# 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:** 258
**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 15, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5143 "2012-08-15T20:11:29Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > At the trial, yes. At the pre trial hearing, where Zimmerman has to prove his innocence, no. Are you really still confused between the two? You’re still not getting that the pre-trial hearing is a red herring. If it makes sense for Zimmerman argue SYG when he has to provide a preponderance of evidence in support of his innocence at pre-trial, then it also makes sense for him to argue SYG at trial, when he doesn’t have to provide this preponderance. Never, at any point, does it cost him to argue SYG. Making his ability to retreat (or not) an issue is exactly what the defense should not be doing if they want to win. But shoot, who am I to burst your bubble. If you want to keep on thinking Zimmerman is in good hands with this approach, I’m not going to dissuade you. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5144 "2012-08-15T20:38:45Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > OK, let me put it another way. When the appeal is denied, what will be your reaction? Depends what the appeal is based on. The jury cannot disregard the law. This is what Bricker was trying to explain to you. They can’t simply say they don’t believe Zimmerman (without evidence to the contrary) and convict him of a crime. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5145 "2012-08-15T21:07:25Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > But how would they know the phone number of someone Zimmerman would be likely to send it to? Most people don’t treat their cell phone numbers as secret. Zimmerman’s was actually in Home owner association news letter. Their are web sites were you can get information about relatives and such for a few dollars. I can’t think of a legal way to get information about his friends, but they would probably hack his email. Here is a recent article about how this guy’s account was hacked. The critical parts are actually social engineering rather than technical skills. [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/](http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/) BTW, it turns our that it isn’t that easy to prove that someone originated a SMS, even if they pull it off your phone. At leasy not in PA. [http://www.applieddiscovery.com/ws\_display.asp?filter=Case%20Summaries%20Detail&item\_id=%7BAF12893F-44BC-445D-91CD-2ACBD54711F0%7D](http://www.applieddiscovery.com/ws_display.asp?filter=Case%20Summaries%20Detail&item_id=%7BAF12893F-44BC-445D-91CD-2ACBD54711F0%7D) I’ve worked in computer security off and on for over 30 years. It is still amazes me how blase people are on these issues until it happens to them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5146 "2012-08-15T21:12:58Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’m sorry Bricker, but you are talking about a technological issue and not a legal issue, so you are in my baliwick. Have you every worked on a case involving SMS messages? Not as a lawyer, no. But I am quite familiar with SMS messaging and the technical issues surrounding SMS (and SMTP, while we’re at it) messages. > [@](#): > > Forging a hand written letter requires specialized skills and you also have to deal with the issues of the ink and paper and incidental DNA on the letter. You also have to deal with the fact that it would require someone that actually was in Central Florida to have the correct post marks. Even a type or printed letter would be good, because forensic experts can match letters to typewritters and printers. > > The trouble with digital technology is that all bits look the same. A SMS could be spoofed by **anybody in the world**. With a case of international notoriety like this there could hundreds of people with the inclination and the skills to spoof an SMS from Zimmerman. > > If you want to prove an SMS is from Zimmerman’s phone, then you need to get to the phone companies logs before they deleted or actually pull the SMS from his phone directly. BTW, if you report for arrest, leave your phone at home if you don’t want the police spelunking around it. > > Now if Zimmerman left a confession voice mail, then that would be fairly easy to authenticate. OK, so let’s talk about SMS messages and the foundational requirements for authenticating them. In this case, I postulated that the messages in question are known to the prosecution because they were supplied by the carrier – I am talking, in other words, about the undisclosed evidence mentioned by the prosecution that supposedly includes text messages. What would be required to admit those as evidence? They are hearsay. For the purposes of this discussion, we assume they meet the standards for an exception to the hearsay rule. They must be authenticated. It’s true that the mere existence of the message is not enough to do this – or even the proof that they came from Zimmerman’s phone. After all, forget electronic spoofing – someone could have picked up his phone and sent a message. To authenticate a text message is not impossible, though – it simply requires some additional evidence. One such type of additional evidence is where the text message “…contain factual information or references unique to the party involved.” As presumably they would here. I’m not speaking hypothetically on the subject of admission of text messages. In _Rodriguez v. Nevada_, the Supreme Court of Nevada upheld the conviction of Kevin Rodriguez, where the evidence against him at trial included text messages sent from him using a stolen cell phone. In _In the Interest of FP_, 2005 PA Super 220 (2005), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania laid out rules for accepting electronic messages into evidence. In _Massimo v. State of Texas_, 144 S.W.3d 210 (Tex.App. 2004), e-mails were admitted into evidence where the victim recognized the appellant’s e-mail address; the e-mails discussed things only the victim, the appellant, and a few other people knew about and they were written in the way in which the appellant would communicate. In _US v. Finley_, 477 F.3d 250 (2007) the conviction of a methamphetamine purchaser was upheld on evidence of text messages read and copied from his phone, where the messages indicated his awareness of the meth. In _State v. Taylor_, 632 SE 2d 218 (2006), text messages were admitted into evidence simply on testimony from the cell provider that those messages were sent to and received by a particular phone number. So while I don’t deny that SMS spoofing exists, the rule of law is that the fact that SMS spoofing exists does not prevent admission of text messages. Oh, and Florida law? Florida admitted inot evidence text messages found on a cell phone that was seized in a valid search. Period. > [@](#): > > The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be). It also is immaterial that the ex-wife could not identify each of the messages being shown to her on the night of the incident. Regardless how these images and text messages might have found their way onto the defendant’s cellular telephone, the State has presented sufficient evidence at this stage that these exhibits constitute evidence of motive. Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 863 (Fla. 1987) (stating that evidence of motive is admissible when it would help the jury understand other evidence). Accordingly, they are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case upon the State laying the proper predicates as indicated by this opinion. Quoting _State v. Lumarque_, 44 So. 3d 171, (Fl DCA 2010). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5147 "2012-08-15T21:14:19Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’ve worked in computer security off and on for over 30 years. It is still amazes me how blase people are on these issues until it happens to them. And I am talking about the actual fact that courts all over the country, and specifically in Florida, admit text messages as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5148 "2012-08-15T22:45:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not as a lawyer, no. But I am quite familiar with SMS messaging and the technical issues surrounding SMS (and SMTP, while we’re at it) messages. > > OK, so let’s talk about SMS messages and the foundational requirements for authenticating them. > > In this case, I postulated that the messages in question are known to the prosecution because they were supplied by the carrier – I am talking, in other words, about the undisclosed evidence mentioned by the prosecution that supposedly includes text messages. > > What would be required to admit those as evidence? > > They are hearsay. For the purposes of this discussion, we assume they meet the standards for an exception to the hearsay rule. > > They must be authenticated. It’s true that the mere existence of the message is not enough to do this – or even the proof that they came from Zimmerman’s phone. After all, forget electronic spoofing – someone could have picked up his phone and sent a message. To authenticate a text message is not impossible, though – it simply requires some additional evidence. One such type of additional evidence is where the text message “…contain factual information or references unique to the party involved.” As presumably they would here. > > I’m not speaking hypothetically on the subject of admission of text messages. In _Rodriguez v. Nevada_, the Supreme Court of Nevada upheld the conviction of Kevin Rodriguez, where the evidence against him at trial included text messages sent from him using a stolen cell phone. In _In the Interest of FP_, 2005 PA Super 220 (2005), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania laid out rules for accepting electronic messages into evidence. In _Massimo v. State of Texas_, 144 S.W.3d 210 (Tex.App. 2004), e-mails were admitted into evidence where the victim recognized the appellant’s e-mail address; the e-mails discussed things only the victim, the appellant, and a few other people knew about and they were written in the way in which the appellant would communicate. In _US v. Finley_, 477 F.3d 250 (2007) the conviction of a methamphetamine purchaser was upheld on evidence of text messages read and copied from his phone, where the messages indicated his awareness of the meth. In _State v. Taylor_, 632 SE 2d 218 (2006), text messages were admitted into evidence simply on testimony from the cell provider that those messages were sent to and received by a particular phone number. > > So while I don’t deny that SMS spoofing exists, the rule of law is that the fact that SMS spoofing exists does not prevent admission of text messages. > > Oh, and Florida law? Florida admitted inot evidence text messages found on a cell phone that was seized in a valid search. Period. > > Quoting _State v. Lumarque_, 44 So. 3d 171, (Fl DCA 2010). So to summarize. You did a Lexis search and discovered I was right and Text messages need a lot of corroborating before they can be used at trial You made a big point about using text messages from the defendant’s phone like I hadn’t already pointed it in my post. Man you get irate when people prove you are wrong. BTW pointing out that you have used text messaging a lot makes you equivalent to the average 10 year old. Pointing out that you have used a lot of email is double lame. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5149 "2012-08-15T23:29:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I am talking about the actual fact that courts all over the country, and specifically in Florida, admit text messages as evidence. And as I pointed in 5137 there are fairly strict guidelines for admitting SMS messages as evidence, but you have a pretty good shot if you pull them from the phone. You did a Lexis search and discovered I was right and you are covering up now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5150 "2012-08-16T00:31:03Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > So to summarize. You did a Lexis search and discovered I was right and Text messages need a lot of corroborating before they can be used at trial You made a big point about using text messages from the defendant’s phone like I hadn’t already pointed it in my post. > > Man you get irate when people prove you are wrong. > > BTW pointing out that you have used text messaging a lot makes you equivalent to the average 10 year old. Pointing out that you have used a lot of email is double lame. No. And, no. First of all, to dispose of your last jab: I did not say I have sent a lot of e-mail. I said I was very familiar with STMP, by which I mean I understand the SMTP handshake, the connection over port 25, HELO to kick things off, MIME encoding, what an MX record is, what an SMTP relay is, and pretty much any other damn thing associated with sending SMTP messages between hosts. And when I said I was very familiar with SMS messaging, I meant I know how MAP is implemented under SS7 and the difference between MO- and MT-ForwardSM. I have written and debugged SMS transmission scripts using a satellite transceiver that used a superset of the Hayes command set. As to your second point: no, again. To review the discussion that led us here: > [@Bricker](#): > > For example, if they had a text message from Zimmerman denying he was worried about Martin injuring him, that would do the trick nicely. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Actually a text message would be lousy evidence, unless the prosecution was able to get to the phone company to preserve the raw data and prove the message actually originated from Zimmerman’s phone. Usually the phone company only keeps SMS records for a short period of time. > > SMS Spoofing is relatively easy and common and even has legitimate uses. > > [SMS spoofing - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_spoofing) > > SMS simply wasn’t designed with security in mind. > [@Bricker](#): > > That goes to the weight of the evidence. The jury is entitled, **assuming proper foundation** , to believe the evidence even if it’s possible to spoof it. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > That might be amusing when the jury starts getting text messages from the prosecution and the judge confessing to Martin’s murder. (emphasis added to point out the obvious qualification I made right away) You now agree that it’s possible to spoof SMS (you never disagreed, after all) AND you now agree that it’s admissible with proper foundation. Doesn’t have to be technical – remember the case where the foundation was the subject matter of the messages being something only the accused would know. Which is what I said. You suggested that text messages could not be used – at least that’s what I took “lousy evidence” to mean. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5151 "2012-08-16T04:37:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. And, no. First of all, to dispose of your last jab: I did not say I have sent a lot of e-mail. I said I was very familiar with STMP, by which I mean I understand the SMTP handshake, the connection over port 25, HELO to kick things off, MIME encoding, what an MX record is, what an SMTP relay is, and pretty much any other damn thing associated with sending SMTP messages between hosts. > > And when I said I was very familiar with SMS messaging, I meant I know how MAP is implemented under SS7 and the difference between MO- and MT-ForwardSM. I have written and debugged SMS transmission scripts using a satellite transceiver that used a superset of the Hayes command set. > > As to your second point: no, again. > > To review the discussion that led us here: > > (emphasis added to point out the obvious qualification I made right away) > > You now agree that it’s possible to spoof SMS (you never disagreed, after all) AND you now agree that it’s admissible with proper foundation. Doesn’t have to be technical – remember the case where the foundation was the subject matter of the messages being something only the accused would know. > > Which is what I said. > > You suggested that text messages could not be used – at least that’s what I took “lousy evidence” to mean. In the first place your references to SMTP still displays your technical ignorance. I actually ran my own mail server for awhile about 20 years ago and SMTP has almost nothing to SMS. You example messages contain no information that would connect them to Zimmerman. You made no reference at all to the technical steps involved in connecting an SMS message back to the defendant . Without expert testimony and an audit trail SMS records are almost useless. According to the discovery documents they only have 2 weeks of Zimmerman’s Text messages. (3-7 to 3/22) [http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press\_Releases/CJC3rdFlCScan20120515084012.pdf](http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/CJC3rdFlCScan20120515084012.pdf) I think my point is still valid. There will be people trying to spoof messages from Zimmerman and without a bullet proof audit trial and expert witnesses, the prosecution will find the text messages excluded. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5152 "2012-08-16T12:55:59Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > In the first place your references to SMTP still displays your technical ignorance. I actually ran my own mail server for awhile about 20 years ago and SMTP has almost nothing to SMS. And where did I say it did? I run my own mail server today. I have my own domain, with its own MX records, and my own Linux box running smtpd with my own customized smtpd.conf. I mentioned this not to suggest that this gives me particular expertise in SMS but to buttress my general technical credentials and to distinguish me from merely sending e-mail. > [@](#): > > You example messages contain no information that would connect them to Zimmerman. > > You made no reference at all to the technical steps involved in connecting an SMS message back to the defendant . Without expert testimony and an audit trail SMS records are almost useless. According to the discovery documents they only have 2 weeks of Zimmerman’s Text messages. (3-7 to 3/22) > > [http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press\_Releases/CJC3rdFlCScan20120515084012.pdf](http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/CJC3rdFlCScan20120515084012.pdf) > I think my point is still valid. There will be people trying to spoof messages from Zimmerman and without a bullet proof audit trial and expert witnesses, the prosecution will find the text messages excluded. Yes, and I gave you a cite of a court case in which there was no expert testimony or an audit trail and the text messages were still admitted as evidence. How could this happen, according to you? ---
**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 16, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5153 "2012-08-16T17:11:07Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I think my point is still valid. There will be people trying to spoof messages from Zimmerman and without a bullet proof audit trial and expert witnesses, the prosecution will find the text messages excluded. I don’t understand the significance of this. If in fact the prosecution has incriminating text messages from GZ, then if necessary they’ll get the bullet proof audit trail and expert witnesses and whatever else is neceessary. This is a very high profile case and they have an almost unlimited budget. [FTR, unlike Bricker, my knowledge of email is pretty much limited to sending them.] ---
**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 16, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5154 "2012-08-16T17:30:40Z")
If a civilian’s cell phone pic of Zimmerman has a chance of being admissible in court, why wouldn’t a text message? Both can be faked. By the way, was that pic of Zimmerman included in discovery? I don’t remember seeing it in any of the document dumps. That pic still strikes me as off in some way, and not just because it shows Zimmerman talking on the phone when according to Zimmerman and one of the witnesses, he never was on the phone. ---
**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 16, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5155 "2012-08-16T17:41:05Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You’re still not getting that the pre-trial hearing is a red herring. If it makes sense for Zimmerman argue SYG when he has to provide a preponderance of evidence in support of his innocence at pre-trial, then it also makes sense for him to argue SYG at trial, when he doesn’t have to provide this preponderance. Never, at any point, does it cost him to argue SYG. If he couldn’t escape, SYG doesn’t apply. What part of that don’t you get? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5156 "2012-08-16T18:02:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And where did I say it did? > > I run my own mail server today. I have my own domain, with its own MX records, and my own Linux box running smtpd with my own customized smtpd.conf. I mentioned this not to suggest that this gives me particular expertise in SMS but to buttress my general technical credentials and to distinguish me from merely sending e-mail. To summarize the SMTP references are a non-sequitur. It would be like me talking about my expertise in 6502 Assembly Lanuage. > [@](#): > > Yes, and I gave you a cite of a court case in which there was no expert testimony or an audit trail and the text messages were still admitted as evidence. How could this happen, according to you? The first case you cited was RODRIGUEZ vs. Nevada. When I checked it turned out that the Supreme court had actually **excluded** 10 of the 12 messages the lower court accepted. [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1598104.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1598104.html) Some of your other cites are to email cases and not to SMS. Another was about evidence the police got from the defendants cell phone. Based on the discovery evidence published, that doesn’t seem to apply here. ---
**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 16, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5157 "2012-08-16T18:56:29Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > If he couldn’t escape, SYG doesn’t apply. What part of that don’t you get? Do you honestly think that someone who _couldn’t_ get away is ineligible for the latitude that SYG grants defendants who claim self defense? Because that is exactly what you’re saying when say SYG doesn’t apply. And that is insanely stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5158 "2012-08-16T18:58:38Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Do you honestly think that someone who _couldn’t_ get away is ineligible for the latitude that SYG grants defendants who claim self defense? Because that is exactly what you’re saying when say SYG doesn’t apply. Again, you are confused. “SYG” as in “stand your ground” concept does not apply in that case. “SYG” as in “stand your ground law” does apply. The two are different and separate. ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5159 "2012-08-16T19:05:13Z")
[QUOTE=Terr] “SYG” as in “stand your ground” concept does not apply in that case. " [/QUOTE] Yes it does. Perhaps you need a refresher course in English? Because you’re still showing that you don’t know what the words “stand your ground” mean. If you can’t retreat, guess what? _You’re still standing your ground._ Perhaps using some common sense to interpret the phrase might help you see the light. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5160 "2012-08-16T19:09:25Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Yes it does. Perhaps you need a refresher course in English? Because you’re still showing that you don’t know what the words “stand your ground” mean. > > If you can’t retreat, guess what? _You’re still standing your ground._ Perhaps using some common sense to interpret the phrase might help you see the light. “Stand your ground” concept means you CAN leave but you are not doing it. That doesn’t apply in this case. “Stand your ground” law does and will apply. Hope this clears up your confusion. ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5161 "2012-08-16T19:24:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Stand your ground” concept means you CAN leave but you are not doing it. That doesn’t apply in this case. “Stand your ground” law does and will apply. Hope this clears up your confusion. Here’s a mini refresher course on English. > [@](#): > > stand (one’s) ground > > 1. To maintain one’s position against an attack. > 2. To refuse to compromise; be unyielding. > > [Stand (one's) ground - definition of stand (one's) ground by The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stand+(one's)+ground) > [@](#): > > stand your ground also hold your ground > > to refuse to do what someone else wants While others urged him to try to rescue the peace process, he’s been insisting he’ll stand his ground. > > [Stand ground - Idioms by The Free Dictionary](http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/stand+ground) > [@](#): > > standing your ground > > to refuse to be pushed backwards, or to continue in your beliefs in an argument > > [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/stand-your-ground](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/stand-your-ground) In none of these definitions is the _inability_ to retreat relevant. Any one who can’t retreat but successfully fights back against their alleged attacker is standing their ground. As you, wise **Terr** , opined earlier, “regular self-defense” is a subset of SYG. So this clearly implies there is no need draw any distinctions between the ability and inability to retreat when deciding whether someone is SYGing. The only relevant consideration is provocation. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5162 "2012-08-16T19:26:38Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If you can’t retreat, guess what? _You’re still standing your ground._ Perhaps using some common sense to interpret the phrase might help you see the light. I don’t know about you, but being on your back with someone sitting on your chest makes it a little difficult to stand at all, let alone stand your ground. > [@](#): > > Do you honestly think that someone who couldn’t get away is ineligible for the latitude that SYG grants defendants who claim self defense? That’s kind of a bizarre way to put it, but yes - SYG does not grant any extra latitude to people acting in self defense who cannot retreat. They have the same latitude as in states where you are acting in self-defense, and cannot retreat. That’s what it means to say “SYG doesn’t apply”. That is to say, it isn’t necessary for the defense to argue that Zimmerman had the opportunity to retreat and didn’t take it. Because he didn’t have the opportunity to retreat. It doesn’t make any difference if he had the right to stand his ground - he couldn’t stand his ground. You seem to want the defense to argue that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin even though he could have retreated. But he could not have retreated. So that line of defense doesn’t make any sense, and has essentially no relation to the case. If the facts of the case were different, and it was clear that Zimmerman could have run away but didn’t, then that line of argument would probably be something the defense would propose. But the facts of the case aren’t different. Nobody cares what could have happened if Zimmerman could have retreated. He couldn’t. So SYG doesn’t apply. It doesn’t give any extra latitude to Zimmerman, to put it in your terms. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=257) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=259)