# 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:** 20
**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:** [April 21, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/381 "2012-04-21T21:12:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think you have it backwards - if the prosecution is going to argue that Zimmerman was not injured, they are going to have to come up with something that contradicts the references to Zimmerman’s injuries in the police report. We don’t know if that is the argument they are going to be making. It sounds like they are not all that concerned with his injuries, but rather other elements of his story. And they can still argue he wasn’t injured _at the scene of the crime_ without looking at Zimmy’s medical records. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/382 "2012-04-21T21:14:33Z")
> [@DaHarder](#): > > Which begs to question: If **Zimmerman** was this (self-appointed) ‘high-ranking’ Neighborhood Watch Captain, wouldn’t he have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of his own ‘patrol area’ ? Memorize 260 house numbers. No. I would have made a diagram, but Zimmerman was on the way to Super-Target not watching so why would he have it with him even if he made one. > [@](#): > > Nothing about the **Zimmerman** defense claims make any sense whatsoever. You seem to think Zimmerman is some sort of super-villain. If I was feeling generous I might guess his IQ at 100, but probably lower. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/383 "2012-04-21T21:16:39Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Dershowitz’s argument is stupid because it entirely rests upon the assumption that this photo is legally admissible evidence. What, specifcally, would make it inadmissible? ---
**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:** [April 21, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/384 "2012-04-21T21:21:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What, specifcally, would make it inadmissible? Why should we assume it’s admissible if we don’t even know who took it or when it was taken? We don’t even know for sure if that is Zimmerman. All we know is that some anonymous person says it is. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/385 "2012-04-21T21:25:15Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Aren’t they “supposed” to collect only the evidence that they are legally required to collect? **Bricker** has told us that they would have not have been required to test Zimmerman’s blood alcohol content–even though doing so would have benefited him (if it had come out good) and the state’s case (if it had come out bad). But they didn’t have to, so we shouldn’t feel weirded out if they didn’t. I’m kind of lumping the medical records into the same laundry basket. It would have been nice if they had subpoened them, just like it would have been nice if the police had tested Zimmerman’s blood, and just like it would have been nice if the police report was more specific about the nature of Zimmerman’s injuries and mentioned whether he had been asked if he had wanted more immediate hospital treatment. And just like it would have been nice if they had contacted the best earwitness to the case right after the killing happened. > > If we’re going to second guess the state, we should be second guessing them all the way down to the hilt. Actually I misspoke. It it would be the responsibility of the State Attorneys office to collect the medical evidence, not the police. The police collect the preliminary evidence and the SA decide if further investigation is required. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/386 "2012-04-21T21:26:43Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Why should we assume it’s admissible if we don’t even know who took it or when it was taken? We don’t even know for sure if that is Zimmerman. All we know is that some anonymous person says it is. Do those things make it inadmissible, or is it admissible, though not particularly good evidence? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/387 "2012-04-21T21:29:07Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I am typing on a iPad and can’t copy and paste from that article. If you’re truly interested in educating yourself, you’ll read about how such patients are evaluated and treated. I read parts of your long cite. The only relevant thing I gleaned is that Zimmerman would have scored 15/15 on their scale, and be classified as having a mild head injury, at worst. Nothing in your cite I saw supported your argument that minor head injuries require immediate transport to the ER. Nor does this bizarre claim match any reality I am familiar with. It’s just dumb. We see football players receive diagnosed concussions all the time, and they aren’t transported by ambulance to the hospital without exhibiting other symptoms. > [@DaHarder](#): > > Now you’re just being ridiculous, as any reasonable individual knows full-well that ‘late teens’ would be from 17-19 years of age, and ‘around’ the age of 28 (Zimmerman’s actual age, not the one you made up) is far beyond that age-group. A million pardons for being off by two years on Zimmerman’s age. Besides, this whole line of reasoning is retarded. Zimmerman identifies Martin from a distance as late teens. Later, he describes him as being a little younger than 28. From this, we are supposed to conclude he is guilty of 2nd degree murder? It doesn’t make a lick of sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/388 "2012-04-21T21:31:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’ve done it repeatedly when I have asked this. > > Night. Man in truck, watching woman, she notes. Creeps her out. Man follows woman, watching her. She is more freaked. Decides to walk faster. Man in truck no longer visible, she relaxes and answers the phone and talks to her friend. Suddenly man is directly in front of her, she says “Why are you following me?” in a high-pitched screech. Man, who has already demonstrated his cluelessness, starts to answer her while also appearing to be reaching out to touch her…she flips completely, kicks him in the nuts, runs away screaming. > > He complains to the cops that she assaulted him. > She pleads self-defense, that she had a reasonable fear of him due to his (completely idiotic and clueless) behavior. > Does she get off? Does the law recognize that even though Man was doing something that was technically legal, it was also reasonably perceived by her to be threatening, making it justified for her to kick him in the nuts? > > If the answer is yes, the law recognizes this and she is found not-guilty because she was defending herself against a reasonable perception of threat, then doesn’t this also apply to Martin, who may have punched GZ in the nose, vs. kicked him in the nuts? And doesn’t that mean that GZ’s bad choices and foolish behavior, legal or not, led to Martin’s justifiably “attacking” him (I can buy that Martin may have hit GZ first, I absolutely do not for one second believe that he had GZ down and was pounding his head into cement)? And if that is so… hwo do we hold GZ accountable, or do we not, and why not? > > And if the answer is no, the law would not find Woman had a reasonable fear, then I am disturbed. Because I want to know that if some guy is following me around in a his truck, then he gets out of his truck and approaches me after observing me running away from him, and reaches so much as a finger in my direction, that I can then have my sister kick his ass around the block for me before he takes one more step and I would hope the law would be ok with that. Because that dude has behaved in a manner I find extremely threatening. In the story above, the key element occurs in this sentence: “…starts to answer her while also appearing to be reaching out to touch her…” As an aside, I will point out that the record we know of is devoid of any evidence that shows Zimmerman appeared to be reaching out to touch Martin. But we’re talking about your hypothetical Martina. Yes: if the man reaches out to touch Martina, that is an act that communicates a threat coupled with a situation that creates a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. That’s assault, and Martina is entitled to defend herself. But to reach this conclusion, you asked me to assume the truth of a key statement – one for which we have no evidence in the present case. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/389 "2012-04-21T21:31:27Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Besides, this whole line of reasoning is retarded. Zimmerman identifies Martin from a distance as late teens. Later, he describes him as being a little younger than 28. From this, we are supposed to conclude he is guilty of 2nd degree murder? It doesn’t make a lick of sense. From my perspective, it doesn’t make him guilty, just stupid. It doesn’t help his case, and I can’t see what he thought he had to gain by saying it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/390 "2012-04-21T21:34:06Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Why should we assume it’s admissible if we don’t even know who took it or when it was taken? We don’t even know for sure if that is Zimmerman. All we know is that some anonymous person says it is. But you said assuming it is admissible is stupid. I’m asking you what you think would be needed to make the picture admissible, and how unlikely you think it would be for Zimmerman’s defense team to get whatever that is. In other words, is it a stupid assumption? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/391 "2012-04-21T21:34:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Wow, really? On what planet does it work like this? Earth > [@](#): > > Don’t you remember what Twain said: if you never lie, you never have to remember anything. “Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.” ― Steven Wright ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/392 "2012-04-21T21:38:43Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’ll say it more simply this time. > > The fact that George Zimmerman was injured \*\*\*\*\*\*\*does not prove that his killing Martin was justified under the law. > > * * * I’ll try to say this as simply as possible. _ **No-one has to prove that the killing of Martin was justified under the law.** _ Please, tell me what part of that you don’t understand, and I’ll try to explain it, but frankly I don’t see how anyone can fail to get it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/393 "2012-04-21T22:39:16Z")
> [@DaHarder](#): > > But to reach this conclusion, you asked me to assume the truth of a key statement – one for which we have no evidence in the present case. Thank you! And yes, I know we don’t currently have evidence that that is what happened, but the only evidence we have that it is not what happened is the (presumed) testimny of the man who killed Martin and who has an excellent motivation to lie. So I’m not arguing that this or that is proved or not, because nothing is yet proved. My point has been and remains: there is at least an even chance that Martin _was justified in becoming physical with Zimmerman._ Accepting for the moment, for the intellectual exploration, that my scenario is true (let’s pretend someone comes along who saw Zimmerman reach his hand towards Martin, and Martin throw the punch) what happens to Zimmerman’s self-defense story AND his prospects of being nailed on 2nd degree? If my scenario is the accurate one, and it is proved to the satisfaction of a jury, does not that eliminate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim due to his having been the aggressor? It would seem that it does. And that has been what I have said all along. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/394 "2012-04-21T22:44:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But you said assuming it is admissible is stupid. I’m asking you what you think would be needed to make the picture admissible, and how unlikely you think it would be for Zimmerman’s defense team to get whatever that is. > > In other words, is it a stupid assumption? If the person who sold the picture to ABC was planning on remaining anonymous, they were pretty careless. They didn’t remove the EXIF data from the file. We already know the picture was taken by a neighbor with a iPhone 4s, which should narrow it down. I’m not sure if the Unique ID field could identify which phone took it, but it might. I wonder if the GPS was enabled? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/395 "2012-04-21T22:45:59Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > If my scenario is the accurate one, and it is proved to the satisfaction of a jury, does not that eliminate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim due to his having been the aggressor? Not according to the law. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/396 "2012-04-21T22:50:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’ll try to say this as simply as possible. > > _ **No-one has to prove that the killing of Martin was justified under the law.** _ > > Please, tell me what part of that you don’t understand, and I’ll try to explain it, but frankly I don’t see how anyone can fail to get it. Well evidently I’m not and your simply repeating this isn’t helping. This is what I understand to be the suituation: George Zimmerman willfully and knowingly fired his gun into Trayvon Martin’s chest, killing him. This is a fact that Zimmerman has admitted is true. If the killing was legally justified, he will not be convicted of any crime. If the killing was not legally justified, he will be convicted of second degree murder, which is what he’s been charged with, or perhaps manslaughter. In order to avoid being convicted of unlawfully causing the death of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman must either 1. Prove to a judge with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was justified or 2. Prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was justified. What part of that do you believe to be inaccurate? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/397 "2012-04-21T22:53:29Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > 1. Prove to a judge with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was justified > or > 2. Prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was justified. > > What part of that do you believe to be inaccurate? Part 2. You don’t seem to be living in the same country as the rest of us. In the United States, the prosecution has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/398 "2012-04-21T22:55:53Z")
> [@DaHarder](#): > > I’ve been following this story since the day it broke, and I’d reason that said ‘_evidence_’ (read: [U ignorance) is based solely upon the fact that **Martin** was a young black male wearing a hoodie while walking at night, and very little else. That’s not not what Zimmerman “solely” described. He said Martin was acting suspicious and appeared messed up. Believe it or not, people can act suspicious and not be doing anything wrong. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2012, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/399 "2012-04-21T23:06:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, is it a stupid assumption? Unless an expert or a state official has vouched for the authenticity of that pic and the credibility of the person who took it, then yes I think it’s stupid not only to assume that it’s admissible, but to decry the state for not citing it in their arrest affidavit. Even if that pic is legitimate, we have no reason to believe anyone involved in the investigation knew about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/400 "2012-04-21T23:11:10Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > In order to avoid being convicted of unlawfully causing the death of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman must either > > 1. Prove to a judge with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was justified > or > 2. Prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was justified. > > What part of that do you believe to be inaccurate? (2) is inaccurate. If we get to trial, then George must do (1). If he does, then the burden shifts to the prosecution, who must prove to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was NOT justified. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=21)