# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/61 "2012-04-19T18:24:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree that once he sought guidance on the matter, it was effectively out of his hands. > > Do YOU agree that before he sought guidance, it was in his hands? Zimmerman went to the police station voluntarily on the night of the shooting. I remember reading that it was the “policy” of the the Sanford P.D. to solicit the opinion of the DA before making an arrest for murder in such a case. I can’t find a cite; perhaps someone can back me up. It may very well have been _legal_ for Serino to make an arrest at that point, but if he valued his job, it would seem to be an unwise move if that action went counter to _official policy_. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/62 "2012-04-19T18:32:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree that once he sought guidance on the matter, it was effectively out of his hands. > > Do YOU agree that before he sought guidance, it was in his hands? I already said that. But this whole row is about what I said which was that it wasn’t up to the officer to rule on the legal aspect of it. The key word here is RULE. In the absence of obvious evidence an officer has a duty to the community, himself, and his office to seek council. It’s not his job to RULE on legal matters. Now if you want to get into the gray area between seeing someone commit the crime and various levels of evidence directly related to the crime, that’s not just a new thread, that’s the entire legal system. There aren’t enough days in the week to argue it on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/63 "2012-04-19T18:43:11Z")
> [@newme](#): > > Zimmerman went to the police station voluntarily on the night of the shooting. I remember reading that it was the “policy” of the the Sanford P.D. to solicit the opinion of the DA before making an arrest for murder in such a case. I can’t find a cite; perhaps someone can back me up. It may very well have been _legal_ for Serino to make an arrest at that point, but if he valued his job, it would seem to be an unwise move if that action went counter to _official policy_. > [@Bricker](#): > > Do YOU agree that before he sought guidance, it was in his hands? > [@Magiver](#): > > I already said that. Good, then. > [@](#): > > But this whole row is about what I said which was that it wasn’t up to the officer to rule on the legal aspect of it. The key word here is RULE. How is that different? He could have arrested Zimmerman if he, alone, found probable cause. How is that not “ruling” on it? > [@](#): > > In the absence of obvious evidence an officer has a duty to the community, himself, and his office to seek council. It’s not his job to RULE on legal matters. > > Now if you want to get into the gray area between seeing someone commit the crime and various levels of evidence directly related to the crime, that’s not just a new thread, that’s the entire legal system. There aren’t enough days in the week to argue it on a message board. There is no gray area to this statement: “It wasn’t up to him to rule on it in the first place.” That is wrong. It was up to him, until he bucked the decision to the prosecutor, after which point it wasn’t up to him. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/64 "2012-04-19T18:52:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is that different? He could have arrested Zimmerman if he, alone, found probable cause. How is that not “ruling” on it? It’s the difference between an EMT and a doctor making a decision as to what needs to be done to a patient at the time of the event. An EMT is certified to do the obvious work needed but defers to a doctor otherwise. I used the term “ruling” specifically to express this view. If you can express it better than that I welcome the help. I used “ruling” versus “decision” because it expresses the concept of ultimate decision over legal matters. The officer should defer any legal questions to counsel. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/65 "2012-04-19T19:00:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s the difference between an EMT and a doctor making a decision as to what needs to be done to a patient at the time of the event. An EMT is certified to do the obvious work needed but defers to a doctor otherwise. > > I used the term “ruling” specifically to express this view. If you can express it better than that I welcome the help. I used “ruling” versus “decision” because it expresses the concept of ultimate decision over legal matters. The officer should defer any legal questions to counsel. OK, let’s consider the EMT vice the doctor. In the field, the EMT makes basic treatment decisions. of course he would defer tro a doctor if one were present. In certain cases, he might specifically contact a doctor to ask what to do. Once he did, then he cannot substitute his own medical judgement; he must follow the doctor’s advice (as a general principle, and understanding some intervening event may invalidate this). But before he consults the doctor, it’s up to him to decide on treatment. I think you’re focusing on the fact that once the higher authority is consulted, that’s the ruling. What you didn’t capture, in my opinion, was the autonomy that exists for the officer (or EMT) before consulting the higher authority. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/66 "2012-04-19T19:49:30Z")
We don’t even know the nature of the consult. Did the prosecutor express their view to Serino as though it was mandate? Or was it more like “nah, I wouldn’t proceed just yet, but it could go either way…I recommend waiting for more evidence but it’s ultimately your call.” Serino claims he was “overruled”, as though it was more like the first. Not a recommendation but a mandate. But that could have been an untruth or exaggeration. The State Attorney’s statement to the press strikes me as odd, if prosecutors have as much power that some of us laymen keep insisting they do. Instead of standing by their recommendation/ruling to delay arresting Zimmerman, isn’t it weird that they foisted all the responsibility to the police by insisting they could have made an arrest if they’d wanted to? To use the EMT/physician example, that’s like a doctor insisting that a paramedic can always refer a patient with left-arm pain to the ER to be evaluated for a heart attack, even if the doctor tells them from their podium of expertise that it’s not indicated. But we all know that this if this patient ended up dying from a heart attack later, the doctor would be liable for dropping the ball. The paramedic would be in the clear, unless they neglected to tell the MD something crucial about the patient that would have altered the doctor’s advice. If prosecutors are tasked with dictating what cops can and can’t do when they are consulted, it’s certainly poor form not to acknowledge their role in the decision not to press charges against Zimmerman. Furthermore, if it truly is crystal clear that there was insufficient basis for arresting Zimmerman based on the available evidence and the SYG law (as **Magiver** and others seem to believe), I’m seriously wondering why Wolfinger et al. wouldn’t have defended themselves with a legal argument instead of shifting blame to the police department. Rightly or wrongly, their failure to do that creates the picture that there \*isn’t \*a legal argument adequate enough to support the state’s non-action towards Zimmerman. I creates the perception that politics and backroom dealing were in play long before Corey got a hold of this case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/67 "2012-04-19T20:11:56Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Furthermore, if it truly is crystal clear that there was insufficient basis for arresting Zimmerman based on the available evidence and the SYG law (as **Magiver** and others seem to believe), I’m seriously wondering why Wolfinger et al. wouldn’t have defended themselves with a legal argument instead of shifting blame to the police department. Rightly or wrongly, their failure to do that creates the picture that there \*isn’t \*a legal argument adequate enough to support the state’s non-action towards Zimmerman. I creates the perception that politics and backroom dealing were in play long before Corey got a hold of this case. I have an opinion on this question. It’s just an opinion. Nothing more. Pure speculation. I think that when national attention on this blew up, prosecutors were leery of trying to explain the concept of probable cause, and specifically probable cause to believe that the force used was unlawful, the requirement of 776.032. I reach that conclusion in large part because of my experience in this thread’s predecessor and cousins in GD. I explained it many times, and in my opinion, very few people seemed to get it. Perhaps this was my failing as a persuasive and informative writer, but I have always felt (perhaps conceitedly) that I was good at explaining legal concepts to lay people. So my speculative opinion is he decided to throw the police department under the bus rather than try to explain the probable cause requirements to a generally hostile audience. Again. no real evidence, just a guess. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/68 "2012-04-19T20:12:54Z")
There sure is a lot of stuff that strikes you as odd, ywtf. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/69 "2012-04-19T20:28:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think that when national attention on this blew up, prosecutors were leery of trying to explain the concept of probable cause, and specifically probable cause to believe that the force used was unlawful, the requirement of 776.032. “There wasn’t enough evidence to justify charges against Zimmerman at the time we were consulted on this issue”. This took me all of two seconds to cook this up. Not a very complex or politically sticky statement, and it would have sufficiently covered all bases for everyone involved (assuming that it’s true). No need for them to delve into the hornet’s nest of probable cause at all. If you look at the SA office’s statement to the press, they _did_ talk about probable cause, and explained that cops have the ability to act on it when they find it. So this contradicts your idea that they were somehow leery of this subject. > [@](#): > > So my speculative opinion is he decided to throw the police department under the bus rather than try to explain the probable cause requirements to a generally hostile audience. This isn’t what they did, though. They threw the police department under the bus specifically _by_ explaining how probable cause works. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/70 "2012-04-19T20:53:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, let’s consider the EMT vice the doctor. > > In the field, the EMT makes basic treatment decisions. of course he would defer tro a doctor if one were present. In certain cases, he might specifically contact a doctor to ask what to do. Once he did, then he cannot substitute his own medical judgement; he must follow the doctor’s advice (as a general principle, and understanding some intervening event may invalidate this). > > But before he consults the doctor, it’s up to him to decide on treatment. > > I think you’re focusing on the fact that once the higher authority is consulted, that’s the ruling. What you didn’t capture, in my opinion, was the autonomy that exists for the officer (or EMT) before consulting the higher authority. See, I disagree with your follow through. The EMT in this example ISN’T there to decide on treatment. He’s there to stabilize the patient on a cursory level. That doesn’t mean it can’t involve a serious level of involvement but that involvement has to be clear cut. The same applies to a police officer. They can arrest someone when it’s clear cut but so can citizens under certain circumstances. Just like the EMT, a police officer isn’t there to engage in treatment of the person involved. They are there as a first step in the process of delivering people into the system designed to deal with it. An officer can arrest but not prosecute so any questions at all regarding the legitimacy of prosecution falls on those who are qualified to make a determination. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/71 "2012-04-19T21:20:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, wait. Intent may be inferred by actions. Zimmerman’s comment about how they always get away, combined with his actions in following Martin, could allow a fact-finder to infer that Zimmerman intended to do something like this. > > It’s just the word “accost” I’m having trouble with. I agree that the evidence allows a jury to infer that Zimmerman accosted Martin – “to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way.” > > I don’t agree that this describes an assault. That’s why I said pretty close to an assault. It would take some evidence to determine that Zimmerman went further than just approaching Martin in some harmless manner. The problem I have with the Zimmerman defense so far (and it’s all limited by a lack of knowledge of the actual evidence) is that we are expected to believe that Zimmerman after making a determination that Martin was acting in some criminal manner, a determination which was not reasonable, then approached Martin in some non-threatening way with no criminal intent of his own, and then Martin just decided to attack him for no reason. It doesn’t pass the smell test for me. But the state will have prove that something else happened. I’m waiting to hear the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/72 "2012-04-19T21:52:49Z")
[QUOTE=TriPolar;14983109 The problem I have with the Zimmerman defense so far (and it’s all limited by a lack of knowledge of the actual evidence) is that we are expected to believe that Zimmerman after making a determination that Martin was acting in some criminal manner, a determination which was not reasonable, then approached Martin in some non-threatening way with no criminal intent of his own, and then Martin just decided to attack him for no reason. It doesn’t pass the smell test for me. But the state will have prove that something else happened. I’m waiting to hear the evidence.[/QUOTE] If we accept Zimmerman’s statement, he didn’t approach Martin at all. I’ve stated before that I regard their meeting as an unhappy accident. It is easy to infer that Zimmerman might have said something that angered Martin or based on DeeDee statement, Martin was already pissed off about Zimmerman following him. We are left with a lot of speculation until we see the forensic evidence and even that might not settle it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/73 "2012-04-19T22:09:25Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > If we accept Zimmerman’s statement, he didn’t approach Martin at all. I’ve stated before that I regard their meeting as an unhappy accident. It is easy to infer that Zimmerman might have said something that angered Martin or based on DeeDee statement, Martin was already pissed off about Zimmerman following him. > > We are left with a lot of speculation until we see the forensic evidence and even that might not settle it. I’m not accepting anything because I don’t trust the sources. I can at least make a judgement about the credibility of any evidence when it’s aired in court. But I don’t see how Martin could be pissed off at Zimmerman for following him if Zimmerman didn’t approach him. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/74 "2012-04-19T22:14:37Z")
I listened to the audio of Zimmerman’s 911 call, and came away with the impression that he was almost certainly the antagonist of the encounter with Martin. The damning bits in my opinion are when he says “damn it, they always get away!” and the operator responds by saying “are you following him?” in sort of an incredulous tone. He says “yeah,” and not too much later you hear someone that doesn’t sound like Zimmerman shouting “help!” I can’t imagine a scenario in which Zimmerman’s actions wouldn’t have caused a reasonable person to fear for their safety. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/75 "2012-04-19T22:44:08Z")
I think the Trevor Dooley case will be very interesting to observe because it’s going to be resolved prior to this case and can give us some degree of a preview as to how Zimmerman’s case will go down. Obviously the _specific_ facts are different, but the general events are on the whole very similar. That’s why it is fairly interesting to me that Angela Corey charged Second Degree Murder; the prosecutor of Dooley charged manslaughter specifically because proving the “ill intent” aspects of second degree murder would be extremely difficult. That wasn’t apparently a concern of Coreys, but if we ultimately see Zimmerman acquitted I think a lot of people will rightfully question why she charged so high. Based on discussions in the prior thread, her high charge does not preclude the jury convicting on a lesser included offense. But, if they issue an outright acquittal it would mean the case against Zimmerman was extremely weak, not even enough to get a conviction on manslaughter or unjustified homicide. That would to me make the decision to charge for second degree murder at least _seem_ political. Dooley has been out on bail since Sept. 2010, so I would be very surprised if Zimmerman is not given bail. Dooley was given $50,000 bail, in many states you can post with 10% cash down, I don’t know the specifics in Florida or the specifics in Dooley’s case. One wrinkle for Zimmerman is he will be required to fund the expenses of any home-confinement. With his bail potentially being in the range from $10,000-$100,000, and the home confinement costs probably running him $20-30,000 over the projected 2-3 years this trial could take there is a very real chance he just plain won’t have the money to be released on bond. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/76 "2012-04-19T22:57:31Z")
We don’t know how much money is in Zimmerman’s paypal account yet. Talking about the trial is a bit premature. The case has to survive the self-defense hearing first. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/77 "2012-04-19T23:12:53Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > “There wasn’t enough evidence to justify charges against Zimmerman at the time we were consulted on this issue”. > > This took me all of two seconds to cook this up. I see. The problem I have with this is that essentially identical information was offered at the beginning of the now-closed thread; the following exchange took place at posts 28 and 30: > [@Loach](#): > > > [@you with the face](#): > > > > What is the minimum amount of evidence needed to establish that a crime has taken place when the only witnesses to the event are either dead or the shooter? > > Same as with anything else, probable cause to arrest and beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. But in the real world a prosecutor will not proceed if he does not think he can get a conviction. And in post 30: > [@Loach](#): > > > [@you with the face](#): > > > > Of course he’s going to claim self-defense, if has any sense in his head. **If investigators had to find evidence to contradict these claims everytime they were made, few people would be arrested for murder**. > > Bolding mine. So you think that they don’t have to find evidence to refute a defendent’s claims? You do realize the burden of proof lies with the prosecution? > > Yes, every time that a claim of self defense is made and the prosecution presses charges they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. How else do you think it works? So far as I can determine, you were not satisfied with this explanation. For this reason, I’m skeptical of your idea that the general public would have been satisfied with the response you now propose the SA could have given. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/78 "2012-04-19T23:14:00Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > … and not too much later you hear someone that doesn’t sound like Zimmerman shouting “help!” How do you know what Zimmerman’s voice sounds like? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/79 "2012-04-19T23:15:34Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > That’s why I said pretty close to an assault. It would take some evidence to determine that Zimmerman went further than just approaching Martin in some harmless manner. OK, I’m with you. I agree. > [@](#): > > The problem I have with the Zimmerman defense so far (and it’s all limited by a lack of knowledge of the actual evidence) is that we are expected to believe that Zimmerman after making a determination that Martin was acting in some criminal manner, a determination which was not reasonable, then approached Martin in some non-threatening way with no criminal intent of his own, and then Martin just decided to attack him for no reason. It doesn’t pass the smell test for me. But the state will have prove that something else happened. I’m waiting to hear the evidence. Me, too. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/80 "2012-04-19T23:22:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How do you know what Zimmerman’s voice sounds like? I assume you mean what he sounds like when he’s shouting? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=5)