly you don't think that the jury is just going to let this happen and not tell someone do you?

One of the jurors already has a book deal.

Do you have Any evidence to back up your theory or are you blowing out your @$$ just like all of the other Trayvon Cheerleaders?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.


They are as perfect as it gets, IMO.

I'd rather be tried by a jury than some of the judges in our system.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


I'm no ones "cheerleader". I seek the truth. Not a one sided account of what took place. There's reasonable doubt that zimmerman is lying. If someone was watching me from a distance or approached me without saying a word, they would have a problem. I would be standing my ground. But I forgot, this is bizzaro world...



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.


That depends on which side you are on.

Jury selection is a process by which attorneys try to pick the "Perfect" jury from their perspective.

Verdicts can always be dabated. Unfortunately a debate will Never change the verdict.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 





I'm no ones "cheerleader". I seek the truth.


That is highly questionable or a strait out lie. The facts are easy to find yet every post you make on the subject has been void of them.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.


They are as perfect as it gets, IMO.

I'd rather be tried by a jury than some of the judges in our system.


Right, they are as perfect as we have now, there does not seem to be a superior method to determine guilt or innocence other than being judged by peers, but that does not mean that as a society we cannot reflect on the verdict and the overall situation and these stand your ground laws.

Hopefully this verdict and the scrutiny of the stand your ground laws will lead to more reflection by citizens using them in the future, and not the opposite effect of people using these laws to justify unjustifiable homicides in the future.

I have been in and seen many fights where if these "stand your ground laws" were in effect, one person would have been justified under the law of killing the other person, where in reality no one's life was threatened.

I guess I just don't understand how the person holding the gun can feel threatened by the person who is unarmed, especially if they are just a teenager.


edit on 19-7-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 



There's reasonable doubt that zimmerman is lying.

Apparently there is Reasonable Doubt that he committed murder as well, Else he would not have been acquitted.

I also don't think people are looking at one side of this. I think that they are looking at the evidence.

Regardless of what you think Zimmerman is lying about there are FACTS that prove his statements.

edit on 19-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

I have some issues with 'stand your ground' laws.

I believe if they tend to be problematic, the individual states should address the problems with them.
I think that a person should have more than a 'feeling' that they are threatened before using deadly force, and some SYG laws make it too fuzzy.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.



Sure, we can debate their verdict for years. But what isn't up for debate is the witness and expert testimony, the evidence, the law in FL or the outcome of the jury decision.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



I guess I just don't understand how the person holding the gun can feel threatened by the person who is unarmed, especially if they are just a teenager.

Your statement is Lacking and Fouled as hell.

To start off with it is not like he was holding the gun to him from the get go. So you need to rethink that.

Secondely, how can you NOT see a guy taking an a$$ whipping as being Threatened?


edit on 19-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I have to say this and dont care who disagrees with me, GZ was specifically told NOT to pursue TM, to back off and the police deal with it. He did it anyway and the altercation ensued. If GZ obeyed the 911 operator, TM MIGHT still be alive, and this wouldnt have gone on as far as it has.
I do believe a person has the right to use deadly force if theyre attacked, but GZ wouldnt have been put in that position if he LISTENED to the 911 operator.

ETA: I dont know why a neighborhood watch participant would be carrying a sidearm anyhow. Theyre told NOT to carry a weapon of ANY KIND while on watch. Theyre told to OBSERVE and REPORT, not take the law into their own hands.
edit on 7/19/2013 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.



Sure, we can debate their verdict for years. But what isn't up for debate is the witness and expert testimony, the evidence, the law in FL or the outcome of the jury decision.


Why can't the law in Florida be up for debate? Should we abide by laws we feel are unjust, unfair, unethical etc and just be good sheep?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 



He didn't go to jail because they did not have the evidence to charge him with anything.

You just can't hold someone in jail without charging them.


Correct. It takes an affidavit to a judge to secure an arrest warrant. The police chief, the lead investigator, and lead detective all agreed that it was self defense after their investigation. These people were fired subsequently to pave the way for a kangaroo court, but that's besides the point.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.



Sure, we can debate their verdict for years. But what isn't up for debate is the witness and expert testimony, the evidence, the law in FL or the outcome of the jury decision.


You can debate the law to decide if it should he changed sure, what you cannot debate is what the law was that was in place at the time of the incident. People may be able to pressure the FL lawmakers to change the self-defense law, but the federal statute won't change. Self-defense is a Constitutional right.

Why can't the law in Florida be up for debate? Should we abide by laws we feel are unjust, unfair, unethical etc and just be good sheep?




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 



but GZ wouldnt have been put in that position if he LISTENED to the 911 operator.

That is really a double edged sword. In case you did not know. .. ..

The Operator did say . " We don't need you to do that". NOT "Do Not Follow Him".

Next .. The operator said . . "What is he doing now".

So really to tell him that they did not need him to do that AND then say what is he doing now is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION.

It's like statistics. .. . It can be made to look the way you want it to.
edit on 19-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.



Sure, we can debate their verdict for years. But what isn't up for debate is the witness and expert testimony, the evidence, the law in FL or the outcome of the jury decision.


Why can't the law in Florida be up for debate? Should we abide by laws we feel are unjust, unfair, unethical etc and just be good sheep?



Sure, you can always debate whether the law should be changed by the legislature. What cannot be debated is what the law's text said at the time of the incident. Maybe enough pressure can be made to make self-defense illegal in FL, I dunno. It would most likely be struck down at the Supreme Court because the right to self-defense is a Constitutional right.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



I guess I just don't understand how the person holding the gun can feel threatened by the person who is unarmed, especially if they are just a teenager.

Your statement is Lacking and Fouled as hell.

To start off with it is not like he was holding the gun to him from the get go. So you need to rething that.

Secondely, how can you NOT see a guy taking an a$$ whipping as being Threatened?



People have been given and taken ass whippings since time immemorial, and rarely in a one on one fight, with no weapons involved and neither party is a martial arts/MMA expert does it lead to death. Think about all the fights you have seen, been involved with or heard about - if you apply this law then in most cases one person was justified in killing the other - which is ridiculous.

If someone approached me who wasn't a cop, as Zimmerman did to Trayvon, I would be the one that felt threatened, and in fact is the one that is threatened.

Also, it doesn't matter if Zimmerman was holding the gun, he had the gun the whole time, he knew that didn't he? Or did he just find the gun in his hand? So if you have a gun, and the other person is unarmed, unless you think they have psychic powers or are a Navy Seal or 5th degree black belt, how could you possibly feel threatened?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by thesaneone
 


So juries are perfect and their verdicts should never be debated.



Sure, we can debate their verdict for years. But what isn't up for debate is the witness and expert testimony, the evidence, the law in FL or the outcome of the jury decision.


Why can't the law in Florida be up for debate? Should we abide by laws we feel are unjust, unfair, unethical etc and just be good sheep?



Sure, you can always debate whether the law should be changed by the legislature. What cannot be debated is what the law's text said at the time of the incident. Maybe enough pressure can be made to make self-defense illegal in FL, I dunno. It would most likely be struck down at the Supreme Court because the right to self-defense is a Constitutional right.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join