# 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:** 375
**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, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7483 "2012-11-14T17:07:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. It’s slightly different. With manslaughter, the gravamen of the crime was your reckless conduct resulting in a death. It’s much more of a chain-of-events crime than second degree murder, which requires not recklessness, but hatred, ill-will, spite. With a charge of manslaughter, the self-defense issue becomes less strong – in effect, your recklessness (goes the charge) created the very situation that led to the need for use to use lethal force to defend yourself. Even if the use of lethal force was itself legal as self-defense, it doesn’t erase the recklessness that led you to the moment that required the lethal force. I can break this out in more detail if anyone’s interested. But the short answer is: the claim of self-defense will be harder to use in a manslaughter case, even though the instant at which lethal force was used may have been a completely legal use of it. ---
**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, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7484 "2012-11-14T17:15:27Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 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? Yes, but. What I mean is: yes, § 776.032 provides immunity from all criminal prosecutions. But:as I hinted above, self-defense is slightly weaker in manslaughter cases, because you have a broader range of conduct the triggers the “dirty hands” of the actor. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7485 "2012-11-14T17:25:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but. > > What I mean is: yes, § 776.032 provides immunity from all criminal prosecutions. > > But:as I hinted above, self-defense is slightly weaker in manslaughter cases, because you have a broader range of conduct the triggers the “dirty hands” of the actor. But the case is not a manslaughter case. It is a murder 2 case. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7486 "2012-11-14T17:35:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s slightly different. > > With manslaughter, the gravamen of the crime was your reckless conduct resulting in a death. It’s much more of a chain-of-events crime than second degree murder, which requires not recklessness, but hatred, ill-will, spite. > > With a charge of manslaughter, the self-defense issue becomes less strong – in effect, your recklessness (goes the charge) created the very situation that led to the need for use to use lethal force to defend yourself. Even if the use of lethal force was itself legal as self-defense, it doesn’t erase the recklessness that led you to the moment that required the lethal force. > > I can break this out in more detail if anyone’s interested. But the short answer is: the claim of self-defense will be harder to use in a manslaughter case, even though the instant at which lethal force was used may have been a completely legal use of it. Thanks as usual for your response. Also, just to make sure I understand you, a “legally sufficient” level of evidence means “if the jury chose to convict or acquit based on this level of evidence, it would survive an appeal”. Not that they necessarily would convict or acquit, just that a reasonable jury could come to that conclusion without violating the assumption of innocence. If that makes any sense - I don’t always on matters of law. 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 14, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7487 "2012-11-14T18:51:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s slightly different. > > With manslaughter, the gravamen of the crime was your reckless conduct resulting in a death. It’s much more of a chain-of-events crime than second degree murder, which requires not recklessness, but hatred, ill-will, spite. > > With a charge of manslaughter, the self-defense issue becomes less strong – in effect, your recklessness (goes the charge) created the very situation that led to the need for use to use lethal force to defend yourself. Even if the use of lethal force was itself legal as self-defense, it doesn’t erase the recklessness that led you to the moment that required the lethal force. > > I can break this out in more detail if anyone’s interested. But the short answer is: the claim of self-defense will be harder to use in a manslaughter case, even though the instant at which lethal force was used may have been a completely legal use of it. The thing I don’t get here is that, if he was acting in legal self defence and is immune from legal action, how can a prosecution be brought even if his conduct was reckless? This seems like it’s a flaw with the law, but I may well be missing something. Another question - is manslaughter necessarily an included charge here? ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7488 "2012-11-14T19:02:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Fair enough Bricker…I understand. Thanks. This is where I need to know when Zimmerman chambered that gun (if it needed chambering) and when he got it ready. There is a nagging part of me that believes Zimmerman thought he needed the gun as soon as he saw Martin…I believe he was ready to go to war that night. This could show (1) and (2)…do you agree? also, Bricker take a look at this [blog](http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/14/the-statutory-basis-for-the-murder-charge-against-george-zimmerman-and-his-available-defenses-under-florida-law/). Do you agree with the legal analysis? ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7489 "2012-11-14T19:16:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > But the case is not a manslaughter case. It is a murder 2 case. Correct. > [@Steophan](#): > > Another question - is manslaughter necessarily an included charge here? No. It could be, depending on the facts adduced at trial, but it doesn’t have to be. > [@Steophan](#): > > The thing I don’t get here is that, if he was acting in legal self defence and is immune from legal action, how can a prosecution be brought even if his conduct was reckless? This seems like it’s a flaw with the law, but I may well be missing something. OK, here’s a thought experiment to help separate the issues: After a few drinks, you decide to demonstrate your juggling skills with your loaded, hair-trigger Ruger Blackhawk single-action revolvers. I come upon the scene and realize you’re the guy that’s been schtupping my daughter. Furious, I pull a knife and announce that I’m going to perform a surgical procedure on your genitals to ensure you don’t defile any other young girls, and rush towards you. You grab one of your guns out of the air and shoot me dead… but the other gun hits the ground and discharges, killing a bystander. You clearly had every right to use lethal force against me. But someone’s dead, and that person is dead because of your negligent actions. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7490 "2012-11-14T19:46:29Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Fair enough Bricker…I understand. Thanks. > > This is where I need to know when Zimmerman chambered that gun (if it needed chambering) and when he got it ready. The weapon used was a Kel-Tec 9mm, model PF-9. It can be loaded and carried with a round already chambered, and I’m not aware of any way to tell whether Zimmerman carried it that way. > [@](#): > > There is a nagging part of me that believes Zimmerman thought he needed the gun as soon as he saw Martin…I believe he was ready to go to war that night. That’s certainly possible, but, again, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is the issue. > [@](#): > > This could show (1) and (2)…do you agree? Sadly, no. Unless someone can testify that Zimmerman drew his gun and chambered a round in front of Martin. In fact, forget chambering – merely drawing his gun and pointing it at Martin would certainly be enough to prove (1) and (2). But where does that evidence come from? Again, the jury cannot say, “It seems like that probably happened.” There needs to be some specific evidence in the record allowing them to conclude that happened. > [@](#): > > also, Bricker take a look at this [blog](http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/14/the-statutory-basis-for-the-murder-charge-against-george-zimmerman-and-his-available-defenses-under-florida-law/). Do you agree with the legal analysis? In general, yes – by which I mean that she speculates there is additional evidence we don’t know about, evidence that strongly contradicts Zimmerman or that shows Zimmerman’s ill-will. The biggest disagreement I have with her analysis is this paragraph: > [@](#): > > Murder 2 just requires that the defendant deliberately, and with so little justification as to be reckless, engaged in conduct that puts others at obvious risk of death or great bodily harm. To give a rough example, imagine an individual who, on a random whim, decides to throw a boulder off a cliff, when that individual knows that there is a path at the bottom of the cliff that people walk on. The individual could not have known if the boulder would kill anyone, and did not actually intend to cause anyone’s death, but could still be subject to a murder 2 charge if in fact someone was struck and killed. That understates the mens rea for second degree murder. Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal) 66: > [@](#): > > An act is one “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life” if it is an act or series of acts that: > > 1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and > 2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and > 3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life. The boulder example certainly evinces indifference to human life, but not ill-will, an evil intent, hatred, or spite. In Ellison v. State, 547 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), Ellison led police on a high speed chase along highways where he knew there was traffic. His car crashed into another one and killed a baby. The Florida Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Ellison’s conduct was reckless, and showed a disregard for human life, but no facts showed ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent toward his victim, and they approved the reversal of his second degree murder conviction. As the author of that blog acknowledges, though: “I am not a criminal attorney by any means, so this analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.” ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7491 "2012-11-14T19:55:18Z")
Fair enough\*\* Bricker\*\*. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7492 "2012-11-14T19:59:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The weapon used was a Kel-Tec 9mm, model PF-9. It can be loaded and carried with a round already chambered, and I’m not aware of any way to tell whether Zimmerman carried it that way. It was, in fact, carried that way. When police got the weapon, it had a full magazine and only the chambered round was fired. Which means Zimmerman, when loading the gun, like a lot of that type of gun’s owners do, loaded the magazine, chambered the bullet, removed the magazine, added one more bullet to it and put the magazine back in. See [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-19/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-students-20120319\_1\_warning-shot-college-students-single-shell-casing](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-19/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-students-20120319_1_warning-shot-college-students-single-shell-casing) ---
**Author:** ![Jiha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@Jiha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jiha)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7493 "2012-11-14T20:32:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The boulder example certainly evinces indifference to human life, but not ill-will, an evil intent, hatred, or spite. In Ellison v. State, 547 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), Ellison led police on a high speed chase along highways where he knew there was traffic. His car crashed into another one and killed a baby. The Florida Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Ellison’s conduct was reckless, and showed a disregard for human life, but no facts showed ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent toward his victim, and they approved the reversal of his second degree murder conviction. Not so. The boulder example demonstrates evil intent sufficient for a charge of depraved heart murder. If someone plays russian roulette with the revolver aimed at someone else’s head, it is no defense that the defendant didn’t have any particular ill will to the victim, they were just bored and wanted to see what happened. See, e.g., _Black v. State_, 95 So.3d 884: > [@](#): > > We are mindful of this court’s observation in Hicks that second-degree murder generally involves a defendant who knows the victim or bears enmity towards the victim. See Hicks, 41 So.3d at 331 (quoting Light, 841 So.2d at 626). However, section 782.04(2) does not require such a relationship between the defendant and the victim. In fact, malice murder convictions have been affirmed based on similar evidence of the defendant’s use of his vehicle to kill perfect strangers. See, e.g., Anderson, 330 S.E.2d at 594–95; People v. Gomez, 65 N.Y.2d 9, 489 N.Y.S.2d 156, 478 N.E.2d 759, 760–62 (1985) (affirming second-degree murder conviction of defendant whose vehicle sped down a crowded sidewalk and struck a child then proceeded down a second sidewalk and struck another child). In _Ellison_, the court found that the defendant was recklessly trying to elude police when the killing happened, and decided based on an intent to escape (and therefore actively intending to avoid hitting other individuals in the course of the escape) depraved heart murder didn’t apply. That analysis would not apply in the case of the curious boulder thrower. But all of that is irrelevant here. Zimmerman’s decision to pursue, while armed, “fucking punks” that “always get away,” followed by a sustained hand-to-hand fight, is more than sufficient for a murder 2 charge, if proven. ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7494 "2012-11-14T20:55:44Z")
> [@Jiha](#): > > Not so. > > The boulder example demonstrates evil intent sufficient for a charge of depraved heart murder. If someone plays russian roulette with the revolver aimed at someone else’s head, it is no defense that the defendant didn’t have any particular ill will to the victim, they were just bored and wanted to see what happened. > > See, e.g., _Black v. State_, 95 So.3d 884: > > In _Ellison_, the court found that the defendant was recklessly trying to elude police when the killing happened, and decided based on an intent to escape (and therefore actively intending to avoid hitting other individuals in the course of the escape) depraved heart murder didn’t apply. That analysis would not apply in the case of the curious boulder thrower. > > **But all of that is irrelevant here. Zimmerman’s decision to pursue, while armed, “fucking punks” that “always get away,” followed by a sustained hand-to-hand fight, is more than sufficient for a murder 2 charge, if proven.** Welcome to the forum! It gets a little lonely in here sometimes LOL. But I have to ask you, can you explain how what i have bolded will be enough for murder 2? You are a lawyer, no? If so, wonderful…I always like to hear lawyers chime in. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7495 "2012-11-14T21:40:20Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Welcome to the forum! It gets a little lonely in here sometimes LOL. > > But I have to ask you, can you explain how what i have bolded will be enough for murder 2? It isn’t. They’re trying to suggest that motive would be a significant enough factor in absence of evidence that doesn’t exist in favor of murder. That’s not how it works though. \* "Zimmerman’s decision to pursue, while armed, “fucking punks” that “always get away,” \* **Does not equate :** \* Zimmerman’s decision to pursue, while armed, “fucking punks” that “always get away,” “put himself in a bad position” “had to kill” “all his fault” \* This touches back to the line of thinking early on that if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he’s instantly guilty of murder no ifs ands or buts. We’re past that..or at least we hope. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7496 "2012-11-14T21:51:26Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It was, in fact, carried that way. When police got the weapon, it had a full magazine and only the chambered round was fired. Which means Zimmerman, when loading the gun, like a lot of that type of gun’s owners do, loaded the magazine, chambered the bullet, removed the magazine, added one more bullet to it and put the magazine back in. > > See [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-19/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-students-20120319\_1\_warning-shot-college-students-single-shell-casing](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-19/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-students-20120319_1_warning-shot-college-students-single-shell-casing) Okay, I have little interest in guns, so I have little knowledge of guns, so what I say may not make much sense here. From what I’ve read, this particular gun has no safety. The fact that the first bullet must be physically chambered acts as the safety feature. No bullet in the chamber; the “safety” is “on.” Bullet in the chamber; the “safety” is “off” and the gun is ready to fire. The act of chambering the bullet takes only a few seconds. And then after the first bullet is dislodged, any bullets remaining in the magazine are automatically chambered. Gun aficionados, help me out, please…is my description here essentially right? If so, routinely carrying around a loaded gun with no safety feature seems reckless and stupid. Taking a loaded gun with no safety feature, essentially cocked, into Target on a routine shopping trip, or habitually storing a loaded gun with no safety feature, essentially cocked, in the glove compartment seems reckless, short-sighted, and breathtakingly stupid. And having that seventh bullet in there doesn’t make sense to me either. If you’re at the range about to shoot, yeah, chamber, remove, add one, and restore. You’re at the range; you’re about to shoot all those bullets. If, late at night, you hear a window break and then muffled voices, oh yeah–pause to grab that 7th bullet; you don’t know what you’re walking into. If you’re Omar Little and you think Marlo’s crew could be zeroing in on you, yeah…keep that gun packed tight. If you’re heading out to Target, 7 bullets and no safety feature is ridiculous. Now if Zimmerman paused to chamber that bullet as he was leaving his vehicle in pursuit of Martin/a street address/whatever, I get that. That makes sense to me. But then he would have also had to have taken a moment to add that 7th bullet to the mix. So we got two possibilities here 1. Even though he has said that he forgot at one point that he had his gun on him, Zimmerman is paranoid and foolish enough to carry around a fully loaded gun, safety off, _absolutely everywhere he goes_ and will probably one day end up shooting his penis off or 1. Leaving his truck that night, Zimmerman took a look in Martin’s direction, decided that six bullets might not cut it and took a moment out of his search to add a seventh. You know, just in case. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7497 "2012-11-14T21:59:40Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > From what I’ve read, this particular gun has no safety. The fact that the first bullet must be physically chambered acts as the safety feature. Sort of. > [@](#): > > [There is no manual safety, but the PF-9 has an internal safety that will not allow the weapon to fire unless the trigger is pulled.](http://www.gunblast.com/Kel-Tec9mm.htm) Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7498 "2012-11-14T22:00:12Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > Okay, I have little interest in guns, so I have little knowledge of guns, so what I say may not make much sense here. I’m sure Ann Coulter would have something hateful and witty to throw at this, but, I can’t master her technique yet so…we’ll move on. > [@sugaree](#): > > If so, routinely carrying around a loaded gun with no safety feature seems reckless and stupid. Taking a loaded gun with no safety feature, essentially cocked, into Target on a routine shopping trip, or habitually storing a loaded gun with no safety feature, essentially cocked, in the glove compartment seems reckless, short-sighted, and breathtakingly stupid. And? Vote on legislation if you feel strongly about it. That would not come up in court. > [@sugaree](#): > > If you’re Omar Little and you think Marlo’s crew could be zeroing in on you, yeah…keep that gun packed tight. I’m not sure if I should be happy you enjoyed the Wire, or concerned that your gun knowledge comes from a TV show. > [@sugaree](#): > > So we got two possibilities here > > 1. Even though he has said that he forgot at one point that he had his gun on him, Zimmerman is paranoid and foolish enough to carry around a fully loaded gun, safety off, _absolutely everywhere he goes_ and will probably one day end up shooting his penis off > > or > > 1. Leaving his truck that night, Zimmerman took a look in Martin’s direction, decided that six bullets might not cut it and took a moment out of his search to add a seventh. You know, just in case. 1. Is irrelevant - except to the point that if he really did forget, then that might explain why he didn’t use it early in the fight. It also takes away from the pro Zimmerman view that he waited and gave Martin a chance to cease attacking him. If you’re suggesting Zimmerman WAS gung-ho, but just too stupid and forgot, well good luck with that. 2. Is this just food for thought or? ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7499 "2012-11-14T22:18:10Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > When you boys are done with your pissing contest… > > 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. You have to wonder why Zimmerman, who allegedly ran after Martin, didn’t realize that a police cruiser could concievably have arrived BEFORE he even got off the phone, if it was passing by at that moment (they respond to dispatcher calls) plus the fact there were potential witnesses in every townhouse who looked out their windows. This would seem an inhibiting factor in any desire to do anything illegal. In order for him to be guilty, he would have had to have completely lost it, to the point of not just a depraved and evil mind, but total insanity. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7500 "2012-11-14T22:28:28Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > Okay, I have little interest in guns, so I have little knowledge of guns, so what I say may not make much sense here. > > From what I’ve read, this particular gun has no safety. The fact that the first bullet must be physically chambered acts as the safety feature. No bullet in the chamber; the “safety” is “on.” Bullet in the chamber; the “safety” is “off” and the gun is ready to fire. The act of chambering the bullet takes only a few seconds. And then after the first bullet is dislodged, any bullets remaining in the magazine are automatically chambered. Gun aficionados, help me out, please…is my description here essentially right? > > If so, routinely carrying around a loaded gun with no safety feature seems reckless and stupid. Taking a loaded gun with no safety feature, essentially cocked, into Target on a routine shopping trip, or habitually storing a loaded gun with no safety feature, essentially cocked, in the glove compartment seems reckless, short-sighted, and breathtakingly stupid. It is not “essentially cocked”. The gun is double-action only, and it only seems stupid to you since you have no experience with guns. > [@](#): > > 1. Even though he has said that he forgot at one point that he had his gun on him, Zimmerman is paranoid and foolish enough to carry around a fully loaded gun, safety off, _absolutely everywhere he goes_ and will probably one day end up shooting his penis off That’s a stupid statement. A lot of people have double action guns with no safety and they chamber/reload magazines in exactly that way. > [@](#): > > 1. Leaving his truck that night, Zimmerman took a look in Martin’s direction, decided that six bullets might not cut it and took a moment out of his search to add a seventh. You know, just in case. More stupidity. See above. May I suggest that since you have “little knowledge of guns” you improve it first before pontificating on these details? ---
**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, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7501 "2012-11-14T22:41:09Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > You have to wonder why Zimmerman, who allegedly ran after Martin, didn’t realize that a police cruiser could concievably have arrived BEFORE he even got off the phone, if it was passing by at that moment (they respond to dispatcher calls) plus the fact there were potential witnesses in every townhouse who looked out their windows. This would seem an inhibiting factor in any desire to do anything illegal.\*\* In order for him to be guilty, he would have had to have completely lost it, to the point of not just a depraved and evil mind, but total insanity.\*\* I hear you, but in my neck of the woods, people do things all the time in full view of people, and yes, they get sent to prison. So that in itself wouldn’t surprise me. I understand that many of you live in places where these types of things don’t happen, which is why some of you have a hard time comprehending people doing things like this. I can completely picture Zimmerman losing control like that…IMO that’s what the evidence suggests (to me). This is what some acquaintances have said about Zimmerman and his temper and how he flipped out on some chick. He was also talking meds. Yet another reason why I can’t understand some people: their desire to paint Martin in this black-male archetype (impulsiveness, violence) seems to trump Zimmerman’s history and his own mental instability. ---
**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 14, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7502 "2012-11-14T22:52:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, here’s a thought experiment to help separate the issues: > > After a few drinks, you decide to demonstrate your juggling skills with your loaded, hair-trigger Ruger Blackhawk single-action revolvers. I come upon the scene and realize you’re the guy that’s been schtupping my daughter. Furious, I pull a knife and announce that I’m going to perform a surgical procedure on your genitals to ensure you don’t defile any other young girls, and rush towards you. You grab one of your guns out of the air and shoot me dead… but the other gun hits the ground and discharges, killing a bystander. > > You clearly had every right to use lethal force against me. But someone’s dead, and that person is dead because of your negligent actions. That’s a good example of recklessness, but the difference between that and the case we’re discussing is that here, there’s a second victim. My question was whether the immunity from legal action SYG grants in cases of self defence would prevent a charge of any sort based on the death of the person he defended himself against. I understand that, whilst the killing may have been legal, the actions leading up to it may not have been (although I don’t believe that to be true for this case), what I don’t see is how they can charge him for them if he has immunity from legal action. Again, I suspect that, if I’m right, it’s an unintended consequence of a badly written law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=374) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=376)