# 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:** 307
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6123 "2012-10-11T21:41:22Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > You’ve never been in or witness a situation where someone was restraining another by holding on to their clothes and the person being restrained wanted them to let go and forcibly shoved them? I probably hang out in bars a bit more redneck than the average doper, but I can’t believe you’ve never seen this at some point from playground scuffles all the way on up to adults. > > If Zimmerman is holding on to Martin and gets shoved and loses his balance he isn’t likely to let go. Instinct doesn’t tend to sacrifice a grip for the unknown. Now we know Zimmerman outweighed Martin, so it isn’t out of the question that the difference in mass caused Martin to be dragged down on top of the falling Zimmerman. Then more shoving, perhaps in the face, with Zimmerman still clinging to Martin’s clothes. > > It isn’t that far fetched, Martin has very little injury to his hands and knuckles for such a purported beating. Zimmerman has little or no evidence of defensive wounds for such a struggle. Two participants, Zimmerman clinging desperately to the hoody, and Martin open handed shoving Zimmerman in the torso and head to break free would be expected to have the relatively mild injuries that have been entered in to evidence. Cool. Now 1. Explain why Zimmerman would be, as you stated “clinging desperately” to Martin while getting beaten up (or “shoved in the face”, as you put it) by him. And of course show how the prosecution can possibly prove this beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence that has been made public. 2. You want the jury to believe that Zimmerman for about a minute is “clinging desperately” to Martin, and then out of the blue decides to shoot him. Explain how that happened and show how the prosecution can prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, based on evidence that has been made public. And if you don’t think (as anyone reasonable would, looking at the available evidence) that the prosecution could possibly prove this beyond reasonable doubt, then what’s the point of proposing these fanciful theories? ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6124 "2012-10-11T21:43:43Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > If you spin theories that aren’t supported by evidence, then you aren’t speculating, you are jerking off. I had theories that turned out to not be supported by discovery evidence and changed my mind. Anybody who hasn’t changed their mind based on discovery evidence is in denial. You may not change your mind on Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence , but scenarios that aren’t consistent with the evidence are fantasy. You have a right to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Care to point out where precisely my as you so eloquently put it, jerking off has failed to account for the facts as we know them? I may be remiss, but I believe the only thing that directly contradicts my scenario is Zimmerman’s testimony. Given what I have posited he would have good reason to “spin” his recounting of events. And just what am I in denial of? I have accepted and stated repeatedly that I expect the court with find in Zimmerman’s favor. The evidence is too weak and the burden of proof too great for it to come out any other way. So while justice will be served, I don’t have to feel the result was just. It is the price we pay to minimize the number of innocent people that may be wrongly convicted. I’m ok with that. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6125 "2012-10-11T21:45:33Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Some of the screeds have been much longer than I would expect someone typing with one hand to pull off. This had me rolling on the floor. :D:D:D ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6126 "2012-10-11T21:59:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Cool. Now > > 1. Explain why Zimmerman would be, as you stated “clinging desperately” to Martin while getting beaten up (or “shoved in the face”, as you put it) by him. And of course show how the prosecution can possibly prove this beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence that has been made public. You have me confused with the prosecutor. I am under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. From personal experience I find this a reasonably compelling argument. Should I stumble across anecdotal video to further support my statement I’ll be sure to pass the link on. > [@](#): > > 1. You want the jury to believe that Zimmerman for about a minute is “clinging desperately” to Martin, and then out of the blue decides to shoot him. Explain how that happened and show how the prosecution can prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, based on evidence that has been made public. Again you have me confused with the prosecution. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe anyone I am addressing here is, or will be a member of the jury. Furthermore, I don’t really care what you believe. I am offering my opinion on the events. > [@](#): > > And if you don’t think (as anyone reasonable would, looking at the available evidence) that the prosecution could possibly prove this beyond reasonable doubt, then what’s the point of proposing these fanciful theories? While you may believe I don’t think, it is readily apparent that you don’t read. I stated several times that I don’t see anything in the discovery that will lead to a conviction. I can accept that. It doesn’t mean I am unreasonable or more reasonable. It just means I am not emotionally invested in the case. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6127 "2012-10-11T22:17:31Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > But remember, “they always get away”. I don’t find it hard to believe at all that Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin and expected compliance. From what we know of Zimmerman that is no leap of logic. “they always get away” would be an accurate statement given the [8 burglaries](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/zimmerman-neighbor-rash-robberies-young-black-men-trayvon-145647987.html) prior to this event. 9 if you count the one Zimmerman stopped in progress. There’s no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman’s account is false. You can firmly believe he’s a space alien who also bombed the WTC but it takes evidence to make that belief stick. > [@Hbns](#): > > Also no great leap required to believe that Martin shoved Zimmerman. Perhaps Zimmerman stumbles and begins to fall as a result. In his desire to see justice served he clutches at Martin’s hoody dragging him down on top of him. Perhaps he bangs his head in the fall. Somewhat disoriented (or desperate) he continues clutching at Martin as Martin repeatedly shoves him trying to get free. “Help” “Help” the confused Zimmerman hollers, afraid this one too is about to get away. Perhaps Martin fears Zimmerman is calling his boys for help. Martin struggles harder but everytime he shoves Zimmerman down to break away, Zimmerman is still clutching his damn hoody. In desperation he shoves Zimmerman in the face, maybe the heel of his hand connects with Zimmerman’s nose causing trauma. Zimmerman now panics and goes for his gun. Still clutching the hoody he draws his gun. As Martin tries to pull away he fires and finally lets go of the hoody. Martin tries to escape, but his destroyed organs don’t carry him far. > > I think it is at least as plausible as Zimmerman’s tale and it may fit some of the evidence better such as the contact shot with the clothing, but medium range from Martin’s body, and the angle of entry and path of wound. Sure it’s plausible. But that falls under “anything is possible”. There needs to be evidence to prove it happened that way. I’ve never understood the angle of entry idea because there is virtually an infinite number of ways to hold a gun as well as the exact position when it was fired. You have to look at what we know and what makes sense. We know Zimmerman was on the sidewalk where he said he was. The evidence shows he’s telling the truth. Everything prior to that is documented by Zimmerman on the phone. He’s done the right thing by calling the police. Martin doesn’t add anything to his perceived suspicious behavior by glaring at Zimmerman and then running. It doesn’t mean he was planning on robbing the house, but it looks more suspicious. If he thinks Zimmerman means him harm then he did the exact opposite of what he should have done which is call the police and leave the area. What we’re left with is a very short conversation between Martin and Zimmerman that leads to Martin beating Zimmerman and subsequently getting shot. I think it’s safe to say that Martin would have been insulted by Zimmerman questioning his purpose in the area. > [@Hbns](#): > > But as I said, mere speculation as we can’t get Martin’s side of the story to compare notes. That’s absolutely true. It’s unfair, but true. Convictions aren’t based on unfair. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6128 "2012-10-11T22:55:51Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > …but I believe the only thing that directly contradicts my scenario is Zimmerman’s testimony. Given what I have posited he would have good reason to “spin” his recounting of events. It doesn’t make sense that he held on to someone beating him. He didn’t accost the last burglar he was responsible for stopping. He did the same thing, he called the police. Beyond that, I’ve never seen anyone cling on to someone beating them. And like you I’ve been to a few roadhouses in my time. I’ve seen and been peripherally involved with brawls that looked like an old western movie. Bottles broken over heads, people kicked on the ground by a crowd… you name it. It’s not Zimmerman’s word that is being taken at face value. It’s the evidence that supports it and the lack of evidence that contradicts it. It doesn’t mean the evidence proves his word, it means it’s consistent with his account. ---
**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 11, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6129 "2012-10-11T23:11:43Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > What I know about the world is that strange an unlikely things happen in it. Okay, but so what? The jury is still allowed to disregard a theory that is a million times less probable than the opposing theory. Maybe if you were in the jury box, you’d be the lone dissenting voice who thinks unlikeliness has nothing to do with believability, but that doesn’t mean that’s how it does work. The legal system allows jurors to draw inferences based on how likely (or unlikely) something is. Do you disagree with this? Or are talking about what you think the legal system _should_ allow? > [@](#): > > And the reason why it’s irrelevant is because unlikely things happen. Just being unlikely does not mean that it didn’t happen. Jurors should consider that unlikely things happen, imho. It’s just a fact about the world as we know it. But it is not necessary for things to be impossible for them to be unbelievable. I mean, think about it. What’s the whole point of using testimony from character witnesses, if what you’re saying is true? It’s not impossible for a law-abiding honor student with college aspirations and no history of violence or anger issues to suddenly go into a crazy, murderous rampage, but most reasonable people will have a hard time believing this if the only person making this claim is the one trying to get off murder charges and has a known history of lying. > [@](#): > > Each juror gets to make up their own mind. But the fact that there was some angle which was an unlikely angle for the bullets trajectory is not the same as it being impossible. Unlikely things happen. Why can’t this be one of the many unlikely things which occur in the world? Unlikely things might happen, but not frequently enough to override common sense. That’s why the issue of likeliness matters in court. When it’s one unlikely thing after another after another eventually there should come a point that a juror gets to say bullshit. And yet even a string of unlikely events is theoretically possible. Then there is the question: What evidence is there to support that a specific unlikely thing happened? When Zimmerman reenactment the shooting, why did he extend his arms in front of him rather than kink his elbow and wrist? If we are to accept that he managed to pull off the unlikely, why doesn’t his own actions support the idea that he pulled out this feat? Why would he hold out his arms in exactly the way we would expect him to if he shot Martin from an upright position? > [@](#): > > No, they do not have to believe it. They do not at all. But there’s nothing about being unlikely which renders it identical to impossible. “Impossible” is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > And his re-enactment is 100% percent identical to how things went down? > Or is it unreliable? His reenactment is 100% identical to _how he says it went down_. And so that is what we’re going off of when we say his claim is unbelievable when reconciled with the forensics. It’s also unreliable because he contradicts himself a lot. > [@](#): > > Imho, there’s room for some error in his next day re-enactment. I don’t think that he had anything to reference and study in the meantime. So, if he mis-remembered something as un-thought out as the angle of his wrist, it seems well within the bounds of acceptable human memory performance. He acted out the shooting multiple times. A few hours after the shooting and the following day during the reenactment. And all times he pantomimed taking aim with a straight arm and a straight wrist. Not once did he “correct” himself either. He did it repeatedly the same way, over and over. A juror is allowed to ask themselves how likely is it that a person, asked to relive one of the most important experiences of their life, would screw up this detail. Any juror who thinks “not likely” will probably then assume his account contains untruths. If you think Zimmerman has lied, what has led you to that conclusion? I’m sincerely curious, if you’re saying you think unlikeliness is immaterial. For instance, do you believe that Zimmerman exited his truck to look for a street sign rather than look for Martin? If you think he lied about this, why? > [@](#): > > But I just don’t happen to find the hypothesis that there some physical impossibility which prevented the bullet’s trajectory from arising from the physical circumstances which Z alleges. Then why not say that, instead of asking for data? Seriously, it would have saved me the trouble of digging up a cite that presents arguments that you already know you have problems with. I don’t have a problem with you being skeptical but it’ll save us time if you just cop to that upfront instead of playing the “I need data” agnostic game. > [@](#): > > I guess I haven’t explained myself well. I am objecting to or “scoffing at” your assertion that there’s something so unlikely about Z account of where and when he fired the gun that it makes it virtually impossible to be true. The crux of our disagreement is that you think something has to be proven impossible to rightly be rejected as false, and I don’t. Unlikely is not equal to impossible. Proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessitate proving the defendant’s theory is physically impossible. A jury can disbelieve Zimmerman’s version of how the shooting took place even if there is a remote probability that it could have occurred as he claimed. > [@](#): > > All that gratitude notwithstanding, what’s at issue is not whether there’re things which can be determined from the bullet’s trajectory, but rather whether or not there’s something inherent to the bullet’s trajectory which rules out the possibility that Z was more or less how he says he was when he fired. As I said before (wearily and even more wearily now), you’ll have to wait and see what the experts say in court. Maybe you’re right and the ballistics are inconclusive to the question of Zimmerman’s credibility, but I and others disagree with you. And I couldn’t care less about that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6130 "2012-10-11T23:55:23Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > He acted out the shooting multiple times. A few hours after the shooting and the following day during the reenactment. And all times he pantomimed taking aim with a straight arm and a straight wrist. Not once did he “correct” himself either. He did it repeatedly the same way, over and over. A juror is allowed to ask themselves how likely is it that a person, asked to relive one of the most important experiences of their life, would screw up this detail. Any juror who thinks “not likely” will probably then assume his account contains untruths. He didn’t lay on the ground in the reenactment, he didn’t scream in the reenactment, he didn’t do a lot of stuff in the reenactment. It’s not a literally replay of what happened. It’s not meant to be a literal replay of what happened. If he’s asked in court if it’s a literal reenactment the answer is going to be no. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6131 "2012-10-12T00:19:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > “they always get away” would be an accurate statement given the [8 burglaries](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/zimmerman-neighbor-rash-robberies-young-black-men-trayvon-145647987.html) prior to this event. 9 if you count the one Zimmerman stopped in progress. A) Who gives a shit? That doesn’t give Zimmerman license to strap on his pretend deputy badge and hunt down a perp. Secondly, are you suggesting Zimmerman stopped Martin from committing a burglary? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6132 "2012-10-12T00:25:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The crux of our disagreement is that you think something has to be proven impossible to rightly be rejected as false, and I don’t. Unlikely is not equal to impossible. Proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessitate proving the defendant’s theory is physically impossible. A jury can disbelieve Zimmerman’s version of how the shooting took place even if there is a remote probability that it could have occurred as he claimed. I kind of winced at some of your earlier formulations, but this is generally accurate. I wouldn’t use the words “remote probability,” though, because a probability can be remote and still be reasonable. Courts have struggled with any more precise definition of _reasonable_ doubt than the words themselves. Indeed, as Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in Victor v. Nebraska: “[S]o long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt . . . the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof. . . . . Rather, ‘taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.’” The Court goes on to approve the language used in a California case called Sandoval: > [@](#): > > "A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places upon the State the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. > “Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge.” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6133 "2012-10-12T00:53:14Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > A) Who gives a shit? That doesn’t give Zimmerman license to strap on his pretend deputy badge and hunt down a perp. It simple shows the statement for what it is as well as Zimmerman’s past actions. He didn’t strap on a deputy badge, he called the police. Both times. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Secondly, are you suggesting Zimmerman stopped Martin from committing a burglary? Could have. Doesn’t matter. Don’t care. The 9th burglary was stopped by Zimmerman before it was successfully completed. It was in the cite I posted. Early in the same month he stopped a burglary in progress. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6134 "2012-10-12T01:56:20Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > Care to point out where precisely my as you so eloquently put it, jerking off has failed to account for the facts as we know them? I may be remiss, but I believe the only thing that directly contradicts my scenario is Zimmerman’s testimony. Given what I have posited he would have good reason to “spin” his recounting of events. I didn’t really have you in mind when I wrote my post. You have been around in this thread for awhile. I’m tired of newbies posting in this thread who haven’t bothered to familiarize themselves with the evidence or the law or even the rules of the SDMB before posting. At this point people should cite evidence that supports their scenarios. Some pf us have been hashing these issues around since March. Sitting around correcting newbies unfamiliar with the basic facts is a waste of time. This is like sitting in a graduate physics seminar and someone who didn’t even take high school physics, but who wants to put their two cents worth coming in and spouting off. I have tons of links to the articles discussing this case and places to download the evidence. I’ll post them and people can read them and have an informed opinion. Read the most recent material first. A lot of thing we thought we knew back in the spring turned out to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6135 "2012-10-12T03:14:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > “they always get away” would be an accurate statement given the [8 burglaries](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/zimmerman-neighbor-rash-robberies-young-black-men-trayvon-145647987.html) prior to this event. 9 if you count the one Zimmerman stopped in progress. 1. They always get away. 2. (Travyon Martin was fleeing Zimmerman at the time he made this statement). So, what conclusions can we reach? Maybe Trayvon Martin was the “they”. Would it be a stretch of logic to assume that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a burglar? Of course not. This is basic logic. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6136 "2012-10-12T04:06:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Beyond that, I’ve never seen anyone cling on to someone beating them. And like you I’ve been to a few roadhouses in my time. I’ve seen and been peripherally involved with brawls that looked like an old western movie. Bottles broken over heads, people kicked on the ground by a crowd… you name it. I’ve only ever seen a person get a bottle broken over their head once. It ended with about 35 stitches in the scalp and a concussion. Bottles in real life don’t work like in westerns. I’ll steer well clear of your hang outs. 😉 I agree it makes no sense if Martin is beating Zimmerman. We don’t have strong evidence that he was beating him. We have evidence that Zimmerman sustained injuries consistent with striking his head on the ground (pavement) one or more times and a facial injury consistent with one or more blows impacting the nose. If the head wound is from falling and nose injury is from Martin trying to break free of Zimmerman’s restraint, there is no beating from Martin. There is just a guy trying to hold on to a young man surprised that the young man isn’t willing to hang around for the cops. “Ok you got it” Martin after being shot (or seeing the gun?) finally acquiescing to Zimmerman’s probable demands that he remain until the cops arrive? > [@](#): > > It’s not Zimmerman’s word that is being taken at face value. It’s the evidence that supports it and the lack of evidence that contradicts it. It doesn’t mean the evidence proves his word, it means it’s consistent with his account. I’ve not suggested anything inconsistent with the evidence. Nor am I suggesting that Zimmerman’s story is inconsistent with the evidence. I am speculating what else may sensibly fit the evidence that does not strongly corroborate Zimmerman’s account. I’ve provided a plausible explanation for: The wounds on both actors The near absence of wounds on the hands of the purported attacker The relatively insubstantial nature of the wounds on the purported victim The lack of defensive wounds on the purported victim The time delay The movement The witness accounts The clothes being away from the body when the shot is fired The shooting victims odd final remark Zimmerman will in all likelihood be acquitted, but not because the facts prove his story beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather because not enough facts exist to discredit his story beyond a reasonable doubt. And again, I’m fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6137 "2012-10-12T04:16:10Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I didn’t really have you in mind when I wrote my post. Thanks for the clarification. I thought it seemed a bit out of character for you. I get the frustration, I think there people on both sides with vested interest in their position that tend to let their emotions cloud their arguments. I haven’t agreed with everything you have posted, and in some instances think there are other reasonable explanations of the facts we do know, but you have provided more evidence for your reasoning than most and that is appreciated. > [@](#): > > I have tons of links to the articles discussing this case and places to download the evidence. I’ll post them and people can read them and have an informed opinion. Read the most recent material first. A lot of thing we thought we knew back in the spring turned out to be wrong. That would be excellent. You could even PM me the most recent stuff if you wanted. ---
**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 12, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6138 "2012-10-12T04:17:29Z")
Cite for Martin “fleeing” at any point. The actual evidence, both witness evidence and the physical evidence, of who was where when, suggest quite strongly otherwise. Most importantly, if Martin _had_ been fleeing, he would have got to the house he was staying at in the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the police. Would you care to speculate why a person in fear, fleeing, would not go to a nearby safe place, but instead turn around and return to where the person they were fleeing from was? My conclusion, of course, is that he wasn’t fleeing. What’s yours? Oh, you’re right that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a burglar. That’s why he called the police. You know, like you’re supposed to when you see someone acting suspiciously. ---
**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 12, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6139 "2012-10-12T04:24:49Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > Zimmerman will in all likelihood be acquitted, but not because the facts prove his story beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather because not enough facts exist to discredit his story beyond a reasonable doubt. > > And again, I’m fine with that. **Hbns** , yours is a good analysis. I’m sure you already understand this, but I’m going to point it out for other people. If Martin were on trial for assault, with the same facts in evidence as in this case, the existence of your plausible narrative would mean he’d be found not guilty. In the same way, as there’s a plausible narrative where Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman should be found not guilty. The only point I’d disagree with you on factually is that Zimmerman appears to have more than one facial injury, which suggests to me that Martin hit him more than once. My point has never been that Zimmerman should walk because I believe he’s innocent, it’s that he should walk because there is insufficient evidence that he’s guilty. I don’t know if anyone remembers, but way back when all this started, I though it was obvious he was guilty of something, quite possibly manslaughter. It’s through looking at the facts that I changed my opinion. ---
**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 12, 2012, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6140 "2012-10-12T04:25:50Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I have tons of links to the articles discussing this case and places to download the evidence. I’ll post them and people can read them and have an informed opinion. Read the most recent material first. A lot of thing we thought we knew back in the spring turned out to be wrong. Please do. It would be extremely useful to have them all in one place. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6141 "2012-10-12T18:20:12Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > That would be excellent. You could even PM me the most recent stuff if you wanted. When I extracted my Evernote database it turned out to be 10mb, so I zipped it up to 1mb. If you are interested in installing Evernote, then I can extract it in database format. [https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGTk00Tk1hNWt1RGM](https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGTk00Tk1hNWt1RGM) **Serino Timeline** [https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGTW9Mc1hLd2RDQlk](https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGTW9Mc1hLd2RDQlk) **trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf** [https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGenJvQ0lVdTUyR1E](https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGenJvQ0lVdTUyR1E) **zimmerman-discovery-0809.pdf** [https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGRHpEakU0VDdmQnM](https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGRHpEakU0VDdmQnM) **99916379-Documents-Given-to-the-Defendant-R-1.pdf** [https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGTWFVTUVLQW1OSUU](https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bzn-XlBIM9nGTWFVTUVLQW1OSUU) ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6142 "2012-10-12T18:30:21Z")
[quote=“JoelUpchurch, post:6141, topic:619125”] As I mentioned, a lot of the early articles turned out to be wrong, when the discovery evidence was published. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=306) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=308)