# 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:** 259
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5163 "2012-08-16T19:33:04Z")
> [@](#): > > In none of these definitions is the inability to retreat relevant. No, in _all_ of those definitions the inability to retreat is relevant. In all of your (non-legal) examples, standing one’s ground means making a choice not to back off. Zimmerman had no such choice. By your definition, a suspect who is handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser is standing his ground against the police. And that is slightly more than ridiculous. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5164 "2012-08-16T19:39:23Z")
Stand Your Ground is kind of a misnomer anyway. There are still lots of exceptions why you can’t just stand your ground. How about thinking of it as a “No duty to retreat” clause. That is more accurate in my opinion anyway. Which has been added to the regular self defense laws which previously required one retreat whenever possible rather than use deadly force. If the facts indicate Zimmerman had no ability to retreat, then there is no need to bring the “no duty to retreat” clause in to play. It is a simple self defense case. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5165 "2012-08-16T19:40:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Here’s a mini refresher course on English. Legal concepts differ from dictionary definitions. > [@](#): > > As you, wise **Terr** , opined earlier, “regular self-defense” is a subset of SYG. As I, wise Terr, opined, regular self-defense is a subset of the SYG law. Not the “SYG concept”. You keep confusing the two. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5166 "2012-08-16T19:50:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. I don’t know about you, but shooting someone dead in the chest during a fight sounds like standing one’s ground to me. In other words, it doesn’t sound like yielding or giving in to an aggressor. > [@](#): > > 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. No they don’t. In states without SYG, the defendant has to convince a jury that they weren’t able to retreat, if they wish to be acquitted. Their inability to retreat is never assumed; it’s a thing that must be proven in court. In states with SYG, the defendant doesn’t have to prove they weren’t able to retreat. That’s where the latitude comes from. As long as the defendant can convince a jury they were had reasonable fear of serious injury, were in a place they were legally allowed to be, and were not committing a forcible felony or provoking force, or some other disqualifying act, they can successfully argue self-defense. > [@](#): > > 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. Are you really thinking this out before you type? All of this is wrong. With SYG, it is never necessary for the defense to argue that Zimmerman couldn’t retreat. Because retreat is a _moot_ point, only if he’s an aggressor. > [@](#): > > 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. No, actually what _I_ want the defense to argue is exactly what I think they’re going to argue. I want them to argue this because that will help ensure they lose, and that would make me very happy. What _you_ should want them to argue is that because Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin and in reasonable fear for his life, he shot the kid to defend himself from the threat of serious injury. This would constitute an “SYG defense” because the ability to retreat is neither nor there to the legal argument. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5167 "2012-08-16T20:08:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I don’t know about you, but shooting someone dead in the chest during a fight sounds like standing one’s ground to me. No, whether you shoot someone dead in the chest or not, standing one’s ground means that you had the opportunity to retreat, and didn’t take it. > [@](#): > > No, actually what I want the defense to argue is exactly what I think they’re going to argue. I want them to argue this because that will help ensure they lose, and that would make me very happy. So you think the defense is going to spend a lot of time arguing that Zimmerman would have been justified in shooting Martin even if he had had the opportunity to retreat? I doubt that, although we shall see. > [@](#): > > What you should want them to argue is that because Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin and in reasonable fear for his life, he shot the kid to defend himself from the threat of serious injury. This would constitute an “SYG defense” because the ability to retreat is neither nor there to the legal argument. No, that’s a self-defense argument. And I am reasonably certain that the defense will be making a claim of self-defense. I expect they would be making the same claim in another state that did not have SYG. Although I will grant that, if the defense is silly enough to adopt your notion that lying on your back on the ground with someone sitting on your chest beating the crap out of you constitutes “standing your ground”, their chances of the jury responding “are you on crack or something” rather than “not guilty” are not good. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5168 "2012-08-16T20:16:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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.] Expert witness aren’t the hard part. That may be nothing more than having an engineer from the phone company testify about the records. The hard part is the audit trail. Billions of text messages are sent every day and the phone company doesn’t retain the detailed records for long. I recall one mention of 7 days. If the police don’t swoop in pretty quick the audit record are gone. Based on the discovery records, they only have his SMS records from March 7th to March 22. That means they are missing the records for 10 days after the killing. Now if the police seized Zimmerman’s cell phone that would be different. They might even find texts that he thought he deleted. From the discovery records they probably didn’t get Zimmerman phone. I suspect on March 22nd, Zimmerman got a new phone number and maybe a new phone company. I watched a story about the guy that got Zimmerman’s old phone number. [http://www.usatoday.com/video/man-receives-george-zimmermans-old-phone-number/1680532980001](http://www.usatoday.com/video/man-receives-george-zimmermans-old-phone-number/1680532980001) ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5169 "2012-08-16T20:20:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So you think the defense is going to spend a lot of time arguing that Zimmerman would have been justified in shooting Martin even if he had had the opportunity to retreat? What part of “retreat is moot” are you not understanding? A smart defense wouldn’t even inject retreat into the debate. If the prosecution brought it up, that is when the defense would remind the jury that regardless of if retreat was possible or not, Zimmerman was justified in standing his ground. ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5170 "2012-08-16T20:32:34Z")
All that aside, though, the problem for Zimmerman is not just that there’s physical and circumstantial evidence that he could have retreated. The evidence that gets him trouble, regardless if he’s arguing SYG or “regular self-defense” , is the evidence that shows that _Martin_ had retreated. The kid had tried running away from him at least once that night. Witnesses say they heard a boy screaming for help. The ballistics showed that his clothes had been pulled away from his body when he was shot. ---
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5171 "2012-08-16T20:36:44Z")
> [@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. Maybe you would do better to quote the statute and any relevant caselaw interpreting it, instead of the dictionary? You and **JoelUpChurch** are doing the same thing, albeit from different sides. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5172 "2012-08-16T20:39:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe you would do better to quote the statute and any relevant caselaw interpreting it, instead of the dictionary? > > You and **JoelUpChurch** are doing the same thing, albeit from different sides. **Terr** is correcting me on the “concept” of SYG, not what it means legally. So caselaw is irrelevant. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5173 "2012-08-16T20:42:16Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > **Terr** is correcting me on the “concept” of SYG, not what it means legally. So caselaw is irrelevant. The “concept” of SYG is a legal concept. ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5174 "2012-08-16T20:43:45Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > 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. Correct. And it accepted two. > [@](#): > > 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. OK. In _Smallwood v. State_, 61 So. 3d 448 (Fl DCA 2011), text messages are admitted, but they were found on the phone. Your argument is that if a text message is taken from the cell provider, it can’t be admitted without some kind of audit? So if I can find cases where that has happened, you’ll agree you were mistaken? ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5175 "2012-08-16T20:44:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > So caselaw is irrelevant. Got it. Well, no one can deny that “caselaw is irrelevant” is the motto for this thread. OK, my mistake. Carry on. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5176 "2012-08-16T20:56:57Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What part of “retreat is moot” are you not understanding? I understand it perfectly, but I don’t think you do. > [@](#): > > A smart defense wouldn’t even inject retreat into the debate. Especially since SYG is irrelevant. So they probably won’t. IOW, they won’t do what you seem to be hoping they will. > [@](#): > > If the prosecution brought it up, that is when the defense would remind the jury that regardless of if retreat was possible or not, Zimmerman was justified in standing his ground. That would cloud the issue, as well as being quite silly. If the prosecution starts to suggest that Zimmerman should have retreated, it is a great deal more sympathetic, just as valid legally, and much more in keeping with the facts of the case to say “how is my client supposed to retreat with Martin sitting on his chest bashing his head on the ground?” Thus raising the likelihood of the jury saying to the _prosecution_ “are you on crack or something” as well as “not guilty”. You know what you said earlier about how being pinned down and having your head cracked on the ground was standing your ground? That was dumb. It is not the legal definition, no jury is going to believe it, and any attorney who argued it, prosecution or defense, is going to get laughed at and told not to be such a fuckhead. In the suitable legal terms, no doubt. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5177 "2012-08-16T21:02:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The “concept” of SYG is a legal concept. Can you please pick one position and stick with it longer than an hour? > [@Terr](#): > > “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:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5178 "2012-08-16T21:10:13Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Can you please pick one position and stick with it longer than an hour? You understand that “legal concept” and a specific law are two different things? ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5179 "2012-08-16T21:11:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the prosecution starts to suggest that Zimmerman should have retreated, it is a great deal more sympathetic, just as valid legally, and much more in keeping with the facts of the case to say “how is my client supposed to retreat with Martin sitting on his chest bashing his head on the ground?” Thus raising the likelihood of the jury saying to the _prosecution_ “are you on crack or something” as well as “not guilty”. True, but that’s still _in reaction_ to the prosecution’s argument that Zimmerman should have retreated. There is a difference between that, and leading out with the idea that it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat and that is why he killed Martin. This strategy makes retreat a point of contention at trial. The jury will then focus on that and start asking questions like “But Zimmerman outweighed the kid by 46 lbs…of course he could have retreated! The defense is asking us to believe the unbelievable. It must be legally relevant too, otherwise why are they arguing the point so much.” > [@](#): > > You know what you said earlier about how being pinned down and having your head cracked on the ground was standing your ground? That was dumb. No what you’re writing is dumb. And the above is not what I wrote earlier. I said shooting someone dead during a fight is standing your ground. As long as you’re not backing down and letting your attacker kill you, you are standing your ground. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5180 "2012-08-16T21:14:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You understand that “legal concept” and a specific law are two different things? I would ask you to explain the distinctions you see, but you don’t even understand what “stand your ground” literally means. ---
**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, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5181 "2012-08-16T22:04:03Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > 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. Actually your premise is flawed. There will complications on photographs also. At the minimum there will testimony that the file wasn’t altered. There also might be expert witnesses and software to detect changes to the picture to see if has been altered. Amusing article on detecting photo retouching. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067474/Back-reality-Computer-program-shows-EXACTLY-images-magazine-photoshopped.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067474/Back-reality-Computer-program-shows-EXACTLY-images-magazine-photoshopped.html) ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5182 "2012-08-16T22:28:29Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I would ask you to explain the distinctions you see, but you don’t even understand what “stand your ground” literally means. If you don’t understand the distinction, you can’t be helped. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=258) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=260)