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

Page 1598 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
There's little doubt there was some sort of verbal confrontation, witnesses call it an argument but that doesn't mean it was an argument.

Given that Zimmerman thought he was dealing with a criminal, why wouldn't he have his gun drawn, or draw it at that time ?

What if when Martin was confronted with being shot, his reaction was to attack Zimmerman quickly then hold him on the ground ? Then call for help ?

Isn't this scenario consistent with the facts as well as Zimmerman's actions and attitudes expressed on the recorded call ?

No one, not one person saw the gun drawn. The prosecutor will not be able to float that theory.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
Nor did TM let John know that GZ had a gun when he had the chance either.
Nor was there the tiniest bit of evidence he even breathed on the gun during a several minute long scuffle...there's ZERO chance the gun was drawn before it was fired in self defense by a man on his back being beaten
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Nor was there the tiniest bit of evidence he even breathed on the gun during a several minute long scuffle...there's ZERO chance the gun was drawn before it was fired in self defense by a man on his back being beaten

Common sense tells you the gun was out before he was on his back. He carried the gun on the small of his back. Literally impossible for TM to know he had a gun in that position for there to be a struggle as GZ alleges without GZ either brandishing it, or telling him he had a gun.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
Common sense tells you the gun was out before he was on his back. He carried the gun on the small of his back. Literally impossible for TM to know he had a gun in that position for there to be a struggle as GZ alleges without GZ either brandishing it, or telling him he had a gun.
Then you're short on common sense, if it had been out during a prolonged struggle there would have been evidence of TM touching it, which there isn't, or it would have been fired much earlier, which didn't happen. There's just no way it was exposed for several minutes without being fired or have any evidence of TM touching it
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Common sense tells you the gun was out before he was on his back. He carried the gun on the small of his back. Literally impossible for TM to know he had a gun in that position for there to be a struggle as GZ alleges without GZ either brandishing it, or telling him he had a gun.

Umm, when I bend over my weapon is visible as my shirt/jacket are lifted up. Same when you're on the ground if he was turning or moving around. Shirt/jacket lifted and weapon exposed.

Not that any of that matters given the evidence.

Do you even know how in waist band holsters work or look like?
 
Last edited:

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Then you're short on common sense, if it had been out during a prolonged struggle there would have been evidence of TM touching it, which there isn't, or it would have been fired much earlier, which didn't happen. There's just no way it was exposed for several minutes without being fired or have any evidence of TM touching it

There is also no way that he could have drawn it while he was on his back, when the gun was on his back. There were two bodyweights on that gun.

I'd like for them to admit into evidence him laying on his back and drawing his gun. Doesn't even need to have anybody on him. Kind of like trying on the glove. Just so the jury can see how full of shit he is.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Then you're short on common sense, if it had been out during a prolonged struggle there would have been evidence of TM touching it, which there isn't, or it would have been fired much earlier, which didn't happen. There's just no way it was exposed for several minutes without being fired or have any evidence of TM touching it

First, the altercation didn't last very long, certainly, not several minutes. Second, there's no conclusive evidence that TM did or didn't touch the gun. DNA test proves that, IIRC.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
There is also no way that he could have drawn it while he was on his back, when the gun was on his back. There were two bodyweights on that gun.

I'd like for them to admit into evidence him laying on his back and drawing his gun. Doesn't even need to have anybody on him. Kind of like trying on the glove. Just so the jury can see how full of shit he is.

I'm on my back, I turn my shoulders to my left, weapon is exposed, I grab it.

You train for all these things so you don't have to think about drawing, it sorta comes naturally like pulling out your wallet. You're not making any logical sense with the direction you're headed, it's just dumb to even think that.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
There is also no way that he could have drawn it while he was on his back, when the gun was on his back. There were two bodyweights on that gun.

I'd like for them to admit into evidence him laying on his back and drawing his gun. Doesn't even need to have anybody on him. Kind of like trying on the glove. Just so the jury can see how full of shit he is.
It's not nearly as hard as you're making it out to be...and T wasn't lying on top of him he was standing over him.
First, the altercation didn't last very long, certainly, not several minutes. Second, there's no conclusive evidence that TM did or didn't touch the gun. DNA test proves that, IIRC.
Seems to me I remember it being close to two minutes long...from the times given by various witnesses hearing the beginning to the gun shot. And the tests showed no fingerprints or DNA from TM on the gun, how would that not be conclusive:confused:
I'm on my back, I turn my shoulders to my left, weapon is exposed, I grab it.

You train for all these things so you don't have to think about drawing, it sorta comes naturally like pulling out your wallet. You're not making any logical sense with the direction you're headed, it's just dumb to even think that.
In all fairness highly doubt Z-man was big on training, not that drawing while on your back is all that hard to begin with
 

OCNewbie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2000
7,596
24
81
I personally think that TM was provoked, most likely by GZ reaching for a weapon to try and keep TM in place for the cops to come. None of the evidence supports that, and if I was on a jury I wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion.

I like this post a lot. I have no problem with you expressing your belief of what happened (despite not sharing your opinion), and I respect you for clarifying/admitting there isn't any evidence to support that opinion also.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
No way spidey!

We both know Zimmerman stood there in the dark and rain and said to himself "cops will be here in a few minutes? fuck that. It's on. I'm going to find this kid, and pop a cap in his ass. More than enough time before cops arrive for me to needlessly murder a black kid! muhahahaha!"

Then his 5'9" pudgy self ran like the wind, caught up to Trayvon who, miraculously wasn't inside and long gone by then... and attempted to wrestle the 6'3" black guy in a dark hoodie at night, one on one, to the ground.

Exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect.

Honestly let's be real here for a second.

What percentage of non-black people in the US would ever, in their wildest dreams, absent an enormous death wish, attempt to "detain" or directly confront, one on one, a 6 foot + black male who they believed tp be a suspicious criminal at night in the dark?

The very idea is idiocy itself.

oXfYy.png
 
Last edited:

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
No way spidey!

We both know Zimmerman stood there in the dark and rain and said to himself "cops will be here in a few minutes? fuck that. It's on. I'm going to find this kid, and pop a cap in his ass. More than enough time before cops arrive for me to needlessly murder a black kid! muhahahaha!"

Then his 5'9" pudgy self ran like the wind, caught up to Trayvon who, miraculously wasn't inside and long gone by then... and attempted to wrestle the 6'3" black guy in a dark hoodie at night, one on one, to the ground.

Exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect.

Honestly let's be real here for a second.

What percentage of non-black people in the US would ever, in their wildest dreams, absent an enormous death wish, attempt to "detain" or directly confront, one on one, a 6 foot + black male who they believed tp be a suspicious criminal at night in the dark?

The very idea is idiocy itself.

oXfYy.png

Not if you have a gun...it's a great equalizer.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
No way spidey!

We both know Zimmerman stood there in the dark and rain and said to himself "cops will be here in a few minutes? fuck that. It's on. I'm going to find this kid, and pop a cap in his ass. More than enough time before cops arrive for me to needlessly murder a black kid! muhahahaha!"

Then his 5'9" pudgy self ran like the wind, caught up to Trayvon who, miraculously wasn't inside and long gone by then... and attempted to wrestle the 6'3" black guy in a dark hoodie at night, one on one, to the ground.

Exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect.

Honestly let's be real here for a second.

What percentage of non-black people in the US would ever, in their wildest dreams, absent an enormous death wish, attempt to "detain" or directly confront, one on one, a 6 foot + black male who they believed tp be a suspicious criminal at night in the dark?

The very idea is idiocy itself.

oXfYy.png

easy. GZ had a gun. it gave him a false sense of bravado. without the gun he would have just watched and called the police. with is what he usually do.

so instead he chose to get out of the vehicle and fallow.

without the gun this wouldnt' have ended the way it did. with proper training this wouldn't have ended the way it did.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
easy. GZ had a gun. it gave him a false sense of bravado. without the gun he would have just watched and called the police. with is what he usually do.

so instead he chose to get out of the vehicle and fallow.

without the gun this wouldnt' have ended the way it did. with proper training this wouldn't have ended the way it did.

If I'm not mistaken he carried the gun most of the time so I'm not so sure it necessarily gave him a false sense of bravado. I think we he chose to get out of the vehicle and follow he never expected to see TM up close as on previous sightings the person ran out of the neighborhood.

True, without the gun it wouldn't have ended the way it did. Who knows TM might have landed a one in a thousand punch that killed or severely maimed GZ. Actually I think his gun training is what allowed him to fire in self defense once he had the chance.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
No one, not one person saw the gun drawn. The prosecutor will not be able to float that theory.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

He shot him without drawing his gun ?

The prosecution doesn't have to float anything. They can rely on the common sense of the judge or jury.

Common sense when following or pursuing a person you think is a criminal is to leave your gun holstered ?

He obviously drew it sometime, there's no reason to think he drew it when HE says he did, what HE says about it is pretty much irrelevant. Unless the judge or jury decide he's a reliable person as to telling the truth.

Your point about not seeing the gun drawn..nobody saw anything that happened prior to Zimmerman being on the ground..if they saw that. Those witnesses didn't see the shooting, yet we know he was shot.

How could that be ?
 
Last edited:

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
He shot him without drawing his gun ?

The prosecution doesn't have to float anything. They can rely on the common sense of the judge or jury.

Common sense when following or pursuing a person you think is a criminal is to leave your gun holstered ?

He obviously drew it sometime, there's no reason to think he drew it when HE says he did, what HE says about it is pretty much irrelevant. Unless the judge or jury decide he's a reliable person as to telling the truth.

Your point about not seeing the gun drawn..nobody saw anything that happened prior to Zimmerman being on the ground..if they saw that. Those witnesses didn't see the shooting, yet we know he was shot.

How could that be ?

As I stated in my post above, I don't think GZ thought he would ever see TM again once he ran due to the fact all the others kept running until they were well out of the neighborhood. If GZ had the gun drawn why didn't TM shout to John "Help me, this guy has a gun"? It will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that the gun was drawn before GZ said he did so.

Wow, it just occurred to me, maybe TM was suicidal and attacked someone he knew had a gun in hopes that the person would end his life. We see this time and time again with people who force police to shoot them.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
He shot him without drawing his gun ?

The prosecution doesn't have to float anything. They can rely on the common sense of the judge or jury.

Common sense when following or pursuing a person you think is a criminal is to leave your gun holstered ?

He obviously drew it sometime, there's no reason to think he drew it when HE says he did, what HE says about it is pretty much irrelevant. Unless the judge or jury decide he's a reliable person as to telling the truth.

Your point about not seeing the gun drawn..nobody saw anything that happened prior to Zimmerman being on the ground..if they saw that. Those witnesses didn't see the shooting, yet we know he was shot.

How could that be ?

You're arguing a different thing: that Zimmermann brandished his gun. There is no witness to support that assertion. There is no evidence to support that assertion. And Zimmermann isn't charged with it. So it would be a little difficult to argue.

The fact that no one saw the incident prior to Martins assault of Zimmermann doesn't mean the prosecution gets to make it up as they go. There still has to be an evidentiary basis.

What is the basis for your claim of brandishing, beyond wishful thinking?
 

OCNewbie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2000
7,596
24
81
If GZ had his gun out, TM would have gone for it. We know someone was screaming for at least 40-45 seconds. If it was GZ, he was screaming because TM was attacking him. If it was TM, he was screaming because GZ had a gun, and TM feared for his life.

So, if it was TM, because GZ had his gun out, in hand, TM would have gone for that gun. The below pictures prove, IMO, that there was no 40-45 second struggle for the gun (or any struggle).

054.jpg

055.jpg

056.jpg

057.jpg

058.jpg


GZ's hands don't come out unscathed when another person is doing everything in their power, fighting for their life, trying to get the gun out of his hands for 40-45 seconds.