# 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:** 285
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5683 "2012-10-04T14:13:14Z")
Bricker, what do you think of this exchange? : **My response: And I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t add up to me either. IMO, everything I needed to know came from his mouth in the police interviews.** **Other poster: Out of curiosity, if Zimmerman didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, what was his motivation? Just for kicks? Or did he cover his extreme hatred of black people by mentoring them, going into business with them, and protesting on their behalf? Or are you one of those moon-bats that is convinced he was some kind of sadist?** Irrational? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5684 "2012-10-04T14:15:31Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > But also Bricker, wouldn’t the jury (and prosecution) want to try to piece together “what actually happened”? > > My good sense tells me Zimmerman is lying. This is my conclusion after watching all of the police interviews and hearing him speak (and I had a poster tell me that I should only take _certain_ things he said WTF???). > > I assume the prosecution will try to establish he is not being truthful. I am sure the jury will want to know too. Sure. But the jury will be told, “It’s not enough to think ‘He might be lying,’ or even ‘He’s probably lying.’ You must find that he is lying _beyond a reasonable doubt_ – that means that you must eliminate every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt.” if the jury deliberates and finds that they have two alternative possibilities on ‘what actually happened,’ even if they think one is much more likely than the other – they still must acquit if the less likely one is one of innocence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5685 "2012-10-04T14:17:29Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Bricker, what do you think of this exchange? : > > **My response: And I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t add up to me either. IMO, everything I needed to know came from his mouth in the police interviews.** > > **Other poster: Out of curiosity, if Zimmerman didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, what was his motivation? Just for kicks? Or did he cover his extreme hatred of black people by mentoring them, going into business with them, and protesting on their behalf? Or are you one of those moon-bats that is convinced he was some kind of sadist?** > > Irrational? Fallacious, at least – the fallacy of the excluded middle. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5686 "2012-10-04T14:19:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. But the jury will be told, “It’s not enough to think ‘He might be lying,’ or even ‘He’s probably lying.’ You must find that he is lying _beyond a reasonable doubt_ – that means that you must eliminate every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt.” > > if the jury deliberates and finds that they have two alternative possibilities on ‘what actually happened,’ even if they think one is much more likely than the other – they still must acquit if the less likely one is one of innocence. Fair enough. I don’t assume there will be two alternative possibilities, one of which is exculpatory. But this assumes the prosecution does their homework. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5687 "2012-10-04T14:21:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fallacious, at least – the fallacy of the excluded middle. Thank you. I like you already-someone who is thinking clearly!! In the rest of his post, I identified a few false dilemmas. False dilemmas are common among some posters here–it’s this black and white thinking I am talking about. Either/or–no other possibilities. That drives me crazy. I try to point this out (and some other posters) and they get trashed and insulted. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5688 "2012-10-04T14:26:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fallacious, at least – the fallacy of the excluded middle. Also, another “charitable” interpretation. LOL! I like your sense of humor. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5689 "2012-10-04T14:47:45Z")
Still waiting. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5690 "2012-10-04T14:57:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Zimmerman did not set out to kill Martin. The death, in my opinion, was a result of carelessness on Zimmerman’s part, panic when carrying a gun. I agree that it’s _possible_ he overreacted to a self-defense type situation, but don’t you think Trayvon Martin had something to do with it as well? ---
**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:** [October 4, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5691 "2012-10-04T15:04:37Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > I agree that it’s _possible_ he overreacted to a self-defense type situation, but don’t you think Trayvon Martin had something to do with it as well? What evidence do you have that Martin did anything to provoke Zimmerman, other than his mere say so? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5692 "2012-10-04T15:06:01Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Fair enough. > > I don’t assume there will be two alternative possibilities, one of which is exculpatory. > But this assumes the prosecution does their homework. In my view, the biggest hurdle facing the state of Florida is disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the self-defense claim. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5693 "2012-10-04T15:10:03Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Thank you. > > I like you already-someone who is thinking clearly!! > > In the rest of his post, I identified a few false dilemmas. > > False dilemmas are common among some posters here–it’s this black and white thinking I am talking about. Either/or–no other possibilities. > > That drives me crazy. > > I try to point this out (and some other posters) and they get trashed and insulted. Yes, like your excluding the part where I asked you: > [@](#): > > What do you suppose Zimmerman’s motivation for murdering an innocent black teenager was? No false dilemmas. A simple question. Your claim is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Bricker is not saying that, which is why he is _able_ to give a nuanced, gray answer. You, however, believe that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (i.e. murder). So if he was not acting in self-defense, then why did he kill Trayvon? You can answer that question any way that you would like to. You’ve chosen instead to avoid answering the question. Like you, red Herrings (to me) are a sign of people lying or hiding something. I don’t think you have a good answer or you would have given it. That’s my take anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5694 "2012-10-04T15:11:26Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > I agree that it’s _possible_ he overreacted to a self-defense type situation, but don’t you think Trayvon Martin had something to do with it as well? Something? Of course. If he had decided to boycott Skittles that day, none of this would have happened. But he had every right to walk to the store and buy Skittles. So what I suspect you’re asking is: did Martin do something of legal significance? Obviously, I don’t know. I suspect that Martin struck Zimmerman in the nose. Whether this was unprompted, prompted by some legal act of Zimmerman’s which alarmed Martin, or prompted by some illegal act of Zimmerman’s which caused Martin to defend himself, I can only speculate. But since Martin is not on trial, this is only speculation. From a trial perspective, the question is: what can the state prove? ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5695 "2012-10-04T15:13:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, the biggest hurdle facing the state of Florida is disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the self-defense claim. Again, this is where my confusion comes in… I thought if it’s self-defense, I would assume the side claiming it has to prove it. But apparently Zimmerman’s team doesn’t have to prove it’s self-defense, just claim it. This is what i am being told. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5696 "2012-10-04T15:15:17Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Yes, like your excluding the part where I asked you: > > No false dilemmas. A simple question. Your claim is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Bricker is not saying that, which is why he is _able_ to give a nuanced, gray answer. You, however, believe that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (i.e. murder). So if he was not acting in self-defense, then why did he kill Trayvon? > > You can answer that question any way that you would like to. You’ve chosen instead to avoid answering the question. Like you, red Herrings (to me) are a sign of people lying or hiding something. I don’t think you have a good answer or you would have given it. That’s my take anyway. Again, let me clear the waters a bit. Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder. In Florida, this charge does not require an intent to kill on the part of the accused. So when **Betenoire** suggests that Zimmerman murdered Martin, you ( **emeraldia** ) seem to suggest that there must have been some reason that Zimmerman wanted Martin dead, and are asking **betenoire** to provide it. But the charge merely alleges (inter alia) that Zimmerman killed Martin, not that Zimmerman _intended_ to kill Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5697 "2012-10-04T15:16:55Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Why are there crickets about the fact he had no bruises when he should have? The lack of bruising is a bit curious and certainly calls for closer scrutiny of the rest of his “story” to the know evidence. But, it isn’t unheard of to fracture your nose and not have bruising. I experienced such. I took a blow to the face sever enough to fracture my nose in several places and require surgical repair. Yet I had no bruising\*. Just one hell of a gusher bloody nose. It was pouring out before I could get my hand to my face. Conceivable that on his back the blood went back into the sinus cavity and throat? However, surprising then that there isn’t some droplets or spittle containing blood on Martin from Zimmerman screaming for help. I’m still firmly in the Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, they struggled, Martin got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him. Unfortunately as long as Zimmerman sticks to his story there isn’t much to go on. ☹ \*After the surgery I looked like a raccoon (two massive black eyes). I don’t even want to know what they did to me. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5698 "2012-10-04T15:17:42Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What evidence do you have that Martin did anything to provoke Zimmerman, other than his mere say so? Broken nose, bloody head, the screaming, the witness accounts. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5699 "2012-10-04T15:21:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again, let me clear the waters a bit. > > Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder. In Florida, this charge does not require an intent to kill on the part of the accused. So when **Betenoire** suggests that Zimmerman murdered Martin, you ( **emeraldia** ) seem to suggest that there must have been some reason that Zimmerman wanted Martin dead, and are asking **betenoire** to provide it. > > But the charge merely alleges (inter alia) that Zimmerman killed Martin, not that Zimmerman _intended_ to kill Martin. The charges imply that Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon in an attempt to defend himself. It implies a “depraved mind”. It excludes the idea that he was acting in self-defense. I’d like to hear why Betenoire (or preferably the prosecution) believes that Zimmerman pulled the trigger? If the prosecution was not alleging that Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon Martin, they would have charged him with manslaughter. I think their charge of murder _does_ imply the intention on Zimmerman’s part to kill (or at least do great bodily harm.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5700 "2012-10-04T15:22:07Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Again, this is where my confusion comes in… > > I thought if it’s self-defense, I would assume the side claiming it has to prove it. > > But apparently Zimmerman’s team doesn’t have to prove it’s self-defense, just claim it. > > This is what i am being told. Correct. In Florida, self-defense is not a traditional affirmative defense. In Florida, the accused can raise self-defense by his testimony, and the burden then shifts to the prosecution to disprove it, beyond a reasonable doubt. > [@](#): > > When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; **defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable** ). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, **the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense**. Fields, 988 So.2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Quoting _Falwell v. State_, 88 So. 3d 970 (Fl. DCA 2012) and emphasis added by me. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5701 "2012-10-04T15:26:02Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > Yes, like your excluding the part where I asked you: > > No false dilemmas. A simple question. Your claim is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Bricker is not saying that, which is why he is _able_ to give a nuanced, gray answer. You, however, believe that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (i.e. murder). So if he was not acting in self-defense, then why did he kill Trayvon? > > You can answer that question any way that you would like to. You’ve chosen instead to avoid answering the question. Like you, red Herrings (to me) are a sign of people lying or hiding something. I don’t think you have a good answer or you would have given it. That’s my take anyway. Sir, \*\* You just don’t know when to stop—even when I have tried to disengage you.\*\* **Sounds like very familiar behavior-** -the same behavior that led to this case in the first place. Is that why you have your views about Zimmerman? Yes, I am attacking you as I have had ENOUGH of you. You are completely ignoring the CONTEXT of why I made my comment. You are completely ignoring that even another poster commented on your fallacies. So then you throw another red herring. Look at the exchange again: I wrote: “And I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t add up to me either. IMO, everything I needed to know came from his mouth in the police interviews.” You responded by asking me a question about what I think Zimmerman’s motives were (WTF???) I don’t answer your red herring, and then you accuse ME of hiding something. Unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5702 "2012-10-04T15:27:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. In Florida, self-defense is not a traditional affirmative defense. In Florida, the accused can raise self-defense by his testimony, and the burden then shifts to the prosecution to disprove it, beyond a reasonable doubt. > > Quoting _Falwell v. State_, 88 So. 3d 970 (Fl. DCA 2012) and emphasis added by me. Thank you Bricker. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=284) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=286)