# 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:** 222
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4422 "2012-07-23T17:30:33Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Just a quick question here. > How is a report about a report about the event log more authoritative than the actual event log? > > Why are you trying to find a document which is even further removed? I don’t get it. > > Why not just examine the primary document? Because the police have already stated that some of the times in the event log are **wrong**. You are arguing that the **corrected** timeline is wrong. I’m sure you will argue that Zimmerman’s cell phone records are wrong if they don’t fit your scenario. ---
**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 23, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4423 "2012-07-23T17:32:56Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Oh it’s worse than that - remember he first says that he didn’t walk back because ‘he didn’t want to walk back in the dark’ (so I guess George just planned on wandering around until the morning?). > > So he’s admitted that he didn’t go back to his truck right away. > > His story now is that he was walking right back to his truck when he was ambushed by Martin the uber-criminal who successfully sneaked up behind his prey and…said something to him, giving George enought time to turn around and reach for his phone. Or something. So what you’re saying is that we have a lie that is contradicted by another lie, and both lies are clearly contradicted by facts. Freaky. ---
**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 23, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4424 "2012-07-23T17:40:57Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You really need to look at the evidence. Zimmerman had **two** flashlights, which were both found at the scene. The larger flashlight wasn’t working, so Zimmerman used the one on his keychain. I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of this. The issue isn’t that he had one working flashlight and one inoperative one. The issue is that he initially attributed his failure to return to his truck in a timely manner due to the darkness resultant from his inoperative flashlight. Which means he was being disingenuous. If he had a working flashlight, the darkness shouldn’t have kept from his truck. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4425 "2012-07-23T17:57:38Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > You use the word “pursue”. Pursue means "to follow in _an effort to overtake or capture_. > > Zimmerman wasn’t doing that. He was walking to the “T”. > > He wasn’t “following” in _pursuit_, he was only “following” in that he headed to a place where Trayvon _had been._ > > If he had actually intended to “follow” Trayvon in any other sense of the word he would have, of course, traveled south down the “T”. But he didn’t. He went straight (east) to get an address and then headed back to his vehicle. Fine. “Followed.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4426 "2012-07-23T18:16:23Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I hope Bricker chimes in here - I recall reading the discussion about this earlier in the thread, but I thought it was related to when the -defendant- had to be accused of an independent act forcible felony. > > This discussion is ‘this guy was about to beat me up, or was beating me up, and that’s an aggravated assault, and that’s a forcible felony, and I have the right to prevent a forcible felony with lethal force, so I shot him’. It obviously can’t be right - for one, it completely removes the whole ‘reasonable fear of death’ etc. bit. Just wondering what the legal wording (or specific case law) would be. Sorry, but it’s right. FSA § 776.08 provides: > [@](#): > > “Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves **the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual**. FSA § 784.045 provides: > [@](#): > > A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery . . . Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm… _Owens v. State_, 289 So. 2d 472 (1974), provides: > [@](#): > > The statutory term `great bodily harm’ is not susceptible to precise legal definition. \* \* \* Defendant asserts that great bodily harm is synonymous with permanent injury. True, it can be argued that all permanent injury constitutes great bodily harm. It does not follow, however, that all great bodily harm consists of permanent injury. Indeed, many serious bodily injuries leave no lasting effect on the health, strength, and comfort of the injured person. > . > . > . > Great bodily harm defines itself and means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery… . Whether the evidence describing such harm or injury is within the meaning of the statute … is generally a question of fact for the jury. A person in Florida may use deadly force to stop a battery upon himself if he reasonably fears great bodily harm. The case I quote above finds “great bodily harm” where the injury was a broken nose but no permanent damage. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4427 "2012-07-23T19:07:41Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Because the police have already stated that some of the times in the event log are **wrong**. **Interesting can you share this with me? I would like to see this.** > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You are arguing that the **corrected** timeline is wrong. If you can share the data that shows that the timeline was “corrected” and that the time stamps on the original document are in error, it would do a hell of a lot more for your case than your erroneous speculation about my motivations. It would actually be an argument that was immeasurably stronger than your silly statements about me and my motivations–neither of which are germane to the case afaict. That said, would you please share the data you have which indicate that the SCSO time stamps are incorrect? Imho, data which indicate that the SCSO time stamps are incorrect should have been your first retort. It would have been much stronger and much more persuasive than the recent posts you have made so far in re this matter. ymmv so, uh cite, please. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’m sure you will argue that Zimmerman’s cell phone records are wrong if they don’t fit your scenario. Again, you are doing a really piss-poor job of figuring me out. Not sure why you care about me, but w/e. You’re having some feelings or something I guess. Just don’t wager anything based on your assessment of me and your speculation about me and my motivations will remain irrelevant and harmless. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4428 "2012-07-23T19:33:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fine. “Followed.” It’s not just a matter of nit-picking semantics. If the only thing he did was get out of his car to move to the “T” to see if he could see where the guy went to, then I really don’t see how that’s injecting himself into a situation (unless he had good reason to think the guy was hiding right around the corner or would double back.) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4429 "2012-07-23T19:41:26Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > … I really don’t see how that’s injecting himself into a situation… What about “placing” himself in a situation rather than “injecting”? ---
**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 23, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4430 "2012-07-23T19:57:07Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > It’s not just a matter of nit-picking semantics. If the only thing he did was get out of his car to move to the “T” to see if he could see where the guy went to, then I really don’t see how that’s injecting himself into a situation (unless he had good reason to think the guy was hiding right around the corner or would double back.) What reason do we have to believe that’s all he did, other than his mere say-so? ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4431 "2012-07-23T20:03:41Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > It’s not just a matter of nit-picking semantics. If the only thing he did was get out of his car to move to the “T” to see if he could see where the guy went to, then I really don’t see how that’s injecting himself into a situation (unless he had good reason to think the guy was hiding right around the corner or would double back.) If he didn’t know where Trayvon Martin was and whether he was armed, why would Zimmerman follow? There was a shooting in the gated community, before George Zimmerman became neighborhood watch. ---
**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 23, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4432 "2012-07-23T20:12:33Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Does anybody actually have a cite from a newspaper that the timeline published in the Sentinel is wrong I don’t know why I’m bothering to do this, since arguing about the 2-minute gap at this stage of the case is like arguing about the Germ Theory, but [here you go](http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony). Please note this is from a blog that appears to be sympathetic to Zimmerman. It also was clearly written before his statement was released, so the conclusion the author reaches is complete garbage. But even still, he challenges Singleton’s timeline based on the actual recorded timestamps. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4433 "2012-07-23T20:19:08Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What reason do we have to believe that’s all he did, other than his mere say-so? Other than his mere say-so, I don’t think he would have done such a thing. And, again, I go back to his keys being at the T. It fits his account. So do the witnesses that said the fight moved. – He obviously was confused as to where he was when the shooting took place, but I think that’s understandable given circumstances. And, again, it would be a very silly thing for him to want to lie about. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4434 "2012-07-23T20:24:48Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I don’t know why I’m bothering to do this, since arguing about the 2-minute gap at this stage of the case is like arguing about the Germ Theory, but [here you go](http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony). > > Please note this is from a blog that appears to be sympathetic to Zimmerman. It also was clearly written before his statement was released, so the conclusion the author reaches is complete garbage. But even still, he challenges Singleton’s timeline based on the actual recorded timestamps. I said a newspaper and not a blog. This was also published before the timeline was published in the Sentinel. April comes before May in case you aren’t clear. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4435 "2012-07-23T20:31:49Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > It’s not just a matter of nit-picking semantics. If the only thing he did was get out of his car to move to the “T” to see if he could see where the guy went to, then I really don’t see how that’s injecting himself into a situation (unless he had good reason to think the guy was hiding right around the corner or would double back.) He had every legal right to do that, but in my opinion, even if I grant that he intended to be only an observer, his choice was foolish. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4436 "2012-07-23T20:46:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sorry, but it’s right. > > FSA § 776.08 provides: > > FSA § 784.045 provides: > > _Owens v. State_, 289 So. 2d 472 (1974), provides: So - I should be able to shoot someone walking towards me, because they might break my nose, which is aggravated battery, and that’s a forcible felony, and the use of lethal force is allowed to prevent a forcible felony? Great - next time someone cuts me off in traffic and I honk their horn at them, if they get out of the car all red in the face…BOOM ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4437 "2012-07-23T20:54:56Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > So - I should be able to shoot someone walking towards me, because they might break my nose, which is aggravated battery, and that’s a forcible felony, and the use of lethal force is allowed to prevent a forcible felony? As long as the jury agrees that your fear was reasonable, sure. ---
**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 23, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4438 "2012-07-23T21:00:11Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Other than his mere say-so, I don’t think he would have done such a thing. And, again, I go back to his keys being at the T. It fits his account. So do the witnesses that said the fight moved. – He obviously was confused as to where he was when the shooting took place, but I think that’s understandable given circumstances. And, again, it would be a very silly thing for him to want to lie about. The color of Martin’s hoodie would be an example of something that would be silly to lie about. Lying about how the fight started and ended would _not_ be a silly thing to lie about. It would, in fact, be exactly what you’d expect someone who just committed murder to do. Just because Zimmerman got caught making a huge mistake doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to infer he just forgot or was confused. Not on a detail that could break his entire defense. **Bricker** , you still haven’t answered my questions. I’ll repost them: > [@ywtf](#): > > What is the minimum evidence that could convince you [Zimmerman is criminally culpable]? > > Also, what part of his story do you believe? All of it? None of it? Some of it? If the latter, how have you decided what parts are believable and which are not? > > If you don’t think he’s credible and therefore don’t put much, if any, stock in his narrative, what state evidence do you think is lacking that shows this killing was an unjustified one? I’m asking this because you’ve repeatedly asserted that you don’t think the prosecution has presented evidence for 2nd degree murder. But you haven’t explained what kind of evidence they would need to show for that, that they haven’t already. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4439 "2012-07-23T21:04:38Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > What about “placing” himself in a situation rather than “injecting”? I don’t think he _knowingly_ placed himself in a situation. I think in his mind, the ‘situation’ had traveled south down the “T” towards the southern exit. Of course, later in the call he states he’s unsure where the kid was at and so didn’t want to give his address. I’ll grant that he knew- or should have known- he would be taking a moderate risk by leaving his car and heading to the “T”. But that is a far cry from what many people _think_ he did (pursuing, chasing, stalking). If he had intended to do those things I think he would have headed south. (And for the reasons I mentioned, I don’t believe he did that.) ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4440 "2012-07-23T21:06:30Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > So - I should be able to shoot someone walking towards me, because they might break my nose, which is aggravated battery, and that’s a forcible felony, and the use of lethal force is allowed to prevent a forcible felony? > > Great - next time someone cuts me off in traffic and I honk their horn at them, if they get out of the car all red in the face…BOOM It’s more than just _might_ do you great bodily harm. You need to have a r\*easonable belief \*that they intend to do you great bodily harm. Someone meerely walking towards you or an angry person exiting their vehicle would not suffice. ---
**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 23, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4441 "2012-07-23T21:20:15Z")
And to go back to the flashlight-key thing, it’s weird that in all of his statements–even the Hannity one–he never mentions what he did with those. After Martin supposedly approached him and demanded to know if he had a problem, Zimmerman says he reached down to get to his cellphone. He feels arounds in his pockets and stuff and then Martin hits him. But in one of his hand, he’s holding his flashlight, right? Did he keep it trained on Martin, did he drop it, did he palm it, did he try to pocket it? Why did he leave the flashlight out of his story completely? We could wave this away as him just forgetting, and I wouldn’t have a problem accepting that explanation since it’s not particularly damning on its face. But the problem is that when Zimmerman came up with his excuse for the 2-minute gap, he never acknowledged the existence of that flashlight then either. Is anyone else bothered by this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=221) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=223)