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

Page 267 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Late teens is not old enough to carry? Legally that is true. That doesn't mean GZ had no idea that TM wasn't carrying illegally.

Not my point. My point is as someone not breaking any crimes legally walking home from the store, if he is confronted like he very may well have been by an armed adult, he cannot legally pull his own gun to defend himself. The adult has to be the adult in that scenario. I never implied he could not have been illegally carrying. Anyone, 10 to 100 can be guilty of that.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
There is EVIDENCE. That's why we should stick to the EVIDENCE, and not all this what if conjecture and making shit up.

The EVIDENCE shows he was no where near his truck and his DIRECTION of walking is not witnessed by ANYONE. Stop making shit up.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
more reason for the belief than you do to drag the living through the mud with no proof. Grow the fuck up....AND be less hypocritical. thanks!

The guy authorized the dragging by shooting an unarmed minor.

Killing people has consequences.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
Frankly I think Zimmerman's own testimony carries more weight than most here are prepared to admit.

Keep in mind that the police arrived VERY rapidly after the shooting, and this man had not ever shot anyone before, certainly not killed anyone before, he was probably very much in shock about what just happened, still dazed from being beaten, etc.

He did not have a lot of time or the right mental state, and certainly not the benefit of 266 pages of forum posts analyzing everything, or a month of stewing on details, to figure out which little wrinkles which, if he added to his account of events, would set him up in a better position to avoid charges.

Sure, general rules like "it's always a good idea to claim self-defense" would possibly have occurred to him even in that state, those are obvious, I'll grant that. But again, this is not a man who appears to have planned this in any way, not an evil Bond villain mastermind.

This is a man who was just surprised by being attacked, and surprised by having to kill someone. He didn't say anything which didn't fit with what John the *eye*witness said. He didn't say anything which aroused police suspicions much if at all, he didn't say anything inconsistent with the evidence at hand. So I tend to think his testimony is one of our best resources. I look forward to when we have more of it.

And to those saying he might be found recklessly negligent and held accountable on that basis, if each individual piece of the puzzle (legal to carry the weapon, legal to question a stranger in his community, legal to act in self defense) is kosher on it's own, how can they really become criminal when combined?
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
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.

Based on his testimony he was in the process of heading back to his truck which would mean he did heed the advice given to him by the dispatcher.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
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)

You would be mistaken. You need to read the police report and the only charge they could conceivable get him with.

He will not be charged with a crime as no crime was committed nor is there ANY evidence that one was.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Can you provide a link where Zimmerman is quoted as saying he was attacked from behind? From my understanding, the first blow, according to Zimmerman, was from the front, and that is the blow that likely broke, or at least caused GZ to have a bloody nose. GZ also claims this is the blow that knocked GZ onto his back, which allowed TM to get on top of him and slam the back of GZ's head into the concrete (sidewalk, I believe).

My source - Link. Look below the bolded "One-minute gap"

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...gation-federal-criminal-civil-rights-iced-tea

http://www.examiner.com/us-headline...rademark-papers-for-slogans-based-on-his-name

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/u-s-department-of-justice-fbi-and-fdle-2248509.html

I have read both accounts, the one you linked and the one I linked. This is madness...
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
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.

It could go down that way, I for one hope the grand jury looks at the actions that led to the confrontation.

Its very possible to to not be charged with the direct murder but to be found negligent.

If they can prove his actions directly led to the need to shoot, he can keep is self defense and still be liable based on recklessness.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Based on his testimony he was in the process of heading back to his truck which would mean he did heed the advice given to him by the dispatcher.

Based on his 911 call that ended a minute before Martins death, he wasn't and was telling this same dispatcher to just have them call him when they get to the club house where his truck is parked, and he will tell them where he is located now. Testimony and 911 call not matching.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Based on his testimony he was in the process of heading back to his truck which would mean he did heed the advice given to him by the dispatcher.

If given, and not able to be proven different, then he's not negligent at all, let alone reckless. Burden of proof is showing that he did not heed the advise and did not go back to his truck or had any intention of doing so.

As more and more information is released, I find it very hard in thinking that GZ was in the wrong here. My personal opinion about his character doesn't matter as I think he's a nutball over all, but I don't think he's culpable of any crime base on the information I've read/heard about.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
Not my point. My point is as someone not breaking any crimes legally walking home from the store, if he is confronted like he very may well have been by an armed adult, he cannot legally pull his own gun to defend himself. The adult has to be the adult in that scenario. I never implied he could not have been illegally carrying. Anyone, 10 to 100 can be guilty of that.

Keep in mind that his parents were frustrated at no charges being brought on Z, understandably from their perspective, I don't blame them for their frustration. Keep in mind also that they made calculated decisions about what photographs to release when their frustration lead them to try to work to get the story national attention, they also took care as to less favorable items about his trouble at school etc.

It's not inconceivable that they may have softened up his reasons for being out roaming that night too. Just a possibility. It's also possible they didn't know what all he was up to. So we can't say with certainty that he was just out going to the store. I don't mean to be recklessly conjecturing but people seem to be prepared to believe anything negative about Z so, there ya go.
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
It is evidence, which is a sworn affadavit. Unless there is counter evidence it will stand as the truth. That's how the law works.

And if there was even a hint or shred of evidence his story isn't the truth then police would have probable cause to arrest him. They continue to say there is no probable cause to make an arrest.

Do folks REALLY still think the police and DA aren't trying as hard as they can to make SOME kind of arrest? In spite of all the evidence matching up to zimmerman's story, eye witnesses, wounds, physical evidence, etc.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
LMAO!! Keep em coming lotus503.

Do you honestly think that the SPD and state's attorneys haven't looked at every possible violation of the law? They must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't self defense and have probable cause that a crime has been committed based on evidence and/or testimony.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
It is evidence, which is a sworn affadavit. Unless there is counter evidence it will stand as the truth. That's how the law works.

I don't dispute that sworn testimony is evidence.

But other than that sworn testimony there is no evidence.

One has to weight said evidence Spidey appears to think because Zimmerman said he was walking back its proof, its not proof its sworn testimony.

Whats also Evidence is the fact the guy outlines a threat to police and he pursues that threat ending in the death of minor.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Except by law Zimmerman can't be held criminally liable for his actions in self defense. This has been explained many, many, many times.

All the attorneys and police haven't even mentioned the remote possibility of negligent or reckless behavior. Not that he could be charged with it anyway, he can't.

So you'd say that Martin's actions were completely unprovoked? That would be one of the arguments for self-defense.

If you're followed for 7+ minutes, and then trailed on foot. The face to face might be very tense, and reaching for a cell phone that was just in your hands seconds before, could have left a reasonable person thinking Zimmerman was reaching for a gun.