# 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:** 243
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4843 "2012-08-10T02:47:54Z")
I just lost some respect for the Miami Herald. They just quoted the nutty professor. Media bias at its finest. [http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/09/2943103\_records-show-zimmerman-got-ds.html#storylink=addthis](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/09/2943103_records-show-zimmerman-got-ds.html#storylink=addthis) “To the extent that he had some knowledge of self defense, he would have been able to put together a story that made some sense,” said Frederick Leatherman, a retired Seattle defense lawyer and legal-issues blogger who has reviewed all the Zimmerman case evidence. “As he conjured up this story, he didn’t know that a lot of the forensics would not match.” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4844 "2012-08-10T03:02:22Z")
> [@stw004](#): > > Well I guess since there is no evidence he was in fear of him it kind of throws that whole SYG thing out the window the implication of the statement was that Zimmerman “stalked a scary negro” when there is no indication that he either stalked him or considered him scary. That has nothing to do with SYG which involved self defense after a sustained attack. There has been no justification brought forth as of this date for Martin’s actions. Nothing in the conversation between them as recounted by either Dee Dee or Zimmerman justify the attack. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4845 "2012-08-10T05:43:01Z")
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403) When Tracy Martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. “He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures,” Martin said. “I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, ‘OK, let me go to my car and get something.’” The detective returned with a folder. It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. “From that point, our nightmare,” Martin said. ---- :dubious: Honestly, it’s really hard to believe people are as gullible as they are. You would think I would be used to it by now, but I’m not. People are just incredibly dumb. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4846 "2012-08-10T06:06:00Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > [Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries | Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403) > ---- :dubious: Honestly, it’s really hard to believe people are as gullible as they are. You would think I would be used to it by now, but I’m not. People are just incredibly dumb. Given the way you post, I’m hesitant to ask, but… What point are you trying to make here exactly? That a father would find it nightmarish to hear his son was dead? that the police would inform a father this way? What, exactly, is “gullible” about that quote? ---
**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:** [August 10, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4847 "2012-08-10T08:44:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Let me put it another way: Judges generally take a dim view when attorneys attempt to put the victim on trial. At the SYG hearing, Zimmerman will be presented as the victim (accurately, according to the evidence we have), and the State will attempt to discredit him. Should the judge take a dim view of the State’s actions here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4848 "2012-08-10T10:02:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Judges generally take a dim view when attorneys attempt to put the victim on trial. How do these judges manage to handle self-defense cases? That line of yours sounds like it came from _Law and Order_ University. In real life, no judge “takes a dim view” of putting the victim’s actions on trial when the claim is self-defense, because that’s a necessary part of self-defense claims. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4849 "2012-08-10T16:11:08Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > What, exactly, is “gullible” about that quote? The tear on his cheek. Many Anti-Zimmerman folks think Trayvon was so scared of Zimmerman that he was not only screaming, but crying his little head off. _Sob_ _Punch_ _Scream__Punch_ _Sob_ ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4850 "2012-08-10T16:28:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > …This is particularly relevant because the judge might **rule against** GZ based on his hostility to him over the bail hearing issue and/or because he doesn’t want to take the heat as the guy who let Zimmerman walk. If there is risk of carryover effect, then it might be a bad move to go for the SYG hearing. If it’s obvious or can be proven that the judge “ruled against” GZ because of personal hostility or concern for his personal welfare (fear of retribution from the public or his bosses), GZ wins on appeal. The State could then appeal to a higher court, drop the case or retry it. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4851 "2012-08-10T17:04:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, at trial, the jury will be the finder of fact. I suppose an irked judge might make evidentiary or procedural rulings that hurt Z’s case, but I would be upraised to see anything like that, and shocked to see anything blatant. OK, but GZ will be presenting the same self defence story at the trial as he did at the SYG hearing, and the question is whether and how the fact that the judge has already ruled that the evidence is against that claim impacts the same claim when brought up a second time. Is the jury likely to be completely uninfluenced by the judge’s ruling? > [@doorhinge](#): > > If it’s obvious or can be proven that the judge “ruled against” GZ because of personal hostility or concern for his personal welfare (fear of retribution from the public or his bosses), GZ wins on appeal. The State could then appeal to a higher court, drop the case or retry it. As you can see from these threads and media coverage generally, there are any number of people on either side of the issue. While partisans of each side feel their version is obvious and can be proved, I think the strength of pulbic opinion on each side is such that neither side is likely to tossed out by a court as clearly biased. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4852 "2012-08-10T17:14:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, but GZ will be presenting the same self defence story at the trial as he did at the SYG hearing, and the question is whether and how the fact that the judge has already ruled that the evidence is against that claim impacts the same claim when brought up a second time. Is the jury likely to be completely uninfluenced by the judge’s ruling? They should be. At the SYG hearing, the jury must be persuaded by preponderance of the evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. At trial, the jury must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense. > [@](#): > > As you can see from these threads and media coverage generally, there are any number of people on either side of the issue. While partisans of each side feel their version is obvious and can be proved, I think the strength of pulbic opinion on each side is such that neither side is likely to tossed out by a court as clearly biased. The judge should be making his decisions based on the evidence and his legal training. The jury at trial will be given specific instructions on how to evaluate the evidence. To pick one example, since you mention this thread, **you with the face** strongly resisted the concept that the state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, so much so that she still hasn’t conceded the point. A potential jury member that refused to accept the judge’s instructions would likely not be seated. ---
**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:** [August 10, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4853 "2012-08-10T17:25:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To pick one example, since you mention this thread, **you with the face** strongly resisted the concept that the state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, so much so that she still hasn’t conceded the point. . Show me one post with me saying I think the state doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4854 "2012-08-10T18:20:16Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Show me one post with me saying I think the state doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. I would, but I don’t want to indulge your ego. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4855 "2012-08-10T18:21:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I would, but I don’t want to indulge your ego. 😃 ---
**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:** [August 10, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4856 "2012-08-10T18:32:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I would, but I don’t want to indulge your ego. It’s assy to post crap about another poster without providing cites as justification. You know good and well I never said the state doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4857 "2012-08-10T19:34:41Z")
**Bricker** you got it all wrong. Should have read. “Because I don’t care enough to do so. I’ve indulged your ego enough as it is.” ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4858 "2012-08-10T22:08:20Z")
**emeraldia** , Susan Simpson actually says that it’s a difficult case not a weak one in your post 4822. You haven’t been reading her threads if you think she thinks the case is weak. This is her most recent Zimmerman post: [Zimmerman’s Police Statements Are Not Consistent With Established Facts | The View From LL2](http://viewfromll2.com/2012/06/21/zimmermans-police-statements-are-not-consistent-with-established-facts/). I don’t feel like digging through Kimmy’s or [Justicequest.com](http://Justicequest.com)’s posts so I’ll concede the other two. **JoelUpchurch** , Jeralyn Merritt is not the last word on the case. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4859 "2012-08-10T23:18:16Z")
> [@enomaj](#): > > **emeraldia** , Susan Simpson actually says that it’s a difficult case not a weak one in your post 4822. Wouldn’t a weak case be one that is difficult to prosecute? And a strong case be one that is not difficult to prosecute? > [@](#): > > This is her most recent Zimmerman post: [Zimmerman’s Police Statements Are Not Consistent With Established Facts | The View From LL2](http://viewfromll2.com/2012/06/21/zimmermans-police-statements-are-not-consistent-with-established-facts/). Where does she say that the case against him is strong? I only read some of what she wrote, but she said nothing that makes me think that she thinks the case against Zimmerman is strong. She does say: > [@](#): > > It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t prove murder by a long shot, but it definitely proves Zimmerman to be a liar. I read the rest of her comments on down and, while she points out problems for Zimmerman’s defense, she doesn’t actually say the prosecution’s case is strong and/or easy to prosecute. I’ll take her off my side of the list, but I don’t think she belongs on your side either. So, in my mind, it’s 10 vs. the nutty professor. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4860 "2012-08-10T23:41:05Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It’s assy to post crap about another poster without providing cites as justification. You know good and well I never said the state doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. I don’t care enough to do so. I’ve indulged your ego enough as it is. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4861 "2012-08-10T23:42:33Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Wouldn’t a weak case be one that is difficult to prosecute? And a strong case be one that is not difficult to prosecute? The question should be, “Is the ONLY kind of case which is difficult to prosecute a weak case?” Otherwise the loophole that there may some sort of a case which is difficult to prosecute for reasons other than the case being weak. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4862 "2012-08-10T23:51:29Z")
**Bricker** , this thread is barely readable as it is. You aren’t helping at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=242) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=244)