# 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:** 218
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4342 "2012-07-22T05:29:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I can understand Zimmerman being stupid; all the evidence we have so far is that he IS stupid, whether or not he’s guilty. > > What baffles me is that **his lawyer was sitting right there letting him do the interview.** > > What the hell? Seriously. O’Mara has a good reputation - when he was announced as Zimmerman’s lawyer virtually every lawyer who knew him spoke very highly of his skill and professionalism. And there he was as his client babbled through an interview that the prosecution announced they were using as evidence approximately one trillionth of a second after it was done. What on earth is O’Mara doing? Is this part of some incredibly brilliant master plan I don’t understand? In spite of **Bricker** ’s desperate hope that there is something that we don’t know yet in the evidence that may salvage the prosecution’s case (his hope is for Corey’s sake, and for the sake of some kind of prosecutorial standards being upheld, not because he wants so much for Zimmerman to hang), I am becoming more and more sure that there isn’t. O’Mara has seen ALL the evidence by this time. I think the answer to your question is that his “brilliant master plan” is just the plain fact that he is sure the prosecution has no way of convicting his client. Which makes his job so much easier. ---
**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 22, 2012, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4343 "2012-07-22T05:30:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s the problem. The prosecution can’t say stuff like this. The prosecution can’t reason like this. The sauce for the goose must be beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not the same as the sauce for the gander, at least at trial. Okay, let’s take that part out then since its causing so much heart burn. Believe it or not, it’s the least important part of my theory. Even if Zimmerman didn’t pull out his gun when he first spotted Martin, everything else in my version of events points to Zimmerman provoking the conflict and committing 2nd degree murder. For the criminal elements, there is evidence for each. I challenge the naysayers to find any evidence–physical or circumstantial–that does not fit in with my theory. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4344 "2012-07-22T05:32:58Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I challenge the naysayers to find any evidence–physical or circumstantial–that does not fit in with my theory. Just to begin with - Zimmerman’s family says it is Zimmerman yelling on the tape, not Martin. ---
**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 22, 2012, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4345 "2012-07-22T05:41:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Really? The witnesses saw the fight? Saw the men standing? No? Conjecture. Why do the witnesses have to see them standing for their to be evidence that they were? A fast moving fight is unlikely if the players are tousling on the ground. > [@](#): > > Conjecture. You have no idea who was yelling on that tape. FBI experts say they can’t tell if it was Zimmerman or Martin. Doesn’t matter. Even if Zimmerman was the voice on that tape, the acoustics do not suggest he was being punched or smothered. > [@](#): > > Gun forensics say nothing about whether Martin or Zimmerman was kneeling. Neither does Martin’s prone body, especially after Zimmerman handles it. Pure conjecture on your part. Gun forsensics suggests that Martin was shot from an upright position by someone also in an upright position. The relative lack of M’s blood on Zimmerman also suggests that Martin was some distance away from the shooter. Certainly not laying on top of him like he claimed. We are talking about a gunshot in the heart, after all. Since this has not gone to trial yet, we haven’t had the State forensic experts give us their interpretation of the findings yet. It is possible I am interpreting these findings incorrectly, but calling it conjecture is stupid. ---
**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 22, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4346 "2012-07-22T05:44:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Just to begin with - Zimmerman’s family says it is Zimmerman yelling on the tape, not Martin. Well, that’s cute. Since this evidence is contradicted by Sabrina Fulton’s let’s consider that a wash. But that still leaves us multiple witnesses who said it was a despondent boy, plus the two experts who ruled out Zimmerman. What else you got? ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4347 "2012-07-22T05:53:18Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You ask this like you’re presenting some great, impossible challenge. Lol. (Apparently you have read very little of this thread, because I have been posting theories for what happened all over the place.) It is a great, impossible challenge. ;-o Besides, everybody posts theories, but some theories don’t jibe well with other theories. I just want to see if you can come up with a plausible one where Zimmerman murders Trayvon, matching most of the evidence. > [@](#): > > My theory is that Martin was spooked by Zimmerman and he took off running. He ran behind the houses on Twin Trees and stopped somewhere to continue his convo with his gf. He didn’t keep running because he had little reason to assume that the creepy guy in the truck was actually crazy enough to pursue on foot; he may have thought that once he got away from the main street, Zimmerman would lose interest in him. > > I believe he was standing behind one of the white dividers (see the second pic on this [page](http://bcclist.com/2012/03/27/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map/) to see what I’m referring to). This would explain why Z didn’t see him when he walked across the T. It is also possible Martin didn’t see Zimmerman cut across the T either, from this vantage point. > > When his call with the dispatcher ended, there is a 2-minute gap between Z and Martin’s encounter with each other. Aha! But that’s where you’re mistaken. 715:23 - Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends 716:43 - 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help That’s only an 80 second gap between Z hanging up the phone and the first call to 911. They had to have encountered each other a certain amount of time before the first call came in. But we’ll see. > [@](#): > > So what was Z doing? Based on what he told the dispatcher, Zimmerman believed Martin was heading toward the back entrance of the complex. This entrance is where Rear View Circle empties. RVC is where Zimmerman supposedly ran to find an address when he was on the phone with dispatch. When he got off the phone, I suspect he \* did not \* immediately head back to his truck, but rather headed south on RVC to look for Martin down by the rear entrance. On the actual street or down the walkway where he shot T-von? And you’re saying he went all the way down to the back entrance and back? Whatever the case, you are saying he eventually walks back across the T. > [@](#): > > When he didn’t find Martin down there, that is when he headed back towards his truck. As he was walking across the T, he looks to his left and spots Martin. From this position he was able to see the kid behind the white divider when initially he wasn’t able to see him. Zimmerman immediately drops his flashlight in favor of grabbing his gun, and charges over to the kid. > Martin asks why are you following me? OK, notwithstanding the fact that I can’t see Zimmerman drawing his gun and charging towards Trayvon, I have a bigger problem. You’re telling me that Zimmerman charges over to Trayvon with his gun drawn and Trayvon asks, “What are you following me for?” Would he not be asking, “What in the fuck are you doing with a **GUN** pointed at me?!” > [@](#): > > Zimmerman grabs or tries to grab the kid, they scuffle for a few moments while standing and moving around (this is what the witnesses who report the fight moving north to south hear) but the two eventually end up on the ground, wrestling. When you say wrestling, don’t you mean fighting over control of the gun? Because that would have to be Martin and Zimmerman’s _only_ real concern at that point, right? > [@](#): > > In the process of trying to hold onto Martin, his head connects with jagged-edged objects in the vicinity (there is a tree near, sprinkler head, and dog poop station); it is also possible that Martin popped him in the face as well. They end up in a chest to chest configuration, with Zimmerman on the bottom. He calls John for help, not because Martin is punching him but because he wants John to help him restrain the kid Why doesn’t Trayvon say to W6/John “No! Don’t help him! Help ME! This guy’s got a gun!”? And why didn’t W6 say he saw something shiny or that they looked like they were struggling over something. Also, this struggle for the gun has been going on for how long exactly at this point? 45 seconds? A minute? And nobody has gained full control over the gun in order to fire it? > [@](#): > > At some point Martin stops fighting. The fight stops moving. All he does is scream for help as loud as he can. He’s kneeling and so is Zimmerman. Zimmerman has a gun and Martin just decides to “stop fighting”? To just say, “Ah hell, he can have his stupid gun.” What do you mean he stops fighting? And why did he decide to start screaming then- and not when Zimmerman initially charged towards him gun blazing or especially when W6 came out? > [@](#): > > Zimmerman holds onto the kid’s hoodie with his left hand, causing the fabric to pull away from the kid’s body. With his right arm, he aims his gun and fires it straight into the kid’s chest. The muzzle is in contact with Martin’s clothes, but a few inches from Martin’s skin. Forensics will later show that it was a contact shot for his clothes, but an intermediate shot to his body. OK, so it was a long struggle over **a gun** that **nobody saw** , and that **didn’t have Martin’s fingerprints or DNA on** , and no noticeable **injuries** to Zimmerman’s wrists or hands but blood covering 45% of his head are **not consistent with a struggle for a gun**. The sprinkler head causing two lacerations doesn’t seem as likely as the concerete since witness 6 mentioned the struggle moving near the sidewalk and he even said something about how much it hurts to have your head hit on the concrete. Also **W6 doesn’t describe a struggle over a gun**.. he describes either an MMA style “ground and pound” attack or Trayvon holding Zimmerman down. There is virtually no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun drawn or that there was a struggle for a gun. I haven’t even addressed how out of character _murder_ is for Zimmerman. Groping, pushing and retaliatory open-handed slaps are not exactly on par with _murder_. And, in fact, even the person he slapped said he was the last person she’d expect to be involved in an incident like this. Most people have nothing but positive things to say. It would seem out of character for someone who is relatively mild-mannered, almost meek, to pull out his pistol and charge after a kid- especially given his previous calls to the non-emergency line where he says "I don’t want to approach/confront him (some other kid). And if he _wanted_ to kill this kid, why did it take him so long to finally fire the gun? It took place during a fight so even if his actions instigated it, it could still be self-defense. In your account, you establish “ill will” or the “reckless disregard for life” by suggesting that Martin “stopped fighting” in the middle and just stood there screaming for help. Then Zimmerman executed him. But that makes no sense for Martin (or Zimmerman) to do such a thing. > [@](#): > > But forget about my theory. I have no idea what theory the prosecution will present to the jury. But let’s say they successfully impeach Zimmerman’s credibility. What exactly about Martin’s shooting do you think is so mysterious that the state will have a difficult time proving murder? Eons ago, I posted [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14989895&postcount=412) synopsis of what the circumstantial and physical evidence suggest when you remove Zimmerman’s story from the equation. Do you really think a competent prosecutor can’t make a case off of this? Yes, I really don’t think any prosecutor, no matter how competent, can make a reasonable case for murder- that would even meet the preponderance of evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not even sure they can legitimately meet probable cause. My main point is that the prosecution can poke holes in Zimmerman’s account, but they have to present an account that the defense can’t poke holes in. And they can’t do it. They can’t _prove_ their account. There is reasonable doubt no matter which way they go. There is a chance for manslaughter- not under the law I don’t think, but if the jury decides that they just don’t like Zimmerman or something he did. And with Murder 2 as one of the options, finding him guilty of manslaughter might seem like he’s getting off easy, so the jurors might “compromise” with manslaughter. Which, of course, is one reason Corey overcharged him with that. My dismissal of the murder charges is very easy. Frankly, the real debate has always been manslaughter- and I still think he comes out ahead on that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4348 "2012-07-22T05:58:35Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Doesn’t matter. Even if Zimmerman was the voice on that tape, the acoustics do not suggest he was being punched or smothered. That’s almost the definition of conjecture. > [@](#): > > Gun forsensics suggests that Martin was shot from an upright position by someone also in an upright position. Can you show me some forensic expert’s opinion that claims that? I bet you can’t. > [@](#): > > Since this has not gone to trial yet, we haven’t had the State forensic experts give us their interpretation of the findings yet. It is possible I am interpreting these findings incorrectly, but calling it conjecture is stupid. “Interpreting” the forensic evidence ignorantly is, in fact, conjecture. And I agree it is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4349 "2012-07-22T06:02:00Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Well, that’s cute. Since this evidence is contradicted by Sabrina Fulton’s let’s consider that a wash. But that still leaves us multiple witnesses who said it was a despondent boy, plus the two experts who ruled out Zimmerman. > > What else you got? The two expert’s opinion is called bunk by three other experts (would you like a link?) and any witnesses who said it was a “despondent boy” never said it at the time of the incident and are claiming it on the basis of TV watching afterwards. Got any more? Hey you asked for “any evidence–physical or circumstantial–that does not fit in with my theory”. I gave it to you. I guess you got what you asked for. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4350 "2012-07-22T06:03:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Well, that’s cute. Since this evidence is contradicted by Sabrina Fulton’s let’s consider that a wash. But that still leaves us multiple witnesses who said it was a despondent boy, plus the two experts who ruled out Zimmerman. What else you got? The findings of those two “experts” were shown to be the charlatanism it was by the experts at the FBI who essentially concluded they were full of crap. Those voice experts have even less credibility with me than the voice stress test that ruled out Zimmerman lying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4351 "2012-07-22T06:17:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In spite of **Bricker** ’s desperate hope that there is something that we don’t know yet in the evidence that may salvage the prosecution’s case (his hope is for Corey’s sake, and for the sake of some kind of prosecutorial standards being upheld, not because he wants so much for Zimmerman to hang), I am becoming more and more sure that there isn’t. O’Mara has seen ALL the evidence by this time. I think the answer to your question is that his “brilliant master plan” is just the plain fact that he is sure the prosecution has no way of convicting his client. Which makes his job so much easier. Zimmerman is a dangerous fool. I would not shed a tear if he hung (metaphorically hung, that is). But I would shed many tears if he hung contrary to the process of law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4352 "2012-07-22T06:23:58Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Conjecture. You have no idea who was yelling on that tape. FBI experts say they can’t tell if it was Zimmerman or Martin. Here’s the converse of the chiding I gave earlier. At trial, the prosecution will present Martin’s mother, who will testify that the voice is her son’s. The defense will counter with other witnesses who identify the voice as Zimmerman’s. The jury is entitled to conclude whatever they like. That is, from a standpoint of legal sufficiency, the prosecution can prove the voice was Martin. Maybe you think they won’t, but they can. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4353 "2012-07-22T06:24:38Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > …You are deluding yourself if you think the State will not provide one or more forsensic experts who will trash GZ’s story based on this physical evidence. > > Sure it might be possible. But that’s irrelevant. Zimmerman said his hands were free. > > If his gun was holstered on his rear right hip, and Martin was planted on his stomach, and he was laying flat on his back, drawing his gun sounds like quite a feat to me. I wouldn’t say impossible, but I will say too improbable to believe without seeing such an act demonstrated. > > That is what he supposedly told his buddy Osterman. “Osterman” said Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground. Will Zimmerman tell the court that his elbow was on the ground? Will Zimmerman tell the court that Zimmerman’s elbow was held close to his body or that it was several inches or even a foot away from his body? \*in the telling to the friend (or the friend’s telling to the police). “…Zimmerman slapped Martin’s hand away from the handgun, pulled the hangun, ROTATED THE WEAPON and fired one round.”\* According to Osterman - _Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground at the time he fired._ The human wrist is very flexable and the elbow has a wide range of motion. So does the shoulder joint. Expecially when Zimmerman’s arm was NOT pinned to his body. Isn’t it then possible for Zimmerman to ROTATE the weapon to point directly at Martin’s chest during the struggle? Isn’t it also possible that Martin’s torso was turned slightly to one side to make a direct entry possible? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4354 "2012-07-22T06:39:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s the converse of the chiding I gave earlier. At trial, the prosecution will present Martin’s mother, who will testify that the voice is her son’s. > > The defense will counter with other witnesses who identify the voice as Zimmerman’s. > > The jury is entitled to conclude whatever they like. That is, from a standpoint of legal sufficiency, the prosecution can prove the voice was Martin. Maybe you think they won’t, but they can. If the jury believes them beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution can “prove” that black is white, that the Sun revolves around Earth, and that Bricker is the Queen of England. But - when the jury is presented with Martin’s mother who claims the voice is Martin’s, Zimmerman’s father who claims the voice is Zimmerman’s, and both witnesses having obvious reasons outside of objective truth of things to have those claims, it is not reasonable for a jury to be convinced of one side over the other. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4355 "2012-07-22T07:20:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Zimmerman is a dangerous fool. I would not shed a tear if he hung (metaphorically hung, that is). He seems like a decent guy. Mentored kids. Was active on behalf of a homeless black man. Friends and co-workers (but one) all have nice things to say. He is foolish, but seems likable to me, and certainly not dangerous. So long as you don’t attack him or his friends you have nothing to fear from him. He’ll even keep an eye on your house while you’re gone. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4356 "2012-07-22T08:17:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch > I don’t care when the call Started, I care when it Ended, which is 80 seconds before the 911 call from W11. > > 1915:23 - Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends > 1916:43 - 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help > > That is the part that is relevant to Zimmerman’s calim that Martin contronted him 30 seconds after him hung up the phone. The rest of the timeline is irrelevant. > > > [@emeraldia](#): > > > > I confirmed those numbers in: [State v. Zimmerman: Evidence Released by Prosecutor | PDF](http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/State-v-Zimmerman-Evidence-released-by-prosecutor) > > > > I feel a sense of relief. I was having trouble filling in the time before. The timeline given in the document you cited (pg 40 of the PDF) was prepared by Investigator Singleton. She obviously doesn’t know how to read the NEN dispatch call record. The time line there is _wrong_ and will be corrected. How do we know it’s wrong? Because Singleton’s timeline says that at 7:13:19, 'Zimmerman says suspect is [del]gangsta-skipping[/del] running from him". But the -actual- call record says that 7:13:41 that LEO (law enforcement officer) is requested to 1045 (call him) before 1056 (meeting him). I.e., call when they get to the complex. This obviously can not be correct. From the recorded NEN call we know that GZ was on the phone with dispatch for two minutes -after- Martin ran, but according to the call record there is only a 21 seconds. Singleton looked at the 7:11:12 that the call record was _created_ and did her calculations from there, instead of realizing that the call actually _connected_ two minutes earlier, at 7:09:34. I don’t know how more obvious it can be. Singleton got her timeline wrong, but the actual evidence that will be used is the actual NEN call record. But like I said, if you need to cling to clearly wrong evidence if it helps you ignore the fact that Zimmerman is clearly lying, be my guest. > [@emeraldia](#): > > He seems like a decent guy. Mentored kids. Was active on behalf of a homeless black man. Friends and co-workers (but one) all have nice things to say. He is foolish, but seems likable to me, and certainly not dangerous. So long as you don’t attack him or his friends you have nothing to fear from him. He’ll even keep an eye on your house while you’re gone. Yes, a decent guy as long as you’re not a younger female relative, not an under-cover cop trying to do your job, not a fellow co-worker with a different ethnic background, and not a young black kid in a hoodie armed with Skittles trying to walk home in the rain. Yes, he sounds like a really wonderful person. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4357 "2012-07-22T13:13:33Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > He seems like a decent guy. Mentored kids. Was active on behalf of a homeless black man. Friends and co-workers (but one) all have nice things to say. He is foolish, but seems likable to me, and certainly not dangerous. So long as you don’t attack him or his friends you have nothing to fear from him. He’ll even keep an eye on your house while you’re gone. Yes, and against that, you have a man who voluntarily inserted himself and his firearm into a volatile situation. Make no mistake: on the available evidence, his actions appear legal. But they doesn’t translate into anything but foolish and dangerous, in my view. I don’t want him keeping an eye on my house, because I own nothing that’s worth the loss of a human life. The guy that I want watching my house is the guy who will call the police and then let them handle it, and if the assholes get away, he can give the police a good description and detail. Period. Again, for those who my think I’m flipping back and forth between Team Zimmerman and Team Treyvon: in this post I am discussing my personal view of Zimmerman. From a legal standpoint, given Florida’s laws, I do not believe sufficient evidence has been made public to support a guilty verdict for second degree murder. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4358 "2012-07-22T13:37:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If the jury believes them beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution can “prove” that black is white, that the Sun revolves around Earth, and that Bricker is the Queen of England. Not exactly, no. The jury’s findings must be reasonably grounded in the record. A factual finding that is patently incredible will be discarded on appeal, just as a finding made with no support in the record. > [@](#): > > But - when the jury is presented with Martin’s mother who claims the voice is Martin’s, Zimmerman’s father who claims the voice is Zimmerman’s, and both witnesses having obvious reasons outside of objective truth of things to have those claims, it is not reasonable for a jury to be convinced of one side over the other. Absolutely untrue. Unless you’re just expressing an opinion and not saying that the jury’s finding would be unreasonable as a matter of law. The jury is entirely within its province to believe, or disbelieve, testimony it hears. There is nothing inherently incredible about Martin’s mother’s testimony. The jury is absolutely reasonable if it credits that testimony and rejects Zimmerman’s father’s. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4359 "2012-07-22T13:49:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The jury is absolutely reasonable if it credits that testimony and rejects Zimmerman’s father’s. Particularly if they are asked to consider it in the context of all the other witness testimony about the quality of the cries. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4360 "2012-07-22T14:29:26Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > Particularly if they are asked to consider it in the context of all the other witness testimony about the quality of the cries. I don’t know who screamed but that last scream, the one that gets cut off by the gunshot, I’m going with the person with two collapsed lungs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4361 "2012-07-22T14:41:52Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > Particularly if they are asked to consider it in the context of all the other witness testimony about the quality of the cries. Yes, but that statement actually undermines my point. Obviously, the more evidence for one proposition, the more likelihood the jury may credit it. But I am trying to emphasize the process: the jury may hear two contradictory pieces of evidence, and decide to believe one and disbelieve the other. But the jury cannot decide to believe something that they have heard no evidence for. They can’t decide to believe something if the only evidence they heard was the contrary point and they disbelieved it. If the clerk testifies that Nate was the man that robbed him, and a waitress across town testifies that Nate was eating lunch at her restaurant at the time of the robbery, then the jury can choose to believe the clerk, period. But if the clerk doesn’t testify, the jury can’t hear the waitress, conclude she’s lying, and therefore find Nate guilty. As long as there is something the jury can rely on, some evidence on the record that is not inherently incredible, their findings of fact are safe and won’t be disturbed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=217) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=219)