# Are you Team Trayvon or Team Zimmerman? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881 "2012-03-26T21:27:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 42
**Author:** ![Nocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9fc348/32.png) [@Nocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nocturne)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/821 "2012-03-31T04:46:33Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Stop stalking me, **Rand**. It’s annoying and it makes me feel sorry for you. If you’d just stop wearing that hoodie, he’d probably leave you alone. ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/822 "2012-03-31T04:52:52Z")
im on Team At Least I’m Being Entertained. I’m willing to bet there are at least 10 similar cases out there currently that just aren’t as media friendly. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/823 "2012-03-31T08:09:15Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > Are you conflating the statutory mention of “provoke” and the term “initiating” as used by **Shodan**? Did you not read what Shodan wrote then? What the hell is with all these private definitions and ridiculous parsing? (And how is it everyone paid so much attention to Terr’s weirdness with “immediately” but completely ignored his insistence that the “initial report” is defined as the report filed by the first officer on the scene, even if it’s a week after the report filed by the second officer on the scene? The stuff that catches people’s attention around here baffles me…) So do we need to hand out glossaries of everyone’s individual definitions of ordinary English words? Well, if there’s to be any claim of special meanings when used in the context of the law, I’m glad to have my trusty Black’s by my side: > [@](#): > > PROVOKE: to excite; to stimulate; to arouse. To irritate or enrage. [all cites ommitted] > **PROVOCATION** the act of inciting another to do a particular deed. That which arouses moves calls forth, causes, or occasions. And this is a bullseye: > [@](#): > > **PROVOKING A DIFFICULTY**. The law on this point arises only where deceased was the attacking party, and his attack was brought about by the words or acts of accused, intended to bring on the attack, in order that advantage might be taken thereof by him to slay his adversary and escape the consequences. From the layperson’s dictionary: > [@](#): > > pro·voke   [pruh-vohk] > > 1. to anger, enrage, exasperate, or vex. > 2. to stir up, arouse, or call forth (feelings, desires, or activity): The mishap provoked a hearty laugh. > 3. to **incite** or stimulate (a person, animal, etc.) to action. > 4.to give rise to, **induce** , or bring about: What could have provoked such an incident? > [@](#): > > This is the quote from **Shodan** that immediately preceded your quote of the “Use of force by Aggressor” section: > > [QUOTE=Shodan the Man] > I don’t know that initiating the confrontation has much to do with SYG. If Zimmerman’s account of being cold-cocked and having his head slammed against the ground is true, he wouldn’t have much opportunity to retreat, and SYG doesn’t really come into the picture. Note the term “initiating” and the term “cold-cocked.” [/QUOTE] Noted. In fact, read. > [@](#): > > **Shodan** was still assuming Hold up!..you know what Shodan’s assumptions were? > [@](#): > > the account that the first actual force used was by Martin per Zimmerman’s statement.He even says that clearly. Oh well, then it’s cheating to speak of knowing what Shodan’s assumptions were, then, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > So, your explanation is based on that statement i.e., assume Zimmerman’s story is true re force. I believe I’m with you so far… > [@](#): > > Zimmerman could have jumped around called Martin an “idiot” and that is not “provocation” as contemplated by the statute. Oh? What special knowledge do you have that leads you to state with such confidence what the statute contemplates, given that the legislature chose to keep such critical knowledge close to the vest, rather than actually putting it in the statute itself? Black’s Law Dictionary gives definitions that are in no meaningful respect different than the common meaning of the word and not in any respect specific about what does and does not qualify as “provocation”, nor even “Provocation of a Difficulty”, which this would clearly be, other than to say “the words or acts of accused, intended to bring on the attack”. I think you’ll have to concede that that leaves it pretty wide open about what exactly would qualify, up to an including jumping around and calling Martin an idiot, should it turn out to be that Martin’s special sensitivity to jumping white men calling him an idiot was known to Zimmerman, making it pretty likely that Zimmerman would in fact be intending to provoke Martin by doing just that. Me, I’m thinking it really might be like those “case-by-case” deals; you know what I mean, where juries or judges consider the specifics of each instance to determine what one particular man might find provocation to violence, knowing, as they surely must, that this will be somewhat different in different circumstances with different people. But you seem pretty sure it’s otherwise. Will you share with us what exactly you rely upon to suggest/assert that there is in fact a very specific meaning intended by the Florida legislature, and what that might be? > [@](#): > > I honestly don’t know how “fighting words” are construed in Florida so I won’t give the example of Zimmerman telling Martin “your momma” jokes. Do you mean to suggest with this remark that the only “words or acts of accused, intended to bring on the attack” or behavior which “initially provokes the use of force” is limited to “fighting words”, that the law recognizes only anger arising from offense as provocation to violence? Because if you are, I’m going to have to ask you to back it up with something written somewhere by some reputable body, because that seems manifestly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. Not to mention flat out nonsense. Say I were walking on a dark street at night and I realized that I was being followed by a man who was watching everything I did. I would not be angry, I would be afraid. If that man got out of his truck and approached me, I would be horribly afraid. If I noticed he had gun or if he in any way reached out to touch me in the slightest way I would be terrified and dodge his hand and if I were at all capable of violence (I’m not, personally, I’m the roll-up-in-a-ball-and-hope-they-go-away sort) and felt remotely capable of pulling it off successfully as a defense strategy, vs. making things worse, I might choose to hit/punch/kick/pokehisfuckingeyesout **first** - they always say never let them take you to a second location, you know. That’s a basic principle of self defense. If I did do that and I managed to be successful, say yanking his eyeball out, and he, in understandable fear of his own, shot me to stop me from reaching in further to pull his brains out, would the law say that I was not provoked? That I was unreasonable in my response to a strange man watching me, following me and repeatedly approaching me when I am alone in the dark, without ever identifying or explaining himself? Would the law have expected me to intuit his intentions and refrain from reacting to the atmosphere of menace his actions had created, which then pushed me into taking action to protect myself against what I perceived to be a very real threat? If the answer is that the law would have found that I had been provoked by Martin’s (stupid, foolish, unnecessarily aggressive - talk to his neighbors - paranoid and unreasonable) behavior that any man with two brain cells to rub together might have predicted would freak me the fuck out (word to the fellas in case this is news), then why would it not conclude the same on behalf of Martin, who is not here to speak to his fear, although it was certainly strongly suggested by his conversation with his girlfriend. Would the law make special rules for boys vs. women, that they may only be provoked by anger, that fear does not count as provocative enough to explain violence? Id’ find that very difficult to believe. Not impossible, because I now know that nothing is impossible when you’re dealing with human beings, but very difficult. And it [seems](http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/FloridaDefenses/NonDeadlyForceSelfDefense.aspx) I’m not all alone here, although it’s not about the Martin victim in this scenario, this speaks to considering the behavior of anyone who busts out some violent moves based on fear: > [@](#): > > Objective and Subjective Standard > > ``` > In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of non-deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real. > > ``` I think me and Martin feeling threatened by Stalky McStalkerson rates. Others might disagree, but it’s sure as hell a valid thing to consider, as [this attorney](http://www.courtneyluv.com/attorney-stephen-a-smith-provides-legal-analysis-of-trayvon-martin-case/) sums up my POV pretty neatly: > [@](#): > > Given the possibility of **Martin’s fear of a stranger** following him at night with or without a firearm, the law may very well have given Martin the right to strike first, initiate physical force, and simultaneously create a paradox wherein both individuals possess a valid self-defense claim. Ooo…and here’s an [Orlando criminal lawyer](http://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspot.com/)with an interesting spin: > [@](#): > > If George Zimmerman laid hands on Trayvon Martin to stop him – even if it was just a slight grab. Such is a “battery” under the law – and now George Zimmerman has just become the illegal “aggressor”, and in most instances cannot use self defense unless he fully attempts to RETREAT, and makes clear his intention to disengage, and not be involved anymore. Yes – for some purposes – a “modified” “retreat rule” still exists in Florida under Florida Statute 776.041. That section of the law says a person acting illegally (an “aggressor”) must, before using self defense, either clearly surrender, or in good faith withdraw from physical contact with the other, and clearly indicate to the other person that he desires to withdraw and terminate any use of force. > [@](#): > > Are you calling the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin “provocation”? Yes, ma’am, I surely am, precisely as I have just presented it here and have done so several times previously in these threads over the past week or two, and if you find fault with my reasoning I would appreciate a clarification of how and why…especially since it could be important if I ever get killed fighting off a crazy stalker scaring the shit out of me on a dark night. Which reminds me… [someone dug up a whole pile of laws](http://www.scribd.com/doc/87237449/Trayvon-Martin-Case-A-Selection-of-Florida-Laws-Implicated) that might get dragged in here, some more logically so than others. Including… > [@](#): > > 784.048  **Stalking** ; definitions; penalties.— > (1) As used in this section, the term: > (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that **causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.** > (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, **however short,** evidencing **a continuity of purpose**. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests. > (c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person. So is it your contention that the law normally obscures such critical information so that it’s “lawyers eyes only”? Because the [Supreme Court of FLorida](http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/75990/op-75990.pdf) really disapproves of that sort of thing, inserting things that aren’t there, ignoring things that are, it just ain’t fittin’! (Cali’s the same way. Funny how that works…) > [@](#): > > One of the most fundamental principles of Florida law is > that penal statutes must be strictly construed according to their > letter. This principle ultimately rests on the due process requirement that criminal > statutes _ **must say with some precision exactly what is prohibited** _. (cites ommitted])Words and meanings **beyond the literal > language may not be entertained** nor may vagueness become a reason > for broadening a penal statute. > > Indeed, our system of jurisprudence is founded on a belief > that everyone must be given sufficient notice of those matters > that may result in a deprivation of life, liberty, or property. For this reason, > [a] penal statute must be written in language > sufficiently definite, when measured by common > understanding and practice, to apprise ordinary > persons of common intelligence of what conduct > will render them liable to be prosecuted for its > violation. Elsewhere, we have said that > [sltatutes criminal in character must be > strictly construed. In its application to penal > and criminal statutes, the due process > requirement of definiteness is of especial > importance. > > The rule of strict construction also rests on the doctrine > that the power to create crimes and punishments in derogation of > the common law inheres solely in the democratic processes of the > legislative branch As we have stated, > The Florida Constitution requires a certain > **precision defined by the legislature,** not > legislation articulated by the judiciary. This > principle can be honored only if criminal statutes are applied in > their strict sense, not if the courts use some minor vagueness to > extend the statutes’ breadth beyond the strict language approved > by the legislature. To do otherwise would violate the separation > of powers. The provisions of this code and offenses > defined by other statutes shall be strictly > construed; when the language is susceptible of > differing constructions, it shall be construed > most favorably to the accused. Whew! So, in light of all that, I look forward to your learned exposition on the detailed nuances of what the legislature really meant, but decided not to spell out, about how to determine what qualifies as provocative behavior. (By the way, I note that the Blacks definition specifies that the provocation is intentional, but Florida law does not.) ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/824 "2012-03-31T09:19:59Z")
I head LeBron is going to have a televised special announcing that he’s changing his team. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/825 "2012-03-31T10:00:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > _First 911 call according to Wiki._ > As responsible parents, we need to recognize our duty to teach our kids how not to look like they are on drugs. I would suggest some starting points:… > > …And for Heaven’s sakes, kids, don’t go buying snack garbage at the 7-11 like you got the munchies or something! Dead giveaway, fucking neon sign. An experienced and trained professional neighborhood watch captain will spot that right away! Elucidator, funny post. Especially the part about walking like a Mormon. Stoid, that was terrific. Well researched, and finally getting to one of the cruxes of this case: what range of behaviors can we reasonably expect when one person follows another person around a neighborhood like this? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/826 "2012-03-31T11:44:52Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I also love how this thread was started in the spirit of making fun of people who pick one side or the other, but that didn’t stop lots of folks from proudly announcing they are on Team Trayvon. Well, I “love” it in the sense of it making me really sad for you guys. Yeah, it’s really unbelievable that someone would disagree with the OP. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/827 "2012-03-31T11:48:52Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I don’t. I cannot wait to learn what it means to you. To me, if somebody chooses “no limit nigga” as a computer nickname, it suggest that this individual sees himself as aggressive and is proud of his affinity with African-American gangsta culture and all that entails – valuing cockiness, rebellion against authority, not shying away from violence, etc. I would say that someone who calls himself “no limit nigga” is more likely than the average person to break the law; to get into a fight; to go to jail; to shoot someone or to get shot himself. Anyway, I am skeptical that the phrase means absolutely nothing to you. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/828 "2012-03-31T11:53:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It could easily, very easily, be a poker reference. Games for wimps are “limit” games, where any given bet may not exceed a limit. “No limit” poker is for bad asses. Anything could mean anything. Besides which, if somebody sees himself as a “bad ass,” then obviously he is more likely to threaten and attack someone who he perceives as disrespecting him. And of course the same reasoning applies to Zimmerman. For example, if his computer nickname were “Mr. Bad-Ass 9mm,” it would raise the probability that he was out looking for trouble as those on Team Trayvon seem to think. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/829 "2012-03-31T11:55:31Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > Yes. It’s just a username. Shall we rank the posters in this thread for their propensity to violence, judging by their chosen usernames? You can if you want. A person’s username sometimes give image into their self-image. And sometimes not. I suspect that if Zimmerman had a computer nickname which connoted aggressiveness, you would have no problem seeing this point. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/830 "2012-03-31T11:57:06Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > It’s an ambiguous handle; you are free, of course, to jump to the worst possible interpretation if you feel it connotes evidence of Martin’s “hot-headedness,” but it’s pretty weak sauce. > > It is, right? Just between you and me? Not your strongest argument? The argument you imagine that I have made is not very strong. The argument I actually made is solid. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/831 "2012-03-31T12:01:34Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > **Stoid** , your colors make my brain hurt. Well does the case really present any legal issues? To me it seems pretty simple. It seems that according to Zimmerman, he had disengaged from Martin; Martin approach him, threatened his life, sucker-punched him to the ground, and proceeded to start beating him. According to Zimmerman, it was then that he opened fire. If Zimmerman’s story is true, then he pretty clearly deserves to walk. On the other hand, if Zimmerman is lying, then he should go to jail. What are the legal issues? ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/832 "2012-03-31T12:23:22Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I suspect that if Zimmerman had a computer nickname which connoted aggressiveness, you would have no problem seeing this point. Zimmerman’s lengthy record of assaulting people connotes his aggressiveness much better than trying to find angels dancing on the head of an unverified Twitter account. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/833 "2012-03-31T12:33:21Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > To me, if somebody chooses “no limit nigga” as a computer nickname, it suggest that this individual sees himself as aggressive and is proud of his affinity with African-American gangsta culture and all that entails – valuing cockiness, rebellion against authority, not shying away from violence, etc. > > I would say that someone who calls himself “no limit nigga” is more likely than the average person to break the law; to get into a fight; to go to jail; to shoot someone or to get shot himself. > > Anyway, I am skeptical that the phrase means absolutely nothing to you. I think that says more about you than Trayvon Martin. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/834 "2012-03-31T12:33:29Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Zimmerman’s lengthy record of assaulting people connotes his aggressiveness If that’s true, then of course I agree. But so what? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/835 "2012-03-31T12:35:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If that’s true, then of course I agree. But so what? It’s not in dispute that he has been arrested twice for assault. Maybe he’s just the unluckiest chubby wannabe cop in the world. How many arrests for assault would indicate a propensity for violence to you? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/836 "2012-03-31T12:37:21Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > I think that says more about you than Trayvon Martin. Lol, and if the phrase means nothing to you, it says even more about you. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/837 "2012-03-31T12:38:23Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > How many arrests for assault would indicate a propensity for violence to you? Even 1 arrest for assault would raise the probability in my mind that he has a propensity for violence. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/838 "2012-03-31T12:40:52Z")
My opinions only: 1. This could have been avoided if Zimmerman had used reason and constraint to begin with. He should have simply called the cops and let them handle it. But the dumbass wanted to be Clint Eastwood and made the stupid decision to follow Martin. 2. Even though the whole situation could have been avoided had Zimmerman exercised common sense, I have no doubt Martin attacked Zimmerman. I also believe Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. 3. Zimmerman was correct in using his weapon to stop Martin. It was a good shoot. 4. Trayvon Martin was a thug. Had he not been killed by Zimmerman, he would have been a career criminal the rest of his life. Martin would have contributed nothing to society. His death is no loss. Just anther thug. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/839 "2012-03-31T12:42:15Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Even 1 arrest for assault would raise the probability in my mind that he has a propensity for violence. > > So what? So if the point is to try to determine the likely aggressor in this case, how much more weight would be put on the multiple reports of Zimmerman assaulting people, including the assault on the cop that he was arrested for previously, as compared to the Da Vinci Code-style analysis of an ambiguously named Twitter handle that we’re reasonably sure but not certain belong to Trevyon Martin? Is Zimmerman’s history of assaulting people 2 times more important thant Martin’s twitter name? 50? 100? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/840 "2012-03-31T12:47:45Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > So if the point is to try to determine the likely aggressor in this case, Here is the point I made: > [@](#): > > Well a lot of bad stuff is coming out about Martin. It’s not clear how much of it is true. But if it’s all true, it raises the probability that he indeed threatened to kill and attacked Zimmerman (as Zimmerman is apparently claiming). Please try to respond to the points I actually make, as opposed to the point you imagine or wish that I had made. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881.md?page=43)