# 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:** 212
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4222 "2012-07-20T05:17:23Z")
> [@enomaj](#): > > emeraldia, re post [4203](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15291601&postcount=4203), this poster [does it better.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14906942&postcount=147) I agree. Funny stuff. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4223 "2012-07-20T06:50:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, it means he approached from the back side of the houses after first walking there. This 100% did not happen. Or, more precisely, if this did happen, George is lying about the entire rest of the story at least up until he gets out of the car. [Recording #6 – Detective Serino’s Interview With George Zimmerman – Part 3 (2/29/2012)](http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/) They are going over George’s NEN call, stopping it at various points to discuss the action. Detective Singleton stops the tape about 0:48 in to the NEN call and notes that in the re-enactment, George had said that he started out at the Clubhouse, then moved after being asked by the dispatch which way Martin went. She asks George if he’s already at TTL, and he’s very clear: the exchange below all happens _while George is parked at the Clubhouse_. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman: > Now he’s staring at me. [00:48] > 911 dispatcher: > OK, you said that’s 1111 Retreat View or 111? > Zimmerman: > That’s the clubhouse. > 911 dispatcher: > He’s near the clubhouse now? > Zimmerman: > Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band. > And he’s a black male.[1:03] Martin has to be approaching George’s car from the west, heading in the direction that takes him home. The first point that George says he’s now at his final parking spot on TTL is at the 01:39 mark: > [@](#): > > Zimmerman: OK. > These assholes. They always get away. > When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. [1:39] Further, George states at this point that he is behind Martin. In the re-enactment, he says he lost sight of Martin while parked at the Clubhouse as Martin passed him and turned right on to TTL. The next time he spots Martin is when he’s parked on TTL at the bend, Martin is in front of him, at the top of the cut-through turning right behind the houses - at which point Martin goes out of sight, -then- comes back down to George’s car, circles it, goes back up the cut-through and runs/skips/gangsta-dance/ to the right. The skipping is at the 02:08 Now, at 01:03, Martin was approaching George’s car, which he insists was parked at the Clubhouse. Less than 40 seconds later, George is now parked on TTL, but Martin manages to beat George to the cut-through…and that includes a statement at 01:20 that Martin was ‘coming to check me out’, which is a pretty good trick: According to George, Martin approached a moving car to check him out then still managed to stay in front of George as he parks on TTL. And in less than 40 seconds, Martin has to not only beat George to the cut-through, he has to also have time to go out of site, come back down, circle George’s car, then skip/dance away again. George’s story is impossible. He’s lying. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4224 "2012-07-20T07:45:09Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Trayvon Martin was [snip] How do you shift from arguments to comedy so deftly? (I’ve already stated my views on your comic stylings, but I must admit, a smirk crossed my face.) I didn’t LOL, but came close to L-ing. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4225 "2012-07-20T08:17:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I’m not **emeraldia** , but if you don’t mind, I will take a shot at it. > > I have no issue with any of your description until you get to this - If Martin decided to incapacitate someone who **might** have bad intentions towards him, then Martin was in the wrong. But isn’t that the premise of stand your ground? Maybe it’s not exactly legally the same, but if you feel your life is in danger, you have the ability to proactively eliminate the threat? You’ve said you agree with the description. So you have been tailed by an unknown, unofficial vehicle for some time - long enough for you to notice, to call a friend to state you’re being followed. It’s rainy, it’s dark. (I think many men of color have been followed by vehicles for no apparent reason.) Here’s where this thing gets cranked up to 11 - the follower gets out. _Why would anybody do that unless they intended to apprehend you?_ This is from Trayvon’s perspective, not Zimmerman’s. Entirely reasonable to presume that he may intend to do you harm. And let’s remember this is a 17 year old, without the benefit of life experience, who is likely scared, full of adrenalin. This, of course is giving full credence to Zimmerman’s account of events. I don’t buy his account, and I am sure his recollection favors his decisions (illogical and as stupid as they were). > [@](#): > > Even if someone got shot in Tulsa, or in Mississippi fourteen years ago, you don’t get to punch someone in the face and bash his head on the ground because he came up to you in the street. Asking a stranger “what are you doing?” is not a threat, and does not justify a violent response. Tulsa, 2012; Black man run over in Mississippi, 2011. It really isn’t a good idea to confront someone in the dark, in the rain, late at night, is it? “Asking” is how Zimmerman described it. What if his tone was more demanding or threatening? Can you see how this explanation can be considered intimidating, and how a reasonable person of average intelligence would have stayed in his car? If we are to believe that GZ felt this hooded figure was a threat, to the point of calling the police, and he lost him - which means he didn’t know where he was - why place yourself in a position where said hooded figure could “get the jump” on you? I don’t view the confrontation as benignly as you do, and I’m suggesting that it’s time to look at it from the other perspective. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence to date that Zimmerman did anything that a reasonable person would consider violent, or that justified a violent response. There is evidence, mostly the nature of Zimmerman’s injuries and the lack of injury to Martin apart from a skinned knuckle, that indicate that Martin initiated the violence. But there is evidence to suggest that Zimmerman set this whole drama into motion unnecessarily. Step by step: [ol] [li]Reasonable people would agree it’s within one’s right, even perview, to drive on public roads.[/li][li]It’s reasonable to take note of someone you deem unusual.[/li][li]It’s reasonable to call authorities to investigate said person[/li][li]It’s _not_ reasonable to continue following the individual when you’ve been explicitly told “we don’t need you to do that” by a dispatcher.[/li][li]It’s not reasonable to exit your vehicle, with locking doors, in the middle of a block.[/li][li]It’s not reasonable to approach an unknown person without identifying yourself first. (Which is why police officers flash their lights and wear badges.)[/li][/ol] If GZ’s account is perfectly true, there is a succession of bad choices he made. I made the point that Martin may have feared racial violence. He could have simply feared mugging, or getting jumped. I’m fond of quoting FBI profiler Gavin de Becker - if something feels wrong, it probably is. In _The Gift of Fear_, he walks through dozens of scenarios that demonstrate that a potential attacker will constantly escalate, in small ways, your personal space and/or sense of safety. GZ did exactly this to Martin through his own cluelessness (at best) or malevolence. > [@](#): > > Whoever initiated the violence in this incident is in the wrong. What evidence there is to date seems to indicate that that person was Martin. > > It is _possible_ that that person was really Zimmerman. But _there is no evidence of this_. And if there is not sufficient evidence to prove that Zimmerman initiated violence beyond a reasonable doubt, then he must be acquitted. > > Under our current system, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. > > Regards, > Shodan But it’s rarely that cut and dry, is it? We know that there are provocations to violence. It isn’t always a matter of “he swung first so he’s at fault.” With an incomplete version of the facts completely drawn up by one party, I simply would not be so quick to believe that the story unfolded precisely as GZ described it. In fact, I think it’s extremely unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4226 "2012-07-20T08:35:39Z")
I’d like to add to **Hippy** ’s list Reasonable people would agree it’s within one’s right, even perview, to drive on public roads. It’s reasonable to take note of someone you deem unusual. It’s reasonable to call authorities to investigate said person It’s not reasonable to continue following the individual when you’ve been explicitly told “we don’t need you to do that” by a dispatcher. It’s not reasonable to exit your vehicle, with locking doors, in the middle of a block. It’s not reasonable to approach an unknown person without identifying yourself first. (Which is why police officers flash their lights and wear badges.) It’s not reasonable to follow (chase?) somebody that is already running / skipping away from you in the dark on a rainy night. If somebody is making an effort to avoid you, and then you go out of your way to keep them in sight it tends to move you to more agressive potential danger than innocent observer. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4227 "2012-07-20T08:58:44Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > 'Cause he said, “Just gimme the address of the house that you’re in front of.” > And there’s no address 'cause these are the back of the houses. Oh, it’s even better than that. As he’s saying this he’s pointing to the row of houses to his left…ignoring the row of houses facing \*towards him, right in front of him. \*[Linky](http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=8695). House number and convenient light nearby for night-time viewing. Here’s what it looked like the [previous evening](http://www.wtsp.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/photogallery/255685/DSC_0003.jpg). Now, one could reasonably say that an address wouldn’t help if he didn’t know the street. Of course, that completely -ignores- the fact that George claims that the dispatcher asked him for the address he was parked in front of before he got out of the car - which is a complete lie, George was out of the car and Martin was out of sight when he was asked this. But OK, whatever. We’ll humor the feeble-minded GZ supporters: George gets out to find a street sign, because he didn’t know what street he was on. The nearest STREET SIGN for the STREET HE IS ON is 10 seconds behind him. You know, at the corner he had to navigate, like, JUST NOW? Why get out of his car? He could turn around in his car or even just back up; the corner is right there. If he’s looking for a street sign, he has zero reason to go up the cut-through. None. Now, if he said he wanted a specific addresss on RVC, that at least seems logical. But he goes through the cut-through, DOESN’T GET THE ADDRESS, and decides to go back to his truck - you know, the truck that he says he couldn’t tell the dispatch properly where it was parked, on the street that he couldn’t remember the name of. Which is a bummer, because he had asked the cops to ‘call him when they get to the complex’; how is he going to tell them where he is? According to him, he -still- doesn’t know what street he’s on, and -still- doesn’t have an address! ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4228 "2012-07-20T09:06:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Zimmerman did let the police handle it. There is no evidence that he confronted Martin. The evidence at hand is that Martin engaged him first. Martin’s girlfriend’s account backs this up. And Martin wasn’t a thug for walking home, he was a thug for beating Zimmerman with no signs of letting up. It is the very essence of the kind of person described as a thug. First, I have a problem with the use of the word “evidence.” What you have is an account of one person. The other is dead. So let’s use use “account.” We don’t know what Zimmerman said before the confrontation got violent. I described one possibility of what might have been going through Martin’s mind. If you are Martin and you believe your life is in danger, and the die is cast, you sure as hell better not relent in your attack until the threat is incapacitated. This is where the story from GZ makes no sense. You felt this person was enough of a threat to follow, to call authorities after - but then you walk out of your car in a non-defensive position? There couldn’t have been a confrontation or violence if you stay in your vehicle. Team GZ, you can’t have it both ways. If GZ was accurate in assessing Martin as a hooded threat - then he should take the most extreme precaution. If GZ didn’t feel threatened by Martin then he shouldn’t have followed him or called the police. > [@](#): > > Again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman attempted to engage Martin. If that were the case he would have gotten out of his car at the first sighting, or when Martin passed him at the club house, or when he approached the truck near the cut-through. So there’s a prescriptive method for engagement? The second sentence doesn’t make any sense. > [@](#): > > And prior to the beating there was no reason for Zimmerman to fear Martin. At the worst, Martin was a drug addled burglar in the eyes of Zimmerman. This really doesn’t make any sense. _Zimmerman called the police and had been tailing Martin._ If that doesn’t indicate fear, then what the hell does? I imagine both Zimmerman and Martin were fearful. Neither knew what the other was doing. If you really believe that it’s reasonable that GZ would think Martin was a “drug addled burglar” then why would he leave the safety of his car? This wasn’t in broad daylight in a public square. It was late at night and rainy. Who gets out of their car in such conditions? Would you? Would you do so unarmed? > [@](#): > > I can explain it to you if you agree to sign a waiver. Sucker punching someone is how you get the better of them and gain advantage. Getting on top of someone is a huge advantage. What is this, Internet Tough Guy veiled threats? If GZ was able (in his account) to say “What are you doing here?” he was able to see Martin. Again, if you’re expecting sunshine, rainbows, and puppies, you could be surprised here. If you suspect something more malevolent, you should be in a defensive position. This is so commonsensical it’s actually hard to type. Either GZ is one of the stupidest people to inhabit this planet - meaning that after gauging Martin as a threat and contacting authorities, he then reverts to thinking that he’s harmless. So it’s logical to leave one’s car and not be prepared to defend oneself? > [@](#): > > Martin apologists won’t concede that he went out of his way to confront Zimmerman and that alone indicates he wasn’t in fear for his life. There is no excuse for the continued beating at all. He is dead as a direct result of his treatment of Zimmerman. Bullshit. If Martin did indeed strike first, that would suggest he was in fear for his life. You familiar with “fight or flight response?” The fact that he fought suggests exactly that. Oddly enough, much of what we know about fight or flight comes from examples of police shooting perps multiple times, or beating suspects well after they’re incapacitated. When one feels one’s life is in danger, it is exceedingly difficult to shut it off. Let’s do this again. If Zimmerman felt that Martin was enough of an unknown quantity, or danger, that he followed him for a period of time and called the police, there is no logical explanation for him to have ever left his vehicle until he knew the police were on the scene or he was safely at his house (where he could presumably drive up to the door and get in quickly). The additional hazards of the dark and rain make this even more evident. The only plausible explanations are that GZ really is unintelligent and not up to the task of neighborhood watch captain (and would explain why he was unable to become a police officer), or that GZ felt he had the upper hand in a potential confrontation. That’s precisely the wrong sort of individual to be involved in neighborhood watch. We’ve had NW meetings in my HOA, and we’ve been told repeatedly that the most important defensive weapons we have are our eyes and our phones. Not guns. Observe and report, and wait for police assistance. I wonder what type of NW training GZ had? > [@](#): > > GZ was doing the right thing by calling the police to report suspicious activity. But he was selective in following their directions. He was told to stop tailing Martin and he didn’t. If he had in fact done just that, he wouldn’t be in the mess he inserted himself in, and a young man would still be alive. > [@](#): > > Not only did Martin fail to call the police he chose to go back to the area where Zimmerman was instead of going home. He is the king of shitty judgement calls in this event. If anyone is justified in potentially getting lost, or being scared shitless because some asshole is following you in a car, it’s Martin, not GZ “I live here and serve as neighborhood watch captain, but I don’t know the street name/approximate location on the block.” And I’m glad you hold teenagers to the same standard as adults. If you think Martin’s judgment was shitty, how about this specimen who: [ol] [li]Doesn’t follow directions from LEO, those which he is supposed to be working in concert with[/li][li]Leaves the safety of his vehicle, making a confrontation possible[/li][li]After being charged, is found to have two passports[/li][li]Neglects to inform judge of significant monies at his disposal[/li][li]Seeks to tell “his side of the story” but only for a price[/li][li]When offered the opportunity to reflect on what happened, says he did everything right and states that what happened is “God’s will”[/li][/ol] This is just the stuff that’s independently, verifiably true. I won’t even include the assault on a police officer or domestic violence charges, or the more sordid allegations. To say this guy has clay feet is an understatement. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4229 "2012-07-20T09:18:00Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I think it’s all GZ. Whatever you think of GZ, he himself doesn’t think of himself as a thug and murderer, and he seems to care a lot about the fact that a good portion of the country does think so, and he hopes that he can convey his true self if he get’s a chance. > > It’s not like this interview is out of the blue. Zimmerman tried to contact Martin’s parents, and when he was rebuffed, he insisted on speaking at the hearing so that he could apologize to them then. Now this, and then the View. > > I don’t know what O’Mara thinks of it, but I’m pretty sure Zimmerman is the driving force here. I suspect this is true as well, which further shows how delusional and what exceedingly poor judgment he has. I’m sure every attorney on the planet would advise him to lay low, wait for his day in court, perhaps a carefully worded and vetted letter to the Martin family. He’s pretty much done the opposite of that, and painted himself into a right-wing gun nut corner. I don’t care if you have Hannity posters on your bedroom wall, if you’re going to make an appeal to the public that will be taken seriously, you don’t do it on Fox News. Call 60 Minutes or Barbara Walters. And do it for free. I guess he is trying to out-Casey Anthony himself. I guess since it worked out okay for her… ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4230 "2012-07-20T09:20:57Z")
You know, I’ve been wondering. This was a pretty sleepy subdivision. The streets are short - is there even a need for a house number at all? In such a place, couldn’t George have quite simply said "look for the red (or whatever colour) truck that’s parked just past the clubhouse? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4231 "2012-07-20T09:41:21Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > You know, I’ve been wondering. This was a pretty sleepy subdivision. The streets are short - is there even a need for a house number at all? In such a place, couldn’t George have quite simply said "look for the red (or whatever colour) truck that’s parked just past the clubhouse? Well, that’s what he tried to do. We almost have to conclude that he really did forget the name of the street, because he makes such a mess of the directions. If he wanted to give his truck location without the street name, he just needed to say “go in straight past the clubhouse, with the clubhouse on your right and follow the street around, I’m in a color/model car parked just past the curve in the road”. Instead, his initial instructions are: > [@](#): > > When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. He realizes that this would likely result in them turning left on to Retreat View Circle. So he amends: > [@](#): > > Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. The dispatcher is obviously confused: > [@](#): > > Dispatcher: OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse? > Zimmerman: Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left. ‘Dont’ turn and make a left’ is kinda funny, even though I know what he means. Why he insists on saying ‘make a left’ is beyond me; Twin Trees Lane does turn to the left there, but it’s not like you have the option of going in any other direction. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4232 "2012-07-20T12:02:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Because the state has to prove Zimmerman’s account false. Thankfully, that won’t be all that hard. Zimmerman’s done most of the heavy lifting himself. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4233 "2012-07-20T12:36:45Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > But isn’t that the premise of stand your ground? Maybe it’s not exactly legally the same, but if you feel your life is in danger, you have the ability to proactively eliminate the threat? No, this has nothing to do with SYG. Stand Your Ground does not say that you have the right to proactively eliminate a threat. SYG means that, **after you are attacked,** even if you could retreat, you don’t have to. It does not mean you can attack anyone who you think **might** attack you. If Zimmerman had attacked Martin, then Martin would have been within the law to stand his ground, even if he could have run away. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. There _is_ evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Zimmerman could have stood his ground and defended himself, but (according to his account, which is backed up by various pieces of evidence) he had no opportunity to retreat, because Martin was sitting on top of him bashing his head on the ground. Self-defense comes into play when a reasonable person would feel that he is in danger of death or grave bodily injury. A reasonable person does not expect death or grave bodily injury whenever a stranger asks him in the street “what are you doing?” That is not reasonable, even if you are black and the person who is asking is white or half-white, or if the Klan killed a black guy in another state. > [@](#): > > You’ve said you agree with the description. So you have been tailed by an unknown, unofficial vehicle for some time - long enough for you to notice, to call a friend to state you’re being followed. It’s rainy, it’s dark. (I think many men of color have been followed by vehicles for no apparent reason.) Here’s where this thing gets cranked up to 11 - the follower gets out. _Why would anybody do that unless they intended to apprehend you?_ Maybe it is the local neighborhood watch guy, and he wants to find out what you’re doing. > [@](#): > > This is from Trayvon’s perspective, not Zimmerman’s. Entirely reasonable to presume that he may intend to do you harm. Presume that he may? Sure. Proactively attack him before he does anything that a reasonable person would interpret as a threat? No. > [@](#): > > And let’s remember this is a 17 year old, without the benefit of life experience, who is likely scared, full of adrenalin. Who is obligated to obey the law. He doesn’t get a pass on attacking people because he’s 17. > [@](#): > > It really isn’t a good idea to confront someone in the dark, in the rain, late at night, is it? “Asking” is how Zimmerman described it. What if his tone was more demanding or threatening? Can you see how this explanation can be considered intimidating, and how a reasonable person of average intelligence would have stayed in his car? Sure. Martin was still in the wrong if he attacked first. > [@](#): > > If we are to believe that GZ felt this hooded figure was a threat, to the point of calling the police, and he lost him - which means he didn’t know where he was - why place yourself in a position where said hooded figure could “get the jump” on you? Possibly because he was the neighborhood watch guy, and he wanted to get an address so the cops would know where to meet him. > [@](#): > > But there is evidence to suggest that Zimmerman set this whole drama into motion unnecessarily. There certainly is. > [@](#): > > Step by step: > [ol] > [li]Reasonable people would agree it’s within one’s right, even perview, to drive on public roads.[/li][li]It’s reasonable to take note of someone you deem unusual.[/li][li]It’s reasonable to call authorities to investigate said person[/li][li]It’s _not_ reasonable to continue following the individual when you’ve been explicitly told “we don’t need you to do that” by a dispatcher.[/li][li]It’s not reasonable to exit your vehicle, with locking doors, in the middle of a block.[/li][li]It’s not reasonable to approach an unknown person without identifying yourself first. (Which is why police officers flash their lights and wear badges.)[/li][/ol] > If GZ’s account is perfectly true, there is a succession of bad choices he made. True. None of those choices were against the law, and none of them gave Martin the right to attack him. > [@](#): > > But it’s rarely that cut and dry, is it? We know that there are provocations to violence. It isn’t always a matter of “he swung first so he’s at fault.” With an incomplete version of the facts completely drawn up by one party, I simply would not be so quick to believe that the story unfolded precisely as GZ described it. In fact, I think it’s extremely unlikely. I believe the parts of Zimmerman’s story that are backed up by evidence. I would be surprised if he got every single detail correct every time he recounted his version of events. People’s memories are not that reliable, especially when they are under stress. But this schtick where people simply deny the existence of whatever evidence backs him up is pretty ridiculous. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4234 "2012-07-20T13:00:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, this has nothing to do with SYG. Stand Your Ground does not say that you have the right to proactively eliminate a threat. Agreed. For example, if someone comes after you with a gun you have no right to defend yourself until _after you have already been shot_. At that point you can start defending yourself. Belief that you might be in danger simply from someone’s actions has no place in self-defense laws. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4235 "2012-07-20T13:04:16Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Agreed. For example, if someone comes after you with a gun you have no right to defend yourself until _after you have already been shot_. At that point you can start defending yourself. > > Belief that you might be in danger simply from someone’s actions has no place in self-defense laws. Touche. WP sir. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4236 "2012-07-20T13:14:42Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Agreed. For example, if someone comes after you with a gun you have no right to defend yourself until _after you have already been shot_. At that point you can start defending yourself. > > Belief that you might be in danger simply from someone’s actions has no place in self-defense laws. I mentioned how ridiculous it was when people pretended that evidence didn’t exist. This kind of post is even more so. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4237 "2012-07-20T13:38:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > she said he was next to his house. Did she use the words “next to”? In the transcript I saw she said “right by” the house; that has a very different connotation. > [@emeraldia](#): > > “A controlled stagger on either the left or right leg that causes one to limp in such a way that others will notice him.” > > Here ya go: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwGNfaN5Bqc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwGNfaN5Bqc) > > I’m not sure if that’s actually Trayvon doing it- couldn’t see their face. Did you really just Google “gangster skip” and link to the first result? It’s an updated West Side Story come to life. I feel cheated, for here in the north, gangsters and thugs merely walk, swagger, stroll, and trot through the streets. Not once in all my years have I witnessed a thug crip walk, blood bounce, clown walk, or gangster skip as a method of locomoting from Point A to Point B. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Quite the bodice-ripper. In your version, does Zimmerman have long flowing locks and rippling chest muscles? He definitely has long flowing locks. They serve as a handle, providing a method for Trayvon to daintily bang George’s head on the concrete while not harming his own hands. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4238 "2012-07-20T14:02:58Z")
> [@](#): > > George’s story is impossible. He’s lying. That’s what it comes down to. Mr. Zimmerman is an habitual liar. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4239 "2012-07-20T14:15:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, this has nothing to do with SYG. Stand Your Ground does not say that you have the right to proactively eliminate a threat. > > SYG means that, **after you are attacked,** even if you could retreat, you don’t have to. It does not mean you can attack anyone who you think **might** attack you. If Zimmerman had attacked Martin, then Martin would have been within the law to stand his ground, even if he could have run away. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. There _is_ evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Zimmerman could have stood his ground and defended himself, but (according to his account, which is backed up by various pieces of evidence) he had no opportunity to retreat, because Martin was sitting on top of him bashing his head on the ground. I went to Wikipedia and found this: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. [/QUOTE] Reasonable _belief_. It says nothing about being attacked. Given the stalking behavior of Zimmerman (which he was advised by LEO to not do) and later exiting his vehicle, I am simply suggesting that Martin may have been in fear for his life. No responsible NW patrol person would have disregarded LEO instructions and knowing that a “threat” was out there, leave the safety of his vehicle. If you look at Florida’ SYG law it says you can defend against an imminent attack. I am not arguing that Martin actually was using SYG, but it seems a lot closer to this than many have noted. > [@](#): > > Self-defense comes into play when a reasonable person would feel that he is in danger of death or grave bodily injury. A reasonable person does not expect death or grave bodily injury whenever a stranger asks him in the street “what are you doing?” That is not reasonable, even if you are black and the person who is asking is white or half-white, or if the Klan killed a black guy in another state. This is presented in the abstract. In actuality, GZ tailed Martin for some time, and left his car to confront him. This escalates things. And that’s the real issue here - GZ either deliberately or inadvertently escalated the situation so that a young kid might think he meant him harm. Just for shits and giggles, let’s swap out “young Black man in a hoodie” with “young White woman.” White women can be suspicious and out of place, right? So fine, you call LEO, and they tell you “we don’t need you to do that.” A reasonable person would follow that directive. Now, would you exit the vehicle at any time before you got home or LEO got on the scene? I certainly wouldn’t, because I would presume if the woman saw me follow her, she might assume I meant her harm. The police have ID and uniforms - let them handle it. > [@](#): > > Maybe it is the local neighborhood watch guy, and he wants to find out what you’re doing. This is certainly legal, but is it _wise?_ Again why not identify yourself before making this demand? Are we setting a precedent where it is encouraged to approach people in the dark after following them, and then demanding to know what they’re doing? How about explaining who you are _first_ and then asking? If you can’t do this, you have no business engaging with people in the street. > [@](#): > > Presume that he may? Sure. Proactively attack him before he does anything that a reasonable person would interpret as a threat? No. I already presented a number of true-life situations where Black men were attacked and killed for no reason. You agree that Zimmerman did at least three things that escalated the situation - which no doubt had a fear inducing effect on Martin, a youth. Responsible LEO don’t treat 17 year olds like 28 year olds. If GZ couldn’t tell the age or any other factors he would be well advised to let the professionals handle the situation. > [@](#): > > Possibly because he was the neighborhood watch guy, and he wanted to get an address so the cops would know where to meet him. Maybe this meets muster for you, but I don’t think he had any logical justifiable reason to leave his vehicle, especially if there was a presumed threat out there. How about parking in a well-lit area? Next to a landmark? > [@](#): > > I believe the parts of Zimmerman’s story that are backed up by evidence. I would be surprised if he got every single detail correct every time he recounted his version of events. People’s memories are not that reliable, especially when they are under stress. Sure. That’s why I don’t trust GZ’s recount of what happened, what he said, and what Martin said and did. But that’s what much of the “evidence” is based on. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4240 "2012-07-20T14:25:25Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > If you look at Florida’ SYG law it says you can defend against an imminent attack. I am not arguing that Martin actually was using SYG, but it seems a lot closer to this than many have noted. Even if Martin was legitimately standing his ground, Zimmerman may have been entitled to defend himself. He only loses that right if he actually initiated the confrontation - not if he acted in a perfectly legal way that happened to scare Martin (reasonably or otherwise) - _and_ he was able to escape from the threat of harm or death by another means than use of force. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4241 "2012-07-20T14:26:09Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > That’s what it comes down to. Mr. Zimmerman is an habitual liar. You’d think he’d be better at it by now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=211) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=213)