# 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:** 374
**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, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7463 "2012-11-13T14:19:43Z")
When you boys are done with your pissing contest… > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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. You’re welcome to explain how you would have (and include specifics to counter-act Zimmerman’s particular mistakes) dealt it differently. He did have plenty of opportunity to avoid him - you try to ignore these three aspects : A) Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything wrong. As been pointed out previously he could have been running after Martin naked and drunk hollering like an Indian and shouting “Your mother is a whore” while a holstered weapon hung from his hip. His only crimes would be public intoxication, public indecency and disturbing the peace. B) Zimmerman was just another guy, yet he also was known in the community, he was a watch member and he had knowledge of prior illegal activity in the neighborhood. This helps dilute the impression that Zimmerman had unlawful or malicious intent. It gives an indication of his worthwhile motive. Consider that even someone who isn’t a watch member, would still be within their rights to do what Zimmerman did. C) Evidence. Unfortunately in this type of case, it pretty much is the end-all, despite how frustrating it may be. ---
**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, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7464 "2012-11-13T14:35:08Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > When you boys are done with your pissing contest… You’re just jealous because you never could take part in the “who can piss highest up a wall” contest. 😛 > [@Saraya](#): > > You’re welcome to explain how you would have (and include specifics to counter-act Zimmerman’s particular mistakes) dealt it differently. If I was as concerned as Z was, I’d have a zero tolerance approach to strangers and without trying to be intimidating I’d ask if they were visiting. If they got hostile, or reacted in any kind of suspicious manner, then I’d consider getting the police involved. I know Trayvon wouldn’t have pinged my radar enough to be getting the police involved immediately. > [@Saraya](#): > > He did have plenty of opportunity to avoid him - you try to ignore these three aspects : > > A) Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything wrong. As been pointed out previously he could have been running after Martin naked and drunk hollering like an Indian and shouting “Your mother is a whore” while a holstered weapon hung from his hip. > > His only crimes would be public intoxication, public indecency and disturbing the peace. In South Alabama he’d be shot without the holstered weapon. Is Florida more civilised? > [@Saraya](#): > > B) Zimmerman was just another guy, yet he also was known in the community, he was a watch member and he had knowledge of prior illegal activity in the neighborhood. > This helps dilute the impression that Zimmerman had unlawful or malicious intent. It gives an indication of his worthwhile motive. > > Consider that even someone who isn’t a watch member, would still be within their rights to do what Zimmerman did. Up to, but not including trying to restrain a suspicious person. > [@Saraya](#): > > C) Evidence. Unfortunately in this type of case, it pretty much is the end-all, despite how frustrating it may be. There is witness evidence that the fight didn’t go quite like Z described it, and enough inconsistencies to warrant a trial, and that’s the point most people wanted it to reach. ---
**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, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7465 "2012-11-13T14:52:55Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > If I was as concerned as Z was, I’d have a zero tolerance approach to strangers and without trying to be intimidating I’d ask if they were visiting. If they got hostile, or reacted in any kind of suspicious manner, then I’d consider getting the police involved. I know Trayvon wouldn’t have pinged my radar enough to be getting the police involved immediately. Your above theory works IF A) You were not worried that a potential repeat offender would get away and B) That the person in question isn’t just a loose cannon to begin with. Zimmerman could have done just as you suggest and Martin might have become violent anyways (whether with Zimmerman or the police). > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Up to, but not including trying to restrain a suspicious person. Particular to this case or this type of case, evidence-to-the-contrary is the only way you’ll prove Zimmerman was attempting to assert physical control or violence on Martin. > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > There is witness evidence that the fight didn’t go quite like Z described it, and enough inconsistencies to warrant a trial, and that’s the point most people wanted it to reach. Possibly in a different scenario, maybe even more akin to the O.J. Simpson trial; however having said that, read the preface on this following page, and then the quick comments by the involved individuals. > **[Analysis - What The Public Didn't Understand... | The O.j. Verdict | FRONTLINE...](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/public.html)** The key points there are : -Entertainment is not education; media is not law -The public is quite ignorant on these matters -It’s a search for justice, not for truth -Burden of the prosecution, reasonable doubt and how it actually works ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7466 "2012-11-13T16:11:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It does mean just that they approached you, ok. > > 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. And Zimmerman didn’t? His entire “presentation” to Martin can be construed as a threat. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7467 "2012-11-13T16:20:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 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). No I am not…I am laying down my opinions. Notice I have deferred to people on this thread who are actually lawyers. I am not deferring to you. I don’t agree with you or your interpretations of the evidence or your characterizations of Martin. I was being sarcastic about your analysis. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7468 "2012-11-13T18:03:42Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > And Zimmerman didn’t? > > His entire “presentation” to Martin can be construed as a threat. > > Why not? Because in order to be a threat under the law, it must clearly and unambiguously communicate: (1) That the actor intends to commit an act of physical violence; (2) That the actor intends to commit that act imminently, right at that moment; (3) That the actor has the present capability to do so; (4) That the victim has a well-founded fear of such imminent act. See, e.g., State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fl. 1975). If the only thing a person has done is follow you for ten minutes and then come up to you, that alone cannot meet those requirements. With no words spoken, no gestures made that indicate imminent violence, just someone approaching you cannot be a threat for the purposes of the criminal statute. You may say, truthfully, that you felt fear – but the fear alone is not enough; you must also be able to identify the specific item that communicated the threat. As the Florida courts said in Benitiz v. State, 901 So.2d 935 ( Fl. DCA 2005): > [@](#): > > The “threat” element addresses the defendant’s intent, not the reaction of the person perceiving the word or act. It is the defendant’s word or act that must be reviewed to determine whether it constitutes a “threat,” not the reaction of the person perceiving the word or act. That’s the law in Florida. With cites. Of course I don’t know what Zimmerman might have said to Martin – this is in response to you, saying you’d use a weapon or fight if someone followed you for ten minutes and then came up to you. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7469 "2012-11-13T18:52:15Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > No I am not…I am laying down my opinions. Notice I have deferred to people on this thread who are actually lawyers. I am not deferring to you. I don’t agree with you or your interpretations of the evidence or your characterizations of Martin. > > I was being sarcastic about your analysis. So you agree he’s not guilty then? That’s what the lawyers are saying, even those who think his actions were wrong. ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7470 "2012-11-13T19:44:41Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > So you agree he’s not guilty then? That’s what the lawyers are saying, even those who think his actions were wrong. To be more definitive, I believe the evidence we know about is not legally sufficient to support a charge of second-degree murder. I do believe the evidence we know about is legally sufficient to support a charge of manslaughter. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7471 "2012-11-13T20:01:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > TI do believe the evidence we know about is legally sufficient to support a charge of manslaughter. Do you think the evidence we know about is sufficient to disprove Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense? I assume disproving the claim is as necessary to convict for manslaughter as it is for second-degree murder. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7472 "2012-11-13T20:43:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because in order to be a threat under the law, it must clearly and unambiguously communicate: > > (1) That the actor intends to commit an act of physical violence; > (2) That the actor intends to commit that act imminently, right at that moment; > (3) That the actor has the present capability to do so; > (4) That the victim has a well-founded fear of such imminent act. See, e.g., State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fl. 1975). > > If the only thing a person has done is follow you for ten minutes and then come up to you, that alone cannot meet those requirements. With no words spoken, no gestures made that indicate imminent violence, just someone approaching you cannot be a threat for the purposes of the criminal statute. > > You may say, truthfully, that you felt fear – but the fear alone is not enough; you must also be able to identify the specific item that communicated the threat. As the Florida courts said in Benitiz v. State, 901 So.2d 935 ( Fl. DCA 2005): > > That’s the law in Florida. With cites. > > Of course I don’t know what Zimmerman might have said to Martin – this is in response to you, saying you’d use a weapon or fight if someone followed you for ten minutes and then came up to you. Fair enough\*\* Bricker\*\*. But if someone who came up to me yelling like that (as relayed by DeeDee), yeah, that might do it. I think (3) and (4) can be established (IMO, correct me if I am wrong). (1) and (2) can be argued as well, by listening to the call Zimmerman made. “they always get away”? Maybe his actions were taken to keep Martin from getting away. This is where you have to ask yourself, what purpose would Zimmerman’s actions would have served?. I don’t buy the BS that he was just ‘asking him a question’ and ‘keeping an eye on him’ or that he was looking for an address. You gave a conditional,\*\* bricker\*\*,–IF. That’s not all that Zimmerman did. But I understand what you are saying. And also Martin is dead. But DeeDee’s statements (as well as Zimmerman’s) is enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7473 "2012-11-13T20:44:57Z")
Also **Bricker** , do ALL of the four conditions have to be met? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7474 "2012-11-13T21:01:16Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Also **Bricker** , do ALL of the four conditions have to be met? I’m not **Bricker** , but Yes. > [@](#): > > But if someone who came up to me yelling like that (as relayed by DeeDee) Dee Dee made no such mention of Zimmerman coming up to Martin yelling. > [@](#): > > But DeeDee’s statements (as well as Zimmerman’s) is enough for me. That’s unfortunate, because she said nothing of the sort. [QUOTE=Dee Dee] And then he told me like the guy was getting close..like..and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, “What are you following me for?” [/QUOTE] Notice that there is no mention of yelling, and the first person to speak was Martin. 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 13, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7475 "2012-11-13T23:08:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To be more definitive, I believe the evidence we know about is not legally sufficient to support a charge of second-degree murder. I do believe the evidence we know about is legally sufficient to support a charge of manslaughter. To add to **Shodan** ’s question, does the immunity from legal action provided by the SYG law prevent a charge of manslaughter, if it’s shown he did act in self defence? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7476 "2012-11-14T00:11:21Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Fair enough\*\* Bricker\*\*. > > But if someone who came up to me yelling like that (as relayed by DeeDee), yeah, that might do it. I think (3) and (4) can be established (IMO, correct me if I am wrong). Wait what? You think Zimmerman should have shot Martin immediately? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7477 "2012-11-14T00:47:02Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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. Your unremarkable teenager literally went out of his way to confront someone and then assault him. He did this of his own free will. The neighborhood watch guy chose to call the police. He did this of his own free will. One of those choices was legal and one of them was illegal. > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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? I have no doubt you just posted yet another one of your imagined scenarios without any evidence. Because you did. > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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. And yet he attacked Zimmerman. > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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. He was in his own neighborhood. It’s not “turf” it’s where he lives. > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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. Yes, the evidence shows he left the general area of his house and approached Zimmerman. And then the evidence shows he attacked him. > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > 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. You have no evidence except your imagination. Best of luck getting that entered into the court records. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7478 "2012-11-14T13:31:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 1. Your unremarkable teenager literally went out of his way to confront someone and then assault him. He did this of his own free will. The neighborhood watch guy chose to call the police. He did this of his own free will. One of those choices was legal and one of them was illegal. > > 2. And yet he attacked Zimmerman. > > 3. He was in his own neighborhood. It’s not “turf” it’s where he lives. > > 4. Yes, the evidence shows he left the general area of his house and approached Zimmerman. And then the evidence shows he attacked him. > > 5. You have no evidence except your imagination. Best of luck getting that entered into the court records. 1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Martin didn’t “go out of his way” to do anything. He was defending himself against the psycho who later killed him. what Martin did was self-defense. Zimmerman was the one in the wrong. 2. Martin was defending himself. 3. And? 4. No, it does not. It certainly shows Zimmerman following Martin. 5. Yeah, like a jury will buy the bullshit you’re saying? Please. Again, I have to ask, is this is an internet only thing? Do people around you know your views and approve of them? I will repeat, a jury DOES NOT HAVE TO BUY THIS. And they probably won’t. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7479 "2012-11-14T13:41:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Wait what? You think Zimmerman should have shot Martin immediately? WTF??? ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7480 "2012-11-14T16:14:44Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Martin didn’t “go out of his way” to do anything. He was defending himself against the psycho who later killed him. what Martin did was self-defense. Zimmerman was the one in the wrong. How do you come to that conclusion? Based on the bullet forensics, witness statements and general evidence - what dots connect together to place Zimmerman in a position of complete and unscrupulous aggression? > [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. No, it does not. It certainly shows Zimmerman following Martin. Again dots..even if Zimmerman was chasing Martin, where is the cross over to murdering him? > [@betenoire39](#): > > 1. Yeah, like a jury will buy the bullshit you’re saying? Please. Again, I have to ask, is this is an internet only thing? Do people around you know your views and approve of them? A jury won’t buy into anything; a good jury sees the information presented and makes a decision. As I mentioned before on this page, a court of law is not about finding the truth - it’s about finding justice. A man in jail put there by a jury that was 1% in doubt, is not justice under our system. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7481 "2012-11-14T16:32:26Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Please. Again, I have to ask, is this is an internet only thing? Do people around you know your views and approve of them? I am curious why you ask this so often of those whose point of view is different to yours? I get the impression that with this question you are implying only a racist could view the known evidence and conclude that Zimmerman will not be found guilty. Is this an accurate assessment? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7482 "2012-11-14T16:55:57Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Fair enough\*\* Bricker\*\*. > > But if someone who came up to me yelling like that (as relayed by DeeDee), yeah, that might do it. I think (3) and (4) can be established (IMO, correct me if I am wrong). > > (1) and (2) can be argued as well, by listening to the call Zimmerman made. “they always get away”? Maybe his actions were taken to keep Martin from getting away. Here’s the problem – again, from a legal point of view. It’s not enough to say that “it can be argued.” A jury has to hear specific evidence for an element of a crime. In _State v. Von Deck_, 607 So. 2d 1388 (Fl. 1992), the court said: > [@](#): > > Florida law is well settled that the elements of an offense cannot be established by mere inference. And this isn’t a matter of the jury maybe deciding it anyway, even though they’re told not to. If the only evidence for (1) and (2) is the inference of Zimmerman saying, “They always get away,” the jury won’t even get to do their job. Since the state can’t use that to prove (1) or (2), the judge will stop the case after the state finishes presenting evidence. So, no – you can’t say that Zimmerman saying “They always get away,” can be used to show (1) or (2). You have to show them directly. > [@betenoire39](#): > > Also **Bricker** , do ALL of the four conditions have to be met? Yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=373) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=375)