# 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:** 373
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7443 "2012-11-13T04:12:18Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > it does me they approached me. 🙂 It does mean just that they approached you, ok. > [@betenoire39](#): > > Being followed by someone for over 10 minutes would definitely freak me out. If they approached me and got to me, MOST DEFINITELY I AM FIGHTING THEM. I have the right to defend myself. And if I had a weapon, I would reach for it. So now I can clearly say that, as a matter of law, if someone follows you for ten minutes and then approaches you, you are not entitled to defend yourself with physical force. They would have to do or say something to you that communicated a threat of immediate harm. Merely approaching you after following you for ten minutes does not entitle you, under the law, to fight them. This is not a matter of opinion. It’s black-letter law. It would be legally insufficient to establish a self-defense argument. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7444 "2012-11-13T06:45:30Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > A jury can still send his behind away for a very long time. > > Also, sure someone might be charged with something, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get a lesser charge. Sometimes those lesser charges are worked in. > > Often times, pleas are made–it’s about negotiation. Even\*\* Bricker \*\*tried pointing this out. He would certainly know. Gotta say, without some trump card from the prosecution, I really don’t see much chance of a criminal conviction. Now a civil trial on the other hand might be a prime venue for the arguments you are making. I’m seeing shades of the OJ trials all over again. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7445 "2012-11-13T10:11:52Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Should have, should have, should have. Zimmerman should have broken off his pursuit. Zimmerman should have identified himself. The “should have” onus should be placed on Zimmerman. You could say both ‘should have,’ however Martin had the choice to be the better man and to walk away (unless you have evidence he was detained or restrained). In most cases where someone is the initiator, the recipient has the upper hand of choice - he hasn’t committed or played his hand yet. Let’s assume Zimmerman went after Martin in a dead sprint. Shouldn’t Martin have run away just to be on the safe side? It doesn’t matter if Martin felt justified in standing his ground or defending himself - he doesn’t know who or what Zimmerman is capable of. In that case, defending himself would have been getting away as soon as possible. > [@betenoire39](#): > > No, the situation Zimmerman created by stalking Martin. You can’t be diplomatic with a stalker and someone who had his mind made up as soon as he left his truck with a loaded gun. Even if true, Martin did not know this. See above - he should have erred on the side of caution. > [@betenoire39](#): > > Zimmerman had the upper hand upon leaving his car. He had the upper hand since he first laid eyes on Martin. Uh ok? > [@betenoire39](#): > > So you admit that Zimmerman;s intimidation factor wasn’t enough? So, i guess then it was okay for Zimmerman to go to plan B, which was shooting Martin? Sure why not? The question is did he use it offensively or defensively? > [@betenoire39](#): > > No. Zimmerman created the confrontation. Of course Martin didn’t respect him: why the hell should he have? Who the hell was he? Who did he think he was? So you are admitting that Martin immediately acted hostile? Most people show respect to others - strangers especially - not merely as a way to be polite, but also because they don’t know whom they are dealing with. If Martin immediately disrespected Zimmerman for no damning reason, than surely that’s a problem of Martin’s, not Zimmerman’s. Humans can be suspicious but they by and large act on rationale rather than impulse. ---
**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 13, 2012, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7446 "2012-11-13T10:17:31Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Incessant bluster. In my experience people who know how to kick ass never brag about it. Who’s bragging about anything? All I did was answer **hbn’s** question \*“what do you think of handshakes?” \*with an anecdote that illustrated me in favour of them. I recalled my unregulated street encounter as matter of factly as I could and it was the first one I’ve given any detail about in my many posts in this thread. Oh, and btw, I just know how to kick ass against people who think they are better at fighting than they are. I certainly don’t think I’d be much of a match for someone who trains hard and does it for fun and/or a payday. ---
**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 13, 2012, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7447 "2012-11-13T10:27:00Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Some general thoughts, as this thread has moved quickly whilst I’ve been at work. It’s incredibly revealing to see the Martin apologists revealing that they would happily attack someone for following them, seemingly not realising that following someone, with a loaded gun or otherwise, and talking to them is perfectly legal in Florida. Invading their personal space and grabbing their clothing is a no-no, though, whether your name is George Zimmerman, or not. The evidence might not be there in clear Find The Guilty for Dummies fashion, but the smart money is on Z being a grabber and not TM being a sucker-puncher. > [@Steophan](#): > > **Dimmy** ’s fantasies are straight from a Guy Ritchie film, and frankly make me embarrassed that he’s a countryman of mine. I’ve figured out his real objection to this whole thing, and it’s that he thinks it’s _unfair_ that Zimmerman was allowed to use a gun to escape from what he considers was a fair fight. > > I’ve known about two people who can fight the way **dimmy** claims he can, and they don’t talk about it the way he does. The people who I’ve know who do talk like he does are pathetic little gobshites who’s only actual fighting is done with their mouths, and who’s larger, tougher mates have to get them out of the shit they start. Whether you think the fight described is straight out of a Guy Ritchie movie or not, it happened, and pretty much exactly as stated. If you think that sounds gangsta-thuglife and entertaining, I could mention incidents from my drug-dealing, club-going days and my footy hooly days in the late 70’s that would make your toe-nails curl. I’ve been called a lot of things in my time, but I’ve never been called a pathetic little gobshite by anyone who actually knew me. What you seem to be implying is there is a certain way to describe a fight that only a person who can fight can do. Maybe, that renowned fighting expert shodan will oblige and show us how it is done properly? Why don’t you ask him? Why are you and others so keen to suggest I am a liar in this thread? > [@Steophan](#): > > Apart from that, it’s been great fun to read them getting slapped down by facts and logic again and again. Are you reading the right thread? ---
**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 13, 2012, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7448 "2012-11-13T11:17:33Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I have a much better idea. Why don’t you let my nephew who is about the same weight and height as Martin get on top of you and push your head into the cement. He’s a computer geek with no sports background so it will give you a pit of an advantage. Hey, you could put someone 40lb heavier on me and I will guarantee leaving some kind of mark on them that lets them know they’ve been in a fight. I might take some damage, but he’ll be getting poked in the eyes, his ears ripped at, his fingers bit, and anything else I can cook up in my desperate state. If I’m still conscious, the fight’s not over. > [@Magiver](#): > > The conclusion is already drawn by Zimmerman. The state has to contradict it with evidence. Never? Is that what’s going to happen? I thought it would all be sorted out in this thread. You live and learn. > [@Magiver](#): > > Well lets look at what we know about Martin. He was on his 3rd suspension from school for: drugs, theft, and vandalism. Sounds like his train wasn’t on the right track to me. He might have been quite active in the street fighting scene. Doesn’t matter to me but there you go. On the scale of Problem Teenagers, I imagine TM was somewhere in the bottom distinctly unremarkable percentile. On the Neighbourhood Watch Guy About To Fuck Up scale, I’d bet Z was up in the top 10. > [@Magiver](#): > > Zimmerman is an adult. He was expecting the police to arrive shortly so it’s unlikely he invited them to watch him commit a crime. I’ve no doubt Z didn’t think grabbing a Goon was a crime. His plan was to have a totally subservient Trayvon when the cops came, and be able to say “Look guys, I’m doing your job for you,” like the ungrateful twat he is. If TM hadn’t resisted and Z was holding TM’s sleeve when the cops turned up, does anyone really think Z would have been told off, or that Trayvon would have been believed if he’d complained? > [@Magiver](#): > > Martin was a 17 year old troubled kid. Age 17 is a time of irrational behavior with the best of kids so there is no reason to believe Martin was less irrational than a straight A student who isn’t on suspension for various acts of stupid. Again, I don’t think he was significantly troubled. If he was as violent as Z suggests, this wouldn’t have been the first time he’d exploded and someone, somewhere would know of his reputation for taking no shit. You want to know if Trayvon was a hothead? Go and ask his peers in school and on the streets. You can’t hide whether you are a lover or a fighter among the peole you interact with daily. > [@Magiver](#): > > Now add in the insult of being challenged in his own neighborhood and you have motive. He wasn’t in his own neighbourhood. He’d been there a week and we don’t know if he’d been there before, so why assume he treated it like it was his turf? People that age are very aware of not acting like you own the streets in hoods where you aren’t from. > [@Magiver](#): > > On top of that, it appears likely he went out of his way to confront Zimmerman. He literally went looking for trouble. Oh yes, he was gunning for George Zimmerman from the moment he left Brandy Green’s. He’d probably seen Z swaggering around with his dog and thought, next time I see him on his own, I’m having him, and after loading up on skittles and a cold drink to celebrate his victory with, he spotted Z innocently heading to the shops and gave him the evil eye. We all know what happened after that. > [@Magiver](#): > > Now we can’t prove he swung first but the evidence shows he wailed on Zimmerman which shows an aggressive intensity to his actions. I think it shows that TM was acting defensively and Z’s hands were too busy grabbing to fight back, because he’d never expected to be fighting, he was expecting full compliance with his demands. ---
**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 13, 2012, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7449 "2012-11-13T12:05:27Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Facts and logic…please. As if you haven’t been called out for your bullshit…as you were recently by someone who I haven’t actually see post here. No, I haven’t. I’ve been “called out” for posting things that are correct, that those who respond either don’t think should be correct, or just wish weren’t correct. > [@](#): > > Again, the things I bring up will be talked about by a jury…that’s how shit works here. I have been on juries, trust me, that’s what happens. You can say my points are irrelevant or whatever nonsense you want, but it’s YOU who don’t understand how the courts work here. They will only be talked about by the jury if they are admissible evidence in court. The jury, of necessity, will be people who haven’t followed this case, and don’t know about all the extraneous crap you keep bringing up. > [@](#): > > You keep talking about how the evidence backs up Zimmerman–but you have an extremely narrow view of the evidence. I haven’t heard any discussion from you about Zimmerman’s interviews. Whether you like it or not, they are evidence. He gave one on Hannity. He gave a couple for the police. That’s evidence. He says some pretty damning things. I have brought this up several times over the weeks, but you haven’t responded. The evidence is what’s included in the discovery. Are these interviews included in that? If not, they can’t be used as evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt. Not that they _are_ evidence of his guilt anyway, but that’s not reelevant. > [@](#): > > You keep on talking about how Zimmerman’s credibility shouldn’t really be an issue. > The same poster who I alluded to called you out on that. It was very refreshing to see an outside poster chime in. Zimmerman’s credibility is absolutely an issue. We don’t disagree on that. What we disagree on is how it should be determined. The credibility of any statement of his should be judged on whether it is consistent with the evidence. If he’s lying about everything, it will not be consistent. If he’s lying about some things but not others, we believe the ones that appear true, and discount the others. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t work that way here. If you are a proven liar, trust me, juries will take note, and you know what, that might affect their verdict. You might not like hearing that, but yes, that’s the way it works here. I know this for a fact. If they can prove in court, with the evidence available, the jury may choose to disregard his evidence. In fact, they may choose to do that anyway. What they may not do is assume that any facts not in evidence are true based solely on the fact that he’s lying - that is, they may not convict based on the fact that he’s lying. If they _do_, it will be overturned on appeal. > [@](#): > > You feel there’s not enough evidence for a conviction. > > And how exactly do your really know this? How do you know that he won’t be charged with manslaughter? Hate to break this to you, but the courts aren’t this linear black and white entity. We are discussing the murder 2 charge. A theoretical manslaughter charge is not something I’ve looked at, and I’ll not do so unless and until it becomes actual. > [@](#): > > A jury can still send his behind away for a very long time. The jury can’t send anybody away. This is more proof you don’t understand the legal system. The jury decides the question of guilt and, with the exception of some capital crimes, has no input on sentencing. > [@](#): > > Also, sure someone might be charged with something, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get a lesser charge. Sometimes those lesser charges are worked in. > > Often times, pleas are made–it’s about negotiation. Even\*\* Bricker \*\*tried pointing this out. He would certainly know. Yes. This hasn’t happened yet. I’m inclined to doubt there’d be much benefit for Zimmerman in pleading guilty to a lesser charge, but I’m willing to be corrected. > [@](#): > > This is a humble opinions and speculations thread. > > You can take your superior analysis and shove it and go to a legal analysis thread for lawyers. If you continue to base your opinions and speculation on nonsense you’ve rectally extracted, I’ll continue to call you out on it. Thanks for acknowledging that my analysis is superior, though. > [@](#): > > Oh, I forgot, you’re not. > > Spare me. Are you? You never actually answered that. Short answer, Zimmerman is not guilty of murder, judged by Florida law and the evidence available. No amount of nonsense from you can change that. I doubt any of my superior analysis will change your mind, but just possibly someone reading this thread will learn from it. Then, they can accept why Zimmerman will be found not guilty, and, if they feel he is morally culpable, work to change Florida law so someone in his position in the future won’t be. Personally, I like the law, and fully favour a strong right to self defence. Thinking otherwise puts you on the side of bullies and arseholes (something I will discuss, quite coincidentally, in my next post, in response to **dimmy** ’s nonsense). ---
**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 13, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7450 "2012-11-13T12:18:11Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Invading their personal space and grabbing their clothing is a no-no, though, whether your name is George Zimmerman, or not. The evidence might not be there in clear Find The Guilty for Dummies fashion, but the smart money is on Z being a grabber and not TM being a sucker-puncher. “Invading their personal space” is not illegal, unless accompanied by a clear threat. You do not have the right to punch someone for doing so. “Grabbing their clothing” is (probably) battery, and if it contains with it a threat of further attacks, one may use proportionate force in defence. However, unless there is such a threat, one may not use force. It is _never_ legal to use force as revenge. Not only do we have no evidence that Zimmerman did either of those things, even if he did they would not be sufficient to put Martin in a position where he was entitled to use any level of force. That you think thuggish behaviour and escalating revenge attacks are acceptable says a lot about you. > [@](#): > > Whether you think the fight described is straight out of a Guy Ritchie movie or not, it happened, and pretty much exactly as stated. If you think that sounds gangsta-thuglife and entertaining, I could mention incidents from my drug-dealing, club-going days and my footy hooly days in the late 70’s that would make your toe-nails curl. Really. I suspect I’ve seen much the same things you have. That you see fit to boast about such shenanigans also says a lot about you, none of it complimentary. > [@](#): > > I’ve been called a lot of things in my time, but I’ve never been called a pathetic little gobshite by anyone who actually knew me. What you seem to be implying is there is a certain way to describe a fight that only a person who can fight can do. Maybe, that renowned fighting expert shodan will oblige and show us how it is done properly? Why don’t you ask him? No, you’re an admitted drug dealing football hooligan. The sort of people who, in my experience, act in groups to bully others, and look for weaknesses to take advantage of, with no respect for law, morality, or other people in general. now, I guess it’s possible you’re an exception to this, that you deal drugs solely as a protest against laws you feel are unjust, and that your hooliganism consisted solely of fights against other consenting adults, and not, for example, running through towns and cities out of your face on cheap speed and cider, smashing everything you could find - especially shops belonging to people from ethnic minorities. I take it back, you’re not from a Guy Ritchie film, and you’re right about him glamourising brutality. You’re from a Shane Meadows film. > [@](#): > > Why are you and others so keen to suggest I am a liar in this thread? If you’re not a liar, you’re a despicable human being who feeds off the weaknesses of others, bullying them, attacking them, and destroying their property and person. I actually hope you’re a liar. > [@](#): > > Are you reading the right thread? Oh yes. That would be the thread where you “defend” Trayvon Martin by comparing his actions to those a drug dealing football hooligan thug would take, right? You’re an embarrassment to your side, and if you actually believe Zimmerman is guilty, and not just believe that he’s a pussy who would have - and should have - lost in a fair fight (which is the closest I can come to understanding your actual view), you should really stop posting now, before you make everyone who agrees with you look bad by comparison. ---
**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 13, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7451 "2012-11-13T12:19:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Thinking otherwise puts you on the side of bullies and arseholes (something I will discuss, quite coincidentally, in my next post, in response to **dimmy** ’s nonsense). If accusing as liar, do bring facts, not your educated supposition. ---
**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 13, 2012, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7452 "2012-11-13T12:39:29Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > “Invading their personal space” is not illegal, unless accompanied by a clear threat. You do not have the right to punch someone for doing so. > > “Grabbing their clothing” is (probably) battery, and if it contains with it a threat of further attacks, one may use proportionate force in defence. However, unless there is such a threat, one may not use force. It is _never_ legal to use force as revenge. > > Not only do we have no evidence that Zimmerman did either of those things, even if he did they would not be sufficient to put Martin in a position where he was entitled to use any level of force. I’m offering reasonable speculation for what could have happened, not providing the state with evidence they can use in their prosecution. That’s not my job, like it isn’t yours to do the same for Z. > [@Steophan](#): > > That you think thuggish behaviour and escalating revenge attacks are acceptable says a lot about you. I don’t believe any such thing. I believe in avoiding trouble unless it comes looking for me. I am not the person now I was back then. > [@Steophan](#): > > Really. I suspect I’ve seen much the same things you have. That you see fit to boast about such shenanigans also says a lot about you, none of it complimentary. I’d bet you haven’t, except in all these movies you are fond of watching. > [@Steophan](#): > > No, you’re an admitted drug dealing football hooligan. The sort of people who, in my experience, act in groups to bully others, and look for weaknesses to take advantage of, with no respect for law, morality, or other people in general. now, I guess it’s possible you’re an exception to this, that you deal drugs solely as a protest against laws you feel are unjust, and that your hooliganism consisted solely of fights against other consenting adults, and not, for example, running through towns and cities out of your face on cheap speed and cider, smashing everything you could find - especially shops belonging to people from ethnic minorities. > > I take it back, you’re not from a Guy Ritchie film, and you’re right about him glamourising brutality. You’re from a Shane Meadows film. Right on cue. > [@Steophan](#): > > If you’re not a liar, you’re a despicable human being who feeds off the weaknesses of others, bullying them, attacking them, and destroying their property and person. > > I actually hope you’re a liar. Nope, nor any of the things you accuse me of. Way to double down on the discrediting though. > [@Steophan](#): > > Oh yes. That would be the thread where you “defend” Trayvon Martin by comparing his actions to those a drug dealing football hooligan thug would take, right? No, you just made that up. > [@Steophan](#): > > You’re an embarrassment to your side, and if you actually believe Zimmerman is guilty, and not just believe that he’s a pussy who would have - and should have - lost in a fair fight (which is the closest I can come to understanding your actual view), you should really stop posting now, before you make everyone who agrees with you look bad by comparison. Sorry, but you’re the embarrassment, casting judgement based on a few words on a messageboard and trying to use it to bolster an argument defending an inadequate man who just had to kill a 17yr old. ---
**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 13, 2012, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7453 "2012-11-13T12:50:57Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Sorry, but you’re the embarrassment, casting judgement based on a few words on a messageboard and trying to use it to bolster an argument defending an inadequate man who just had to kill a 17yr old. I’ll ignore the bit where you admitted lying about being a drug dealing football hooligan thug, and just address this. This sums up your view of Zimmerman. You consider him “inadequate” because he was bested in a fight. That sums up your worldview. Yes, I will absolutely defend someone who was unable to win a fight he didn’t start, and had to kill to protect himself. That you have a problem with that further shows you are on the side of bullies and thugs. In your last few posts, you have effectively admitted that it all happened the way we’ve been saying all along, and that your whole objection is that the law doesn’t allow thuggish, bullying behaviour. Pathetic. ---
**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 13, 2012, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7454 "2012-11-13T12:52:47Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > If accusing as liar, do bring facts, not your educated supposition. Will bring both. Indeed, did. Repeatedly. ---
**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 13, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7455 "2012-11-13T13:23:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’ll ignore the bit where you admitted lying about being a drug dealing football hooligan thug, and just address this. No, don’t ignore it. Point to it specifically and I can understand how good your reading comprehension is. > [@Steophan](#): > > This sums up your view of Zimmerman. You consider him “inadequate” because he was bested in a fight. That sums up your worldview. Yes, I will absolutely defend someone who was unable to win a fight he didn’t start, and had to kill to protect himself. That you have a problem with that further shows you are on the side of bullies and thugs. I consider him inadequate for lots of reasons. His biggest that night was his inability to determine the type of person who should be discouraged from lurking in the neighbourhood, from someone who was just strolling home from the shop and despite having plenty of opportunity to avoid that person, he ended up killing him. > [@Steophan](#): > > In your last few posts, you have effectively admitted that it all happened the way we’ve been saying all along, and that your whole objection is that the law doesn’t allow thuggish, bullying behaviour. Pathetic. You’re flailing all over the place now. If this was a street fight, you’d be on your ass. ---
**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 13, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7456 "2012-11-13T13:31:05Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > No, don’t ignore it. Point to it specifically and I can understand how good your reading comprehension is. It’s the whole beginning of the post, where you deny you’ve done any of the things that football hooligans and drug dealers do. > [@](#): > > I consider him inadequate for lots of reasons. His biggest that night was his inability to determine the type of person who should be discouraged from lurking in the neighbourhood, from someone who was just strolling home from the shop and despite having plenty of opportunity to avoid that person, he ended up killing him. He accurately identified a non-resident in a private community, acting in a suspicious manner, and that suspicion was more than justified when he was attacked without provocation. Yes, he should have avoided Martin for his own safety, but he’s in no way obliged to. There’s nothing wrong with killing someone in self defence, if it’s necessary. The only person who was out of order was Martin, with his continued attack on Zimmerman. > [@](#): > > You’re flailing all over the place now. If this was a street fight, you’d be on your ass. I though you were English? Have you forgotten how to spell “arse”? Or have I just caught you out in another lie? You appear to be confusing flailing with targetted, successful jabs here. Along with everything else you’re confused about. ---
**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 13, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7457 "2012-11-13T13:47:27Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s the whole beginning of the post, where you deny you’ve done any of the things that football hooligans and drug dealers do. No, I deny doing any of the things you associate with my claims. I don’t think selling a few E’s in clubs and raves is really much of a detriment to society, but I’ll admit that my fighting with like-minded people in public places was, and it’s not a time of my life I’m proud about, but no innocents were involved in the actual fighting. > [@Steophan](#): > > He accurately identified a non-resident in a private community, acting in a suspicious manner, and that suspicion was more than justified when he was attacked without provocation. No, he wrongly profiled an innocent teen who was just taking a known shortcut, seemingly because a couple of weeks before he’d seen a suspicious black guy with a cig looking at the open window this friend of Z’s always left open in a crime-ridden area, and jumped to some eventually fatal conclusions. > [@Steophan](#): > > Yes, he should have avoided Martin for his own safety, but he’s in no way obliged to. I’d think he was obliged not to unnecessarily alarm visitors to the residences, though. > [@Steophan](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with killing someone in self defence, if it’s necessary. The only person who was out of order was Martin, with his continued attack on Zimmerman. I agree in principle and just feel it was unnecessary here. > [@Steophan](#): > > I though you were English? Have you forgotten how to spell “arse”? Or have I just caught you out in another lie? They pinch our words, I’ll pinch theirs sometimes. > [@Steophan](#): > > You appear to be confusing flailing with targetted, successful jabs here. Along with everything else you’re confused about. Your jabs are landing short and you’re not planting your feet when you throw your power shots. After seeing what you’ve got, I don’t care if you want to fight on the outside or get up close and personal. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7458 "2012-11-13T13:53:31Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Who’s bragging about anything? All I did was answer **hbn’s** question \*“what do you think of handshakes?” \*with an anecdote that illustrated me in favour of them. I recalled my unregulated street encounter as matter of factly as I could and it was the first one I’ve given any detail about in my many posts in this thread. You have been bragging about your alleged ability to kick ass in a dozen posts at least. It’s the typical internet keyboard warrior trait. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7459 "2012-11-13T13:55:16Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Why are you and others so keen to suggest I am a liar in this thread? When it walks like a duck… ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7460 "2012-11-13T14:01:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You have been bragging about your alleged ability to kick ass in a dozen posts at least. It’s the typical internet keyboard warrior trait. No, I haven’t. That’s just what you are reading into my posts. Does your typical internet keyboard warrior usually leave it so long before introducing one of their anecdotes to back up an argument? Not having studied the phenomenon much, I wouldn’t profess to know. Maybe you can enlighten the readership and point out my traits clearly for all to see? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7461 "2012-11-13T14:03:16Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > No, I haven’t. Yes, you have. Pathetic, really. ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7462 "2012-11-13T14:09:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes, you have. Pathetic, really. As pathetic as your desire to be right on this one thing, and make it clear on a messageboard? Get over yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=372) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=374)