# 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:** 267
**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 20, 2012, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5323 "2012-08-20T00:58:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Odd that you think this. Martin could have run away screaming his fool head off after he knocked Zimmerman down. Seems to me you want it both ways. Martin likely would have been tackled by Z the minute he tried to run away. How do we know this? Because that’s exactly what happened after he was shot. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5324 "2012-08-20T01:00:26Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > It looks to me that the former gives way more latitude to the defendant than the latter. If I were Zimmerman, I’d be feeling salty right about now. What did he have to lose? I repeat: Why is O’Mara switching strategies like this? I think this has been repeatedly answered. Not sure how else it can be explained. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5325 "2012-08-20T01:04:15Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Martin would be alive and would promptly explain why he punched Zimmerman. The creepy guy had followed him first by truck, then by foot, and had refused to explain his actions to him. So he punched him because he was in reasonable fear of him. The creepy guy then pulled out his gun and fired at him, hitting the kid in his arm. Then the creepy guy tackled him and held him down until the cops arrived. > > If there is justice in this world, there is no way Zimmerman’s conduct would be considered legal. You’ve reached new debating lows to even suggest it. If my analysis is legally incorrect, please identify where I have erred. It seems to me you’re saying that you feel the law permits an unjust result, which is a fair comment…but that I am a bad guy for mentioning this piece of factual information. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5326 "2012-08-20T01:05:07Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Please find evidence that O’Mara is going to play up the “Martin started it!” defense as opposed to “Zimmerman was painted into a corner and had one choice!” Please find evidence that he isn’t. > [@](#): > > I repeat: Why is O’Mara switching strategies like this? He isn’t. You’re misunderstanding, deliberately, what he is saying. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5327 "2012-08-20T01:06:59Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What evidence could he possibly be talking about, that needed to “come out”. The evidence that did come out. Meaning NO evidence came out that disproves his client’s self-defense claim. > [@](#): > > The lawyer is saying more than he’s seeming to say, and fortunately for him, Zimmerman’s supporters lack the discernment to see that. LOL. Fortunately for Zimmerman, your fantasies have nothing to do with reality. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5328 "2012-08-20T01:08:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > To your second question, I think the only thing that makes sense is that O’Mara is begging for a plea deal. His statement to the press is his way of telling the prosecution “ok, you got me” on the whole aggressor thing. Lets make a deal. But I don’t think Corey is open to that. You lead a great fantasy life, don’tcha? ---
**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 20, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5329 "2012-08-20T01:10:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If my analysis is legally incorrect, please identify where I have erred. > > It seems to me you’re saying that you feel the law permits an unjust result, which is a fair comment…but that I am a bad guy for mentioning this piece of factual information. You’re saying a person, after pursuing someone in the dark for several minutes, can not only get away with shooting them in response to a punch but also holding them against their will until the cops show up. And you need me, a non-lawyer, to tell you why that is “legally incorrect”. I don’t believe in teaching adults how to think critically. If you really believe this is legal, I will not invest bandwidth on convincing you otherwise. But I will add this exchange to the growing heap of evidence against your credibility as a lawyer and an intelligent poster. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5330 "2012-08-20T01:13:37Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > This is one of the dagdummiest things anyone has ever said on this message board, **Bricker**. > > A creep is chasing me in the darkness. > > I stop, whirl around, and see him assaulting me. In self-defense, I punch him. > > He CANNOT shoot me and then restrain me under a citizen’s arrest. > > For the most obvious reason, the creep was the one who committed the first act of crime. > > If Zimmerman wants to make the case that Martin provoked the fight, then he needs to tell his lawyer to make the case under Stand Your Ground. But he’s not doing this, even though his defenders keep doing it for him on the interwebs. > > The question is why. > > You could actually provide some useful insight here, but you’re choosing not to. > > The question is why. Again, that’s why I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > \*\*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.” In the sequence of events you provide above, the conflict begins with Zimmerman assaulting Martin. In that case, of course, you’re right. I don’t know why you’re yelling at me. My answer clearly was premised on the conflict beginning with Martin punching Zimmerman. If instead the conflict began with Zimmerman assaulting Martin, what I said is no longer valid. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5331 "2012-08-20T01:16:47Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You’re saying a person, after pursuing someone in the dark for several minutes, can not only get away with shooting them in response to a punch but also holding them against their will until the cops show up. > > And you need me, a non-lawyer, to tell you why that is “legally incorrect”. > > I don’t believe in teaching adults how to think critically. If you really believe this is legal, I will not invest bandwidth on convincing you otherwise. But I will add this exchange to the growing heap of evidence against your credibility as a lawyer and an intelligent poster. Pursuing someone in the dark for several minutes is not a crime, much less a felony. Punching someone in the nose provides probable cause to believe that felony battery has been committed. A private citizen who sees a felony may effect a ciizen’s arrest. What part of that do you believe is in error? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5332 "2012-08-20T01:22:59Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Martin likely would have been tackled by Z the minute he tried to run away. How do we know this? Because that’s exactly what happened after he was shot. Martin didn’t try and run away when he was shot and Zimmerman didn’t tackle him. More importantly Martin didn’t try and run away before he was shot. If he hadn’t been shot he would have likely continued beating Zimmerman. How do we know this? Because he didn’t stop when one of the residents yelled that he was calling the police. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5333 "2012-08-20T01:56:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > . But I will add this exchange to the growing heap of evidence against your credibility as a lawyer and an intelligent poster. I’m not the only lawyer here. Pick another one. GFactor, BottleBlondeJeanie, Oakminster, pravnik are names that come to mind – there are others. Pick one. Let’s invite your pick to comment on the accuracy of what I’ve said. Or is there some “reason” that’s not acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5334 "2012-08-20T02:16:55Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > …So I’m left wondering why O’Mara would focus on the supposed broken nose, but not on the alleged death threat or gun-scrabble. This is another sign that he is a HORRIBLE lawyer, at least in the court of the press conference. O’Mara has been answering a lot of questions that would probably be best left unaswered until a jury has actually been seated but this case has become such a public case that maybe he’s attempting to negate all the BS spewed by the lynch mob leaders and media-types. I don’t know because I’m not O’Mara. A SYG hearing will limit the defense’s options because arguments will be presented that will be applied to the case before a jury but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It still depends on if the SA can PROVE 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I personally doubt that questions about how long TM could have lived after he was shot or if it was possible for a human being to talk after having both lungs punctured, will play a big part in the juries decision. Who started the fight and did GZ believe his live was in imminent danger “should be” the primary considerations. But I won’t be a jury member either. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5335 "2012-08-20T02:29:01Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > A creep is chasing me in the darkness. There is credible evidence to support it was dark during their encounter. Beyond that, is unproven speculation. > [@](#): > > I stop, whirl around, and see him assaulting me. No credible evidence Zimmerman initiated an assault on TM. No credible evidence that he ever attacked him at any point until he defended himself. > [@](#): > > In self-defense, I punch him. Credible evidence of punch- none for self-defense. > [@](#): > > He CANNOT shoot me and then restrain me under a citizen’s arrest. For the most obvious reason, the creep was the one who committed the first act of crime. Based on your hypothetical set of events, Zimmerman would have only been able to shoot Trayvon if he first made an effort to retreat, and TM was using force that he reasonably believed could have caused further great bodily harm or death. In Zimmerman’s version of events, Zimmerman had several legal justifications for attempting to restrain Trayvon after he shot him. He wanted to prevent him from doing any further harm or he was making a citizen’s arrest as Becker suggested. The chances that him restraining Trayvon _after_ he shot him having any significance at trial is close to zero. > [@](#): > > If Zimmerman wants to make the case that Martin provoked the fight, then he needs to tell his lawyer to make the case under Stand Your Ground. But he’s not doing this, even though his defenders keep doing it for him on the interwebs. His attorney is making the case under a provision created by the SYG legislation that grants a pre-trial immunity hearing. Also, all forms of self-defense, including what could be called “traditional self-defense” fall under the SYG umbrella. In this sense, O’Mara _is_ absolutely making the case under Stand Your Ground. However, the SYG legislation includes a provision that removed a previous requirement to retreat if possible. _This_ is the most famous (or infamous) part of the SYG legislation, and the _reason_ they called it Stand Your Ground. It’s what many people think of when they hear Stand Your Ground. This specific provision of SYG does not apply to this case, O’Mara argues, because the facts suggest that it was not possible for Zimmerman to retreat, anyway. So the “no duty to retreat” part of SYG- the most defining feature of SYG, does not apply. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5336 "2012-08-20T03:39:46Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > So I’m left wondering why O’Mara would focus on the supposed broken nose, but not on the alleged death threat or gun-scrabble. This is another sign that he is a HORRIBLE lawyer, at least in the court of the press conference. Some people present SYG as a situation where someone violates your personal space and/or gives you the slightest reason to think that they might be a threat. And, while you could as easily just walked away, you decide to immediately draw your gun and blow them away, and claim you were just “standing your ground.” A “Wild-West”, “shoot first, ask questions later” type situation that isn’t _really_ self-defense. O’Mara’s point is that this isn’t anything like that. Zimmerman was not reacting to some vague idea that TM _might_ attack him. He was reacting to having already sustained a significant injury, the broken nose, right off the bat. And his reaction was not to immediately blow Trayvon Martin away, but to _scream for help_. O’Mara’s point is that this was anything but a “shoot first, ask questions later”-type scenario. This was more of a traditional self-defense situation. It is a very difficult, somewhat nuanced point to try to explain to the public. It makes sense that it would be misunderstood. Especially since 85% of the media has had a distorted understanding of what “SYG” is, and how it does or doesn’t apply. ---
**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 20, 2012, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5337 "2012-08-20T10:23:09Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > O’Mara’s point is that this isn’t anything like that. Zimmerman was not reacting to some vague idea that TM _might_ attack him. \*\*He was reacting to having already sustained a significant injury, the broken nose, right off the bat. \*\* But so what? Zimmerman also claimed he was screaming for help when his head was being pounded, and since that is much more dangerous form of violence and is more immediate to the shooting, you’d think is this where the emphasis would be placed. Not on a single punch. No one has said this is a shoot first, ask questions later situation, so that’s a straw man. > [@](#): > > It is a very difficult, somewhat nuanced point to try to explain to the public. It makes sense that it would be misunderstood. Especially since 85% of the media has had a distorted understanding of what “SYG” is, and how it does or doesn’t apply. Zimmerman wasn’t arrested because he is charged with acting rashly. He was charged with 2nd degree murder. If O’Mara’s goal is to eliminate public misconception of SYG, he did a marvelous job of botching that up. Drawing imaginary distinctions between “retreat is possible” and “retreat is not possible” self defense hurts Zimmerman. ---
**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 20, 2012, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5338 "2012-08-20T10:49:20Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You’re saying a person, after pursuing someone in the dark for several minutes, can not only get away with shooting them in response to a punch but also holding them against their will until the cops show up. > > And you need me, a non-lawyer, to tell you why that is “legally incorrect”. > > I don’t believe in teaching adults how to think critically. If you really believe this is legal, I will not invest bandwidth on convincing you otherwise. But I will add this exchange to the growing heap of evidence against your credibility as a lawyer and an intelligent poster. There is nothing wrong with following someone and talking to them. There is nothing wrong with shooting someone in response to a sustained beating. There is nothing wrong with restraining someone you’ve just witnessed commit a crime. Nothing wrong with any of these things, in a legal or moral sense. Nothing at all. Now, if you want to claim that these are not the things that happened, you need to show actual evidence for it. Not fantasies, not twisting the facts and piling inference upon inference. Actual evidence that proves the point you want to make. Then, you need to show that your narrative actually shows Zimmerman breaking the law, and many of the fictional narratives those of you who want to lynch Zimmerman have invented _still_ don’t rise to that level. You seem to think that Zimmerman should have ignored the rash of burglaries in his neighbourhood, and should have allowed himself to be beaten to a pulp, and you’ve given no good reason for thinking that way, despite being asked repeatedly. So, I’ll ask again. Why do you want someone who’s been shown to have acted in accordance with the law convicted of murder, and why do you repeatedly claim that the guy who gave him a severe beating is a victim? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5339 "2012-08-20T12:57:14Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Now, if you want to claim that these are not the things that happened, you need to show actual evidence for it. Not fantasies, not twisting the facts and piling inference upon inference. Actual evidence that proves the point you want to make. In fairness to **you with the face** – or more accurately in fairness to the general principles of legal analysis – there are two discussions in play here. One is about the law as applied to a given set of facts. In these kinds of discussions, we can hypothetically tweak facts as explore how the change might affect the legal outcome. “If Martin and Zimmerman were struggling with the gun, and a duck flew by and crashed into them causing the gun to discharge, how does the law treat the situation?” That’s a perfectly valid question. No one is advancing the Lone Duck Theory, but discussing what the factual situation produces as a legal result is perfectly legitimate. I have tried to treat these discussions in that way. Propose a set of facts, and I’ll tell you what I think their legal significance is. There’s also the more prosaic argument: “Here’s what the evidence means – these are the facts that actually happened, based on the evidence in play so far.” I have pretty well abandoned that line here in this thread. I think at times the discussion in the thread fails to make clear which line is being followed. ---
**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 20, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5340 "2012-08-20T13:48:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not the only lawyer here. > > Pick another one. GFactor, BottleBlondeJeanie, Oakminster, pravnik are names that come to mind – there are others. If you can find me one lawyer who will say that it’s legal for a civilian to shoot someone who has only punched them because they were frightened by the shooter’s dogged pursuit of them, and that it’s also legal for the shooter to grab their victim so they can’t run away, I will fall out of my chair. Not because you’ve convinced me you’re right, but because I’ll be dismayed to see that there are not one but two lawyers incapable of interpreting the law in a smart, judicious, and intellectually honest manner. Causing serious injury to someone else is one thing, but then standing in the way of them getting medical care by holding them and causing them more physical stress by blocking their freedom of movement from an unidentified vigilante ass is another thing. But go scrouge up someone willing to disagree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5341 "2012-08-20T14:09:22Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If you can find me one lawyer who will say that it’s legal for a civilian to shoot someone who has only punched them because they were frightened by the shooter’s dogged pursuit of them, and that it’s also legal for the shooter to grab their victim so they can’t run away, I will fall out of my chair. Not because you’ve convinced me you’re right, but because I’ll be dismayed to see that there are not one but two lawyers incapable of interpreting the law in a smart, judicious, and intellectually honest manner. > > Causing serious injury to someone else is one thing, but then standing in the way of them getting medical care by holding them and causing them more physical stress by blocking their freedom of movement from an unidentified vigilante ass is another thing. > > But go scrouge up someone willing to disagree with me. But if I do… it won’t change a thing? ---
**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 20, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5342 "2012-08-20T14:24:00Z")
It’ll change my assessment of the legal profession from bad to worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=266) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=268)