# Did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his own ground? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287 "2012-05-18T03:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/721 "2012-06-17T18:05:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Wow, you really and truly don’t get it. This is frustrating. Martin is not on trial. Zimmerman is. Why do you keep talking about how stupid Martin was? How he should have known how suspicious he was? How he should have done X, Y, or Z? YOU are the one being ridiculous, man. You are the one who has been calling him out for stuff you do not even know he did or didn’t do. You are the frustrating person here, not me. > [@](#): > > They don’t have to prove Martin guilty of a crime to exonerate Zimmerman. They only have to prove Zimmerman committed a crime to convict him. There is a difference between saying there’s not a enough evidence to convict him of a crime (NOT GUILTY) and saying the guy is innocent. The latter is the drum you keep beating so vehemently and confidently, like you have an inside track on all information in this case and possess omniscient-like knowledge about what happened that night. If your position is simply that the court doesn’t have a leg to stand on, that’s reasonable–though you don’t know all the legs to make that judgment. But you certainly have been presenting a position of “GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS AN INNOCENT MAN AND TRAYVON MARTIN WAS A THUG WHO SHOWED A LACK OF GOOD JUDGMENT THAT NIGHT!” This is not consistent with a dispassionate, there’s-not-enough-evidence position. Are you going to argue that this hasn’t been the position you have been putting forth since the beginning of this thread, to many people’s consternation? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/722 "2012-06-18T01:04:41Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Why do you keep talking about how stupid Martin was? How he should have known how suspicious he was? How he should have done X, Y, or Z? YOU are the one being ridiculous, man. You are the one who has been calling him out for stuff you do not even know he did or didn’t do. I never said or implied Martin was stupid. > [@monstro](#): > > You are the frustrating person here, not me. OK, choose something I’ve said you disagree with and state your side of the issue using the evidence at hand. > [@monstro](#): > > There is a difference between saying there’s not a enough evidence to convict him of a crime (NOT GUILTY) and saying the guy is innocent. In a debate forum we discuss events based on evidence and procedure. There is only innocents or guilt here. To my knowledge, everybody expressing Zimmerman’s innocence has expressly said it was based on the information currently available and that it would change if the information changes. > [@monstro](#): > > The latter is the drum you keep beating so vehemently and confidently, like you have an inside track on all information in this case and possess omniscient-like knowledge about what happened that night. This is just a rant. You’re not addressing anything I’ve said. I’ve stated my thoughts clearly using the evidence at hand. If you can’t address what I’ve said directly then really what’s the point. > [@monstro](#): > > If your position is simply that the court doesn’t have a leg to stand on, that’s reasonable–though you don’t know all the legs to make that judgment. But you certainly have been presenting a position of “GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS AN INNOCENT MAN AND TRAYVON MARTIN WAS A THUG WHO SHOWED A LACK OF GOOD JUDGMENT THAT NIGHT!” This is not consistent with a dispassionate, there’s-not-enough-evidence position. Where is your debate? You’re putting words in my mouth that are inflammatory to you. I’ve never commented on Martin’s motives or called him a thug. You on the other hand call Zimmerman’s actions stupid. This is Great Debates. We debate what Zimmerman and Martin said and did in the order it happened. Not what we think they were thinking or what other people are thinking. > [@monstro](#): > > Are you going to argue that this hasn’t been the position you have been putting forth since the beginning of this thread, to many people’s consternation? I’ve stated my thoughts as clearly as I can based on the information available. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/723 "2012-06-18T22:46:32Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The evidence after that picks up with Martin verbally confronting Zimmerman, not the other way around. The evidence clearly suggests that Zimmerman physically confronted Martin, whereupon Martin verbally responded to the confrontation by asking why he was following him. The fact that you gloss over this does not reflect well on your argument or your claims to objectivity. > [@Magiver](#): > > > [@voltaire](#): > > > > It’s evident that, upon being approached, TM asked GZ why he was following him, and GZ answered a reasonable question with an unresponsive and unreasonable question. _(Probably since “Because you’re black.” would have seemed a bit awkward.)_ It’s evident that at this time a scuffle ensued and the last thing that was heard before the phone cutoff was TM saying “Get off me! Get off me!” > > Which is likely Zimmerman given his injuries and the likelihood that Martin was the one on top. See what I mean? Not only do you interpret all ambiguous evidence in favor of GZ, you also try to contort and interpret unambiguous evidence that in any way supports TM, as supporting GZ. The witness here had known TM since kindergarten, and obviously talked to him on the phone very frequently. She stated unequivocally that it was Martin who said “Get off! Get off!”, yet you still try to assert that it was GZ who said it. > [@doorhinge](#): > > How could Zimmerman’s response be “unresponsive”? > > I believe it was reported that both Martin and Zimmerman asked each other, “What are you doing here”. How did you determine that Martin’s question was “reasonable” and Zimmerman’s question to be “unreasonable” when they asked the same basic question? The testimony is that Zimmerman approached Martin, whereupon Martin asked “Why are you following me?” That is a reasonable question when a stranger follows you and approaches you in the dark of night. It is unreasonable to not only fail to answer that straightforward and reasonable question, but to instead ask someone who is doing nothing wrong and has every right to be where they are “What are you doing here?” Not only is that unreasonable, but it is rude, unhelpful, and could only serve to escalate hostility. TM had no obligation to explain to GZ what he was doing - he was doing nothing wrong, and he wasn’t the one following and approaching someone in the dark. What was he supposed to say anyway? “Uhh, I’m returning from getting a snack from 7-11 and talking to my girlfriend.” It’s ridiculous to suggest that TM should have dignified such an unreasonable question with a response when his much more reasonable question – posed to a person much more obliged to explain themselves and their present actions – went completely unanswered. > [@Magiver](#): > > There is no way to determine who said "get off me! there is evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. The logical conclusion that will be drawn in court will be that it was Zimmerman’s voice she heard. More selective interpretation of evidence in GZ’s favor that’s indicative of your bias. There is some evidence that Martin was eventually on top of Zimmerman, but that was only LATER in the altercation, which is NOT relevant to who started the altercation. The only evidence we have to who started the physical altercation points to GZ approaching TM, and then doing something that prompted TM to say “Get off! Get off!” > [@Magiver](#): > > In a debate forum we discuss events based on evidence and procedure. > There is only innocents or guilt here. To my knowledge, everybody expressing Zimmerman’s innocence has expressly said it was based on the information currently available and that it would change if the information changes. In your case, it changes based on how you yourself change the available information. > [@Magiver](#): > > I’ve stated my thoughts clearly using the evidence at hand. No. You’ve stated your thoughts **ab** using the evidence at hand. > [@Magiver](#): > > This is Great Debates. We debate what Zimmerman and Martin said and did in the order it happened. Not what we think they were thinking or what other people are thinking. > > I’ve stated my thoughts as clearly as I can based on the information available. Ha! ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/724 "2012-06-18T22:56:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@voltaire](#): > > > > Continuing the “It’s evident” game: It’s evident that TM’s female friend heard the scuffle begin after the two exchanged questions. The only thing she heard immediately after that was Trayvon saying “Get off me! Get off me!” > > > > This is evidence that GZ unlawfully attempted to physically detain TM, which is assault. At this point, TM would be justified in punching GZ and standing his ground. > > That’s true. > > If that scenario is what happened, you’re absolutely correct. My guess is that this is basically going to be the gist of the prosecution’s case - that GZ initiated the confrontation by approaching TM, and then attempting to physically detain him. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that there is additional evidence that points to this, perhaps GZ’s statements to police or someone else that that’s what he did. He’s displayed so much cluelessness, that it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t realize you cannot just grab and hold on to someone to wait for the police to arrive when all you have are vague and unsubstantiated suspicions. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/725 "2012-06-18T23:14:02Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > My guess is that this is basically going to be the gist of the prosecution’s case - that GZ initiated the confrontation by approaching TM, and then attempting to physically detain him. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that there is additional evidence that points to this, perhaps GZ’s statements to police or someone else that that’s what he did. > > He’s displayed so much cluelessness, that it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t realize you cannot just grab and hold on to someone to wait for the police to arrive when all you have are vague and unsubstantiated suspicions. You know, I didn’t even think of this. I’m not a dummy, but I don’t think it would occur to me to lie about this either, if I had been in Zimmerman’s shoes. I would be savvy enough not to tell the police that I followed Martin into the area behind the houses, and I would also know to keep my mouth shut about brandishing my weapon, if I had done that. But restraining the kid? Now I know it’s assault. But a few months ago, before I had been schooled about the ins and outs of the law due to this case? No. I might have let that one slip if I had been Zimmerman. The only thing is if Zimmerman admitted to trying to restrain Martin to the police, why would it have taken so long for him to be arrested? Also, let’s say that he told the police that Martin ambushed him from behind, knocking him over, but then Zimmerman managed to grab hold of him. Would the crime of restraining him be mitigated by Martin’s attack? (Kind of like nabbing the mugger who stole you’re granny’s purse. A citizen’s arrest-type dealie.) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/726 "2012-06-18T23:38:38Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > The evidence clearly suggests that Zimmerman physically confronted Martin, whereupon Martin verbally responded to the confrontation by asking why he was following him. The fact that you gloss over this does not reflect well on your argument or your claims to objectivity. Cite? There is evidence that Zimmerman tried to follow Martin but lost him. In the 911 call he said he doesn’t know where the kid is and agrees to meet the police by the mailboxes. > [@voltaire](#): > > The testimony is that Zimmerman approached Martin, whereupon Martin asked “Why are you following me?” Cite? > [@voltaire](#): > > That is a reasonable question when a stranger follows you and approaches you in the dark of night. It is unreasonable to not only fail to answer that straightforward and reasonable question, but to instead ask someone who is doing nothing wrong and has every right to be where they are “What are you doing here?” Not only is that unreasonable, but it is rude, unhelpful, and could only serve to escalate hostility. > TM had no obligation to explain to GZ what he was doing - he was doing nothing wrong, and he wasn’t the one following and approaching someone in the dark. What was he supposed to say anyway? “Uhh, I’m returning from getting a snack from 7-11 and talking to my girlfriend.” The same argument applies to Zimmerman. He had no obligation to explain anything either. It’s a moot point. > [@voltaire](#): > > It’s ridiculous to suggest that TM should have dignified such an unreasonable question with a response when his much more reasonable question – posed to a person much more obliged to explain themselves and their present actions – went completely unanswered. It’s ridiculous to think you can beat someone continuously because you think he’s rude. It’s also illegal. > [@voltaire](#): > > More selective interpretation of evidence in GZ’s favor that’s indicative of your bias. There is some evidence that Martin was eventually on top of Zimmerman, but that was only LATER in the altercation, which is NOT relevant to who started the altercation. The only evidence we have to who started the physical altercation points to GZ approaching TM, and then doing something that prompted TM to say “Get off! Get off!” It’s not logical that Martin said this given the evidence that he assaulted Zimmerman. The person saying “get off” would logically be the person pinned down getting hit. Martin was using a Blue Tooth headset which, depending on the model, usually means problems picking up the user’s voice. Unless he was using something like [this](http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/11/10/review-samsung-hm7000-bluetooth-headset-youll-still-look-like-a-you-know-but-it-works-great/)it is likely Martin’s girlfriend heard Zimmerman. It will certainly be challenged in court as will the screaming on the 911 call. That is more likely to be Zimmerman given the situation. It doesn’t negate that it might me Martin’s voice, it’s just not logical that it is. But as has been pointed out, none of that matters. All that matters in court is whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life. > [@voltaire](#): > > Ha! Ha? “Ha” is not debate material. It’s emotional baggage meant for the Pit or IMO. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/727 "2012-06-19T00:24:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Cite? There is evidence that Zimmerman tried to follow Martin but lost him. In the 911 call he said he doesn’t know where the kid is and agrees to meet the police by the mailboxes. > > Cite? [Cite:](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html?_r=1) > [@NYT](#): > > A girl who talked on the phone with Trayvon Martin on the night of Feb. 26 has told a state prosecutor that **she heard rising fear in Mr. Martin’s voice that peaked with words like “get off, get off,”** right before she lost contact with him and he was shot to death. > In the sworn interview recorded on April 2, which runs more than 22 minutes, the unidentified 16-year-old \*\*said Mr. Martin described a man who was “crazy and creepy” and on the phone, watching him from a vehicle before he started to follow him on foot. \*\* > The girl implored Mr. Martin, 17, who said he put his sweatshirt hood up because of the rain, to run to the town house where he was staying with his father, his father’s girlfriend and her 14-year-old son. > “I could hear the wind blowing” and “he said he lost him,” said the girl, who is from Miami and who said she had known Mr. Martin since kindergarten. She has not been identified because she is a minor and a witness in the case. > “He was breathing hard,” she said, and “his voice kind of changed. I know he was scared. His voice was getting kind of low.” > **\** > In the taped interview with a state prosecutor, **the girl said that Mr. Martin, after evading Mr. Zimmerman for a while, noticed that he was being pursued again and mentioned this to her. > A sense of urgency grew. Mr. Martin alerted the girl to the fact that Mr. Zimmerman “was getting close to him.”** She strongly urged him to run, but she could tell he did not because he was out of breath and tired, and kept saying he was close to the town house where he was a guest. > The girl, who talked with Mr. Martin several times that evening, told the investigator that **she then heard Mr. Martin ask, “Why are you following me for?” She heard the other man ask, “What are you doing around here?”** Earlier, Mr. Martin had temporarily sought cover from the rain by one of the buildings. > After calling out “Trayvon” several times over the phone, and getting no response, \*\*she heard somebody bump Mr. Martin. > Subsequently she heard him utter what sounded like, “Get off, get off.” \*\*Then the call ended. > [@](#): > > It’s ridiculous to think you can beat someone continuously because you think he’s rude. It’s also illegal. Disingenuous. I didn’t suggest that GZ’s rudeness prompted TM’s actions. I suggested that GZ’s \*assault \*on TM prompted TM to stand his ground. > [@](#): > > It’s not logical that Martin said this given the evidence that he assaulted Zimmerman. The person saying “get off” would logically be the person pinned down getting hit. Martin was using a Blue Tooth headset which, depending on the model, usually means problems picking up the user’s voice. Unless he was using something like [this](http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/11/10/review-samsung-hm7000-bluetooth-headset-youll-still-look-like-a-you-know-but-it-works-great/)it is likely Martin’s girlfriend heard Zimmerman. It will certainly be challenged in court as will the screaming on the 911 call. That is more likely to be Zimmerman given the situation. It doesn’t negate that it might me Martin’s voice, it’s just not logical that it is. But as has been pointed out, none of that matters. All that matters in court is whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life. Now you’re doing little more than hand waving while continuing to obtusely conflate who and what actions \*began \*the altercation with what TM allegedly did _later_, while defending himself and standing his ground. Lest you forget, this debate is about “Did TM have the right to stand his own ground?” What’s not logical is for you to say that it’s not logical that TM would say “Get off!” at the beginning of the altercation because of what he supposedly did later when he was defending himself while standing his ground. > [@](#): > > Ha? > > “Ha” is not debate material. It’s emotional baggage meant for the Pit or IMO. “Ha!” was in response to the quoted statement in light of the comments I made that preceded it - where I demonstrated an example of how you were NOT debating honestly or objectively based on the information available. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/728 "2012-06-19T00:42:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Ha? > > “Ha” is not debate material. It’s emotional baggage meant for the Pit or IMO. From another GD thread: > [@Classist Wall Street occupiers refuse to share food, bridge gaps with marginalized homeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/classist-wall-street-occupiers-refuse-to-share-food-bridge-gaps-with-marginalized-homeless/600956/134): > > HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa So were you not debating in good faith there, or here?:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/729 "2012-06-19T00:57:32Z")
He’s not arguing in good faith. If he was, he’d be over in the Jerry Sandusky thread proclaiming the guy’s innocence and calling everyone out for being in a lynch mob. Instead of joining in. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/730 "2012-06-19T01:14:53Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > [Cite:](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html?_r=1) A girl who talked on the phone with Trayvon Martin on the night of Feb. 26 has told a state prosecutor that she heard rising fear in Mr. Martin’s voice that peaked with words like “get off, get off,” right before she lost contact with him and he was shot to death. … Martin’s girlfriend’s statement matches up with the 911 phone call Zimmerman made. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. It appears that they met up while he was returning to his car to meet the police. The last thing she heard after the verbal exchange was something that sounded like a scuffle followed by “get off”. There is no evidence as to who started it. > [@voltaire](#): > > Disingenuous. I didn’t suggest that GZ’s rudeness prompted TM’s actions. I suggested that GZ’s \*assault \*on TM prompted TM to stand his ground. Again, there is no evidence as to who started the fight. The only evidence is that Zimmerman was attacked. Martin isn’t on trial so there is no “stand his ground” charge to defend. I don’t understand why this isn’t sinking in. ZIMMERMAN is on trial, not Martin. If he says he said it was him saying “get off” then it’s his word against someone who heard it via a headset cell phone call. > [@voltaire](#): > > What’s not logical is for you to say that it’s not logical that TM would say “Get off!” at the beginning of the altercation because of what he supposedly did later when he was defending himself while standing his ground. Unless I’ve misread something Zimmerman claimed he was attacked by Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/731 "2012-06-19T01:20:15Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > He’s not arguing in good faith. If he was, he’d be over in the Jerry Sandusky thread proclaiming the guy’s innocence and calling everyone out for being in a lynch mob. Instead of joining in. :rolleyes: That statement makes no sense. I’ve backed up everything I’ve said with the information at hand. Absent a debate response you come back with some rant about Jerry Sandusky. His trial consists of a series of eye witnesses to the event (s). We have those in the Zimmerman case. They are consistent with his account of what happened. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/732 "2012-06-19T01:29:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > :rolleyes: > > That statement makes no sense. I’ve backed up everything I’ve said with the information at hand. Absent a debate response you come back with some rant about Jerry Sandusky. His trial consists of a series of eye witnesses to the event (s). We have those in the Zimmerman case. They are consistent with his account of what happened. Why did you criticize another debater for something you do yourself, if you’re arguing in good faith? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/733 "2012-06-19T01:37:23Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Why did you criticize another debater for something you do yourself, if you’re arguing in good faith? I was laughing AT a statement versus having Ha used to imply I wasn’t arguing in good faith. But point taken. It doesn’t belong. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/734 "2012-06-19T01:57:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Martin’s girlfriend’s statement matches up with the 911 phone call Zimmerman made. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. It appears that they met up while he was returning to his car to meet the police. The last thing she heard after the verbal exchange was something that sounded like a scuffle followed by “get off”. There is no evidence as to who started it. The last thing she said she heard was Martin saying “Get off!” Your hand-waving and refusal to believe it doesn’t change that. > [@](#): > > Again, there is no evidence as to who started the fight. The only evidence is that Zimmerman was attacked. Correction: There is very little evidence as to who started the fight. And there is no evidence that Martin started the fight, other than Zimmerman’s own self-serving statements. (Which he may have very well contradicted in inconsistent testimony that we’re not yet aware of.) Other than that, the only evidence there is indicates that the initial altercation began with Zimmerman approaching Martin and doing something that caused Martin to say “Get off! Get off!” I’ll leave that for people who aren’t biased to draw their own conclusions. > [@](#): > > Martin isn’t on trial so there is no “stand his ground” charge to defend. I don’t understand why this isn’t sinking in. ZIMMERMAN is on trial, not Martin. I don’t understand why this isn’t sinking in, but this isn’t a trial and this debate is about whether Martin had the right to stand his ground. > [@](#): > > If he says he said it was him saying “get off” then it’s his word against someone who heard it via a headset cell phone call. > Unless I’ve misread something Zimmerman claimed he was attacked by Martin. [Quoted for the purpose of speaking for itself.] ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/735 "2012-06-19T02:24:13Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > The last thing she said she heard was Martin saying “Get off!” Your hand-waving and refusal to believe it doesn’t change that. It’s not a function of what I believe. You’re not looking at the court case. At best it’s her opinion of who said what. She wasn’t there. It’s her word against Zimmerman’s and he was there and the statement fits his account of what happened. Do you understand the legal significance of this? The state has to prove she knew it was Martin. The defense only has to show that Zimmerman was pinned down by Martin. The statement fits Zimmerman’s account. > [@voltaire](#): > > Correction: There is very little evidence as to who started the fight. And there is no evidence that Martin started the fight, other than Zimmerman’s own self-serving statements. (Which he may have very well contradicted in inconsistent testimony that we’re not yet aware of.) Other than that, the only evidence there is indicates that the initial altercation began with Zimmerman approaching Martin and doing something that caused Martin to say “Get off! Get off!” Self serving or not the physical evidence supports Zimmerman being attacked by Martin. > [@voltaire](#): > > I’ll leave that for people who aren’t biased to draw their own conclusions. > > I don’t understand why this isn’t sinking in, but this isn’t a trial and this debate is about whether Martin had the right to stand his ground. > > [Quoted for the purpose of speaking for itself.] You really don’t get it. I’ve repeatedly said I don’t give a rats ass about Zimmerman. If he was overheard saying something contrary or texting something contrary then fuck him. I have no vested interest in his guilt or innocence. I’ve commented on the evidence as it will play out in court. Martin’s paranoia isn’t grounds to beat the tar out of someone anymore than Zimmerman’s paranoia would justify him physically touching Martin. Stand your ground is at best a defensive legal construct. Knocking someone to the ground would be a defensive act. Beating someone for a sustained period is not a defensive act. Absent direct evidence there is nothing to go on but the hearsay of someone listening to a phone call against the testimony of the person who we know was beaten at length. ---
**Author:** ![Veneriable\_Slacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/838e76/32.png) [@Veneriable\_Slacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Veneriable_Slacks)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/736 "2012-06-19T10:01:14Z")
TM had a right to SYG. He also had the option to retreat home yet did not. Instead TM chose to attack GZ. TM was a young thug who was serving a 10 day suspension from school. And then there is GZ who protested the beating of a homeless black man by the local sheriff son. It is obvious that TM is the bad guy here and GZ the good guy. I am donating to GZ’s defense. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/737 "2012-06-19T10:50:46Z")
> [@Veneriable\_Slacks](#): > > TM had a right to SYG. He also had the option to retreat home yet did not. Instead TM chose to attack GZ. TM was a young thug who was serving a 10 day suspension from school. And then there is GZ who protested the beating of a homeless black man by the local sheriff son. It is obvious that TM is the bad guy here and GZ the good guy. I am donating to GZ’s defense. Didn’t you just ask whether either had a violent past, as if that information might help you to determine who had the greater likelihood of assaulting the other? So very kindly, I pointed out to you that between the two of them, only Zimmerman had such record. Domestic violence and assault on a cop. Two brushes with the law. Martin, in contrast, had never been associated with violence. And so your conclusion is that (drumroll) TM attacked GZ. Beautiful. Thank you for illustrating the critical thinking prowess of your side of the debate. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/738 "2012-06-19T13:07:17Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > The evidence clearly suggests that Zimmerman physically confronted Martin… > > The testimony is that Zimmerman approached Martin, whereupon Martin asked “Why are you following me?” That is a reasonable question when a stranger follows you and approaches you in the dark of night. > > It is unreasonable to not only fail to answer that straightforward and reasonable question, but to instead ask someone who is doing nothing wrong and has every right to be where they are “What are you doing here?” > > Not only is that unreasonable, but it is rude, unhelpful, and could only serve to escalate hostility. TM had no obligation to explain to GZ what he was doing - he was doing nothing wrong, and he wasn’t the one following and approaching someone in the dark. What was he supposed to say anyway? “Uhh, I’m returning from getting a snack from 7-11 and talking to my girlfriend.” It’s ridiculous to suggest that TM should have dignified such an unreasonable question with a response when his much more reasonable question – posed to a person much more obliged to explain themselves and their present actions – went completely unanswered. > > _ **Ha!** _ Since neither man had done anything “illegal” up to the point they were asking each other what the other was doing there, both were “reasonable” questions. There is no formal or standard method for two people to start, or have, a conversation. Zimmerman was responsive, contrary to your statement that “GZ answered a reasonable question with an _ **unresponsive** _ and unreasonable question”. It is also NOT “unreasonable” to ask a complete stranger, “What are you doing here?” especially if you want to know what they are doing there. There is no normal, proper, or standard reply required when being asked questions by strangers or even friends. You can simply ignore them if you so chose. Punching someone in the face because they want to know why you’re in the area, is clearly a violation of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/739 "2012-06-19T13:07:35Z")
> [@Veneriable\_Slacks](#): > > TM had a right to SYG. He also had the option to retreat home yet did not. Instead TM chose to attack GZ. TM was a young thug who was serving a 10 day suspension from school. And then there is GZ who protested the beating of a homeless black man by the local sheriff son. It is obvious that TM is the bad guy here and GZ the good guy. I am donating to GZ’s defense. Obviously you’re free to spend your money as you wish. But wholly apart from your certainty about this version of the crime, I’m curious to learn how you reconcile Zimmerman’s being “the good guy” with his willingness to secure bond based on lies. I;m curious to know how his choosing to surrender a valid, but about-to-expire passport while retaining another passport is the mark of a “good guy.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/740 "2012-06-19T13:25:27Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > …After calling out “Trayvon” several times over the phone, and getting no response, she _ **heard** _ somebody _ **bump** _ Mr. Martin. > > Subsequently she heard him utter what sounded like, “Get off, get off.” Then the call ended. > > [URL=“[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html?\_r=1](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html?_r=1)”] I’m curious, what does a “bump” sound like and how can you tell if “A” bumped into “B” or “B” bumped into “A” over a phone connection? I’ve heard the girlfriend talking on one of the media outlets and I think the NYT’s reporter was very kind in describing what she may have said. The girlfriends first act as a potential witness was to hire a lawyer and make a written statement which was eventually given to the police. Probably a wise move considering her apparent inability to speak well in public. It will be interesting to see how she stands up to cross-examination, under oath, in front of a jury. If there is a trial. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=38)