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

Page 73 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81

Since the story broke with one reporting that the 'evidence' is tainted.

This is why when police interview they verify things like where the person was, what was going on around them, etc.

Many times what they say they saw/heard would be impossible.

This is why police also interview people separately and multiple times.

People tend to fill in the gaps with what others report and many would love to see their name in the paper.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
No guessing here. Guy is packing, confronts non-criminal, shit goes sour and he ends up shooting the guy. These are not guesses.
No claim that T committed a crime at the time by anybody prior to the end encounter. None by anybody.
Before the encounter no, during it maybe...how it went sour is what you're guessing
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I'd recommend everyone to read that article
"They heard the desperate wail of a child, a gunshot, and then silence."
wail of a 17 year old = child?

add that to them saying they didn't 'hear' things, yet they never 'looked'
We heard no fighting, no wrestling, no punching. We heard a boy crying. As soon as the shot went off, it stopped, which tells me it was the child crying. If it had been Zimmerman crying, it wouldn’t have stopped. If you’re hurting, you’re hurting."

And for the moneyshot:
"The third time, I was indignant, and he said, ‘just call the police.’ Then I saw him with his hands over his head in the universal sign of: ‘Oh man, I messed up.’ ”


They claim if there was a fight (which there was) they would have heard it since their window was open.

They have their own agenda.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
also two of the other witnesses claim to have come forward only because they feel Zimmerman is being protected.

Again, biased witness testimony...you can't have that.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
also two of the other witnesses claim to have come forward only because they feel Zimmerman is being protected.

Again, biased witness testimony...you can't have that.

Duh, of course he's being protected. The LAW protects him as he's the victim.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,220
18,683
146
also two of the other witnesses claim to have come forward only because they feel Zimmerman is being protected.

Again, biased witness testimony...you can't have that.

Yea, nonsense. The only bias allowed should be that of the guy left standing, holding the smoking gun. Absolute nonsense.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
I'd recommend everyone to read that article

wail of a 17 year old = child?

add that to them saying they didn't 'hear' things, yet they never 'looked'


And for the moneyshot:



They claim if there was a fight (which there was) they would have heard it since their window was open.

They have their own agenda.

Check the decibel level of a punch to face/head vs someone screaming. Major difference.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
also two of the other witnesses claim to have come forward only because they feel Zimmerman is being protected.

Again, biased witness testimony...you can't have that.

You do realize they are protecting him based on completely biased information as well right? He kind of did kill the "other side of the story". Zimmerman by the very nature of the position he is now in, is the ultimate in biased opinions.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
also two of the other witnesses claim to have come forward only because they feel Zimmerman is being protected.

Again, biased witness testimony...you can't have that.

Could be b/c they originally didn't want to be involved but due to the lack of action or untruths, they felt the need to come out now.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
What in the world does Occupy have to do with this story? LOL
The charges against Z in 2005 are the same that occupy protesters got...resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer...their actions were deemed just fine by most around here yet his are why he's a violent psychopath by default
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
You do realize they are protecting him based on completely biased information as well right? He kind of did kill the "other side of the story". Zimmerman by the very nature of the position he is now in, is the ultimate in biased opinions.
The physical evidence supports it as well...you can't bias physical evidence
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
513
126
Yeah, that will happen when you get 127 grains of hot lead ventilating your chest cavity for visciously attacking another.

Yeah I think that your choice of words just backs up what someone else said about you...

Spidey, do not for a second try to convince anyone that you didn't read that name and assume this irresponsible loser was white. Call him hispanic if you want, if that's how he defines himself--fine. But he is very likely of mixed origin, so why then define him as any particular race? Is Obama no more black than he is white?

How about we jsut refer to him as what he is: a parnoid and irresponsible loser that will soon become the poster child for more rabid anti-gun laws.

And I know this is what you truly fear, and this is why you are so passionate about this story. You and I both see what this means, and it scares you shitless.

Bolded text my emphasis.

I think he's right about your real reasons for posting in this thread in particular
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Duh, of course he's being protected. The LAW protects him as he's the victim.

The claim is he is being protected because he is white.

However; yes it's simply the law. Also why we haven't heard anything from him, law enforcement needs to work it out first.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
She didn't...police were on the news here saying originally how no one was coming forth with good leads.

Her story has also changed in various interviews.

She has proven herself a non-credible witness.

If your continued claim is all the witnesses are unreliable then the cover-up will be complete. So far I understand there are 6, I posted info on 4 and your response is you can't count them.

I guess that means we only believe Z, sad.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Could be b/c they originally didn't want to be involved but due to the lack of action or untruths, they felt the need to come out now.

Which makes it hard to take them as credible. Initial testimony is the best prior to any witnesses talking. Once they talk and once new stories appear, witness testimony evolves to closer match the story presented.

This is proven in many college experiments where a movie shows one thing and then discussion after is lead to another story being what was seen. People start agreeing to things that were never in the movie. It's something inherent to human nature...they aren't trying to lie necessarily, it just becomes something they believe.

The media has a lot of power in this. Most story retractions never have their intended effect because people have already established their belief in the wrong story.