Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

Page 266 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
It's hard to claim rape when you dress scantily and put your self in that position.

No it's not. Rape is defined by not giving express consent through verbal confirmation or certain physical actions that invite a person to use your body. Dressing in any way does not give any form of consent. Being next to a horny person that obviously wants you does not give express consent. Only stating, "let's get it on" or something similar is giving express consent. Or taking off your clothes to invite another to use your body is also express consent if done without pressure or threat of violence. If neither of those versions of express consent is given then it is rape.
 
Last edited:

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
I have to read his campaigning through your quotes but I find it funny that these bastions of truth keep insisting Zimmerman was attacked. The only person who supports this claim is Zimmerman. No one knows but Zimmerman and I am inclined to let the grand jury decide if they believe him. No witness saw the initial confrontation, the start. His claims that he was walking back to the truck and was attacked from behind simply don't jive with where he told them his truck was parked and where the fight occurred and Martin was shot. Where's the truck? Lying next to Martin on the ground next to the street sign? No... some 100 yards away, around a corner parked past the Club House mailboxes where he told the dispatcher it was parked 1 minute before Martin was dead. His exact words, he was getting back into the truck after getting out to check the name of the street he was parked at when he was attacked from behind.

So exactly how far away was his truck? 1/2 of a block, 3/4 of a block?

That makes him guilty of murder how?

Seemz like quite a
images
to me
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
I have to read his campaigning through your quotes but I find it funny that these bastions of truth keep insisting Zimmerman was attacked. The only person who supports this claim is Zimmerman. No one knows but Zimmerman and I am inclined to let the grand jury decide if they believe him. No witness saw the initial confrontation, the start. His claims that he was walking back to the truck and was attacked from behind simply don't jive with where he told them his truck was parked and where the fight occurred and Martin was shot. Where's the truck? Lying next to Martin on the ground next to the street sign? No... some 100 yards away, around a corner parked past the Club House mailboxes where he told the dispatcher it was parked 1 minute before Martin was dead. His exact words, he was getting back into the truck after getting out to check the name of the street he was parked at when he was attacked from behind.

I feel like you keep mixing up "headed back to my truck" with "getting back into my truck" correct me if I'm wrong but, all that I've heard was that he may have claimed he was HEADED back. Not getting back in. Keep in mind you can be "headed back" from any distance, that's an implication of intent and possibly the direction you're facing but not proximity or anything else.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
What Martin Looked like has no bearing for me on what transpired. In fact the only thing I think matters is that a confrontation ensued and Martin was killed.

While I think Zimmerman had a right to defend himself it was his reckless behavior in pursuit that lead to the need to defend.
What T looked like gives credence to his initial suspicions and breaks down the "it was because he was black" racist garbage, if the "kid" had been white and dressed and acted the same way it would have been just as suspicious...
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
I really doubt it. Once all the facts come out it will be clear this is a clear cut case of vicious attack and self defense. EXACTLY what the laws were written for. To protect the VICTIM of the attack, zimmerman.

I suspect Zimmerman will be found negligent based on his pursuit.

It was his actions that led to the need to defend himself. If in fact he had a legal right to shoot to defend himself there can be a case made it was his actions that led to the need to exercise it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
What T looked like gives credence to his initial suspicions and breaks down the "it was because he was black" racist garbage, if the "kid" had been white and dressed and acted the same way it would have been just as suspicious...


I dont beleive the shooting was racially motivated.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
The only problem I have with this case is defining who is the instigator.

GZ is well within is legal rights to "confront" anyone. While probably not the smartest thing to do, and being against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, coming up to a person and asking them who they are and what they are doing is all perfectly legal.

If GZ walked up to TM with a gun in his hand, then TM has every right to fear for his life and fight back in self defense. If GZ just walked up and say, "Dude, who are you and wtf are you doing here?" Then TM has no right to claim self defense. Walking up in proximity to someone, no matter how intimidating that person may seem, is not grounds for fearing for your life. Otherwise people on elevators can decide they are fearing for their lives when it starts to get crowded and they go on a killing spree because of it.

The ONLY deciding factor in this case is if GZ gave TM an actual reason to fear for his life to defend himself. If GZ did, then his shooting of TM is illegal and is murder. If he did not and TM started the physical violence then TM is in the wrong and GZ was defending himself. That is the ONLY thing that matters.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
There is EVIDENCE. That's why we should stick to the EVIDENCE, and not all this what if conjecture and making shit up.

If you have evidence that support he was walking back to his car other than his own tesimony post it.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I suspect Zimmerman will be found negligent based on his pursuit.

It was his actions that led to the need to defend himself. If in fact he had a legal right to shoot to defend himself there can be a case made it was his actions that led to the need to exercise it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)


I suspect Zimmerman will never be charged in this case as there will not be any evidence/testimony that refutes his self-defense claim nor any evidence/testimony that establishes the required probable cause to charge him with a crime.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
The only problem I have with this case is defining who is the instigator.

GZ is well within is legal rights to "confront" anyone. While probably not the smartest thing to do, and being against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, coming up to a person and asking them who they are and what they are doing is all perfectly legal.

If GZ walked up to TM with a gun in his hand, then TM has every right to fear for his life and fight back in self defense. If GZ just walked up and say, "Dude, who are you and wtf are you doing here?" Then TM has no right to claim self defense. Walking up in proximity to someone, no matter how intimidating that person may seem, is not grounds for fearing for your life. Otherwise people on elevators can decide they are fearing for their lives when it starts to get crowded and they go on a killing spree because of it.

The ONLY deciding factor in this case is if GZ gave TM an actual reason to fear for his life to defend himself. If GZ did, then his shooting of TM is illegal and is murder. If he did not and TM started the physical violence then TM is in the wrong and GZ was defending himself. That is the ONLY thing that matters.

I think at this point prosecution should skip the whole Murder charge, unless they have some evidence we are not aware of that supports it.

I think they should pursue reckless diregard, Zimmernans actions were reckless and led to the confrontation.

I think based on the 911 tapes and his pursuit they have a better chance of proving that.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
If you have evidence that support he was walking back to his car other than his own tesimony post it.

Not necessary. GZ has given his statement. The onus is on the prosecutor to disprove with evidence. At this point, GZ does not have to offer any evidence of his innocence. It is assumed.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
I think at this point prosecution should skip the whole Murder charge, unless they have some evidence we are not aware of that supports it.

I think they should pursue reckless diregard, Zimmernans actions were reckless and led to the confrontation.

I think based on the 911 tapes and his pursuit they have a better chance of proving that.


To prove recklessness they need to prove he knew the potential outcome was going to be someone dead even if he had no intention of shooting. Recklessness is a VERY hard thing to prove. Criminal Negligence can probably be slapped on him though based on him not heeding the advice of the 911 dispatcher. Still, that is a slap on the wrist and a fine for the most part.