# 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:** 213
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4242 "2012-07-20T14:42:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But I do not have to disprove every unreasonable scenario made by the defense. It is unknowable for Zimmerman to speculate that Martin doubled back; I am under no burden to disprove such unfounded conjecture. That is what Magiver, et al are doing here; conjuring all sorts of unknowable scenarios, and demanding that I disprove them. That is outside the burden on the prosecution. About whether Martin doubled back – it’s not unreasonable to assume it happened. So I would disagree: if Martin doubling back is a scenario that supports Zimmerman’s innocence, then yes: as the prosecution, you must disprove it. ---
**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, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4243 "2012-07-20T15:10:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > About whether Martin doubled back – it’s not unreasonable to assume it happened. So I would disagree: if Martin doubling back is a scenario that supports Zimmerman’s innocence, then yes: as the prosecution, you must disprove it. I’m assuming it only has to be disproved if the defense claims it as part of their self-defense theory, right? I mean, the prosecution doesn’t have to disprove any and all possible theories, right? ---
**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, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4244 "2012-07-20T15:18:04Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > 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. That fear, however, was not reasonable. As mentioned several times, somebody asking “what are you doing?” does not constitute a threat. > [@](#): > > If you look at Florida’ SYG law it says you can defend against an imminent attack. Somebody asking you “what are you doing?” does not constitute a threat of imminent attack. > [@](#): > > 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. Zimmerman’s actions did not escalate the situation to the point that a reasonable person would interpret as a threat of imminent attack. As I said earlier, even a young kid does not get a pass on obeying the law, and is not allowed to punch people in the face, knock them down, and smash their head against the ground, even if someone asks them “what are you doing?” > [@](#): > > 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. If a young black man stops a white woman in the street and asks her “what are you doing?”, the woman has the right to shoot him? I would say No, that this wouldn’t be reasonable. YMMV. > [@](#): > > This is certainly legal, but is it _wise?_ No, it is not wise. It also does not entitle anyone to punch you in the face, knock you down, and beat your head against the ground. That is both unwise and illegal, not least because the guy you are attacking might have a gun. > [@](#): > > 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. Zimmerman says he left his vehicle to get the house number, so the cops would know exactly where to meet him. Zimmerman also says he had lost track of Martin at that point, so he didn’t believe there was a presumed threat at that point. Remember the “those assholes - they always get away” remark? > [@](#): > > 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. Much but not all - the “assholes always get away” remark was recorded, so that is an indication that Zimmerman thought that Martin, and whatever threat he presented, was not immediate, and would not therefore have prevented him from getting out of his truck. So in that instance, we don’t have to rely only on Zimmerman’s account. We can verify the remark, and infer Zimmerman’s state of mind from it. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4245 "2012-07-20T15:19:21Z")
Anyone can poke at someone else’s account with a stick. That’s normally what the defense does. Zimmerman’s prosecutors (and persecutors) are focusing their “case” on poking at non-material aspects of Zimmerman’s account and character. Unfortunately for them, this is all they can do. What they are not doing is actually trying to prove their theory. ---
**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, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4246 "2012-07-20T15:26:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Somebody asking you “what are you doing?” does not constitute a threat of imminent attack. _Again, that’s not all that happened._ You have to admit it is a favorable shading of the facts to pretend that the following and the exiting of the vehicle are not contributing factors to the threat. Hell, you raised his “those assholes always get away” comment. So he’s not impassively curious about an unknown person. _He clearly thinks Martin is a criminal._ Is it not reasonable to presume that his tone, the way he approached Martin, were aggressive? Zimmerman claims he said “what are you doing?” With the adrenalin and fear flowing, is that all he said? ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4247 "2012-07-20T15:28:07Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Anyone can poke at someone else’s account with a stick. That’s normally what the defense does. Zimmerman’s prosecutors (and persecutors) are focusing their “case” on poking at non-material aspects of Zimmerman’s account and character. Unfortunately for them, this is all they can do. What they are not doing is actually trying to prove their theory. “Non-material”. Like, where and when he was when he saw Martin, how long he followed him, what he was doing in the disappearing 2+ minutes after hanging up with the NEN dispatcher, how the fight actually started, how the fight ended up from the T to a spot some 40 feet down the path, how he managed to draw his gun… Yeah, all ‘non-material’ stuff. They haven’t really needed to poke George’s story with a stick. George’s been mixing his story up all by himself just fine. ‘These assholes - they always get away’. How can quote this comment from George and _not_ think it highly likely that George was focused specifically on \*not \*letting \*this \*asshole get away? ---
**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, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4248 "2012-07-20T15:30:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > somebody asking “what are you doing?” does not constitute a threat. Somebody asking you “what are you doing?” does not constitute a threat of imminent attack. > … > > As I said earlier, even a young kid does not get a pass on obeying the law, and is not allowed to punch people in the face, knock them down, and smash their head against the ground, even if someone asks them “what are you doing?” > > If a young black man stops a white woman in the street and asks her “what are you doing?”, the woman has the right to shoot him? I would say No, that this wouldn’t be reasonable. YMMV. Yes, “asking him what he was doing” is the best possible description of Zimmerman’s behavior that night. Congratulations for cutting to the heart of the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4249 "2012-07-20T15:33:11Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Anyone can poke at someone else’s account with a stick. That’s normally what the defense does. Zimmerman’s prosecutors (and persecutors) are focusing their “case” on poking at non-material aspects of Zimmerman’s account and character. Unfortunately for them, this is all they can do. What they are not doing is actually trying to prove their theory. Well, seeing as how the trial is still a long way from even beginning, its hard to understand how you _know_ what the prosecution is doing to prove their theory. You know, since they haven’t even begun trying to prove it yet. Are you a time traveler from the future, and you are actually coming from when the trial is taking place, but you’ve decided to travel back into the past to comment in this thread on what the prosecution is doing in the futuretrial? If so, aren’t there much better uses of time travel than this? Maybe you should yield the time machine to someone else that will actually put it to use for something worth while. How do you come by this knowledge of what the prosecution is doing to prove their case when they haven’t even begun yet? Are you a pre-cog? Sooth sayer? Please share with us your unique source of knowledge for what the prosecution is doing to prove their theory this long before the trial even begins. I’d love to hear how you _know_ this. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4250 "2012-07-20T15:44:13Z")
For those who have been following the case, does the FOX interview come off as helping him or hurting him? I didn’t watch the whole thing but I’ve read snippets of the transcript. I also read a news story on [Yahoo.com](http://Yahoo.com) that it is already being entered into evidence by the prosecution and that there are inconsistencies? Didn’t his lawyer vet his answers before he went on TV? ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4251 "2012-07-20T15:51:12Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > “Non-material”. > Like, where and when he was when he saw Martin Doesn’t really matter. What actually matters is who started the physical confrontation and who was screaming for help. The state is probably going to need to prove the answers to be Zimmerman and Trayvon, respectively. (Unfortunately for them, the available evidence would suggest the opposite.) > [@](#): > > how long he followed him doesn’t really matter. > [@](#): > > what he was doing in the disappearing 2+ minutes after hanging up with the NEN dispatcher - to the degree that he did something that provoked a physical confrontation, yes. > [@](#): > > how the fight actually started There ya go. > [@](#): > > how the fight ended up from the T to a spot some 40 feet down the path Doesn’t really matter. > [@](#): > > how he managed to draw his gun He obviously managed to. What matters is if he reasonably feared for his life when he did it (and if it’s him screaming for help, that ought to do it). > [@](#): > > … Yeah, all ‘non-material’ stuff. They haven’t really needed to poke George’s story with a stick. George’s been mixing his story up all by himself just fine. OK, and when your done beating George’s story with a stick. How are you going to prove _your_ story? > [@](#): > > ‘These assholes - they always get away’. > How can quote this comment from George and _not_ think it highly likely that George was focused specifically on \*not \*letting \*this \*asshole get away? I agree that it is highly likely that George was focused specifically on not letting the young mischief-maker get away. That’s why he left his car to keep an eye on him. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4252 "2012-07-20T15:59:22Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > _Again, that’s not all that happened._ You have to admit it is a favorable shading of the facts to pretend that the following and the exiting of the vehicle are not contributing factors to the threat. We have already established from the “assholes get away” remark that Zimmerman had lost track of Martin. There is, therefore, no evidence to show that Zimmerman got out of his truck in a threatening manner. But let’s forget about that part for a minute. Someone getting out of a truck and then asking you “what are you doing?” does not, to a reasonable person, constitute an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, and does not allow you to knock someone down and smash their head against the ground. > [@](#): > > Hell, you raised his “those assholes always get away” comment. So he’s not impassively curious about an unknown person. _He clearly thinks Martin is a criminal._ Is it not reasonable to presume that his tone, the way he approached Martin, were aggressive? No, under our current legal system, the only presumption is the presumption of innocence. Everything else, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman claims he said “what are you doing?” With the adrenalin and fear flowing, is that all he said? He certainly might have said more. He could have said “yo mama so dumb she failed her urine test” or “Remember the Maine” or “I’ll get you, my pretty - and your little dog too”. The trouble is, if the prosecution wants us to believe he said something, they are going to have to prove that he said something, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the something would created a reasonable fear of imminent attack in the mind of a reasonable person. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4253 "2012-07-20T16:05:43Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > _Again, that’s not all that happened._ You have to admit it is a favorable shading of the facts to pretend that the following and the exiting of the vehicle are not contributing factors to the threat. > > Hell, you raised his “those assholes always get away” comment. So he’s not impassively curious about an unknown person. _He clearly thinks Martin is a criminal._ Is it not reasonable to presume that his tone, the way he approached Martin, were aggressive? > > Zimmerman claims he said “what are you doing?” With the adrenalin and fear flowing, is that all he said? The problem is this: let’s say you’re right. Let’s say it’s a good guess, even more likely than otherwise, that Zimmerman’s tone, stance, or actions were aggressive, even threatening. How do you get from there to “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they were an imminent threat to do physical violence? ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4254 "2012-07-20T16:15:00Z")
> [@](#): > > How do you come by this knowledge of what the prosecution is doing to prove their case when they haven’t even begun yet? Welcome back, Airbeck. I trust you are no longer reeling from my “lynching lyncher” comments a few days ago. (A moderator had expressed some concern.) To answer your question: We can tell what they’re up to by the evidence they are introducing- and also by some of the prosecutor’s questions and statements (and noisy histrionics) during the previous hearings. > [@](#): > > Are you a pre-cog? Sooth sayer? Some have implied as such, yes. ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4255 "2012-07-20T16:18:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 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. If he initiated the confrontation he loses his right to claim stand-your-ground, but he does not lose the rights of traditional self-defense. (If he started the fight, I think it becomes “imperfect self-defense” (or something like that) and he could be convicted of manslaughter.) Or something along those lines. ---
**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 20, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4256 "2012-07-20T16:25:07Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > For those who have been following the case, does the FOX interview come off as helping him or hurting him? I didn’t watch the whole thing but I’ve read snippets of the transcript. I also read a news story on [Yahoo.com](http://Yahoo.com) that it is already being entered into evidence by the prosecution and that there are inconsistencies? Didn’t his lawyer vet his answers before he went on TV? The prosectution has filed a [motion](http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/Zimmerman-apologizes-relaunches-website-in-TV-interview/-/14266478/15600606/-/ikgerxz/-/index.html#ixzz216Ds5gaa) to have the Hannity interview included in discovery. Looks like they’re planning to use it against him in trial. Oh, but there’s the money aspect, you might be thinking. The whole purpose of the interview was to increase donations to the defense fund. But according to O’Mara, that was a [bust](http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/zimmerman-interview-part-plan-raise-more-defense-f/nPygj/). In terms of PR, those who think he’s innocent probably haven’t had their minds changed. Those who thinks he’s a murdering fuck, still think he’s a murdering fuck. So I don’t think the interview hurt or helped his image. In terms of O’Mara’s most recent request to have the judge disqualify himself, the interview just makes O’Mara look like a flaming hypocrite; he has no standing to complain about an unfair trial and media bias when he’s shamelessly trying to do the talk show circuit. Conclusion: the interview was a terrible move. It has cost O’Mara his reputation, it did nothing to help GZ’s image, it hasn’t brought them revenue, and it’s giving the prosecution plenty of fodder to work with at trial. The only thing that could make this worse for them is if there’s a case to be made that he’s violating his bond by indirectly communicating to the Martin’s with his disgusting apologies. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4257 "2012-07-20T16:32:33Z")
I was somewhat surprised that even some of the pro-GZ zealots at talkleft thought he came across as - and I quote - “smug, arrogant, sneering, and disingenuous”. They did, however, defend GZ’s statement that ‘me shooting Trayvon was part of God’s plan’, since, "Trayvon’s mother said it was God’s plan, too’. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Apparently they can’t see the difference between a grieving parent trying to make sense and find solace when faced with the sudden loss of their son, and ‘it’s God’s plan’ being said _by the person that shot their son._ I can’t see how going on national TV and saying that he could tell, from his car, that Martin wasn’t scared when he gangsta-danced/skipped behind the buildings, could possibly be a good thing. I can’t see how saying that you have ‘no regrets’ as to what happened, can be a good thing (he walked this back a bit right at the end of the interview, but you only saw that if you endured for the whole interview). I can’t see how demanding a month-long free hotel room (for your wife. who’s not being interviewed) and having it blow up in your face when the program host says ‘shove it’, can be a good thing. I can’t see how stating on national TV that the time from the end of your NEN call to seeing Martin was less than 30 seconds’ when there’s at least a two-minute unexplained gap, can be a good thing. I can’t see how stating, on national TV, that you were punched ‘over a dozen times’ when your face looks really none the worse for wear, can be a good thing. ---
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4258 "2012-07-20T16:40:40Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > For those who have been following the case, does the FOX interview come off as helping him or hurting him? I didn’t watch the whole thing but I’ve read snippets of the transcript. I also read a news story on [Yahoo.com](http://Yahoo.com) that it is already being entered into evidence by the prosecution and that there are inconsistencies? Didn’t his lawyer vet his answers before he went on TV? Unfortunately, it does not appear that his lawyer prepared Zimmerman for the interview. The lawyer said it was unscripted- and it certainly appeared that way. Zimmerman answered one of the questions in a way that allowed the media to frame it in a way unfavorable to him- and that’s what a large portion of the media did. Overall, a net loss. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4259 "2012-07-20T16:40:50Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Welcome back, Airbeck. I trust you are no longer reeling from my “lynching lyncher” comments a few days ago. (A moderator had expressed some concern.) > > To answer your question: We can tell what they’re up to by the evidence they are introducing- and also by some of the prosecutor’s questions and statements (and noisy histrionics) during the previous hearings. > > Some have implied as such, yes. Oh, I’ve been here the whole time. I just don’t like getting involved in shit throwing contests on the internet, so I thought I’d step back and let you cool off a bit since you just flat out resulted to direct insults and nothing more. Are you done now? Did the mod’s suggestions help you at all? Anyway, back to the adult conversation. So you are assuming what the prosecution will do at trial with no direct knowledge whatsoever. In other words, making it up in your mind and then using it as an absolute certain fact while debating. Is that about right? ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4260 "2012-07-20T17:23:17Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Unfortunately, it does not appear that his lawyer prepared Zimmerman for the interview. The lawyer said it was unscripted- and it certainly appeared that way. Zimmerman answered one of the questions in a way that allowed the media to frame it in a way unfavorable to him- and that’s what a large portion of the media did. Overall, a net loss. Zimmerman is doing the same sort of thing with the interview as he did when he re-enacted the incident with the cops, when he was first questioned. It’s not gonna help. But it’s the sort of thing someone would do who was [list=A][li]innocent, and [\*]not too bright.[/list]That’s why cops try to get you to tell the story over and over. You are always going to tell the story a little different every time, even if you are telling the truth (as you remember it). [/li] All you need to say in a situation like this is, “I was in fear of my life, and I want to speak to a lawyer”. Even if you are as innocent as dawn’s dewy fingers, you shut up, and lawyer up. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 20, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4261 "2012-07-20T17:26:54Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Unfortunately, it does not appear that his lawyer prepared Zimmerman for the interview. It should be obvious that Zimmerman doesn’t listen to O’Mara. Or anyone, for that matter. O’Mara could have prepped him for a week, and it wouldn’t matter. Zimmerman says what Zimmerman wants to say. For the life of me, I can’t see why O’Mara continues to stick around. GZ is turning out to be a blight on his resume. And O’Mara is not helping his client either. Both are bringing each other down. It’s almost sad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=212) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=214)