# George Zimmerman - In the news again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 31, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480 "2014-07-31T13:26:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/221 "2014-08-04T13:34:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > He may have been punched before firing. Change the “may have” to “clearly was”, and “punched” to 'attacked, punched, knocked down, and had his head beaten against the ground". > [@](#): > > But Martin may have had just as much or more reason to fear for his life (being that he was being followed by a stranger with a gun late at night), and therefore (reasonbly) responded with force, as Zimmerman. Apart from [ul][li]Martin was not being followed when he doubled back and attacked Zimmerman [_]There is no evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, and could not therefore feel threatened by it [_]Martin’s use of force was not a reasonable response to Zimmerman’s actions (as far as can be determined from the evidence).[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > if you follow someone with a gun in your hand late at night… What evidence do you have that Zimmerman had a gun in his hand? The circumstances would tend to indicate that he did not. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/222 "2014-08-04T13:38:51Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > That would be context. Banana boy isn’t into context. No, that’s not context. That’s insinuation as a substitute for actual argument. Liberal shitheads aren’t smart enough to actually defend their stupidity, so they try to ape the debate behavior they see their betters using and use absolute moral pronouncements to defend what they cannot defend by debate. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/223 "2014-08-04T13:47:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What evidence would have shown that the gun was in Zimmerman’s hand? > > In other words, let’s say the Florida legislature adopts your proposed amendment to the law. > > At trial, the Florida state’s attorney would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman had a gun in his hand while following Martin. > > What evidence would the state’s attorney present to the jury? Probably, the fact that Zimmerman was able to shoot him while involved in a physical altercation. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/224 "2014-08-04T13:51:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Probably, the fact that Zimmerman was able to shoot him while involved in a physical altercation. How is that evidence that the gun was in his hand, given the fact that Martin had time to knock him down, jump on his chest, and slam his head on the ground before Zimmerman fired? Martin was on top of Zimmerman long enough to be seen by an eyewitness, and to scream for help. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/225 "2014-08-04T13:56:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? He did too. > > Yes. My moral framework is the correct one; his is flawed. > > Why am I the only one prohibited from making that claim? > > Several reasons. It seems to me that if I announce my moral judgement is correct, it illustrates the problem with anyone else doing the same thing. > > And, of course, why should I be the only one that is not permitted to announce what things are morally right? I get this criticism all the time: “Oh, Bricker, there you go again with your ‘legal’ claims. We are talking about what’s MORAL!” > > Ok. Me too. And I get to decide what’s moral. > > What’s that? You don’t accept my authority to decide what’s moral? > > Ah. But I must accept yours, eh? Because you claimed that you did not think such comments were useful. Why did you make a post outside the Pit that you did not think was useful? You seem to want to have it both ways. People shouldn’t argue about what is moral, because we can’t agree and such arguments are useless. You’re upset at the OP for making such a proclamation. But, at the same time, you get to argue about what is moral because everyone else gets to. Either arguing morals is something we shouldn’t do, and thus you shouldn’t be doing it either, or it’s something all should be able to do, which means you had no reason to be upset in with the OP’s insinuations in the first place. You seem to be choosing the latter. And, if so, the accusations that you fall back on legality are perfectly valid. You are not arguing legality, so stop using it as some sort of proof that an action is moral. What the jury found is only relevant in saying that we could not prove he committed murder 2 under the law. It does not make his action moral, which is what you asserted\*. You think Zimmerman did nothing wrong this time out. What is your argument? Why do we have to make an argument that he did something wrong, but you just get to tell us he didn’t? If you want to make moral arguments, make moral arguments. \*Well, it would if you thought whatever is legal is also moral, but we know you don’t believe that. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/226 "2014-08-04T14:08:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now that we’re clear that the phrase, “taking the life of another human being,” in your post (which I have highlighted in red for emphasis) does in fact refer to Zimmerman, can you explain what relevance to the question of the excluded middle your observation has? Once again, it’s quite simple. In your illustration of the excluded middle, you compared Zimmerman’s action to eating a banana; an act which, as far as I’m aware, no moral or ethical authority on earth has ever spoken out against. In reality, though, Zimmerman’s actions have led to the death of a person who was doing nothing wrong prior to Zimmerman’s decision to interfere; something that nearly every moral code that people live by would condemn in the strongest possible terms. Your example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle fails because you cited a situation with no moral stakes to stand in for one with the highest possible moral stakes. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/227 "2014-08-04T14:13:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perfect. > > So to review, I said that I didn’t endorse Zimmerman’s acting as an unofficial, self-appointed security officer, even though I said it was neither wrong nor illegal. > > An objection was raised by **xenophon41** , who thought that there was no difference between saying “that behavior is not prohibited” and “that behavior is morally acceptable.” > > In response to that claim, I said: > > You replied: > > Now that we’re clear that the phrase, “taking the life of another human being,” in your post (which I have highlighted in red for emphasis) does in fact refer to Zimmerman, can you explain what relevance to the question of the excluded middle your observation has? Stop being disingenuous. You know exactly the relevance. He referenced the very example you gave of an action you considered to be neither immoral nor moral, and argued that it is not analogous to this situation, because it did not involve taking the life of another human being. You clearly know that, since you immediately started asking how the current situation involved taking the life of another human being. And now that he’s given you an answer to that question, you decided to go back and look for some other flaw. And, note, I wrote this before seeing **Robot Arm** ’s response. If I could figure it out just from reading your post, I find it hard to believe you couldn’t. Heck, that’s why I didn’t just wait on RA’s response, just to illustrate how obvious it was. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/228 "2014-08-04T14:19:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because you claimed that you did not think such comments were useful. Why did you make a post outside the Pit that you did not think was useful? Outside the Pit? > [@](#): > > You seem to want to have it both ways. People shouldn’t argue about what is moral, because we can’t agree and such arguments are useless. You’re upset at the OP for making such a proclamation. But, at the same time, you get to argue about what is moral because everyone else gets to. > > Either arguing morals is something we shouldn’t do, and thus you shouldn’t be doing it either, or it’s something all should be able to do, which means you had no reason to be upset in with the OP’s insinuations in the first place. No, there’s a third option: I don’t agree it should be done, but if it’s going to be done, I refuse to cripple myself by being the only one that doesn’t do it. I call this concept the “Free Parking Rule,” named after the odious house rule many people seem to have when playing Monopoly. Money paid to the bank is placed into the center of the board, and is won by anyone who lands on “Free Parking,” despite the rules clearly laying out that “Free Parking” has no cost or reward; it’s simply a free resting place. As a kid, I hated that rule, because it made the game inflationary. In my house, we never played wit that rule. When I’d play the game at someone else’s house, I’d argue strongly against using that rule…but of course, I’d often be outvoted or simply overruled. So during the game, would you imagine I refused the money if I landed on Free Parking? Of course not. I had a strong opinion about the correct way to play, but no interest in hobbling myself once the issue was decided against me. > [@](#): > > You think Zimmerman did nothing wrong this time out. What is your argument? Why do we have to make an argument that he did something wrong, but you just get to tell us he didn’t? If you want to make moral arguments, make moral arguments. Actually, the responsibility for the argument falls on the person making the positive claim. I didn’t start a thread saying, “Zimmerman did nothing wrong in the gun shop parking lot!” I responded to the insinuation that he had done something wrong by denying it. It’s a firm rule of debate that a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied. It’s also the case that it’s well-nigh impossible to craft an argument that nothing wrong occurred. That’s the null hypothesis: I cannot list all possible wrong things and then show that Zimmerman didn’t do any of them. That’s why the person making the positive claim has the burden: if they believe Zimmerman DID do something wrong, it’s for them to advance the specific thing he did which they claim was wrong. Then my job is either to refute the claim he did it, or admit he did it but refute the claim that it was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/229 "2014-08-04T14:22:56Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Once again, it’s quite simple. In your illustration of the excluded middle, you compared Zimmerman’s action to eating a banana; an act which, as far as I’m aware, no moral or ethical authority on earth has ever spoken out against. In reality, though, Zimmerman’s actions have led to the death of a person who was doing nothing wrong prior to Zimmerman’s decision to interfere; something that nearly every moral code that people live by would condemn in the strongest possible terms. > > Your example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle fails because you cited a situation with no moral stakes to stand in for one with the highest possible moral stakes. Zimmerman’s action that I compared to eating a banana was his patrol of the parking lot, not his earlier shooting of Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/230 "2014-08-04T14:33:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Stop being disingenuous. You know exactly the relevance. He referenced the very example you gave of an action you considered to be neither immoral nor moral, and argued that it is not analogous to this situation, because it did not involve taking the life of another human being. > > You clearly know that, since you immediately started asking how the current situation involved taking the life of another human being. And now that he’s given you an answer to that question, you decided to go back and look for some other flaw. > > And, note, I wrote this before seeing **Robot Arm** ’s response. If I could figure it out just from reading your post, I find it hard to believe you couldn’t. Heck, that’s why I didn’t just wait on RA’s response, just to illustrate how obvious it was. This isn’t complicated, **BigT**. An objection was raised by xenophon41, who thought that there was no difference between saying “that behavior is not prohibited” and “that behavior is morally acceptable.” _ **“That behavior” was Zimmerman’s gun shop parking lot patrol.** _ In response to that claim, I said: [Quote=Bricker] Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Ever heard of it? Know what it means? You seem to imagine that an action can only be moral or immoral. And if I declare something is legal, and not immoral, then I must be endorsing it. Let’s talk about the fact that you put sliced bananas on your cereal. It’s not illegal. It’s not immoral. Do I endorse it? No. I don’t care one way or the other what the fuck you put on your cereal, or even if you eat cereal. [/quote] Why, now, are you trying to suggest that I was talking about Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/231 "2014-08-04T14:37:04Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Once again, it’s quite simple. In your illustration of the excluded middle, you compared Zimmerman’s _ **action** _ to eating a banana; an act which, as far as I’m aware, no moral or ethical authority on earth has ever spoken out against. In reality, though, Zimmerman’s _ **actions** _ have led to the death of a person who was doing nothing wrong prior to Zimmerman’s decision to interfere; something that nearly every moral code that people live by would condemn in the strongest possible terms. > > Your example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle fails because you cited a situation with no moral stakes to stand in for one with the highest possible moral stakes. And here’s the precise problem, highlighted in red for emphasis. In the first instance, you said “action,” singular. What action did you mean? In the second highlighted instance, you said “actions.” Why did you switch from singular to plural, and what actionS did you mean? ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/232 "2014-08-04T14:48:42Z")
\*wrong adjective 1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. 2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. 3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him. 4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club. 5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine. \* From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) Okay, let’s take these one by one. Definition #1 - we have already determined that we can’t agree on this one, since it counts on the same exact baseline for wrong v right in a _moral_ context. Definition #2 - doesn’t really apply to this case, IMHO Definition #3 - Parking lot incident fits this. He was not correct in action, judgement, or method. Hell, probably opinion as well, but I can’t read his mind. Definition #4 - subjective, but could be interpreted as his actions were not “usual” thus he was wrong to put himself into that situation. Definition #5 - not perfectly appropriate for this discussion, but I think many of us can agree that there is “something wrong with the machine” that puts Z-Man in a dark allley with a gun playing caped crusader. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/233 "2014-08-04T15:07:38Z")
> [@leftfield6](#): > > \*wrong > > adjective > > 1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. > 2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. > 3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him. > 4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club. > 5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine. \* > > From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) > > Okay, let’s take these one by one. > > Definition #1 - we have already determined that we can’t agree on this one, since it counts on the same exact baseline for wrong v right in a _moral_ context. > > Definition #2 - doesn’t really apply to this case, IMHO > > Definition #3 - Parking lot incident fits this. He was not correct in action, judgement, or method. Hell, probably opinion as well, but I can’t read his mind. > > Definition #4 - subjective, but could be interpreted as his actions were not “usual” thus he was wrong to put himself into that situation. > > Definition #5 - not perfectly appropriate for this discussion, but I think many of us can agree that there is “something wrong with the machine” that puts Z-Man in a dark allley with a gun playing caped crusader. I’d say there’s some stretching going on there. “With a gun?” What are you talking about? Are you flitting between the parking lot and the Martin encounter? Are you under the impression he had a gun in the parking lot encounter? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/234 "2014-08-04T15:12:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Zimmerman’s action that I compared to eating a banana was his patrol of the parking lot, not his earlier shooting of Martin. I disagree. Let’s follow the quoted passages that led up to your banana post (numbered for reference): 1 > [@brickbacon](#): > > This makes no sense. Even setting aside the fact that your comment was an assertion, not a hypothesis, or that you made this assertion on the basis of an “insinuation” in the OP. There is also the issue that you later asserted that any appraisals of right and wrong are problematic. > > It would be a lie if I said the VP emailed me instead of saying my boss did on my VP’s behalf. Besides, there is no evidence anyone asked him to do that anyway. In fact, there is speculation among the principles involved that he took it upon himself. > > Pretty much. > > The incredulity is that someone would ask a man who killed a person to possibly assert himself into a similar situation with no expectation of payment for his work. Especially when that person is in a political charged situation where this association could hurt him. The incredulity was not that someone would do what Zimmerman did; it’s that someone in the owner’s position would ask him to do it knowing the consequences, then lie about it after the fact. Zimmerman, imo, was motivated to do that because he is a nutcase. > > Because, at best, he is insinuating himself into a similar situation to the one that almost sent him to jail. It would be like being okay with Michael Jackson have kids sleepover his house, or Bill Clinton having private meetings with his female interns. Again, being as charitable as possible, why would anyone put themselves in that situation? 2 > [@Bricker](#): > > Because Zimmerman isn’t very smart. > > And because he’s dim, intelligence-wise, he doesn’t connect the dots. He did nothing wrong, he thinks, and that’s that. 3 > [@xenophon41](#): > > But apparently, you’re _agreeing_ with teh stupid. 4 > [@Bricker](#): > > A facet of this board that continues to amaze me, no matter how much I see it, is the belief that any support directed towards an individual implies wholehearted endorsement of that individual. > \ > Read back through everything I’ve said, and find the post in which I said that I agreed with Zimmerman’s action. Go ahead: I’ll wait. 5 > [@xenophon41](#): > > Everyone can read the thread, Mr. Attorney. You’re on record as saying Zimmerman’s actions were and are legal, and that there is no moral component to those actions. That is logically a legal _and_ moral endorsement of that individual’s actions. 6 > [@Bricker](#): > > Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Ever heard of it? Know what it means? > > … **brickbacon** , in the post that started this exchange, is clearly talking about Zimmerman’s encounter with Trayvon Martin, and how it should have informed his (and the gunshop personnel’s) decision to place him in a similar role as unofficial security. Your reply that Zimmerman believes “he did nothing wrong” seems to me to be making the case that he accepted the new role because he felt he was blameless in the Martin shooting. If not, what did “connect the dots” mean, what facts did Zimmerman fail to take into account in considering his ability to guard the gun store? You’re then challenged about whether you agree with his self-assessment. At best, with the most charitable reading of these posts, you switched from talking about the Martin shooting in post 3 (challenged about whether you agree with Zimmerman’s self-believed innocence) to talking about the decision to patrol the parking lot in post 4 (when you challenge others to find a case of you agreeing with Zimmerman’s action) without even attempting to clarify that you were making such a switch. So you’re wrong; the issue being discussed in this exchange was the shooting of Trayvon Martin, not solely Zimmerman’s decision to patrol a parking lot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/235 "2014-08-04T15:30:50Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I disagree. Let’s follow the quoted passages that led up to your banana post (numbered for reference): > > 123456 **brickbacon** , in the post that started this exchange, is clearly talking about Zimmerman’s encounter with Trayvon Martin, and how it should have informed his (and the gunshop personnel’s) decision to place him in a similar role as unofficial security. Your reply that Zimmerman believes “he did nothing wrong” seems to me to be making the case that he accepted the new role because he felt he was blameless in the Martin shooting. If not, what did “connect the dots” mean, what facts did Zimmerman fail to take into account in considering his ability to guard the gun store? You’re then challenged about whether you agree with his self-assessment. What an excellent post. There is no sarcasm or snark in that statement. I really appreciate your laying out, in detail, what led us here, and I agree you’ve made a plausible case for what you concluded. Nonetheless, it’s not what I meant. Still, since I agree I could have been much clearer, I’ll take responsibility for the mixup. The disconnect arises in this view of **brickbacon** ’s post and my response to it. When I said, “Zimmerman believes he did nothing wrong,” I did not mean the earlier Martin shooting. I meant the decision to stand watch in the parking lot. It’s true when I said “connect the dots,” I was at least obliquely referring to the Martin shooting – but only insofar as that incident from his past would handicap his credibility as a disinterested witness if a burglary did happen at the store. The “dots” Zimmerman couldn’t connect were that he pictured himself as a positive influence, stopping a burglary should one commence, but couldn’t see that the burglar would have the opportunity to claim Zimmerman was motivated by a vigilante desire and falsely accused him, or falsely embellished his report of criminal conduct about the accused burglar because of that vigilante desire. And from there we move on to the question of whether, by announcing Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal or immoral, I was endorsing his action, a claim I continue to reject. So I apologize for the lack of clarity. Now being (hopefully) crystal clear, I don’t believe Zimmerman’s decision to stand watch in the parking lot was either illegal or immoral. I do not endorse that decision or consider it a wise one. But I do not believe anyone can defend the claim that the parking lot decision was morally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/236 "2014-08-04T15:36:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > How is that evidence that the gun was in his hand, given the fact that Martin had time to knock him down, jump on his chest, and slam his head on the ground before Zimmerman fired? Martin was on top of Zimmerman long enough to be seen by an eyewitness, and to scream for help. > > Regards, > Shodan That’s Zimmerman’s story (the first parts). Reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case was shed by the defense, but that doesn’t mean that Zimmerman’s story was accepted as truth. It’s possible that even with my proposed ideal law, the prosecution would still not be able to avoid reasonable doubt. It might just be too hard to prove such things when someone is killed in relatively spontaneous physical fight with no witnesses. Because I think that Zimmerman bears some of the moral culpability for Zimmerman’s death, I think that the ideal law should be such that he bears some legal culpability as well. He disregarded police instructions and, likely, behaved in a manner that may have inspired reasonable fear in Martin. ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/237 "2014-08-04T15:40:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d say there’s some stretching going on there. > > “With a gun?” What are you talking about? Are you flitting between the parking lot and the Martin encounter? Sorry, posted while listening to a conference call. I knew he wasn’t\*\* proven\*\* to be armed, although it seems as if his truck or his person was searched. But I mistakenly added the “with a gun” when we don’t know that to be true. At the same time, it is somewhat reasonable to assume he was armed. Especially considering that we know he has a gun, which was given to him after his acquittal by …wait for it…this very same gun shop. And George seems to be armed all the time, if his own quotes are to be believed. _“I walk around armed; I walk around with a bulletproof vest,” he added. “It’s not so much for my safety as it is so much for those around me.”_ So you are correct, I misspoke. At the same time, I do think it’s reasonable to assume he wasn’t back there awaiting dangerous criminals, armed with nothing more lethal than a police whistle. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/238 "2014-08-04T15:43:46Z")
By the way – earlier in the thread, there was some question about what factors might make the owner reluctant to admit any associations with Zimmerman? [Death threats](http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2014/07/31/gun-shop-owner-claims-hes-received-death-threats-over-false-reports-he-hired-zimmerman-as-security/). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/239 "2014-08-04T15:45:14Z")
> [@leftfield6](#): > > Sorry, posted while listening to a conference call. I knew he wasn’t\*\* proven\*\* to be armed, although it seems as if his truck or his person was searched. But I mistakenly added the “with a gun” when we don’t know that to be true. > > At the same time, it is somewhat reasonable to assume he was armed. Especially considering that we know he has a gun, which was given to him after his acquittal by …wait for it…this very same gun shop. And George seems to be armed all the time, if his own quotes are to be believed. > > _“I walk around armed; I walk around with a bulletproof vest,” he added. “It’s not so much for my safety as it is so much for those around me.”_ > > So you are correct, I misspoke. At the same time, I do think it’s reasonable to assume he wasn’t back there awaiting dangerous criminals, armed with nothing more lethal than a police whistle. A cell phone and a dog is what he was armed with, based on the police report. The police report does not include any mention of finding a gun. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/240 "2014-08-04T15:47:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > …Because I think that Zimmerman bears some of the moral culpability for Zimmerman’s death, I think that the ideal law should be such that he bears some legal culpability as well. He disregarded police instructions and, likely, behaved in a manner that may have inspired reasonable fear in Martin. (Zimmerman is still alive.) Zimmerman did not disregard police instructions. He was not given any instructions by a police officer that evening. Martin had no reason to refer to the brown skinned Zimmerman as a (insert “n” word here) or a “cracker”. Martin had no reason to leave the relative safety of his father’s girlfriend’s home and travel some 300 feet back to the “T” to confront or attack Zimmerman. Martin, unfortunately, made a series of bad decisions that evening. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=13)