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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


So, you are saying that someone that is going nowhere in particular is suspicious enough to cite just cause for a search?

edit on 2-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   


Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I don't know that 'Flee' or 'Run' would be at all accurate here. He's a free man with a full acquittal of all charges.


Never said he was "fleeing" charges or "justice"...rather he is fleeing the spotlight.

I do believe that he intended or considered "fleeing" justice before the trial. The Judge seemed to consider that a possibility as well...they had concealed finances during pre-trial to the tune of over 100k+ and he refused to turn over his passport. That's why the upped his bail.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The fact he was handed his gun back confirms that beyond any question. Even Texas isn't handing a gun back to a criminal like that. Whatever we each think of him, either way, he's as free to go anywhere he likes as we are.


Never said otherwise? Did you think I was arguing that he was found guilty??


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Why Mexico though? That hadn't even crossed my mind? Mexico is only safe haven for people the U.S. chooses to ignore, not people they actually want back, so if Holder filed charges that wouldn't stop anything. He's Hispanic but does he even speak Spanish? I never heard anyone say either way. It doesn't seem logical to leave the country. Just Florida.


Mexico...He had refused to turn over his passport when he was originally charged and awaiting trial. To me that speaks about him reserving the option to leave the country. In my opinion he only changed his mind about originally fleeing when his attorneys convinced him he could win the case.

So the passport thing...refusing originally to turn it over...tells me he was considering a move out of country. Mexico seems an obvious choice, since he could stay near to family in the states?

Holder is not going to file charges. The evidence is not there. Holder did not open a new investigation like some of the media reported, but rather pointed out that they hadn't issued a conclusion on the investigation that had been ongoing into a civil rights violation. Holder made the statement...measured statement that also infered charges were unlikely...to placate the rage from minorities. Holder doesn't have the evidence to file civil rights violations charges, but if he could dampen the uproar a little...it was worth a try.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rich Z
 


Seriously people, the entire trial, witnesses and all, is readily available on YouTube. Before making a fool of yourself by displaying your ignorance, at least try to view as much of the testimony as you can beforehand.

If George lost sight of Trayvon at some point then that is where he is supposed to wait for the police. They will then go into that dark alley and get "eyes on".

The whole edict is to keep distance. Going around blind dark corners to re acquire the "suspect" would go against Georges authority (because he might force a confrontation... which he did). Which is why the dispatch advised against waaay back. Of course George already knew this and shouldn't have to be reminded of that (or the posted speed limit).

You cite trial "evidence" but should bear in mind Georges testimony about all these details is the only evidence. The only other corroborating witness is unavailable for comment because George killed him.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


So, you are saying that someone that is going nowhere in particular is suspicious enough to cite just cause for a search?

edit on 2-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)


I will say this...on certain highways and interstates along the border...a cop pulls you over and you tell him you are just out for a drive and they will have drug sniffing dogs there lickety split.

As for Zimmerman...the cop that pulled him over took pics with his cell phone...at that point Zimmerman knew that this guy was looking to make money contracting for tabloids...I don't blame him for not telling the cop his destination.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   


Going around blind dark corners to re acquire the "suspect" would go against Georges authority (because he might force a confrontation... which he did).


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.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Forgive me, I'd read your response as seeming to suggest he was leaving more than just threats and bad living conditions this all created for him in Florida. (holds paw out to slap)


There did seem to be some legitimate question in the start and to be totally honest, I'd be surprised if Zimmerman hadn't considered running, at least once in a dark evening's thought about all that had gone wrong. To be fair, who among us wouldn't consider it? Actually doing it? That's a whole world difference...

I think by the end, it's clear he was about as I note up there and I think we'd all be if truly innocent (in our mind, at the very least) and facing a murder charge with what amounts to life in prison for him, given his age and his "reputation" entering prison.

At any rate, I agree about Holder at this stage. If Holder was going to play political witch hunt for real, I believe it would have started for real within a week of the acquittal. Perhaps some of Holders own DOJ people noted he was tilting at windmills which may fall right over and smash HIM flat by the end of it. Very much like Holders brain fart regarding a trial for KSM and others in New York City .....and saying they'd be held forever in prison, whether they were acquitted or not. :shk:

That man, totally aside from Obama or even politics in every way, is a walking disaster of a public official from his toes to his eyebrows.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

That man, totally aside from Obama or even politics in every way, is a walking disaster of a public official from his toes to his eyebrows.


Not the best AG we have ever had. That's for sure. But not neccessarily the worst either...just the worst AG right now
History has a way of softening memories.

A. Mitchel Palmer is widely considered the worst AG to most history buffs. Under the guise of fighting communist, he pretty much created a KGB state in the USA for a while, random raids, detaining folks without charges, deporting them without cause etc. etc.
www.time.com...

Pres. GWB had 7 AGs...went through them like napkins...ironically Holder was among them as "acting" AG at one point.

I don't know...Holder seems average to me. Anyone in the hotseat for that long is going to take a beating. Can we do better? Sure, but not the absolute worst either.

Hell ...AG John Mitchell under Nixon, served 19 months in jail for Watergate.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 





You are digging a really deep hole.


Not really. The only people who would have understood EVERY SINGLE LEGAL ASPECT of this case, are those who have an extreme interest in law. That doesn't mean I didn't understand any of it.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Those questions were not about understanding legal aspects of the case. You were the one making the challenge about facts. So my questions were about the facts.

For you to make a weak @$$ excuse that the questions were leading or did not pertain was completely asinine.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
The whole edict is to keep distance.


Edict? Do you know what that means? Or did the word sound good for your "point"? Oh I see you are equating a suggestion by the 9-11 operator as a command from an authoritative position right? Am I on the right track here with your thinking?!



Going around blind dark corners to re acquire the "suspect" would go against Georges authority (because he might force a confrontation... which he did).


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; without fear of the Government placing their boot on his neck. Novel concept I know.


Which is why the dispatch advised against waaay back. Of course George already knew this and shouldn't have to be reminded of that (or the posted speed limit).


Before you claimed it was an "edict", not it was "advised"...which is it. Those are two separate and different things. The 9-11 operator(s) had no authority under the color of the law to administer a command to a private citizen. All they can do is suggest.


You cite trial "evidence" but should bear in mind Georges testimony about all these details is the only evidence. The only other corroborating witness is unavailable for comment because George killed him.


Except there were plenty of witnesses called by the State who, for prosperity sake, supported the defense's case.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


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.

Zimmerman was assaulted for walking around and observing people in the neighborhood in which he lived. Self-defense, in that tragic moment, was the only option he had available to him.

It saddens me to see so many people trying to turn this event into something that it is not. To see oh so many people turning this clear cut case of self-defense into a racially motivated slaying. It is.....pathetic. The actions of those that will use any incident to further their xenophobic claims. The actions of those that will use this incident to raise a convenient victim into the burning flames of the witch-burning ash heap.

It is sad that others want to see a fellow human being hoisted upon the pyre.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


So, habeas corpus and voir dire aren't legal terms? If your questions weren't about legal aspects of this case, why ask them anyway?

Look, if you want to ask me questions about what happened that night in Sanford relating to Zimmerman's documented testimony and the half-assed investigation, I'll gladly answer your questions, but I'm not going to take part in your "I'm going to prove I know more about this legal term than you do" quiz.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You really can't help yourself can you?

I know some XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX that can speak better legalease with one eye tied behind their back.

You are the one saying that you know more than others and making challenges that you can't back up.

It really is pathetic.

I'll not continue to entertain such stupidity as it is serving no purpose. You bring absolutely nothing to the table and your Lack of knowledge on the subject has been made very clear to everyone within eyeshot of your posts.

I suggest you concede as your ability to maintain an effective argument is horribly lacking at best and seriously jocular at most.
edit on 3-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


Carry on with the ad homs and pompous posturing. You're only fooling yourself that you are smarter than the average bear. I've no doubt you would try to play one-upmanship games with mildly-retarded kids tho'.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


ad homs? Where?

By saying that you don't know your @$$ from a hole in the ground.

It's true. Go back and read your posts.

You have absolutely No Clue what the hell you are talking about.

Your ability to post should be Revoked.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


So, comparing my intellect to that of mildly retarded children is not trying to attribute a negative trait to your opponent in a debate? Is that your idea of a compliment then?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You know, If you had the XXXXXXX to do so you could have looked it up on google and armed yourself with better materials for an effective argument.
edit on 3-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


The nerve of you. That was my argument after googling the subject. I'm sure you'd have been far more wordy with your response, but I thought I did well enough.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Please stop the personal sniping.

Pretty please



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join