# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/61 "2014-08-01T13:13:11Z")
Here we go again. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/62 "2014-08-01T13:27:56Z")
The level of discourse in this thread doesn’t really rise to the standards of GD, so I’m going to move it to the Pit where y’all can squabble to your hearts’ content. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/63 "2014-08-01T13:28:44Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Neither of which is relevant to the question of right and wrong. I have the ultimate authority to decide the questions of right and wrong. On this board, whenever I announce something is morally right, or morally wrong, that’s the final word. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/64 "2014-08-01T13:31:42Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > How do you know that? Martin was never put on trial for throwing the first punch. True. But Zimmerman was put on trial for second-degree murder, and his defense was the affirmative claim of self-defense. So the finder of fact at trial assessed the claim that Zimmerman made that martin threw the first punch. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/65 "2014-08-01T14:08:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I said, “Zimmerman broke no law, did nothing wrong, and yet somehow garners from aClockworkMelon a vague insinuation of wrongdoing,” in referring to the present story. That is, in the story linked above, Zimmerman did no wrong, yet **AClockworkMelon** insinuates otherwise. > > I did not mean to imply that Zimmerman has led a blameless life. Even if you intended to limit your comments to the above case, how is lying to the cops not wrong? He said he had permission to be there and that he was hired by the owner. Neither of those things are true according to the owner. How is that not 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 1, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/66 "2014-08-01T14:57:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. But Zimmerman was put on trial for second-degree murder, and his defense was the affirmative claim of self-defense. So the finder of fact at trial assessed the claim that Zimmerman made that martin threw the first punch. I thought it found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case for 2nd degree murder. Isn’t this what “not guilty” means? ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/67 "2014-08-01T15:12:45Z")
> [@palacheck](#): > > Trayvon Martin didn’t bring a bag of Skittles to a gunfight, silly. He was bringing those home to mix with his Arizona tea and codeine syrup. He brought his fists to an armed man’s face and unwittingly joined a gun fight. Exclusive clip of the Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter: Edit: In the interest of full disclosure I’ll let you all know that the footage ends right before our hero pulls out his gun. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/68 "2014-08-01T15:12:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Here we go again. Yeah, but I’ve got a good feeling about this time! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/69 "2014-08-01T15:29:43Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Even if you intended to limit your comments to the above case, how is lying to the cops not wrong? He said he had permission to be there and that he was hired by the owner. Neither of those things are true according to the owner. How is that not wrong? So far as I can discern, he said he had permission to be there – a claim the owner did not contradict. And he never said he was hired. Can you show me the specific quotes to the contrary? The article is written in such a way that it strongly implies he lied but carefully insulates the writer from any directly false statements. So the article is titled: “Gun Shop Owner Says Zimmerman Was Never Hired To Provide Security, Despite His Claims To Cops” And the lede is: _The manager and owner of a Florida business are denying reports that George Zimmerman has been hired to provide security for their business._ But here’s what Zimmerman said: > [@](#): > > Zimmerman told officers the owner had given him permission to be there and asked him to provide security after a recent burglary. Note that “hired” is not mentioned. Further down: > [@](#): > > Pat Johnson, who owns the store, told CBS affiliate WKMG that Zimmerman, acting on his own accord, has occasionally been outside the store since the robbery. He said that although he knows Zimmerman, he has not hired him as a security officer. So – the owner never says that he didn’t grant Zimmerman permission; Zimmerman never says he was hired, and the owner says he was never hired. The article carefully skirts those borders to leave the casual reader the impression that Zimmerman lied to the police. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/70 "2014-08-01T15:37:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I thought it found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case for 2nd degree murder. Isn’t this what “not guilty” means? Yes. But from the evidence at trial, we can be reasonably certain they did not, for example, acquit because they believed Zimmerman was not the man present that night, or that Zimmerman did not fire the gun. The jury was asked to evaluate conflicting theories of the case offered by the prosecution and the defense. They found that the prosecution’s theory of the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to make that finding, they had make some factual findings about the events. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/71 "2014-08-01T15:39:22Z")
**Bricker** , maybe you and I aren’t disagreeing, just talking past each other. I don’t think the evidence \*strongly \*supports that he was in fear for his life, but I’ll grant that. I think Zimmerman was trying to do a good thing that night. Nevertheless, I think we agree: [ul] [li] Trayvon Martin was innocent.[/li][li] George Zimmerman killed him.[/li][li] There are many things Zimmerman could have done differently that would have resulted in no deaths that night.[/li][/ul] I’m comfortable saying Zimmerman’s judgment is horrible, and the world would be better off if he stayed in his apartment and sat on his hands rather than attempt to protect anybody or anything else. Even though it’s legal. ---
**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 1, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/72 "2014-08-01T15:40:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The article carefully skirts those borders to leave the casual reader the impression that Zimmerman lied to the police. And perhaps Zimmerman and the gun shop owner and manager are carefully choosing their words to not incriminate or contradict one another. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/73 "2014-08-01T15:42:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have the ultimate authority to decide the questions of right and wrong. On this board, whenever I announce something is morally right, or morally wrong, that’s the final word. \*\*\*The Bricker Doctrine \*\*\*. ---
**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 1, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/74 "2014-08-01T15:44:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They found that the prosecution’s theory of the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to make that finding, they had make some factual findings about the events. Really? They couldn’t just make the determination that the defense successfully raised reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s case? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/75 "2014-08-01T15:46:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Really? They couldn’t just make the determination that the defense successfully raised reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s case? “Affirmative defense”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/76 "2014-08-01T15:48:50Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > \*\*\*The Bricker Doctrine \*\*\*. Only if he’s speaking _ex catheter_. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/77 "2014-08-01T15:57:04Z")
Can we ask Zimmerman to stop engaging in legal acts that have already shown a significant risk of someone winding up dead? He has already purposefully inserted himself into a “crimey” situation and killed a kid over the danger he felt he was in. So, he now chooses to stake out a place waiting for another “crime” to be committed that he can now insert himself into? He already killed someone by playing cop, and he’s going back to play cop again? Fuck him. I don’t give a shit if he was justified in the Martin shooting, he’s a guy who makes bad choices and he’s just making more of them now. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/78 "2014-08-01T16:20:47Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Does this really have to be rehashed again? I know you enjoy arguments for the sake of argument but this is ridiculous. No one is getting their mind changed at this late a date. Anyone you respond to has already heard it. Why bother? Someone made a statement that simply wasn’t true. What’s he supposed to do? Ignore it because the many people that think 2+2=5 get really upset when you tell them it’s four? The board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance. That’s exactly what **Bricker** was doing. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/79 "2014-08-01T16:33:55Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Someone made a statement that simply wasn’t true. What’s he supposed to do? Well, if that’s what we have to do, it’s what we have to do. **Debaser** , you have made a statement that simply wasn’t true, in saying that someone made a statement that simply wasn’t true, and that \*\*Bricker \*\*came in to correct it. \*\*Bricker \*\*didn’t like the \*insinuations \*people made. He hasn’t corrected anybody. He came in to argue against insinuations. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/80 "2014-08-01T16:37:22Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > So by being _legally_ right, that makes him morally right by default? You seem to be conflating the two. **Bricker** conflate the moral and the legal? Never! Never, i say! I simply don’t believe it! Just kidding. It’s practically his defining characteristic on this board. He’s owned up to it before; he’s even apologized for it before; but he keeps doing it nonetheless. If there’s a moral or principled or philosophical issue that he disagrees with you about, and he can make a point by noting that his position would be _legally_ supportable, you can be sure that will be his first line of argument. It’s a perfect strategy, because (as in this thread) everything he says about issues of legality is generally true and correct. It simply allows him to elide or slide past the messy or inconvenient issues that might not be so conducive to his position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=5)