# 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:** 5
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/81 "2014-08-01T16:40:42Z")
> [@bup](#): > > 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. Me, too. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/82 "2014-08-01T16:42:58Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Affirmative defense”. Negative offense. Neutral special teams. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/83 "2014-08-01T16:43:01Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > **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. The problem with advancing a claim about moral correctness is that it requires the postulator and the respondent to share a moral framework that can be reliably invoked to settle a disagreement. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/84 "2014-08-01T16:44:54Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **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. Fair enough. Your post 35 that started this didn’t actually accuse Zimmerman of anything directly. It just insinuated it. I apologize for mischaracterizing it. But the point remains that **Bricker** is absolutely correct to point out that Zimmerman killed Martin “because Martin put Zimmerman in fear of serious bodily injury. That’s a circumstance under which it’s appropriate to kill.” This is a simple statement of fact. He shouldn’t be shouted down for stating it simply because large numbers of people on this left leaning board wish it weren’t true. ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/85 "2014-08-01T16:45:26Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > And perhaps Zimmerman and the gun shop owner and manager are carefully choosing their words to not incriminate or contradict one another. It’s possible, but unlikely – because if that were the case, a reporter can always ask a clarifying question: “So are you saying that you didn’t hire him, but you did give him permission?” The lack of such clarifying questions suggests that the blurring of the lines came from the writer, not the owner or Zimmerman. In either case, though, my correct remains: Zimmerman did not, by the facts currently reported, lie to the police. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/86 "2014-08-01T16:50:20Z")
Hey, the cops didn’t find the bullet-ridden corpse of the cleaning woman the next morning, so this was a good night for Punk Zimmerman. ---
**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, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/87 "2014-08-01T16:53:10Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > Hey, the cops didn’t find the bullet-ridden corpse of the cleaning woman the next morning, so this was a good night for Punk Zimmerman. It’s instructive to note when one side of an argument needs to make stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/88 "2014-08-01T16:57:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s true. But that doesn’t make anything about my earlier statement asinine. Zimmerman had every legal right to leave his vehicle. Martin did not have the legal right to throw the first punch. > [@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. If you’re reaching for a gun, I don’t have to wait for you to pull the trigger to punch you in the face. For all we know, Zimmerman might have been drawing on Trayvon and despite being a black teenager, Trayvon knew he couldn’t outrun a bullet so he attacked this creepy guy that had been following him around in a pickup and was drawing a gun on him. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/89 "2014-08-01T16:59:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. IIRC the problem is that self defense is not an affirmative defense in Florida. Under the stand your ground rules of Florida, the burden of proving it WASN’T self defense is on the prosecution. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/90 "2014-08-01T17:02:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with advancing a claim about moral correctness is that it requires the postulator and the respondent to share a moral framework that can be reliably invoked to settle a disagreement. First, there’s no evidence here that such a moral framework is missing. You yourself, in a recent post, just agreed that “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.” That strikes me as sharing a moral framework with plenty of other people in this thread. It also strikes me as fairly amenable to the OP’s main point, which was that Zimmerman is once again showing poor judgment and a tendency towards dangerous vigilantism. Second, in many cases you choose not to even discuss the issue of whether there might be a moral or political or philosophical debate to be had. Instead, you dive straight for the legal opinion, and advance it as if all the moral or political or philosophical positions staked out by the other debaters did not even exist. If i say that i disagree with a sentence handed down for drug possession, and that i think our society’s laws against drugs are immoral and tend to fall most heavily on the poor, and especially on racial and ethnic minorities, it is not a rebuttal of my argument to state that drugs are illegal so the arrest and conviction are legally valid. And yet this is precisely the sort of thing that you do all the time. When the subject at hand actually IS a legal issue, your contributions are usually valuable and worthy of serious consideration. And on the occasions where you do condescend to actually engage with non-legal frameworks of thought and opinion, you do so very ably, even if i don’t always agree with your position. But you are, in so much of your participation here, the archetypal guy with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/91 "2014-08-01T17:04:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s instructive to note when one side of an argument needs to make stuff up. If you think it’s a good idea for this idiot to be running around with a gun looking for crime, you’re as fucked in the head as Zim. ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/92 "2014-08-01T17:11:58Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > If you think it’s a good idea for this idiot to be running around with a gun looking for crime, you’re as fucked in the head as Zim. I never once said it was a good idea. And you fabricated the bullet-ridden corpse of the cleaning woman. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/93 "2014-08-01T17:13:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you’re reaching for a gun, I don’t have to wait for you to pull the trigger to punch you in the face. > > For all we know, Zimmerman might have been drawing on Trayvon and despite being a black teenager, Trayvon knew he couldn’t outrun a bullet so he attacked this creepy guy that had been following him around in a pickup and was drawing a gun on him. “For all we know,” many different things could have happened. For all we know, Martin could have been suddenly possessed by the spirit of Jack the Ripper. But no evidence supports that claim. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/94 "2014-08-01T17:14:44Z")
Never mind, misread. ---
**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, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/95 "2014-08-01T17:15:54Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Why not? Martin was being followed by a man with a gun, and had good reason to fear for his life. If Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin, why wasn’t Martin legally justified in punching Zimmerman? Because being followed by a man with a gun does not create good reason to fear for your life. ---
**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, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/96 "2014-08-01T17:16:36Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Can we ask Zimmerman to stop engaging in legal acts that have already shown a significant risk of someone winding up dead? No, we can’t. He is entitled to the equal protection of the laws, and there is no such verdict as “Not Guilty But We Are Going to Deprive You of Some of Your Freedom Anyway”. Or rather we can ask, but we cannot do anything if he says No. 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 1, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/97 "2014-08-01T17:18:36Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > First, there’s no evidence here that such a moral framework is missing. You yourself, in a recent post, just agreed that “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.” That strikes me as sharing a moral framework with plenty of other people in this thread. It also strikes me as fairly amenable to the OP’s main point, which was that Zimmerman is once again showing poor judgment and a tendency towards dangerous vigilantism. I’m not completely clear on what the OP’s point was. Something to do with Tim Burton? > [@](#): > > Second, in many cases you choose not to even discuss the issue of whether there might be a moral or political or philosophical debate to be had. Instead, you dive straight for the legal opinion, and advance it as if all the moral or political or philosophical positions staked out by the other debaters did not even exist. Experience has taught me that the efforts to argue a common moral framework go nowhere. So I will either ignore it and stick to what can be objectively proved, or gaslight by announcing that my moral framework is the only correct one, leading (hopefully) to the Socratic realization that if my claim is untrue, so must anyone else’s. If i say that i disagree with a sentence handed down for drug possession, and that i think our society’s laws against drugs are immoral and tend to fall most heavily on the poor, and especially on racial and ethnic minorities, it is not a rebuttal of my argument to state that drugs are illegal so the arrest and conviction are legally valid. And yet this is precisely the sort of thing that you do all the time. When the subject at hand actually IS a legal issue, your contributions are usually valuable and worthy of serious consideration. And on the occasions where you do condescend to actually engage with non-legal frameworks of thought and opinion, you do so very ably, even if i don’t always agree with your position. But you are, in so much of your participation here, the archetypal guy with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/98 "2014-08-01T17:22:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s instructive to note when one side of an argument needs to make stuff up. > [@Bricker](#): > > …you fabricated the bullet-ridden corpse of the cleaning woman. \ Kinda lame objection there, Mr. Attorney. This is an arrogant and overly literal dismissal of a valid argument. The poster did not “fabricate” a corpse simply because he listed a possible consequence of Zimmerman’s vigil that did not occur. I presume you can tell the difference between an assertion of fact and an assertion of probabilities, yes? Here, I’ll agree with what the poster said using neutral, non-imaginative sentences and see if you disagree with the opinion expressed: Zimmerman and we are fortunate in that his evening spent watching over the store in question did not produce any confrontations with citizens who were pursuing non-criminal activities. His efforts therefore led to no gun violence and no deaths on the night and in the location in question. In my opinion, this is _despite_ a significant increase in the risk of such a confrontation that Zimmerman’s vigilance represents, due to his previously demonstrated poor situational judgment, poor conflict resolution skills and eagerness to engage perceived threats to other people’s properties. That is a dry and dispassionate assessment which in no substantial way differs from the more pithy and humorous assessment provided by **Blank Slate**. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/99 "2014-08-01T17:23:12Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > First, there’s no evidence here that such a moral framework is missing. You yourself, in a recent post, just agreed that “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.” That strikes me as sharing a moral framework with plenty of other people in this thread. It also strikes me as fairly amenable to the OP’s main point, which was that Zimmerman is once again showing poor judgment and a tendency towards dangerous vigilantism. > > Second, in many cases you choose not to even discuss the issue of whether there might be a moral or political or philosophical debate to be had. Instead, you dive straight for the legal opinion, and advance it as if all the moral or political or philosophical positions staked out by the other debaters did not even exist. > > If i say that i disagree with a sentence handed down for drug possession, and that i think our society’s laws against drugs are immoral and tend to fall most heavily on the poor, and especially on racial and ethnic minorities, it is not a rebuttal of my argument to state that drugs are illegal so the arrest and conviction are legally valid. And yet this is precisely the sort of thing that you do all the time. > > When the subject at hand actually IS a legal issue, your contributions are usually valuable and worthy of serious consideration. And on the occasions where you do condescend to actually engage with non-legal frameworks of thought and opinion, you do so very ably, even if i don’t always agree with your position. But you are, in so much of your participation here, the archetypal guy with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail. Excellent post, **mhendo**. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/100 "2014-08-01T17:24:04Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Announcement: In case anyone thought otherwise, nobody’s accusing Zimmerman of having broken the law. Just of acting kinda, well, crazy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=6)