# 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:** 56
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1101 "2015-12-07T08:15:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But if the person is legally within his rights to carry a gun, how can you be so sure that you are in “imminent danger”? I’m reminded of GWB’s attempt to claim that we could no longer want until we were _actually_ in “imminent danger” before acting. I would think that even if you’re legally entitled to carry a gun, you can still create a reasonable fear in someone that you’re going to hurt them. A smoldering look and an “accidental” glimpse of a holstered pistol says a lot without needing to, you know, say something. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2015, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1102 "2015-12-07T13:20:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because that question evokes the fallacy of argument from ignorance. It’s for the proponent of any positive claim to adduce evidence of the truth of his claim. The burden does not fall on the person that denies the claim. > > So I know Zimmerman wasn’t doing “something” because the evidence admitted against him did not support that claim. You said that “Martin was not entitled to swing at him” – that’s a moral indictment of a dead child, and to me it seems awfully callous, without the knowledge of what really happened in the moment, to judge a kid who may have truly believed (perhaps with good reason) that he was fighting for his life. The law didn’t find beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman broke the law in shooting Martin. That says nothing about whether Martin broke the law or did anything wrong in striking Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1103 "2015-12-07T14:47:16Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I would think that even if you’re legally entitled to carry a gun, you can still create a reasonable fear in someone that you’re going to hurt them. > > A smoldering look and an “accidental” glimpse of a holstered pistol says a lot without needing to, you know, say something. Assuming one of those meets the legal requirements (I doubt they do, but lest assume for the sake of argument they do), what evidence is there that either of those things happened? There are certain problematic things about a homicide with no witnesses other than the killer that you just can’t get around. It’s unfortunate because GZ is hardly a sympathetic character, but you can’t convict a guy of murder on speculation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1104 "2015-12-07T15:59:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What a silly thing to say! “Innocent until proven guilty” is the appropriate standard for a court of law, to be sure. But we are but a humble message board, hashing out the evidence and forming our opinions. We are not bound by the procedures and traditions of a court. > > So how is that you are the one who gets to decide what the “default assumption” is to be? Will it be my turn next week? Just out of curiosity, and keeping in mind that the discussion is about whether GZ broke the law or not, what would your default assumption be? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1105 "2015-12-07T16:29:13Z")
Can we, like, not do this for the 300th time? Nobody is going to be convinced of anything at this point. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1106 "2015-12-07T16:35:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Can we, like, not do this for the 300th time? Nobody is going to be convinced of anything at this point. Unfortunately, that’s true of pretty much every subject discussed on this MB. Might as well shut this sucker down and call it a day. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1107 "2015-12-07T16:43:12Z")
Post 1058 - > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > … and he’s [in the news again](http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2015/12/03/george-zimmermans-twitter-account-suspended-after-posting-revenge-porn-which-is-a-sex-crime-in-florida), complaining that his ex had sex with a “dirty Muslim” and posting revenge porn on Twitter. > [@Senegoid](#): > > Why the fuck are we re-hashing all the old arguments about Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin? Or, to be more specific, why is the unhinged **doorhinge** bringing this up again, just to beat it more to death than it already is? (Any why is anyone else here rising to the bait to engage him? dnftt NE1?) Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. I didn’t reopen the discussion. **Really Not All That Bright** did that in post 1058. If you really feel the need to bitch about rehashing old threads, you need to address the issue with **Really Not All That Bright**. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1108 "2015-12-07T16:44:14Z")
_I_ brought up something new that happened to Zimmerman. _You_ reopened the discussion of the Martin case in post 1073. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, that’s true of pretty much every subject discussed on this MB. Might as well shut this sucker down and call it a day. It’s much _more_ true of this particular argument. There are no new facts or arguments in GZ/Trayvon debates. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1109 "2015-12-07T16:46:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Can we, like, not do this for the 300th time? Nobody is going to be convinced of anything at this point. You’re the one who restarted the conversation. :smack: You’re the one who wanted to rehash this for the 300th time. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1110 "2015-12-07T16:52:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just out of curiosity, and keeping in mind that the discussion is about whether GZ broke the law or not, what would your default assumption be? Well, **John** , I’m a wild man, I lean towards the idea that whoever brought the weapon into the situation bears the responsibility for its being used. (I’m not sure if this complies with paragraph C, subsection VII(d) of the Thread Relevancy Code, you may need to refer to an expert on that question.) ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1111 "2015-12-07T17:40:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, **John** , I’m a wild man, I lean towards the idea that whoever brought the weapon into the situation bears the responsibility for its being used. > > (I’m not sure if this complies with paragraph C, subsection VII(d) of the Thread Relevancy Code, you may need to refer to an expert on that question.) Where’s that goddam “like” button? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1112 "2015-12-07T18:14:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, **John** , I’m a wild man, I lean towards the idea that whoever brought the weapon into the situation bears the responsibility for its being used. Responsible? Well, yeah, of course he’s “responsible”. The guy who shot bin Laden is “responsible” for bin Laden’s death, too\*. Is that what we’re talking about? Because that makes it easy. We’re all “responsible” for actions we take of our own volition. \*If you really want to nit pick, you might argue Obama was “responsible” since he gave the order. If that makes any difference… ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1113 "2015-12-07T18:19:17Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You mean according to George Zimmerman. > > Zimmerman is the only person there when the confrontation between the two men escalated to a physical confrontation. Zimmerman claims obviously that Martin was the one the started it but he’s hardly a disinterested party and has already demonstrated a willingness to lie about that night. (Underline added) According to the forensic evidence and the testimony of Rachel Jeantel as it was presented in court. FYI - GZ wasn’t the only person there when the confrontation escalated. just sayin’ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1114 "2015-12-07T18:23:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You’re the one who wanted to rehash this for the 300th time. :smack: You might try reading my post before saying damn silly things like this. You did quote it, so it shouldn’t be that hard. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1115 "2015-12-07T18:42:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Responsible? Well, yeah, of course he’s “responsible”. The guy who shot bin Laden is “responsible” for bin Laden’s death, too\*. Is that what we’re talking about? Because that makes it easy. We’re all “responsible” for actions we take of our own volition. > > \*If you really want to nit pick, you might argue Obama was “responsible” since he gave the order. If that makes any difference… We, as in the American Public, are responsible for killing bin Laden because we elected the people who gave the order and also pay for the people who pull the trigger (and, for that matter, payed for the trigger and the bullet, too.) George Zimmerman is entirely responsible for shooting Trayvon Martin, a minor, with a gun which Zimmerman payed for with his own money. He bought the bullet. He brought the gun. He pulled the trigger. We, as in the American Public, are responsible for allowing Zimmerman to shoot Martin with no repercussions. We are at fault for creating a situation where it is acceptable for Zimmerman to stalk and shoot a minor. We have also created a society in which some people view Zimmerman as a hero. Zimmerman is also solely responsible for posting revenge porn to harass his ex-girlfriend. We, the American Public, mostly don’t care about that sort of thing. We, the American Public, have a lot to answer for, really. Glad we got that cleared up. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1116 "2015-12-07T18:47:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unfortunately, that’s true of pretty much every subject discussed on this MB. Might as well shut this sucker down and call it a day. Only if the only part of this message board that you look at is GD and the Pit. And at least in GD we could report the hijack and maybe get it rolled into a different thread. This is supposed to be about Zimmerman being in the news again, not rehashing his old case over and over and over and over and over. Though I will point out that **Bricker** made an incorrect statement of fact and has not disclaimed it. He just tries to change his words to mean something else. “Martin was not entitled to swing at him” is a statement of fact. The fact is that the state couldn’t prove that Martin was entitled to swing at him. It’s quite likely that the same would go the other direction had it been Martin who killed Zimmerman. And what you are arguing about is another fact. Zimmerman broke the law if X happened, and did not break the law if Y happened, and the court could not prove that X happened. There’s no debate here, just pointless bickering. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1117 "2015-12-07T18:58:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You might try reading my post before saying damn silly things like this. You did quote it, so it shouldn’t be that hard. You want to talk about GZ but you don’t want to talk about GZ. In a thread about GZ. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1118 "2015-12-07T19:01:39Z")
Yes, kinda. It has apparently escaped your notice but this thread is not about the Martin case. You weren’t here but we had about 500 of them, including one big one that ran to something like 50 pages. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1119 "2015-12-07T19:56:11Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You want to talk about GZ but you don’t want to talk about GZ. In a thread about GZ. **doorhinge** , can I give you some constructive criticism? You’re really fucking stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480/1120 "2015-12-07T21:07:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Assuming one of those meets the legal requirements (I doubt they do, but lest assume for the sake of argument they do), what evidence is there that either of those things happened? There are certain problematic things about a homicide with no witnesses other than the killer that you just can’t get around. It’s unfortunate because GZ is hardly a sympathetic character, but you can’t convict a guy of murder on speculation. True. Although if he was open-carrying, his gun would have been obvious. But yeah, Zimmerman got to craft the story seeing as he had the gun, and thus survived. I think my question was if Martin had smashed Zimmerman’s head with a rock, would he be able to play it off as a stand-your-ground defense as well? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=55) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-in-the-news-again/694480.md?page=57)