# 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:** 353
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7043 "2012-11-05T21:21:19Z")
> [@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. The “hostilities” haven’t even been conclusively defended as credibly having happened, so shouldn’t the jury be focusing on whether each event after Z has left his home has been proven to be credible before they start getting ahead of themselves? ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7044 "2012-11-05T21:22:51Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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? More stuff that doesn’t make any sense - how does Martin’s use of both hands to slam Zimmerman’s head on the ground prove that Martin could not have been carrying a weapon? It is perfectly possible that Martin had a weapon in his waistband (as Zimmerman did), or in his sock, or in his pocket. The fact that Martin was using both hands to attack Zimmerman says nothing about the contents of his pockets. The way you tell if someone is carrying a weapon is to frisk him. Usually you frisk someone if you feel that they present some risk to you. Dead people present very little risk. Zimmerman frisked Martin, _Ergo_, he did not know if Martin was armed, and he did not know that Martin was dead or dying. Again, Zimmerman’s actions, as attested to by disinterested witnesses, back up his allegation that he did not know if Martin was hit. They do not demonstrate the intent to kill - just the opposite. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7045 "2012-11-05T21:27:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > More stuff that doesn’t make any sense - how does Martin’s use of both hands to slam Zimmerman’s head on the ground prove that Martin could not have been carrying a weapon? > > It is perfectly possible that Martin had a weapon in his waistband (as Zimmerman did), or in his sock, or in his pocket. The fact that Martin was using both hands to attack Zimmerman says nothing about the contents of his pockets. > > The way you tell if someone is carrying a weapon is to frisk him. Usually you frisk someone if you feel that they present some risk to you. Dead people present very little risk. > > Zimmerman frisked Martin, _Ergo_, he did not know if Martin was armed, and he did not know that Martin was dead or dying. > > Again, Zimmerman’s actions, as attested to by disinterested witnesses, back up his allegation that he did not know if Martin was hit. They do not demonstrate the intent to kill - just the opposite. > > Regards, > Shodan Are you being purposely obtuse? Z said he thought TM had been hitting him with a weapon, not that he thought he was carrying one in his pocket. At what point during the struggle do you think Z might have thought he’d put it back in his pocket, for some obscure reason? Oh wait… let me guess. Was it when he saw Z’s gun and decided to upgrade. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7046 "2012-11-05T21:28:44Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 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. And it has been explained to you, several times, including by Bricker, that you’re wrong, and the law does not concern itself in that section with the “TOTALITY OF HIS ACTIONS” but only with whether he could reasonably fear for his life at the moment and whether he could reasonably escape at the moment. You keep ignoring all the explanations, though, and keep posting the “TOTALITY” crap. ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7047 "2012-11-05T21:30:19Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Another bullshit parade. No, actual facts. > [@](#): > > No, IT’S NOT THE ONLY CRITERION. It’s the only one relevant to this case. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman had several means to avoid the confrontation. The police said this too, so it’s not just me. Correct, and irrelevant. > [@](#): > > 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. The totality of Martin’s actions, by changing his plan from going home to attacking Zimmerman, caused Martin’s death. That’s at least as true as your statement, and at least as relevant - which is to say, not very. As **Bricker** has already said, it was his fear at the moment he shot, and his ability or otherwise to escape at that moment, that matters. Not his prior or subsequent actions. Those actions could be used in an attempt to show malice, if it comes to that, but if it was self defence it was, by definition, not malicious. > [@](#): > > 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? No. > [@](#): > > 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. Ok, I’m about to ask you another, very important, question. > [@](#): > > 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. The Question - what Florida law makes killing someone illegal, regardless of the surrounding circumstances? I’ll answer that for you - there isn’t one. Homicide is not, in and of itself, a crime. > [@](#): > > Falsehoods…please. We are back to the fishbowl problem. That’s an analogy you use for punishing a toddler for stealing a cookie, not in a court of law. > [@](#): > > And no, the cat didn’t do it, even though you say so. No-one “did it”. There was no crime. ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7048 "2012-11-05T21:33:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The totality of Martin’s actions, by changing his plan from going home to attacking Zimmerman, caused Martin’s death. That’s at least as true as your statement, and at least as relevant - which is to say, not very. > > As **Bricker** has already said, it was his fear at the moment he shot, and his ability or otherwise to escape at that moment, that matters. Not his prior or subsequent actions. Those actions could be used in an attempt to show malice, if it comes to that, but if it was self defence it was, by definition, not malicious. Keep on stating this as unimpeachable fact, if it helps you sleep at night. ---
**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, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7049 "2012-11-05T21:34:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And it has been explained to you, several times, including by Bricker, that you’re wrong, and the law does not concern itself in that section with the “TOTALITY OF HIS ACTIONS” but only with whether he could reasonably fear for his life at the moment and whether he could reasonably escape at the moment. You keep ignoring all the explanations, though, and keep posting the “TOTALITY” crap. It’s YOU who is missing the point. The totality of his actions ARE RELEVANT LEGALLY and Bricker does back me up on this. REREAD HIS LAST POST. You want to read things selectively. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7050 "2012-11-05T21:40:08Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > It’s YOU who is missing the point. > > The totality of his actions ARE RELEVANT LEGALLY and Bricker does back me up on this. The “totality of his actions” are not relevant to what he’s charged with. You keep ignoring that. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7051 "2012-11-05T21:40:32Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > It’s YOU who is missing the point. > > The totality of his actions ARE RELEVANT LEGALLY and Bricker does back me up on this. > > REREAD HIS LAST POST. > > You want to read things selectively. They are not relevant to self defence, nor to any other aspect of the murder charge. If Zimmerman is found to have defended himself, under SYG law his is immune from any further legal action related to this incident. I’d be interested to know if that would include a charge of manslaughter. If **Bricker** could answer this, I’d be grateful, but a plain reading of the law implies it would. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7052 "2012-11-05T21:40:39Z")
[QUOTE=dimmy derko] The “hostilities” haven’t even been conclusively defended as credibly having happened, so shouldn’t the jury be focusing on whether each event after Z has left his home has been proven to be credible before they start getting ahead of themselves? [/QUOTE] For the zillionth time, Zimmerman does not have to prove he is telling the truth. > [@betenoire39](#): > > No, IT’S NOT THE ONLY CRITERION. Legally, yes it is. If Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, was not committing a forcible felony, and could not escape, then his shooting of Martin was justified self defense. > [@](#): > > 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. And your “point” is just as wrong and silly as it was the first time you tried to push it. As far as the evidence can determine, none of Zimmerman’s actions, taken either together or separately, constitute criminal intent. It is not against the law to be suspicious of a stranger in your neighborhood. It is not illegal to be a neighborhood watch. It is not against the law to follow a stranger. It is not against the law to report suspicious activity to the police. It is not even against the law to ask a stranger what he is up to in your neighborhood. So that, even if you are suspicious **and** you report a stranger to the police **and** you follow the stranger **and** you ask the stranger what he is up to, you have not committed any crime. And you do not deserve to be punished even if the stranger punches you in the face and jumps on top of you and smashes your head into the ground. > [@](#): > > 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? I don’t see any quandary. In what way was Martin retreating when he was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest pounding his head into the ground? 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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7053 "2012-11-05T21:43:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t see any quandary. In what way was Martin retreating when he was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest pounding his head into the ground? > > Regards, > Shodan I suspect he is referring to Martin moving away from Zimmerman after being shot. Which, incidentally, would probably not count as a retreat under Florida law, as that would require Martin to clearly state that he was ending his use of force, not simply to move away. One of the best pieces of evidence in Zimmerman’s favour, in a moral sense, is that he only shot him once. ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7054 "2012-11-05T21:44:14Z")
Why should Z’s descriptions of the struggle be accepted as factual, if events he describes before and after are proven to be false? ---
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7055 "2012-11-05T21:46:03Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 1. The totality of Martin’s actions, by changing his plan from going home to attacking Zimmerman, caused Martin’s death. That’s at least as true as your statement, and at least as relevant - which is to say, not very. > > 2. As **Bricker** has already said, it was his fear at the moment he shot, and his ability or otherwise to escape at that moment, that matters. Not his prior or subsequent actions. Those actions could be used in an attempt to show malice, if it comes to that, but if it was self defence it was, by definition, not malicious. > > 3. The Question - what Florida law makes killing someone illegal, regardless of the surrounding circumstances? > > I’ll answer that for you - there isn’t one. Homicide is not, in and of itself, a crime. 1. Changing his plan???WTF??? Moderators, can you please put up an laughing emoticon. Yeah it’s relevant–because he killed Martin. 1. Not true. Please read everything \*\*Bricker \*\*wrote. EVERYTHING. 2. Ok. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7056 "2012-11-05T21:46:46Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > One of the best pieces of evidence in Zimmerman’s favour, in a moral sense, is that he only shot him once. Yes, completely contrarily to the “if your life is in danger and you have a gun, aim for the center of mass and don’t stop shooting.” meme popular in the state. ps. I wonder if there are any stats on how often one shot is fired in a life or death situation, when more than one shot is possible? ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7057 "2012-11-05T21:47:11Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Why should Z’s descriptions of the struggle be accepted as factual, if events he describes before and after are proven to be false? They should be accepted or rejected based on internal consistency and external evidence. Good job poisoning the well with that sneaky “if” there, though. ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7058 "2012-11-05T21:49:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, was not committing a forcible felony, and could not escape, then his shooting of Martin was justified self defense. And your “point” is just as wrong and silly as it was the first time you tried to push it. As far as the evidence can determine, none of Zimmerman’s actions, taken either together or separately, constitute criminal intent. If, if, if, if… As far as… None constitute. You start your statement with CONDITIONALS then you end with a DEFINITIVE ASSERTION. Very believable. Keep dreaming, Shodan. ---
**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, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7059 "2012-11-05T21:52:43Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They should be accepted or rejected based on internal consistency and external evidence. > > Good job poisoning the well with that sneaky “if” there, though. Yeah, like the well hasn’t been pissed and shat in already. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7060 "2012-11-05T21:53:15Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. Changing his plan???WTF??? Well, I’ll grant you that it’s an assumption that Martin planned to go home and eat his snacks rather that violently attack someone he’d never met, but if you want to work on the assumption that that was his plan all along, go for it. Not sure how that will help your case, though. > [@](#): > > Yeah it’s relevant–because he killed Martin. That’s not a fact that anyone’s disputed apart from you, when you claimed he must have had an accomplice. I’m glad you’ve got rid of that particular bit of nonsense. > [@](#): > > 1. Not true. Please read everything \*\*Bricker \*\*wrote. EVERYTHING. I did. He says, quite clearly, that it’s only his fear and his ability to escape at that moment that matter. The totality of events could be used to prove something that he’s not even been accused of, but that has no relevance to the actual case. [/quote] 3. Ok. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] I take it that’s agreement? You do realise that killing someone in justified self defence is not illegal, right? ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7061 "2012-11-05T21:54:38Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Yeah, like the well hasn’t been pissed and shat in already. It’s certainly not the first time you’ve done so. ---
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7062 "2012-11-05T21:56:44Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > If, if, if, if… > > As far as… > > None constitute. > > You start your statement with CONDITIONALS then you end with a DEFINITIVE ASSERTION. > > Very believable. > > Keep dreaming, Shodan. He made two separate statements. One, a factual statement about the conditions required for justified self defence. And two, a conclusion from the evidence that there is no proof of criminal intent. They are not connected statements. You need to learn to read English, and follow a very basic, three sentence argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=352) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=354)