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.

 

George Zimmerman stopped by Texas police for speeding, had gun in car

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


O.K.

I will bite my tongue.

Enough said.

I have never had a Moderator say "Pretty Please" to me before.

That just made a hell of an impact on me.




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


What? People in the US are free to walk around. What authority does a person need to walk in their neighborhood.

Learn the laws of the country.


George wasn't "out for a stroll".



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 


First of all. Allow me to dispel a popular myth. Zimmerman called and communicated with the non-emergency 911 line. This line is privately operated and employed. It has no legal standing to convey orders. Zimmerman was indeed told by this private operator that "we don't need you to do that". What folk of your type fail to understand is that no one is obligated to bow to their orders. They are not legal authorities. They cannot dictate orders.

Neither does George have any "authority" to follow or chase "suspicious persons". In his capacity as a self appointed "watch" citizen he is only "required" to keep his distance, observe and report.

He couldn't even do that. Not only is he not authorized he is incapable of following the limits of the law. Being pulled over for speeding on the highway shows that as well.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Yes, as a free person, in the country that redefined free persons, George was capable to walk freely and even engage in conversation freely; confrontational or not;


Whats your point? He wasn't out for a stroll. He was "following" a "suspicious person". Thats entirely different.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


I have never had a Moderator say "Pretty Please" to me before.

That just made a hell of an impact on me.


And even though a suggestion or request it is as filled with as much intent as a dispatcher saying, "We don't need you to do that", right?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I take it you still haven't watched the video I linked you because you keep on reiterating the same thing over, and over, and over because that's the only thing that you keep on stressing.

There's a thousand different things that could have been done differently by both people, but the case is not about 'what ifs' and 'should have' and not to surprise you but it's about the matter of self-defense.
edit on 3-8-2013 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



Was it worth it, George?

he did not slander himself to make many want to kill him simply because he defended his own life against a violent, paranoid junkie.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by intrptr
 



Was it worth it, George?

he did not slander himself to make many want to kill him simply because he defended his own life against a violent, paranoid junkie.


All the more reason not to follow one around in the first place. Are you looking for trouble?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


and not to surprise you but it's about the matter of self-defense.

Actually, the trial was for murder brought by the state. Who did a poor job with it (IMO). George was the only witness.

But you're right, its a moot point now. The verdict was not guilty. I don't have a problem with the verdict. This thread is about the further exploits of one George Zimmerman. The "good boy" who was caught breaking the law (again).

And let go... again.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



All the more reason not to follow one around in the first place. Are you looking for trouble?

ignore a very dangerous threat so that they can harm someone else? yes, brilliant idea.

the fallout of the trial was created to stir up problems, that isn't how our system should work. i hope he sues the news agencies that slandered him.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 




The "good boy" who was caught breaking the law (again).

And let go... again.


People are not arrested for minor speeding infractions.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


reply by intrptr
 

All the more reason not to follow one around in the first place. Are you looking for trouble?



ignore a very dangerous threat so that they can harm someone else? yes, brilliant idea.

Do you follow "dangerous, paranoid junkies" around? "We don't need you to do that".


I hope he sues the news agencies that slandered him.

Good luck finding an attorney to carry that.



edit on 3-8-2013 by intrptr because: bbcode



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by intrptr
 




The "good boy" who was caught breaking the law (again).

And let go... again.


People are not arrested for minor speeding infractions.

"People" aren't pulled over for "minor speeding" either. "Speeding" was the word used.
edit on 3-8-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 




"People" aren't pulled over for "minor speeding" either. "Speeding" was the word used.


A driver might be pulled over for 5 or 10 mph above the limit. More than that would probably get a ticket. Warnings usually go to those who are just above the limit. On Texas highways, many, many people drive 10 over. The police can't pull everyone over. I wouldn't be surprised if the out of state plate got him noticed and warned.

Anyway, even much over (20,30) is a ticket not an arrest. Looks like you desire of a police state where any infraction means arrest and lock up.

edit on 8/3/2013 by roadgravel because: typo



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



Do you follow "dangerous, paranoid junkies" around?

if i had suspicion of someone, yes i would follow them obviously.

you say you have no problem with the ruling, but all of your other words contradict that statement.

now let me ask you a question: do you manipulate the masses into wanting to attack an innocent man?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


do you manipulate the masses into wanting to attack an innocent man?

Disagreeing with someone is not "attacking them".

This is a disagreement between us, not "the masses".

By the way, the verdict was "not guilty", not "he's innocent".

Enough baiting... I'm done here.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



Neither does George have any "authority" to follow or chase "suspicious persons". In his capacity as a self appointed "watch" citizen he is only "required" to keep his distance, observe and report.

So what about the Good Samaritan Act OR a Citizens Arrest?

You are in contradiction of yourself.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


A driver might be pulled over for 5 or 10 mph above the limit. More than that would probably get a ticket. Warnings usually go to those who are just above the limit. On Texas highways, many, many people drive 10 over. The police can't pull everyone over. I wouldn't be surprised if the out of state plate got him noticed and warned.

Good thing you don't write the laws.

Last reply here.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


So what about the Good Samaritan Act OR a Citizens Arrest?

Thats different. They involve witnessing an actual crime, not just "suspicious person".

Like I said, done here.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


If you want to play the semantics game. In the US a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. If we follow basic logic unless Zimmerman was found guilty it means he is innocent in the eyes of the court. He was found not guilty ergo he is innocent.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join