# 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:** 265
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5283 "2012-08-19T16:38:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, and if he did anything after firing the shot that contributed to Martin’s death, he may well be liable for it. There’s no evidence that he did, so that particular hypothetical is irrelevant. > Assuming you’ve actually read this thread, you’ll be aware that he had no duty to retreat, and the right to restrain someone he’s witnessed committing a crime. It may have been more _sensible_\* to flee, for his own safety, but he had no duty to do so. If he is now allowing that he was the aggressor, he did have the duty to retreat, **Steophan**. In fact, that seems to be pretty much what O’Mara is saying now. He seems to be arguing that it doesn’t matter if Zimmerman provoked the fight or not, the dude couldn’t retreat at all. He _had_ to kill Martin because it was either that or be killed. But his own statement does not bear this out at all. > [@](#): > > If something is a danger to you, you attempt to minimise that danger. If said danger is a man you believe to be armed, who has just savagely beaten you, and you’ve just fired a shot at, retreating is likely to be the most dangerous course of action. Preventing them getting to their weapon is the safest. Ha! This may make sense to a fighting man with muscles and stuff, but not to a puny little girl like myself. If a guy is brutally assaulting me and he sits up to push his bangs out of his eyes, I’m not going to try to take the gun out of his hand. I’m going to try to push him off of me and get the fuck out of there. Why? Because the guy has amply demonstrated that he can easily overtake me, so much so that my hands and arms have magically become paralyzed in his presence. The only reasonable course of action for someone who is so disadvantage is to _run_. Not fight back. And not try to grapple over an imagined gun that I can’t even see! And if I have a gun? I’m not going to shoot at him and then, not knowing that if I hit him, climb on top of him for a little show-and-tell. I’m going to shoot until the creep is dead. Or, I’m going to shoot and then run. Anything else is acting against the fight-or-flight response. Zimmerman knew the dynamics of the battle had changed after firing his weapon. Not only had he supposedly stopped screaming, but he didn’t act as a person who was just inches away from dying. He acted like a person who had just gotten his ass kicked and wasn’t going to let it happen again. If Zimmerman removes the basic premise of SYG off the table, then he forfeits his right to not get his ass kicked in a life-and-death battle. From the Wikipedia article on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law: > [@](#): > > 776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: > > (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or > > (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: > > ``` > (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or > > ``` > > \*\* (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.\*\* Bolding mine. Zimmerman resumed the use of force by shooting Martin and then climbing on top of him to restrain him. Since I don’t think even a dumbass like Zimmerman thought he was restraining a dead person, it’s clear he thought he was still in Battle Royale mode at this point in time. Not in fight-or-_flight_. The defense needs to continue to insist that Zimmerman didn’t provoke the altercation if they don’t want to deal with this glaring hole in their position. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5284 "2012-08-19T16:44:50Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m not suggesting any sort of conspiracy. It’s entirely the work of single person then? I was suspecting you meant that more than one person got together to decide to bring charges against GZ. > [@Steophan](#): > > I’m suggesting that someone who requires winning a popular vote to retain their job will act in such a way as to please to populace, and the most vocal element of the population has been screaming for Zimmerman’s blood. You’re also implying that this person would engage in un-ethical acts, which may be illegal for all I know. That’s kind of the actually relevant part, imho. _Some_ people undoubtedly do unethical and illegal things. But that’s really quite different from a _particular_ person doing unethical and possibly illegal things. As such, I don’t find the argument that “someone” would do something unethical and possibly illegal a convincing argument that Corey has done something unethical and possibly illegal. I also find it hard to believe that Corey could pull this off w/o the cooperation of others. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5285 "2012-08-19T16:49:13Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > We can infer from O’Mara’s remarks that he is conceding the argument that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I suppose we _could_. We could also infer that O’Mara is referencing the fact that GZ’s account has him pinned and unable to retreat. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > That is a logical inference to draw from his statement that the “facts” don’t support SYG, because provocation is the only legally relevant fact. That doesn’t appear to be true on it’s face. The general SD law refers to who started the altercation as well as the SYG part, iirc. The main difference was about where and when you could be justified in using deadly force, iirc. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Proving that Zimmerman continued to fight Martin after the kid retreated is absurdly easy. In the reenactment, this is how he describes what happened after the kid was shot. > > His own words show he knew the kid was retreating and not a threat. There is nothing ambiguous here. I can see the no longer a threat part. But I am not sure that the spreading the arms out bit constitutes continuing the fight. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5286 "2012-08-19T17:03:37Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > I can see the no longer a threat part. > But I am not sure that the spreading the arms out bit constitutes continuing the fight. Straddling someone and pinning their arms in the way that both Zimmerman and witnesses described sure seems like a continuance of force to me. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5287 "2012-08-19T18:20:36Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If he is now allowing that he was the aggressor, he did have the duty to retreat, **Steophan**. In fact, that seems to be pretty much what O’Mara is saying now. He seems to be arguing that it doesn’t matter if Zimmerman provoked the fight or not, the dude couldn’t retreat at all. He _had_ to kill Martin because it was either that or be killed. But his own statement does not bear this out at all. > > Ha! This may make sense to a fighting man with muscles and stuff, but not to a puny little girl like myself. If a guy is brutally assaulting me and he sits up to push his bangs out of his eyes, I’m not going to try to take the gun out of his hand. I’m going to try to push him off of me and get the fuck out of there. Why? Because the guy has amply demonstrated that he can easily overtake me, so much so that my hands and arms have magically become paralyzed in his presence. The only reasonable course of action for someone who is so disadvantage is to _run_. Not fight back. And not try to grapple over an imagined gun that I can’t even see! > > And if I have a gun? I’m not going to shoot at him and then, not knowing that if I hit him, climb on top of him for a little show-and-tell. I’m going to shoot until the creep is dead. Or, I’m going to shoot and then run. Anything else is acting against the fight-or-flight response. > > Zimmerman knew the dynamics of the battle had changed after firing his weapon. Not only had he supposedly stopped screaming, but he didn’t act as a person who was just inches away from dying. He acted like a person who had just gotten his ass kicked and wasn’t going to let it happen again. If Zimmerman removes the basic premise of SYG off the table, then he forfeits his right to not get his ass kicked in a life-and-death battle. > > From the Wikipedia article on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law: > > Bolding mine. > > Zimmerman resumed the use of force by shooting Martin and then climbing on top of him to restrain him. Since I don’t think even a dumbass like Zimmerman thought he was restraining a dead person, it’s clear he thought he was still in Battle Royale mode at this point in time. Not in fight-or-_flight_. The defense needs to continue to insist that Zimmerman didn’t provoke the altercation if they don’t want to deal with this glaring hole in their position. Zimmerman had regained his feet and was no longer helpless, as anyone would be, pinned to the ground, with someone on top of them. The situation had changed. ---
**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 19, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5288 "2012-08-19T18:22:14Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If he is now allowing that he was the aggressor, he did have the duty to retreat, **Steophan**. In fact, that seems to be pretty much what O’Mara is saying now. He seems to be arguing that it doesn’t matter if Zimmerman provoked the fight or not, the dude couldn’t retreat at all. He _had_ to kill Martin because it was either that or be killed. But his own statement does not bear this out at all. Nothing Zimmerman did when he was able to retreat contributed to Martin’s death. If he has seen Martin was incapacitated, and shot him again (as, interestingly, you advocate later in your post), he would be guilty of, probably, manslaughter. What he actually did was to attempt to ensure Martin could not continue his attack. > [@](#): > > Ha! This may make sense to a fighting man with muscles and stuff, but not to a puny little girl like myself. If a guy is brutally assaulting me and he sits up to push his bangs out of his eyes, I’m not going to try to take the gun out of his hand. I’m going to try to push him off of me and get the fuck out of there. Why? Because the guy has amply demonstrated that he can easily overtake me, so much so that my hands and arms have magically become paralyzed in his presence. The only reasonable course of action for someone who is so disadvantage is to _run_. Not fight back. And not try to grapple over an imagined gun that I can’t even see! Running from someone you believe to have a gun makes sense only if you have no other option, as you are basically giving them a free chance to shoot you in the back. As Zimmerman had another option, that is, to restrain Martin, it made sense for him to do it. > [@](#): > > And if I have a gun? I’m not going to shoot at him and then, not knowing that if I hit him, climb on top of him for a little show-and-tell. I’m going to shoot until the creep is dead. Or, I’m going to shoot and then run. Anything else is acting against the fight-or-flight response. So, it’s fine to keep shooting after someone’s retreating or incapacitated, but not to restrain them? What utter nonsense. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman knew the dynamics of the battle had changed after firing his weapon. Not only had he supposedly stopped screaming, but he didn’t act as a person who was just inches away from dying. He acted like a person who had just gotten his ass kicked and wasn’t going to let it happen again. If Zimmerman removes the basic premise of SYG off the table, then he forfeits his right to not get his ass kicked in a life-and-death battle. Yep, he has every right to make sure his arse doesn’t get kicked again. The fact that you mention that acknowledges that he was still in fear of that. > [@](#): > > From the Wikipedia article on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law: > > > [@](#): > > > > **(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.** > > Bolding mine. > > Zimmerman resumed the use of force by shooting Martin and then climbing on top of him to restrain him. Since I don’t think even a dumbass like Zimmerman thought he was restraining a dead person, it’s clear he thought he was still in Battle Royale mode at this point in time. Not in fight-or-_flight_. The defense needs to continue to insist that Zimmerman didn’t provoke the altercation if they don’t want to deal with this glaring hole in their position. Prove that Martin indicated clearly to Zimmerman that he desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force. Not that Zimmerman had prevented him from using force, by incapacitating him so that he could no longer do so even if he wished to. That’s not what the law requires - it requires that Martin inform Zimmerman unambiguously, and believably, that he wished to end the confrontation. Doing so, of course, would remove any reasonable fear from Zimmerman’s mind. The only other way you can say he shouldn’t have restrained him is to prove that his fear that Martin was armed was unreasonable, and so he could have retreated safely, or prove than Zimmerman was aware that Martin was so incapacitated that he could no longer fight. It’s interesting that the particular part of the law you bolded so thoroughly destroys your point. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5289 "2012-08-19T19:09:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Nothing Zimmerman did when he was able to retreat contributed to Martin’s death. If he has seen Martin was incapacitated, and shot him again (as, interestingly, you advocate later in your post), he would be guilty of, probably, manslaughter. What he actually did was to attempt to ensure Martin could not continue his attack. That is not what a person does when they are in self-defense mode, though. They don’t escalate their own risk by actively putting themselves in MORE harm. They get themselves away from the danger. They retreat, if they can. Zimmerman could but did not. He could have gotten away with this under SYG. But take away the “non-aggressor” coverage, and he’s up a creek with this argumentation. Zimmerman had an opportunity to retreat when Trayvon stopped beating him. Instead of retreating, Zimmerman went for him. The most generous explanation is that Zimmerman knew that Trayvon had been shot and was no longer a danger to him. If Zimmerman had never said otherwise, I would have no problem assuming this is what happened. In fact, it would be quite reasonable to assume and I would focussing on other WTFness, like the sparse physical evidence that Martin savagely attacked him. But if we are compelled to treat Zimmerman’s statement as evidence–which is what you and others have been bleating this whole time–then this _evidence_ should not be used by his defense if he expects to get off the hook without the protection of SYG. His statement and the reenactment make it clear that Zimmerman had no idea about Martin’s physical state after the shooting. If he was in fight-or-flight mode prior to the shooting, he should have been in fight-or-flight right afterwards. But his own words do not bear this out. When claiming to be an objective observer, it is incumbent of you to inspect ALL the evidence, not just evidence that you like best. Zimmerman tells us that Martin savagely, brutally beat him. He tells us that Martin threatened to kill him. By claiming self-defense, he tells us that he exhausted every reasonable option before shooting Martin. He also tells us that he thought Martin had given up the fight. He tells us that after the shot, he still thought Martin was dangerous. He tells us he continued to use force by getting on top of the kid and pinning him down. If we choose to accept everything except for those last three details, we are cheery-picking. We are NOT being objective. Either we need to accept all of it as true or throw all of it out of the freakin’ window. > [@](#): > > Running from someone you believe to have a gun makes sense only if you have no other option, as you are basically giving them a free chance to shoot you in the back. As Zimmerman had another option, that is, to restrain Martin, it made sense for him to do it. Zimmerman is claiming he had two options: kill or be killed. And yet this isn’t true. When he had the opportunity to run away, he ran towards. In the heat of the moment, in a fight-or-flight mode, running away (flighting!) _is_ the most logical course of action. If Zimmerman was brazen enough to come at a guy who he thought was armed, especially after getting his ass whupped, then he simply wasn’t that afraid. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Zimmerman had said he had ran away, you would hold this evidence up on as absolute proof that he was deathly afraid. Double-check if witnesses saw him running away. So I’m left believing that in your bizarro world of logic, there would have been NO way that Zimmerman could have demonstrated lack of fear. Run towards the armed gunman = afraid out of his mind! Run away towards the armed gunman = afraid of out of mind! You are giving him way more than the benefit of the doubt. You are giving Zimmerman license to get away with murder. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5290 "2012-08-19T19:31:50Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Prove that Martin indicated clearly to Zimmerman that he desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force. Not that Zimmerman had prevented him from using force, by incapacitating him so that he could no longer do so even if he wished to. That’s not what the law requires - it requires that Martin inform Zimmerman unambiguously, and believably, that he wished to end the confrontation. Zimmerman’s own words said that he thought Martin was “giving up” after he said “You got it” or “You got this”. The very moment he was no longer being beaten was an opening for retreat. Again, by his own words he did not use this opportunity to retreat and he HAD NO IDEA THAT MARTIN HAD BEEN SHOT. For all he knew, despite the ambiguous comic book line, Martin could have been getting ready for more vicious, animalistic raging. So why wouldn’t Zimmerman have used that brief pause in the battle to get the fuck out of there? Because he knew his life was never in danger, that’s why. This is a lie Zimmerman told to make himself look more innocent than is necessary. He could have said something like, “I sensed I shot him when he reared back like that, but I wasn’t sure.” Instead he feigns complete ignorance. And this lie is going to bite him in the ass. > [@](#): > > It’s interesting that the particular part of the law you bolded so thoroughly destroys your point. His own words destroy HIS point: > [@GZ](#): > > “He said, ‘You got me,’ ‘You got it,’ something like that. I thought he was saying, ‘I know you have a gun now, I heard it, I’m giving up.’” If you are the aggressor and you hear the other person saying “I’m giving up”, you are supposed to back the fuck off. You are not supposed to continue force, which is what Zimmerman did: > [@GZ](#): > > “It felt like he was hitting me with bricks, so, I remember, once I shot him, I holstered my firearm and I got on top of him and I held his hands up because he was still talking." He holstered his gun. A frightened person does not holster his gun. They don’t get on top of the hot lava that just tried to kill him either. He thought Martin had a brick. Not a gun. Last I checked, bricks make poor projectiles. 'Specially when thrown in the dark. So why didn’t Zimmerman run when he had a chance? Why did he clobber Martin to the ground after firing his weapon? The answer is pretty damn obvious. He knew he could overtake Martin. He could have retreated, but he chose not to. ---
**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 19, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5291 "2012-08-19T19:41:33Z")
Both of you are still assuming Zimmerman attacked Martin after shooting him, a statement that is backed up with no evidence. He claims he was restraining him, and was seen doing that - and was perfectly within his rights to do so. Your fantasy narratives with no basis in evidence are irrelevant here. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5292 "2012-08-19T20:03:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Both of you are still assuming Zimmerman attacked Martin after shooting him, a statement that is backed up with no evidence. He claims he was restraining him, and was seen doing that - and was perfectly within his rights to do so. Your fantasy narratives with no basis in evidence are irrelevant here. Try walking up to a random stranger and physically restraining them. See what happens. If you even look like you are about to restrain someone, the state has grounds to charge you with assault. If you actually restrain someone? Battery. It’s quite amusing to see you squirm. If Zimmerman had been law enforcement, you would have had been authorized to physically restrain Martin. But he was a regular schmoe, no different from me or you. He had no right to lay a hand on the kid. After shooting Martin, his only “right” was to get his ass out of the situation. If the injured Martin had fled at that point, the cops were responsible for catching up to him. Not Zimmerman. What if the bullet had merely grazed Martin? Zimmerman getting on top of him would been a Very Bad Thing Indeed. Surely even the most blind Zimmerman supporter can see this. ---
**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 19, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5293 "2012-08-19T21:04:19Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > That doesn’t appear to be true on it’s face. > The general SD law refers to who started the altercation as well as the SYG part, iirc. > The main difference was about where and when you could be justified in using deadly force, iirc. It’s true if you take O’Mara’s statement to its logical conclusion. If O’Mara believed Zimmerman was not the aggressor, he would be ethically bound to defend the guy under SYG. Otherwise, he would be unfairly increasing the likelihood that his client would go to jail. So unless we assume O’Mara is acting unethically, we should be asking ourselves why he is not seeking to avail his client of all the advantages the law has to offer defendants who are claiming self defense. There is no “general SD law”, okay? There is only two types of self defense in Florida: SYG and home invasion. SYG includes self defense by an aggressor, with the caveat that aggressors have a duty to retreat before they resort to deadly force. This still counts falls under SYG, though. > [@](#): > > I can see the no longer a threat part. > But I am not sure that the spreading the arms out bit constitutes continuing the fight. Its battery, so yes this would constitute continuing the fight. It sure doesn’t constitute retreat, and it also doesn’t constitute “standing one’s ground” since Z advanced towards Martin. By placing himself on top of his victim and restraining him, Zimmerman broke the law. ---
**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 19, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5294 "2012-08-19T21:32:32Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > They get themselves away from the danger. They retreat, if they can. Zimmerman could but did not. He could have gotten away with this under SYG. But take away the “non-aggressor” coverage, and he’s up a creek with this argumentation. I’m not sure SYG would even allow him to do that. While it removes the duty to retreat, it still prohibits the user of deadly force to escalate or continue the conflict. Once Martin “gave up”, Zimmerman was obligated to give up as well. I think Zimmerman’s failure to retreat post-shooting is evidence of Zimmerman’s mentality throughout the entire struggle. Lets suppose Martin had withdrawn force a minute before the gun went off. Maybe he punched him once and then quit. Based on Zimmerman’s conduct at the end, it’s likely Zimmerman would have continued to fight the kid by trying to wrestle him. This would have left Martin with no option except to keep defending himself. Never, at any point, would Martin have had opportunity to walk away from this fight, because Zimmerman was bound and determined to win it at all costs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5295 "2012-08-19T21:48:59Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Try walking up to a random stranger and physically restraining them. See what happens. > > If you even look like you are about to restrain someone, the state has grounds to charge you with assault. > > If you actually restrain someone? Battery. > > It’s quite amusing to see you squirm. > > If Zimmerman had been law enforcement, you would have had been authorized to physically restrain Martin. But he was a regular schmoe, no different from me or you. He had no right to lay a hand on the kid. After shooting Martin, his only “right” was to get his ass out of the situation. If the injured Martin had fled at that point, the cops were responsible for catching up to him. Not Zimmerman. > > What if the bullet had merely grazed Martin? Zimmerman getting on top of him would been a Very Bad Thing Indeed. Surely even the most blind Zimmerman supporter can see this. Wrong. Not even sure why I bother, but wrong. If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, continued to Zimmerman shooting Martin, and if the bullet had merely grazed Martin, following which Zimmerman had leapt upon him and restrained him… That would have been perfectly legal, both for a police officer and a “regular schmoe.” ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5296 "2012-08-19T21:51:03Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It’s true if you take O’Mara’s statement to its logical conclusion. > > If O’Mara believed Zimmerman was not the aggressor, he would be ethically bound to defend the guy under SYG. He is, in fact, defending Zimmerman using the provisions of the law known as “SYG law”. That is, “under SYG”. > [@](#): > > we should be asking ourselves why he is not seeking to avail his client of all the advantages the law has to offer defendants who are claiming self defense. He is, in fact, seeking that. ---
**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 19, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5297 "2012-08-19T21:53:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wrong. > > Not even sure why I bother, but wrong. > > If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, continued to Zimmerman shooting Martin, and if the bullet had merely grazed Martin, following which Zimmerman had leapt upon him and restrained him… That would have been perfectly legal, both for a police officer and a “regular schmoe.” What law allows this action to take place? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5298 "2012-08-19T22:05:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wrong. > > Not even sure why I bother, but wrong. > > If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, continued to Zimmerman shooting Martin, and if the bullet had merely grazed Martin, following which Zimmerman had leapt upon him and restrained him… That would have been perfectly legal, both for a police officer and a “regular schmoe.” Doesn’t it matter _why_ Martin punched him? If Zimmerman had illegally provoked the fight, either by issuing a threat or assaulting Martin, then Martin could have been perfectly justified in punching Zimmerman. And Zimmerman would have been perfectly NOT justified in potentially escalating the violence by tackling him. Windowing the event at the moment when the first punch is thrown and the fatal bullet is shot is ignoring the fact that fights don’t just happen, that there’s always a preceding cascade of causation leading up to them. By not defending his client through the framework that SYG provides, O’Mara is making an important statement about that cascade. He’s telling us that it’s perfectly okay for us to assume that Zimmerman was not on the up-and-up with his initial actions–that his or Martin’s initial actions are totally irrelevant to whether or not he could retreat. I’d be interested in getting a lawyer’s perspective on why O’Mara would go the route he’s taking. Preferable a lawyer who’s not interested in spouting pointless arguments and actually puts some thought in the questions being ask. Are you such a person? ---
**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 19, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5299 "2012-08-19T22:16:38Z")
**monstro** , he still thinks that Zimmerman has to be charged with a forcible felony just for the jury to receive instructions on self defense by an aggressor. His last post shows he thinks it is legal for someone not only to respond to a punch with potentially lethal gun fire, but also for the gunman to turn around and restrain the person they shot. So be for real. He is not the right person. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5300 "2012-08-19T22:54:33Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What law allows this action to take place? Citizen’s arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5301 "2012-08-19T23:01:20Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Doesn’t it matter _why_ Martin punched him? Yes, it does, which is why I started with the phrase, “If Martin initiated the conflict…” If Zimmerman had illegally provoked the fight, either by issuing a threat or assaulting Martin, then Martin did not initiate the conflict. > [@](#): > > Windowing the event at the moment when the first punch is thrown and the fatal bullet is shot is ignoring the fact that fights don’t just happen, that there’s always a preceding cascade of causation leading up to them. I suppose that is true in an interpersonal sense. But under the law, someone takes the first illegal action. We can easily imagine that Zimmerman said something to Martin that was insulting, perhaps accusing him of thievery. In an interpersonal sense, that may have begun the cascade you speak of. But from a criminal context, it’s not relevant. > [@](#): > > By not defending his client through the framework that SYG provides, O’Mara is making an important statement about that cascade. He’s telling us that it’s perfectly okay for us to assume that Zimmerman was not on the up-and-up with his initial actions–that his or Martin’s initial actions are totally irrelevant to whether or not he could retreat. But O’Mara is allowed to argue both theories. He can say, in effect, “My client did not initiate the conflict. But even if you find he did, it doesn’t matter, because he still had the legal right to shoot.” ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5302 "2012-08-19T23:02:54Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Doesn’t it matter _why_ Martin punched him? > > If Zimmerman had illegally provoked the fight, either by issuing a threat or assaulting Martin, then Martin could have been perfectly justified in punching Zimmerman. And Zimmerman would have been perfectly NOT justified in potentially escalating the violence by tackling him. > > Windowing the event at the moment when the first punch is thrown and the fatal bullet is shot is ignoring the fact that fights don’t just happen, that there’s always a preceding cascade of causation leading up to them. > > By not defending his client through the framework that SYG provides, O’Mara is making an important statement about that cascade. He’s telling us that it’s perfectly okay for us to assume that Zimmerman was not on the up-and-up with his initial actions–that his or Martin’s initial actions are totally irrelevant to whether or not he could retreat. > > I’d be interested in getting a lawyer’s perspective on why O’Mara would go the route he’s taking. Preferable a lawyer who’s not interested in spouting pointless arguments and actually puts some thought in the questions being ask. Are you such a person? This line of reasoning would appear to invalidate DeeDee’s account of things, in which Zimmerman was never heard uttering a threat, and it was Martin that spoke first. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=264) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=266)