# 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:** 292
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5823 "2012-10-06T21:27:59Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Is this what you are referring to? > Or maybe this–this one seems more fitting to me. > > 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. Ah I see you finally bothered to look up the law. Yes, the above applies to Zimmerman even if (and that’s a big if) the prosecution somehow manages to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the confrontation. There is no ambiguity here, and no need for “interpretation”. If Zimmerman had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger, and since he obviously could not retreat (seeing how his assailant was sitting on top of him), he was entitled to use of lethal force in defending himself. If the prosecution (as is very likely) has no way of proving that Zimmerman was the aggressor, then the question of being able to retreat doesn’t come up. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5824 "2012-10-06T21:30:09Z")
I don’t think 776.013 applies–it was in public and not in Zimmerman’s dwelling. Bricker, correct me if I am wrong. 776.031 doesn’t as well, UNLESS there’s more to the case than has been reported. The other ones don’t apply as well, unless I am missing something. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5825 "2012-10-06T21:40:33Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Ah I see you finally bothered to look up the law. > > Yes, the above applies to Zimmerman even if (and that’s a big if) the prosecution somehow manages to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the confrontation. There is no ambiguity here, and no need for “interpretation”. If Zimmerman had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger, and since he obviously could not retreat (seeing how his assailant was sitting on top of him), he was entitled to use of lethal force in defending himself. Excuse me. Just because I have a differing opinion than you does not mean I didn’t look up the law. I have read the laws a number of times. And this is why I am frustrated. Section 1 ALONE might screw Zimmerman. People keep on saying: “Oh ,there’s no evidence Zimmerman did x, y or z”, however, even as Serino said, what the hell would have caused Martin to respond the way he did (if that actually happened?) Maybe Zimmerman DID SOMETHING for Martin to respond, perhaps? What would any rational juror think? My goodness… So someone WHO WAS RETREATING “doubled back” and went crazy. Yeah, sure–according to the word of someone with Zimmerman’s past run-ins and psychological profile. Sure buddy. Section 2b is hard to swallow…Zimmerman has SEVERAL opportunities to end it. Several. This isn’t just me saying this, THE POLICE DID TOO. 2a is also hard to swallow…Zimmerman even said during the interview he had no bruises. I have come out of sparring in worse shape than Zimmerman. What ELSE DOES ZIMMERMAN HAVE??? What else? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5826 "2012-10-06T21:41:00Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Or maybe this–this one seems more fitting to me. > > 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. You do realize, don’t you, that the law you think fits the situation says that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin? There is no evidence that Zimmerman was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after committing, a forcible felony. Asking someone on the street what they are up to does not constitute provoking force against oneself. You are not legally entitled to punch people in the face and bash their heads against the ground if they ask you what you are up to. Even if it were - it isn’t, but even if it were - Zimmerman reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from the use of force by Martin, and he couldn’t escape because Martin was sitting on him bashing his head on the ground. I want to be sure I am absolutely clear here - there is no real evidence that Zimmerman provoked the assault. And - If he had - there is no evidence that he did, but if he had- he was justified in using deadly force because he couldn’t retreat. So, whether Zimmerman was doing anything wrong or not, he was justified either way. Even though there is no evidence he was doing anything wrong. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5827 "2012-10-06T21:42:39Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If the prosecution (as is very likely) **has no way of proving that Zimmerman was the aggressor,** then the question of being able to retreat doesn’t come up. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5828 "2012-10-06T21:54:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You do realize, don’t you, that the law you think fits the situation says that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin? > > There is no evidence that Zimmerman was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after committing, a forcible felony. > > **Asking someone on the street what they are up to does not constitute provoking force against oneself.** You are not legally entitled to punch people in the face and bash their heads against the ground if they ask you what you are up to. > > Even if it were - it isn’t, but even if it were - Zimmerman reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from the use of force by Martin, and he couldn’t escape because Martin was sitting on him bashing his head on the ground. > > I want to be sure I am absolutely clear here - t\*\*here is no real evidence that Zimmerman provoked the assault. \*\* And - > > If he had - there is no evidence that he did, but if he had- he was justified in using deadly force because he couldn’t retreat. > > **So, whether Zimmerman was doing anything wrong or not, he was justified either way**. Even though there is no evidence he was doing anything wrong. > > Regards, > Shodan He didn’t “Ask” anyone…he got out of his car, pursued Martin and screamed at him. **Why is there this constant understating of Zimmerman’s actions?** In other circumstances, if someone did that and say the police were nearby, Zimmerman might get taken in. Zimmerman’s actions would have definitely got me on edge. No real evidence Zimmerman provoked the assault, Shodan? “ **So, whether Zimmerman was doing anything wrong or not, he was justified either way** ” Wow…do you actually believe this? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5829 "2012-10-06T21:55:09Z")
You don’t understand that? What evidence do you think the prosecution will present to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor? Stopping someone on the street does not constitute aggression. It’s legal - it does not justify assault. If you are going to claim that Zimmerman’s history proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the aggressor, you are going to have to deal with the fact that Martin’s history makes it at least as likely that he started the fight. Zimmerman pushed his girlfriend once, and was acquitted of assaulting a police officer. (Acquitted means he was found not guilty. Good luck arguing in court that being acquitted shows that you are a bad guy.) Martin was suspended from school three times for drugs and thievery and vandalism. It is at least as likely that Mr. “No Limit Nigga” was the one with the hair-trigga. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [October 6, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5830 "2012-10-06T21:57:50Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. Striking someone is NOT ALWAYS ASSAULT. Would you charge a women fighting off a rapist with assault if she strikes him? Depends _exactly_ what you mean. If you mean fighting off someone who is attacking her, and attempting to rape her, then no, she would not be charged with assault, she would be defending herself. If it’s someone she believes to be a rapist, but who has not threatened or attacked her, then if she hits him, she should be charged with assault. > [@](#): > > I have a big issue with you saying Zimmerman was “doing nothing wrong” prior to the moment that the PHYSICAL INCIDENT ensued. Your “big issue” is irrelevant unless you have proof he was doing something wrong. If you do, you should get off this message board and contact the DA in Florida, as no-one else has this proof. > [@](#): > > For instance, if I follow someone and (I am making up a scenerio) say brandish a weapon or scream at them something threatening, that in itself can get me into trouble. You can’t just do that to people like that–that’s threatening. It’s assault, it’s illegal, and if the threat was severe and convincing enough, one could use lethal force to defend oneself. > [@](#): > > I have a HUGE problem when people say that Zimmerman was in the clear legally before the actual PHYSICAL confrontation ensued. > > I am being honest here: Zimmerman is flat out CREEPY. His behavior was creepy that night. Very. I could only imagine what must have been going through Martin’s head. That is one scary dude. Being creepy is entirely, unambiguously legal, and you are not allowed to attack someone on the grounds that they are creepy. In any circumstances, in any jurisdiction. > [@](#): > > It is the COMBINATION of events which led to Zimmerman being in this legal predicament. You can’t just cut the event up in piecemeal fashion and then say: well, part 1 is legal. Part 2 is legal, and so on. > > It doesn’t work that way. It works precisely that way. That is why there’s a list of elements that must be satisfied to convict someone of a crime, and every element must be in place to do so. > [@](#): > > As I heard from someone, you can drink as much as you want. Assuming you are overage, that’s legal. You can drive as much as you want, assuming you have a license–that’s legal. > > However, put the two together, you’re going to jail. Kill someone while you do it, you’re probably looking at some prison time. Both of those statements are false before you even put them together. Just one example, it’s illegal to drive if you’re too tired to drive safely, even if you’re stone cold sober. As for combining them, the criminal act is driving while drunk. Not driving. Not being drunk. The specific, well-defined act of driving while drunk. It’s clear you don’t understand how the law works in general, let alone in the highly unusual circumstances of this case ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5831 "2012-10-06T21:58:23Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > He didn’t “Ask” anyone…he got out of his car, pursued Martin and screamed at him. Yes, he got out of his truck. There is no evidence that he pursued him at that point, and no evidence that he screamed at him. > [@](#): > > **Why is there this constant understating of Zimmerman’s actions?** Why the constant exaggeration? > [@](#): > > In other circumstances, if someone did that and say the police were nearby, Zimmerman might get taken in. For what? Being the neighborhood watch? > [@](#): > > Zimmerman’s actions would have definitely got me on edge. So you would have tried to kill him? > [@](#): > > No real evidence Zimmerman provoked the assault, Shodan? > > Wow… Yes, that’s correct - none. Unless you have some. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5832 "2012-10-06T21:59:46Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Excuse me. > > Just because I have a differing opinion than you does not mean I didn’t look up the law. > I have read the laws a number of times. > > And this is why I am frustrated. > > Section 1 ALONE might screw Zimmerman. People keep on saying: “Oh ,there’s no evidence Zimmerman did x, y or z”, however, even as Serino said, what the hell would have caused Martin to respond the way he did (if that actually happened?) What “forcible felony” did Zimmerman commit, prior to the incident, in your opinion? > [@](#): > > Maybe Zimmerman DID SOMETHING for Martin to respond, perhaps? Unless it was some kind of forcible felony BEFORE the incident, it has no relevance to this law. > [@](#): > > Section 2b is hard to swallow…Zimmerman has SEVERAL opportunities to end it. Several. This isn’t just me saying this, THE POLICE DID TOO. Ask Bricker again. This section doesn’t talk about things that happened before the shooting. This section is talking about what happened immediately prior to the shooting. > [@](#): > > 2a is also hard to swallow…Zimmerman even said during the interview he had no bruises. Medical evidence, documented, begs to differ, and note that the law has no mention of bruises. It talks about reasonable belief in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5833 "2012-10-06T22:00:48Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > He didn’t “Ask” anyone…he got out of his car, pursued Martin and screamed at him. Now you’re just making stuff up. The only part of that which happened is that he got out of his car. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5834 "2012-10-06T22:00:56Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 😕 Once again, I will type slowly, so maybe you will understand. The prosecution has no way of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the confrontation (in fact, IMO, they have no way of proving it at all). ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5835 "2012-10-06T22:03:30Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > He didn’t “Ask” anyone…he got out of his car, pursued Martin and screamed at him. Not according to the prosecution’s witness, Deedee, who was supposedly on the phone with Martin at the time and says that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first. Where are you getting the “screamed at him” part? > [@](#): > > In other circumstances, if someone did that and say the police were nearby, Zimmerman might get taken in. What is the crime in getting out of the car and “pursuing” someone? Please cite the relevant law. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5836 "2012-10-06T22:06:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You don’t understand that? > > What evidence do you think the prosecution will present to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor? > > 1. \*\*Stopping someone on the street does not constitute aggression. It’s legal - it does not justify assault. > \*\* > 2. Martin was suspended from school three times for drugs and thievery and vandalism. **It is at least as likely that Mr. “No Limit Nigga” was the one with the hair-trigga.** > > Regards, > Shodan 1. “Stopping someone on the street”??Legal where? Stopping them how? Forcibly? Rest assured, some stranger puts his hands on me, mine will be put on him. 2. What was that about? I am not laughing and don’t think it’s funny. I have heard this argument before coming from some very suspect sources. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5837 "2012-10-06T22:09:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s clear you don’t understand how the law works in general, let alone in the highly unusual circumstances of this case Sir, I was just using the same **chain of reasoning** that people are using to defend Zimmerman. It is not about my interpretation of the law. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5838 "2012-10-06T22:11:42Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Now you’re just making stuff up. The only part of that which happened is that he got out of his car. Deedee?? ---
**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:** [October 6, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5839 "2012-10-06T22:17:41Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Deedee?? No, **Steophan**. But anyway, her statement is that Zimmerman approached Martin and spoke to him. Nothing about pursuing or screaming. Perhaps you should look at the actual evidence here, as you seem as unfamiliar with it as you do the law. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5840 "2012-10-06T22:28:38Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. Striking someone is NOT ALWAYS ASSAULT. Would you charge a women fighting off a rapist with assault if she strikes him? > > I have a big issue with you saying Zimmerman was “doing nothing wrong” prior to the moment that the PHYSICAL INCIDENT ensued. > > For instance, if I follow someone and (I am making up a scenerio) say brandish a weapon or scream at them something threatening, that in itself can get me into trouble. You can’t just do that to people like that–that’s threatening. No, you can’t just brandish a weapon or scream at them threateningly. What does that have to do with the case? > [@betenoire39](#): > > I have a HUGE problem when people say that Zimmerman was in the clear legally before the actual PHYSICAL confrontation ensued. OK. That’s an emotional response without any legal backing. This is IMHO so you can have any feeling you want. > [@betenoire39](#): > > I am being honest here: Zimmerman is flat out CREEPY. His behavior was creepy that night. Very. I could only imagine what must have been going through Martin’s head. That is one scary dude. using your logic Martin should have gone home and called the police on big scary Hispanic guy. All the indications are that Zimmerman never left the sidewalk and was walking back to his car to meet the police who were minutes away. > [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. Entitled according to whom? Should have done what exactly? He was entitled to drive and walk around the area. He was entitled to watch a suspected burglar do the same. > [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. If, if, if, if, if… > If that woman had called a cab then she would be alive right now. > If he had simply given the guy his wallet then that wouldn’t have happened to him. > If, if, if, if, if. you’re the one insisting Martin was afraid. I simply pointed out the fallacy of that argument. If he was afraid he should have gone home. He didn’t. The implication is that he had other intentions. Since we know he confronted Zimmerman and beat the crap out of him it suggests he wasn’t afraid of him. > [@betenoire39](#): > > \*\*Spare me. \*\* > > \*\*Everything needs to be seen continuously and not as discrete parts. \*\* > > It is the COMBINATION of events which led to Zimmerman being in this legal predicament. You can’t just cut the event up in piecemeal fashion and then say: well, part 1 is legal. Part 2 is legal, and so on. > > It doesn’t work that way. > > As I heard from someone, you can drink as much as you want. Assuming you are overage, that’s legal. You can drive as much as you want, assuming you have a license–that’s legal. > > However, put the two together, you’re going to jail. Kill someone while you do it, you’re probably looking at some prison time. Yes, everything needs to be seen continuously. And it will in court. As I said before, the jury will hear the screaming while shown the photos of Zimmerman covered in blood. Prior to that Zimmerman and Martin did nothing wrong. That’s easily tested by separating out the assault from what happened prior. Can Zimmerman or Martin be charged with anything? The answer is no. You can say Martin acted suspiciously looking around at houses in the rain and you can say Zimmerman acted suspicious watching him. But neither of them can act on their suspicions. Zimmerman called the police and reported his suspicions. Martin did not chose to call the police. He chose to engage Zimmerman in conversation and then assaulted him. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5841 "2012-10-06T22:32:36Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. “Stopping someone on the street”??Legal where? Stopping them how? Forcibly? > Rest assured, some stranger puts his hands on me, mine will be put on him. It is legal everywhere in the US. There is no evidence that Zimmerman stopped Martin at all, let alone forcibly. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever put his hands on Martin that I am aware of. Do you have any? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5842 "2012-10-06T23:08:56Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. What was that about? I am not laughing and don’t think it’s funny. I have heard this argument before coming from some very suspect sources. What it’s about is that Martin was suspended 3 times from school and called himself NO\_LIMIT\_NIGGA. He also wore grilz (fake gold teeth in the front like a car grill). He was caught with other people’s jewelry in his position. We don’t bring up the fact that Martin was a punk-ass loser because it’s perfectly legal to be a punk-ass loser. It doesn’t matter that he might be a creepy little turd who thinks of himself in terms of race. He may very well have hated Hispanics. He may also have enjoyed street fights based on the videos that surface. It doesn’t matter in court but when you mention you find Zimmerman creepy this is what you’re going to hear in response. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=291) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=293)