# 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:** 388
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7743 "2012-11-16T23:45:29Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **betenoire** , you know exactly what race baiting is as you engage in it frequently. > > **Bricker** , regarding the idea that Zimmerman’s following of Martin is sufficiently reckless as to justify a manslaughter conviction, I have three points. Firstly, if Zimmerman was following Martin with the intention to catch and attempt to detain him, I think you’d be right. Secondly, if he was following him with the intention of ensuring that he could tell the police his location, I don’t think that’s reckless. It’s not reasonable to assume that someone will become violent simply because they notice you following from a distance. > > Thirdly, the evidence strongly suggests that, when the inadvisability of following Martin was brought to his attention, he stopped following. Do you think that, even taking into account that, and the fact that their actual encounter was due to Martin returning to Zimmerman after losing him, it still counts as criminally reckless, rather that just slightly stupid? > > Also, do you have any cites for courts finding, in a jurisdiction where carrying handguns is fully legal, that an act that would otherwise have been fine becomes criminally reckless due to the carrying of a gun? If not, the continued mention of following Martin _with a loaded gun_ is a red herring, introduced for emotional purposes. So apparently I engage in something that is defined only by “urban dictionary”. Splendid. By the way, my “race swim” went well. I would love to hear Bricker’s response to this… The first two points are prefaced with “if” and then “when the inadvisability of following Martin was brought to his attention, he stopped following”–like this etched in stone and beyond dispute. THIS IS ONE OF THE CORE THINGS THAT’S IN DISPUTE. Gonna be great. If, if, if, if… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7744 "2012-11-16T23:57:23Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **betenoire** , you know exactly what race baiting is as you engage in it frequently. > > **Bricker** , regarding the idea that Zimmerman’s following of Martin is sufficiently reckless as to justify a manslaughter conviction, I have three points. Firstly, if Zimmerman was following Martin with the intention to catch and attempt to detain him, I think you’d be right. Secondly, if he was following him with the intention of ensuring that he could tell the police his location, I don’t think that’s reckless. It’s not reasonable to assume that someone will become violent simply because they notice you following from a distance. But I was talking about legal sufficiency of the evidence. The jury is entitled to believe the evidence that suggests Zimmerman was following Martin intending to catch him and disbelieve the evidence that suggests a less inculpatory motive. They don’t have to. But they can. It’s part of the record. > [@](#): > > Thirdly, the evidence strongly suggests that, when the inadvisability of following Martin was brought to his attention, he stopped following. Do you think that, even taking into account that, and the fact that their actual encounter was due to Martin returning to Zimmerman after losing him, it still counts as criminally reckless, rather that just slightly stupid? The jury is, again, entitled to disbelieve the evidence that he stopped following. Remember: to judge legal sufficiency, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, drawing all reasonable inferences in the state’s favor. > [@](#): > > Also, do you have any cites for courts finding, in a jurisdiction where carrying handguns is fully legal, that an act that would otherwise have been fine becomes criminally reckless due to the carrying of a gun? If not, the continued mention of following Martin _with a loaded gun_ is a red herring, introduced for emotional purposes. No. But I have a two-fer: a cite that says Florida courts regard civil recklessness and criminal recklessness with the same standard, and a cite showing civil liability for injury with a gun based on reckless conduct. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7745 "2012-11-17T00:07:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I was talking about legal sufficiency of the evidence. **The jury is entitled to believe the evidence that suggests Zimmerman was following Martin intending to catch him and disbelieve the evidence that suggests a less inculpatory motive.** > > They don’t have to. But they can. It’s part of the record. > > **The jury is, again, entitled to disbelieve the evidence that he stopped following.** Remember: to judge legal sufficiency, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, drawing all reasonable inferences in the state’s favor. > > No. But I have a two-fer: a cite that says Florida courts regard civil recklessness and criminal recklessness with the same standard, and a cite showing civil liability for injury with a gun based on reckless conduct. Make careful note of the bolded statements…this is important, and something I and others have been saying for weeks. The jury does not have to drink the koolaid that you and some other posters are writing about. It’s funny…they claim I know nothing about the court system…I asked them this question: have they ever served on a jury? I got no answer. But they want to continue to spew this hypothetical, theoretical bullshit as if it’s fact. Meanwhile I bring up these very points, and they have nothing but insults and bullshit to follow. Thank you \*\*Bricker \*\*for the added weight. Again, in case you missed it; the jury does not have to buy the bullshit…that’s what juries are for. They are not these automatons programmed to acquit Zimmerman because you feel they should. ---
**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 17, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7746 "2012-11-17T00:31:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I was talking about legal sufficiency of the evidence. The jury is entitled to believe the evidence that suggests Zimmerman was following Martin intending to catch him and disbelieve the evidence that suggests a less inculpatory motive. > > They don’t have to. But they can. It’s part of the record. What evidence is there that Zimmerman was following with the intent to catch Martin? If you have this, you have the grounds to charge him with manslaughter, although I still doubt a conviction would happen, but I don’t see any evidence for it. I see plenty of speculation, though. > [@](#): > > The jury is, again, entitled to disbelieve the evidence that he stopped following. Remember: to judge legal sufficiency, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, drawing all reasonable inferences in the state’s favor. Ok, I think we’re back to your distinction earlier, between what is legally sufficient to charge him, and what you believe actually happened. So, **IF** he stopped following him, and **IF** he never had the intention of catching him, was it, in your opinion, manslaughter? > [@](#): > > No. But I have a two-fer: a cite that says Florida courts regard civil recklessness and criminal recklessness with the same standard, and a cite showing civil liability for injury with a gun based on reckless conduct. So, the simple act of carrying a loaded gun (legally) can make an otherwise acceptable act criminally reckless? That seems counter-intuitive to me, to be honest, and it also seems like something a jury in Florida would be unlikely to accept. But then, plenty of people here think Zimmerman will only be free because of some counter-intuitive laws, so its not impossible that the converse will be true. ---
**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 17, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7747 "2012-11-17T00:44:02Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Make careful note of the bolded statements…this is important, and something I and others have been saying for weeks. It’s also something I’ve agreed with you on for weeks… But, just because they disregard the evidence, doesn’t mean they can substitute baseless speculation for it, and convict on that basis. Well, technically they can, but it would be overturned quickly. > [@](#): > > The jury does not have to drink the koolaid that you and some other posters are writing about. They do, however, have to acquit if there’s any reasonable scenario which fits the evidence they accept in which Zimmerman is not guilty. > [@](#): > > It’s funny…they claim I know nothing about the court system…I asked them this question: have they ever served on a jury? I got no answer. But they want to continue to spew this hypothetical, theoretical bullshit as if it’s fact. No, I spew facts as though they’re facts, and clearly label any speculations as such. You constantly ask leading, irrelevant questions, ignore the answers when you don’t like them, and refuse to answer relevant questions asked of you. But, to answer your question in the only way that’s relevant, I never have, and never will, serve on a Florida jury, and I have never had any direct experience of the Florida justice system. Have you? > [@](#): > > Meanwhile I bring up these very points, and they have nothing but insults and bullshit to follow. I’ve refuted every point of yours I’ve chosen to address. That you see such refutation as an insult shows that you are too emotionally invested in this, and are unable to rationally analyse it. > [@](#): > > Thank you \*\*Bricker \*\*for the added weight. He is not supporting your point as much as you may think. Why is it that you are fine with his “if” statements - that is Zimmerman could be convicted **IF** the jury dismiss much of the evidence - and indeed take them to be certainties, but when anyone else so much as types that word you claim they are full of shit? Actually, I know why. It’s because you care nothing for the facts of this case, and only want to see Zimmerman suffer for your amusement. > [@](#): > > Again, in case you missed it; the jury does not have to buy the bullshit…that’s what juries are for. They are not these automatons programmed to acquit Zimmerman because you feel they should. Juries must act within certain rules, or their judgement isn’t valid. If they convict despite the evidence, it will be overturned. Now, that doesn’t mean that he cannot be convicted of manslaughter. If it’s deemed reasonable to think that following someone with a loaded weapon, even with no intention of confronting them, and stopping following them before getting near them, to be so reckless as to be criminal, he may be convicted. I consider that to be so unreasonable as to be laughable, and I strongly believe that a Florida jury will feel the same. Of course, this case should no more be decided on my feelings than yours. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7748 "2012-11-17T01:08:16Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Actually, it’s from the interview 3 days after. Plenty of time for his pal Osterman to have walked his route and double-checked there were no home cctv cameras in sneaky places. Well certainly plenty of time for another installment of the dimmy derko fantasy hour. Did Osterman also check to see if anybody in the neighborhood owned a cell phone in your fantasy? Because most phones have video capability. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7749 "2012-11-17T02:15:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What evidence is there that Zimmerman was following with the intent to catch Martin? If you have this, you have the grounds to charge him with manslaughter, although I still doubt a conviction would happen, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Zimmerman’s own words: > [@](#): > > Zimmerman: These assholes, they always get away. > . > . > . > Dispatcher: Are you following him? > > Zimmerman: Yeah. The jury can conclude his words show he was interested in assholes NOT getting away. > [@](#): > > So, **IF** he stopped following him, and **IF** he never had the intention of catching him, was it, in your opinion, manslaughter? No, if those predicates are true, then it’s not. > [@](#): > > So, the simple act of carrying a loaded gun (legally) can make an otherwise acceptable act criminally reckless? That seems counter-intuitive to me, to be honest, and it also seems like something a jury in Florida would be unlikely to accept. > > But then, plenty of people here think Zimmerman will only be free because of some counter-intuitive laws, so its not impossible that the converse will be true. Of course. Merely because an act is legal does not make it automatically not reckless. It’s perfectly legal to drive down the highway at 55 mph; it’s criminally reckless to do so in the middle of an ice storm when you can see a bus load of stranded children ahead. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7750 "2012-11-17T02:23:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Zimmerman’s own words: > > The jury can conclude his words show he was interested in assholes NOT getting away. > > No, if those predicates are true, then it’s not. > > Of course. Merely because an act is legal does not make it automatically not reckless. It’s perfectly legal to drive down the highway at 55 mph; it’s criminally reckless to do so in the middle of an ice storm when you can see a bus load of stranded children ahead. Clapping emoticon. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7751 "2012-11-17T03:02:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Zimmerman’s own words: > > The jury can conclude his words show he was interested in assholes NOT getting away. > > No, if those predicates are true, then it’s not. We have evidence that he stopped following Martin (via the change in sound on the phone call) and we have evidence that both lost sight of each other. Zimmerman claims he was walking along the sidewalk heading back toward his car which coincides with the location of the flashlight. There is no indication that he pursued Martin beyond this point. Martin places himself next to his house. The exact location cannot be established but it’s not within eyesight of Zimmerman. Minutes pass and Martin is now where Zimmerman is walking in plain sight. > [@Bricker](#): > > Of course. Merely because an act is legal does not make it automatically not reckless. It’s perfectly legal to drive down the highway at 55 mph; it’s criminally reckless to do so in the middle of an ice storm when you can see a bus load of stranded children ahead. The smoking gun in this case literally occurs well into the fight and not before. His interest in assuring that this asshole doesn’t get away lacks the evidence he continued the follow martin or used the gun to detain him. His actions prior to the confrontation are consistent with his original plan to meet up with the police. so basically what it comes down to is that every law abiding citizen on the planet hates to see assholes get away but it takes more evidence than stating the obvious to prove intent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7752 "2012-11-17T03:59:33Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We have evidence that he stopped following Martin (via the change in sound on the phone call) and we have evidence that both lost sight of each other. Zimmerman claims he was walking along the sidewalk heading back toward his car which coincides with the location of the flashlight. There is no indication that he pursued Martin beyond this point. Martin places himself next to his house. The exact location cannot be established but it’s not within eyesight of Zimmerman. Minutes pass and Martin is now where Zimmerman is walking in plain sight. > > The smoking gun in this case literally occurs well into the fight and not before. His interest in assuring that this asshole doesn’t get away lacks the evidence he continued the follow martin or used the gun to detain him. His actions prior to the confrontation are consistent with his original plan to meet up with the police. > > so basically what it comes down to is that every law abiding citizen on the planet hates to see assholes get away but it takes more evidence than stating the obvious to prove intent. But manslaughter is a general intent crime. His recklessness started when he started to follow Martin. That’s all the prosecution needs the jury to believe. Sure, they could conclude that he did something else, but that evidence is enough for them to conclude recklessness. They don’t have to, but they can. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7753 "2012-11-17T04:20:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But manslaughter is a general intent crime. His recklessness started when he started to follow Martin. what is your reasoning behind the idea of reckless? What makes Zimmerman’s actions reckless? > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s all the prosecution needs the jury to believe. Sure, they could conclude that he did something else, but that evidence is enough for them to conclude recklessness. They don’t have to, but they can. I understand your legal point about reckless behavior, I’m just questioning the behavior itself. I’ve called the police a fair number of times for crimes and potential crimes near my house. I’ve gone outside to keep the person in view. What I haven’t done is place myself in close proximity of the person and I think this is key to your argument. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7754 "2012-11-17T08:15:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > what is your reasoning behind the idea of reckless? What makes Zimmerman’s actions reckless? If I may… > [@Bricker](#): > > Viewed in that light, the evidence shows that Zimmerman proceeded against the advice of the police dispatcher to follow Martin, a person he believed to be an armed criminal, taking his loaded pistol with him, when there was no compelling reason to do so. > > The jury could reasonably find that Zimmerman knew, or should have known, that carrying a loaded pistol at night, while following someone he believed to be an armed criminal, was likely to result in someone’s death or great bodily injury. I may well be wrong, about what Bricker’s intent and point are. But I think Bricker may have answered that question already. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7755 "2012-11-17T09:54:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely disagree. I think you’re picturing manslaughter by act. But Florida law also allows for manslaughter by culpable negligence. > > Now, to be crystal clear, I understand you to be saying that, as a matter of law, the evidence adduced so far is legally insufficient to support manslaughter – you are NOT saying that you believe the jury just won’t find the evidence convincing; you’re saying that as a matter of law no reasonable jury could convict on this evidence. Yes? > > OK, let’s review. In Florida, the key elements of manslaughter are found in § 782.07(1): > > To answer the question, “Is the evidence legally sufficient to sustain a conviction?” we must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, drawing all reasonable inferences in the prosecution’s favor. > > Viewed in that light, the evidence shows that Zimmerman proceeded against the advice of the police dispatcher to follow Martin, a person he believed to be an armed criminal, taking his loaded pistol with him, when there was no compelling reason to do so. > > “Culpable negligence” is defined as follows: > > The jury could reasonably find that Zimmerman knew, or should have known, that carrying a loaded pistol at night, while following someone he believed to be an armed criminal, was likely to result in someone’s death or great bodily injury. > > The jury could also reasonably find that the death was neither excusable nor justifiable. > > (emphasis added). No, I am considering manslaughter by negligence. Florida’s law concerning culpable negligence is obviously older than Stand Your Ground. I believe in cases like this, jurors would lean towards SYG as long as they understand it properly. Furthering that, this particular case lacks evidence for the jury to consider a reduction to manslaughter. I would however be open to a swayed jury IF the state can prove Zimmerman had violent intent both by deductive reasoning and witness account - which it seems we have nothing to support that. To circle back to your comment : “The jury could reasonably find that Zimmerman knew, or should have known, that carrying a loaded pistol at night, while following someone he believed to be an armed criminal, was likely to result in someone’s death or great bodily injury.” Switch a few words around and you have Trevor Dooley - armed with intent maybe not to kill, but to brandish a weapon as a method of intimidation. To me that could be considered violent intent. It was also extremely foolish and subsequently ended in someone’s death. SYG is very specific and very strong. Even in lieu of evidence, I am not surprised that a pro SYG jury would acquit someone like Dooley. However I find it more conceivable that they would equally convict him, because of his over the top negligence of violent intent. Which again, we can’t prove or disprove about Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7756 "2012-11-17T10:00:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. But I have a two-fer: a cite that says Florida courts regard civil recklessness and criminal recklessness with the same standard, and a cite showing civil liability for injury with a gun based on reckless conduct. You consider it possible that the defense can lean on the jury to find a distinction in the two, and use the state’s attempt at to illicit an emotional response against them? ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7757 "2012-11-17T10:07:50Z")
- already answered ---
**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 17, 2012, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7758 "2012-11-17T11:01:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well certainly plenty of time for another installment of the dimmy derko fantasy hour. Did Osterman also check to see if anybody in the neighborhood owned a cell phone in your fantasy? Because most phones have video capability. And, I imagine if one of the neighbours had used such facilities on their phone to record the exact moment when Z shot Trayvon, and it didn’t match the scenario he described, but showed quite clearly that he shot TM while holding onto his hoody to prevent him getting away, THEN you’d totally change your tune? As I said, Z didn’t know whether that happened, but knowing his inability to accept fault for anything, I’m sure he’d have still claimed self-defence and that we were all missing how the fight started and what Trayvon had whispered in his ear about killing Z and his entire family, or some such shit, and you’d be buying it by the barrowload. ---
**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 17, 2012, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7759 "2012-11-17T11:06:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The jury can conclude his words show he was interested in assholes NOT getting away. They can, and should. If he was happy for them to get away, he’d not have called the police in the first place. > [@](#): > > No, if those predicates are true, then it’s not. I believe that the first of my predicates is provably true, as **Magiver** has also said, and I believe that one would have to prove he _did_ have the intention of catching Martin to get a manslaughter conviction, and that there is no evidence for that. > [@](#): > > Of course. Merely because an act is legal does not make it automatically not reckless. It’s perfectly legal to drive down the highway at 55 mph; it’s criminally reckless to do so in the middle of an ice storm when you can see a bus load of stranded children ahead. A more appropriate, although somewhat tortured, analogy to the current case would be this. Someone is driving on the highway at 55 in bad weather, sees an accident ahead, and reports it. When reporting it, the caller declares their intention to drive past it in a reckless fashion, but when informed that said act was inadvisable, doesn’t do it. Somewhat later, the bus full of schoolchildren inexplicably drives towards the car at speed, and whilst trying to avoid it, the car driver fails (due to bad weather) and kills them. In that scenario, which as closely as I can make it matches the Zimmerman/Martin case, was the driver of the car reckless? Just to say, **Bricker** , I do understand your points, and I’m inclined to agree that a manslaughter charge would be reasonable. Predicting whether or not he would be guilty is harder, as it’s based much more on opinion - of whether or not a particular act was reckless - than the murder case would be, as that’s shown by the facts not to be valid. ---
**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 17, 2012, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7760 "2012-11-17T11:11:29Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > And, I imagine if one of the neighbours had used such facilities on their phone to record the exact moment when Z shot Trayvon, and it didn’t match the scenario he described, but showed quite clearly that he shot TM while holding onto his hoody to prevent him getting away, THEN you’d totally change your tune? In an entirely different situation, with entirely different evidence, I might well have an entirely different view on the matter. However, your baseless speculation doesn’t affect my view of this case. > [@](#): > > As I said, Z didn’t know whether that happened, but knowing his inability to accept fault for anything, I’m sure he’d have still claimed self-defence and that we were all missing how the fight started and what Trayvon had whispered in his ear about killing Z and his entire family, or some such shit, and you’d be buying it by the barrowload. What you’re missing is that, in such a situation, if such a claim were made, the burden of proof would be on those claiming it was murder to show that such threats were not made, or were not credible. Now, you may think that’s a problem with the law. That’s absolutely fine, that’s your right. Indeed, questioning whether laws are fit for the purpose is a good thing generally, although not during a trial. What you can’t do is say that Zimmerman should be judged by anything other than the laws that applied when he acted, however flawed they may have been. ---
**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 17, 2012, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7761 "2012-11-17T11:28:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > In an entirely different situation, with entirely different evidence, I might well have an entirely different view on the matter. However, your baseless speculation doesn’t affect my view of this case. It’s not baseless. It’s clearly indicated to anyone prepared to look in the right places that Z was motivated enough to want to actually get his hands on one of the people he believed were plaguing his neighbourhood, be it for the good of the hood or his own ego. Speculating that Z might have been the aggressor throughout their encounter, and looking for information that indicates Z hasn’t been completely truthful, is something any neutral should be doing before accepting that person’s presumed innocence. > [@Steophan](#): > > What you’re missing is that, in such a situation, if such a claim were made, the burden of proof would be on those claiming it was murder to show that such threats were not made, or were not credible. > > Now, you may think that’s a problem with the law. That’s absolutely fine, that’s your right. Indeed, questioning whether laws are fit for the purpose is a good thing generally, although not during a trial. > > What you can’t do is say that Zimmerman should be judged by anything other than the laws that applied when he acted, however flawed they may have been. I’ll leave Trayvon’s parents and other concerned US citizens to the business of questioning Florida’s self-defence laws. ---
**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 17, 2012, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/7762 "2012-11-17T11:47:28Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > It’s not baseless. It’s clearly indicated to anyone prepared to look in the right places that Z was motivated enough to want to actually get his hands on one of the people he believed were plaguing his neighbourhood, be it for the good of the hood or his own ego. Speculating that Z might have been the aggressor throughout their encounter, and looking for information that indicates Z hasn’t been completely truthful, is something any neutral should be doing before accepting that person’s presumed innocence. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he wanted to get his hands on anyone. None at all. Speculation based on the evidence is fine. Baseless speculation is emphatically not, it’s immoral, unjust, and frankly just fucking disgusting to call someone a murderer simply because you don’t find them trustworthy. > [@](#): > > I’ll leave Trayvon’s parents and other concerned US citizens to the business of questioning Florida’s self-defence laws. I’m sure you meant concerned **Florida** citizens there, otherwise you have just as much interest in questioning them. It doesn’t surprise me that you want to ignore the detail of the law, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=387) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=389)