# 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:** 352
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7023 "2012-11-05T20:50:49Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > I wasn’t talking about before the shooting. Then you weren’t talking about anything that showed Zimmerman’s intent, and you have answered your own question. > [@](#): > > can his actions in diving straight on TM be interpreted as ill-intent? Obviously not, since he had already shot him at that point. And again, you are not making any sense. How does jumping on someone after they are already dead show ill-intent? ISTM that you are trying to have it both ways, so that, no matter what Zimmerman does, you interpret it as malicious. You did this earlier with the fact that Zimmerman only fired once. Zimmerman only fired once, so that (to you) shows he intended to kill Martin, whereas, if Zimmerman had fired multiple times, that would have shown that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. Same thing here. Zimmerman claims he did not know that Martin was dead, and thus rolled Martin off him and checked him for weapons. If Zimmerman was telling the truth, and he did not really know for certain that Martin was dead, then his actions in checking Martin for weapons makes sense. If, as you allege, Zimmerman must have known that Martin was dead, Zimmerman’s actions make no sense at all - why would you check if a dead man was still dangerous? 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:** [November 5, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7024 "2012-11-05T20:50:55Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > I know, it’s frustrating, isn’t it? Frustrating that you can’t actually prove he did anything wrong? Yes, I imagine it must be for someone like you, who just wishes to punish people you dislike regardless of whether they’ve actually broken the law. But frankly, if Zimmerman was still in fear after he shot Martin, what he should have done was shot him again. That he didn’t suggests he was no longer in fear, at least not to the extent that he considered lethal force the necessary response. I’ve no doubt you’ll somehow manage to pretend that this response, which could be considered anywhere between proportionate and wildly risky to his self, is suggestive of his guilt and malice, when it’s the exact opposite. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7025 "2012-11-05T20:51:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, actually it does. That’s the specific criterion allowing the use of lethal force in self defence in Florida. No it doesn’t. I agree there are criteria for lethal force. I don’t think Zimmerman met those criteria. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7026 "2012-11-05T20:52:02Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > I don’t even believe someone can be punched on the nose in one direction, fall to the ground and then slide over 30ft in the opposite direction, however wet the grass was, and however the hard the punch was. That’s nice. Not sure what it’s got to do with anything anybody’s said, but it’s nice that you don’t believe that. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7027 "2012-11-05T20:52:58Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > I don’t even believe someone can be punched on the nose in one direction, fall to the ground and then slide over 30ft in the opposite direction, however wet the grass was, and however the hard the punch was. **dimmy** , it’s useless. That has been brought up several times. They’ll find a way to argue around it. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7028 "2012-11-05T20:57:41Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > No it doesn’t. > > I agree there are criteria for lethal force. > > I don’t think Zimmerman met those criteria. You’ve just said he would reasonably have been in fear. Do you have any evidence that, unreasonably, he wasn’t in fear? There are, of course the exceptions. If Zimmerman was engaged in a forcible felony… oh wait, he’s not even charged with any such felony. If Zimmerman initiated the attack… oh wait, that doesn’t apply as he had no means of escape. If Zimmerman… oh wait, that’s all the exceptions. So, the only criterion is reasonable fear - something you’ve already accepted could have occurred. Of course, if you can _prove_ that Zimmerman was committing a felony, or that he could escape, things would be different. But we know you can’t, else you would have done so on one of the many previous occasions you’ve been asked to, rather than continue your torturous routine of evasions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7029 "2012-11-05T20:58:39Z")
> [@](#): > > They’ll find a way to argue around it. Well, that particular part is difficult to argue against, because it doesn’t make any sense. No one claims that Zimmerman slid thirty feet as the result of a punch in the nose. 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:** [November 5, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7030 "2012-11-05T21:00:15Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > They’ll find a way to argue around it. Yes. That’s kind of the point. The prosecution will need to prove it in such a way that it can’t be argued around. Else, reasonable doubt, not guilty. If you just want to toss around bullshit theories and get butthurt when called on it, that’s up to you, but that won’t stop me and others calling you, and it won’t stop a jury finding Zimmerman not guilty, if this case even gets that far. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7031 "2012-11-05T21:01:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, that particular part is difficult to argue against, because it doesn’t make any sense. No one claims that Zimmerman slid thirty feet as the result of a punch in the nose. > > Regards, > Shodan And that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7032 "2012-11-05T21:02:47Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > P.S. Watch the Hannity interview. I think that’s where he said he wasn’t afraid and that Martin was “skipping away” LOL. > > On that alone, how the hell can he claim self-defense? This is what is driving me crazy with these groupies. I just looked at a transcript from the Hannity interview: > [@](#): > > HANNITY: Yeah. You said – then we get to the issue where you said to – on the 911 call that he’s running. You said that to the dispatch. Is there any chance in retrospect as you look back on that night and what happened, and the nation obviously is paying a lot of attention to this– > ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. > HANNITY: – trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time – that maybe he was afraid of you, didn’t know who you were? > ZIMMERMAN: No. > HANNITY: You don’t think – why do you think that he was running then? > ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more – > HANNITY: You said he’s running. > ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn’t running out of fear. > HANNITY: You could tell the difference? > ZIMMERMAN: He wasn’t running. > HANNITY: So he wasn’t actually running? That seems to be Zimmerman saying that MARTIN felt no fear, as opposed to Zimmerman saying that he himself was not afraid. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7033 "2012-11-05T21:04:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That seems to be Zimmerman saying that MARTIN felt no fear, as opposed to Zimmerman saying that he himself was not afraid. Don’t try to confuse them with facts and evidence, that’s just unfair. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7034 "2012-11-05T21:05:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then you weren’t talking about anything that showed Zimmerman’s intent, and you have answered your own question. > Obviously not, since he had already shot him at that point. > > And again, you are not making any sense. How does jumping on someone after they are already dead show ill-intent? > > ISTM that you are trying to have it both ways, so that, no matter what Zimmerman does, you interpret it as malicious. You did this earlier with the fact that Zimmerman only fired once. Zimmerman only fired once, so that (to you) shows he intended to kill Martin, whereas, if Zimmerman had fired multiple times, that would have shown that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. > > Same thing here. Zimmerman claims he did not know that Martin was dead, and thus rolled Martin off him and checked him for weapons. If Zimmerman was telling the truth, and he did not really know for certain that Martin was dead, then his actions in checking Martin for weapons makes sense. If, as you allege, Zimmerman must have known that Martin was dead, Zimmerman’s actions make no sense at all - why would you check if a dead man was still dangerous? > > Regards, > Shodan If Zimmerman was aware that Trayvon was using both hands to smother him and to slam his head against the concrete, he was also aware enough to know TM couldn’t have been carrying a weapon, so the question is, why jump on him at all? Maybe he never did jump on him and had actually been in top control when he shot TM? Maybe George said he didn’t remember if he’d flipped TM over because he wasn’t sure at that point if anyone had seen him do it? ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7035 "2012-11-05T21:06:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, that particular part is difficult to argue against, because it doesn’t make any sense. No one claims that Zimmerman slid thirty feet as the result of a punch in the nose. > > Regards, > Shodan Okay, instead of “sliding,” how about “fluttered like a butterfly?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7036 "2012-11-05T21:08:33Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Bricker, > > Would 776.012 even be available to Zimmerman? > > I mentioned this weeks ago, but wouldn’t 776.041 be more appropriate? > > **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.**_ > > I am guessing section two would be relevant…it’s going to be an uphill battle for the defense considering the wounds don’t really match up with him being “pounded into the pavement” and the lack of evidence on Martin (DNA and otherwise)–although the chorus keeps on bringing up this small scratch on Martin (BULLSHIT). > > I am going to assume they will try to argue from section (b). > > This will be problematic…considering a simple analysis of the timeline. Zimmerman was “keeping an eye on” (LOL) Martin for AT LEAST 15-17 minutes before the killing. Even the police said Martin was generally going in the direction of the house. Zimmerman admitted on the call that “he ran”. > > Again, what the hell does Zimmerman have? I don’t agree with you that section (b) is defeated by the timeline. The defense will argue that Zimmerman was in fear of serious bodily injury once the fight commenced. They will point to the medical evidence suggesting a broken nose in support of this fear. Whether Zimmerman could have backed away before the fight began is not what (b) represents. Could he have withdrawn after his nose was broken? In any event, I’d be curious to know how the prosecution plans to show the hatred /ill-will / malice element. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7037 "2012-11-05T21:08:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You’ve just said he would reasonably have been in fear. Do you have any evidence that, unreasonably, he wasn’t in fear? > > There are, of course the exceptions. If Zimmerman was engaged in a forcible felony… oh wait, he’s not even charged with any such felony. If a witness had seen him grab hold of the front of TM’s hoody, would it still be a justifiable killing? ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7038 "2012-11-05T21:10:26Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You’ve just said he would reasonably have been in fear. Do you have any evidence that, unreasonably, he wasn’t in fear? > There are, of course the exceptions. If Zimmerman was engaged in a forcible felony… oh wait, he’s not even charged with any such felony. > > If Zimmerman initiated the attack… oh wait, that doesn’t apply as he had no means of escape. > > If Zimmerman… oh wait, that’s all the exceptions. > > **So, the only criterion is reasonable fear - something you’ve already accepted could have occurred.** > > Of course, if you can _prove_ that Zimmerman was committing a felony, or that he could escape, things would be different. But we know you can’t, else you would have done so on one of the many previous occasions you’ve been asked to, rather than continue your torturous routine of evasions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. Another bullshit parade. No, IT’S NOT THE ONLY CRITERION. Zimmerman had several means to avoid the confrontation. The police said this too, so it’s not just me. All of this ‘at the moment’ nonsense… **Bricker,** can you please weigh in on this ‘at the moment’ talk? I am getting a headache. The point that I am trying to get across was that Zimmerman through the TOTALITY OF HIS ACTIONS put himself in that position and killed Martin. The ‘retreat’ could have happened at several junctures which I have written about ad nauseaum. Not only that, it would appear Martin was retreating as well. So we’re in a little bit of a quandary here, aren’t we? if you have read my posts carefully, I haven’t evaded anything you’ve asked of me. I have answered your questions at one time or another. You keep on asking me what Zimmerman did that was illegal? Your answer: killing Martin. I think I have been very clear about this since day 1. Falsehoods…please. We are back to the fishbowl problem. And no, the cat didn’t do it, even though you say so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7039 "2012-11-05T21:14:12Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > The ‘retreat’ could have happened at several junctures which I have written about ad nauseaum. As a general principle, I don’t agree with you on this, as I hinted above. It’s of no moment to look at the totality of the timeline. What the law refers to there is his ability to withdraw after hostilities, if you will, commenced. Again I’ll point out that this is where manslaughter comes into play as a better charge, because the totality of his reckless actions are relevant to manslaughter’s elements. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7040 "2012-11-05T21:16:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I just looked at a transcript from the Hannity interview: > > That seems to be Zimmerman saying that MARTIN felt no fear, as opposed to Zimmerman saying that he himself was not afraid. If Z was that capable of putting himself into TM’s shoes, he wouldn’t be in this predicament. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7041 "2012-11-05T21:18:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree with you that section (b) is defeated by the timeline. The defense will argue that Zimmerman was in fear of serious bodily injury once the fight commenced. They will point to the medical evidence suggesting a broken nose in support of this fear. Whether Zimmerman could have backed away before the fight began is not what (b) represents. Could he have withdrawn after his nose was broken? > > In any event, I’d be curious to know how the prosecution plans to show the hatred /ill-will / malice element. Fair enough **Bricker**. But a fight that he put himself in…is there case law on this? Also, I notice that the section uses the word **AND.** So Zimmerman would have had to withdraw **and** indicate he wants to withdraw/stop the use of force. So BOTH would have to be established, correct? ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7042 "2012-11-05T21:19:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As a general principle, I don’t agree with you on this, as I hinted above. It’s of no moment to look at the totality of the timeline. What the law refers to there is his ability to withdraw after hostilities, if you will, commenced. > > **Again I’ll point out that this is where manslaughter comes into play as a better charge, because the totality of his reckless actions are relevant to manslaughter’s elements.** I know, Bricker, I’m with you. 😉 I agree with manslaughter–i will be happy if gets that. But you have this chorus thinking he should COMPLETELY WALK. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=351) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=353)