# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 168
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3342 "2012-07-09T13:42:53Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > What about the “dying declaration” exception? I know that the person making the declaration is supposed to know (or have good reason to believe) they are dying at the time, but ISTM that since Martin is dead, and these are the last words a witness heard him say as the fatal incident began, those circumstances should warrant an exception. No, absolutely not. The rule is not “The declarant is dead and these are the last words anyone heard him say.” The dying declaration exception requires that the declarant (Treyvon) made the statement under a belief of certain or impending death, and that the statement concerns the causes or circumstances of that impending death. There’s simply not enough evidence (at present) to support either requirement. > [@](#): > > Whatever legal justification is ultimately used, since TM isn’t around to testify for himself, I should hope any means available of giving his POV a voice is given a wide latitude. The problem is that that the US Constitution says: > [@Sixth Amendment](#): > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; **to be confronted with the witnesses against him** ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. The portion in red is known as the Confrontation Clause. Any attempt to say, “We need to hear from Treyvon Martin, even though he isn’t around to testify for himself,” runs squarely against the concept that the accused is entitled to confront the witnesses against him. Over the years, the body of caselaw and evidence codes have pretty well solidified the ways in which an out of court statement can be used in evidence. There is some wriggle room, but (popular rhetoric aside) in a criminal trial of Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin has no “right” to be heard in the same way Zimmerman has a right to confront. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3343 "2012-07-09T16:06:17Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The EMT will testify to the jury. One cut. And a broken nose and mutiple brusing. The EMT(s) will be examined and cross examined. There will be the EMT’s written report and the EMT’s testimony. One cut? Two cuts? Multiple cuts? Multiple bruises? Broken nose? The jury will get the impression that Zimmerman was being beaten. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3344 "2012-07-09T16:54:32Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The jury will get the impression that Zimmerman was being beaten. The jury will get the impression that Zimmerman was in a scuffle. Witnesses will report an ‘argument’ or ‘scuffle’ or ‘wrestling’ lasting some 50 feet south from the sidewalk T. Witnesses will see there was a tree right smack in the middle of said scuffle. Jury will get the impression that Zimmerman’s injuries are pretty much consistent with a scuffle of that nature, and are hardly consistent with an account of ‘repeated blows to the face’ and ‘head repeatedly slammed into a cement sidewalk’. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3345 "2012-07-09T18:07:28Z")
> [@Poochey](#): > > That was from the doctor who examined him, who also described Zimmerman as “obese.” Zimmerman suffers from ADHD, a bad back, inflamed lower joints, indigestion problems. I rather doubt he’s in the best of physical condition. May I have link to that source, please? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3346 "2012-07-09T18:07:36Z")
I’m going to quote a line posted above: In self-defense cases in Florida, if the evidence leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, and at least one of those inferences is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, the case is not legally sufficient for guilt and the jury cannot legally find guilt. The jury can “get impressions.” But to convict, the evidence in front of them must be more than simply favoring one interpretation over the other. Even “this is way more likely than that” is not legally sufficient for a jury to find guilt. To find guilt, a jury must find that each and every element of the crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence must not leave room for two or more reasonable inferences of fact if one of them is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence. Perhaps it might be more realistic to discuss the evidence with those goalposts in mind. “He probably is guilty,” is not enough. “He’s way more likely guilty than not guilty,” is not enough. The jury has to get to the point where the only reasonable inferences to be drawn are of guilt, period. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3347 "2012-07-09T18:09:09Z")
> [@Poochey](#): > > Don’t know about DeeDee’s statement. “It about to rain. He about to get to-inside a thing. It started raining.” This raises a lot of questions. If it hadn’t started raining yet, why didn’t Martin go to the nearby townhouse where he was staying to wait for it to begin raining, instead of the mail shed? He was allegedly headed to the townhouse. Does anyone have a link to DeeDee’s transcripts that they can share? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3348 "2012-07-09T18:12:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m going to quote a line posted above: > > In self-defense cases in Florida, if the evidence leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, and at least one of those inferences is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, the case is not legally sufficient for guilt and the jury cannot legally find guilt. > > The jury can “get impressions.” But to convict, the evidence in front of them must be more than simply favoring one interpretation over the other. Even “this is way more likely than that” is not legally sufficient for a jury to find guilt. > > To find guilt, a jury must find that each and every element of the crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence must not leave room for two or more reasonable inferences of fact if one of them is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence. > > Perhaps it might be more realistic to discuss the evidence with those goalposts in mind. “He probably is guilty,” is not enough. “He’s way more likely guilty than not guilty,” is not enough. The jury has to get to the point where the only reasonable inferences to be drawn are of guilt, period. I know that as a society we lean towards 'better the guilty go free than innocent go to prison, but…Honestly, it’s amazing any trial actually ends up with a guilty verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3349 "2012-07-09T18:24:19Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I know that as a society we lean towards 'better the guilty go free than innocent go to prison, but…Honestly, it’s amazing any trial actually ends up with a guilty verdict. Well, not every trial happens in a state in which self-defense is treated quite this way. “Classic” self-defense is an affirmative defense. The jury is told that the accused must prove self-defense by “preponderance of the evidence.” In other words, the burden of proof rests with the accused: he has to convince the jury that his self-defense story is true. (He only has to do so by preponderance of the evidence, which is basically a “more likely than not” standard, but the point is: he carries the burden.) In Florida, all he has to do is make a bare, prima facie case – present some scintilla of evidence – and then the burden shifts to the state to disprove it. And of course the facts of the case are a bit thin, since we don’t have witnesses to the altercation. But it’s true: it is hard to get to a guilty verdict. As it should be. The state gets to use its awesome power to lock you up, put you behind bars for years. The burden should be high, shouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3350 "2012-07-09T18:44:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it’s true: it is hard to get to a guilty verdict. As it should be. The state gets to use its awesome power to lock you up, put you behind bars for years. The burden should be high, shouldn’t it? I don’t mind a high burden. I welcome it. But the bar should be somewhere below ‘impossible’. The guy carrying the gun should carry a bit more responsibility for an unarmed 17yr old kid ending up dead. IMHO, of course. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3351 "2012-07-09T19:18:26Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Does anyone have a link to DeeDee’s transcripts that they can share? [The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 11: The Dee Dee Interview–Kaboom! | Stately McDaniel Manor](http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3352 "2012-07-09T19:30:14Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I know that as a society we lean towards 'better the guilty go free than innocent go to prison, but…Honestly, it’s amazing any trial actually ends up with a guilty verdict. All \*\*Bricker \*\*did was explain what “beyond reasonable doubt” means. Do you think that people should be jailed for decades if reasonable doubt exists? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3353 "2012-07-09T19:31:44Z")
I should add that I add that link without comment. I vouch neither for the accuracy of the transcript nor for the theories advanced by the blog on which the transcript resides. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3354 "2012-07-09T19:35:32Z")
> [@](#): > > The morning after he killed Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman went to a clinic with what appeared to be a broken nose, two black eyes and two cuts on the back of his head. But the physician’s assistant who treated him determined he neither needed X-rays nor had he suffered head trauma, newly released medical records show. > > Zimmerman declined to go to an ear, nose and throat specialist even though it was recommended, the physician’s assistant wrote. … > > … The medical records document several injuries, but also state that the only reason Zimmerman sought medical attention was because he needed a doctor’s note to return to work, Duval County Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said in court last week. … > > … The report also said although Zimmerman did not have any blurry vision or dizziness, he said he got nauseous every time he thought of the night’s violence. > > The report detailed two open wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, one two centimeters and one half a centimeter, which did not require stitches. She described his head as “normocephalic and atraumatic’’ — normal and without injuries. > > His nose was fractured, hurt, and he suffered joint pain likely because of the assault, the physician’s assistant, Lindzee E. Folgate wrote. “We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal deviation,” the report said. “The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury. I recommended that he be evaluated by ENT but he refused.” …[RIGHT][CITE](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/03/2880246/doctor-george-zimmerman-had-black.html)[/RIGHT] [RIGHT]Underlined= **CMC** [/RIGHT]Zimmerman’s doctor ¶ if called will testify that Z only had two small, minor, cuts on the back of his head. No bruises, no scrapes, no crush damage to the scalp, nothing consistent with having your skull bounced on a concrete sidewalk. CMC fnord! I’m way to smart to think that **Zimmerman’s** doctor ¶ saying that black eyes are a typical result of being punched in the nose is going to stop anyone from posting “he had two black eyes” as if that proved something. It doesn’t. I got two black eyes once . . . from violently coughing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3355 "2012-07-09T19:56:54Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I don’t mind a high burden. I welcome it. But the bar should be somewhere below ‘impossible’. > > The guy carrying the gun should carry a bit more responsibility for an unarmed 17yr old kid ending up dead. IMHO, of course. Yes, I get that this is your opinion, but it’s an opinion that doesn’t find a ready analogue in the law. Zimmerman does not have, under the criminal law, an extra duty of care because he was the one with the gun. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3356 "2012-07-09T21:04:38Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > [The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 11: The Dee Dee Interview–Kaboom! | Stately McDaniel Manor](http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/) sweet ty! ---
**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:** [July 9, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3357 "2012-07-09T22:05:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m going to quote a line posted above: > > In self-defense cases in Florida, if the evidence leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, and at least one of those inferences is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, the case is not legally sufficient for guilt and the jury cannot legally find guilt. > > The jury can “get impressions.” But to convict, the evidence in front of them must be more than simply favoring one interpretation over the other. Even “this is way more likely than that” is not legally sufficient for a jury to find guilt. This part sounds very cut and dry. But: > [@](#): > > To find guilt, a jury must find that each and every element of the crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence must not leave room for two or more reasonable inferences of fact if one of them is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence. > > Perhaps it might be more realistic to discuss the evidence with those goalposts in mind. “He probably is guilty,” is not enough. “He’s way more likely guilty than not guilty,” is not enough. The jury has to get to the point where the only reasonable inferences to be drawn are of guilt, period. This part introduces that pesky “reasonable” word. Reasonable people will tend to disagree on what’s “reasonable” and what isn’t. But as I’ve stated previously, I’m fully prepared for him to walk, and I actually anticipate that outcome more than I do a conviction of manslaughter or greater. I just hope that, at a minimum, the “immunity from arrest” and “burden of proof” aspects of the SYG laws are amended to be more _reasonable_ as a result of the circumstances of this case. ---
**Author:** ![Poochey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@Poochey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poochey)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3358 "2012-07-09T23:58:20Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > [RIGHT]Underlined= **CMC** [/RIGHT]Zimmerman’s doctor ¶ if called will testify that Z only had two small, minor, cuts on the back of his head. No bruises, no scrapes, no crush damage to the scalp, nothing consistent with having your skull bounced on a concrete sidewalk. > > CMC fnord! > I’m way to smart to think that **Zimmerman’s** doctor ¶ saying that black eyes are a typical result of being punched in the nose is going to stop anyone from posting “he had two black eyes” as if that proved something. It doesn’t. > I got two black eyes once . . . from violently coughing. Head trauma is actually brain trauma. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3359 "2012-07-10T00:10:03Z")
> [@Poochey](#): > > Head trauma is actually brain trauma. So spake Dr. Poochey. ---
**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:** [July 10, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3360 "2012-07-10T00:42:59Z")
I came across this blog posting that was linked to another message board I visit. According to the “about” page, the author is a former criminal defense attorney and law professor. > **[Did Zimmerman Confess When He Said, “I Took my Gun Aimed it at him and Fired?”](https://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/did-zimmerman-confess-when-he-said-i-took-my-gun-aimed-it-at-him-and-fired/)** > > Sometimes what you are searching for during an investigation is located in plain view right in front of your face, but for one reason or another, you don’t see it. I have been chastising myse… > [@](#): > > When Investigator Chris Serino was interviewing Zimmerman on February 29th, three days after the shooting, Zimmerman said, > > “I didn’t want him to keep slamming my head on the concrete so I kind of shifted. But when I shifted my jacket came up…and it exposed my firearm. That’s when he said you are going to die tonight. He took one hand off my mouth, and slid it down my chest. I took my gun aimed it at him and fired.” > > The key word “aimed.” > > Notice that he did not say, “I took my gun and fired.” > > Because of the ongoing struggle he was describing, I pictured him freeing his gun from his holster while lying in a supine position and firing it at point blank range into Trayvon Martin’s torso. > > Given his description of the struggle between the two of them, he could not have extended his arm and hand holding the gun because there was not enough room between the two of them. Not only that, according to him, he succeeded in grabbing the gun because he pinned Martin’s left hand against the side of his chest using his right upper arm and that prevented Martin from grabbing it. > > Do y’all see the problem? How can he possibly extend his elbow and aim the gun with Martin lying on top of him while pinning Martin’s left hand to his chest with his right upper arm. I seized upon the same oddness when Zimmerman reenacted the shooting. In the video, it’s clear that he fully extends his arm out in front of him. If Martin was on top of him, leaning over him due to his arm being pinned by Zimmerman, there is no way his arm could have been straight when he fired that gun into his chest. The author also echoes my concern over the front to back trajectory of that bullet. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3361 "2012-07-10T00:49:29Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I seized upon the same oddness when Zimmerman reenacted the shooting. In the video, it’s clear that he fully extends his arm out in front of him. If Martin was on top of him, leaning over him due to his arm being pinned by Zimmerman, there is no way his arm could have been straight when he fired that gun into his chest. > > The author also echoes my concern over the front to back trajectory of that bullet. You’re right. In fact I see another discrepancy… He’s STANDING. And he AIMED the gun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=167) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=169)