# 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:** 416
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8303 "2012-11-22T18:00:53Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > I’ve thought about it and I still haven’t got a clue what you are getting at. The broken watch adage is a well known one for suggesting that someone who’s mostly wrong can sometimes be right. Let’s just leave it at its common definition and not try to wangle it into some other kind of shape. > . I’m pointing out exactly that common definition. If someone is mostly wrong, how can their analysis be used for PROBABLE cause, even if we all know they are occasionally right? See the problem? Probable? Versus not probable? ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8304 "2012-11-22T18:09:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m pointing out exactly that common definition. If someone is mostly wrong, how can their analysis be used for PROBABLE cause, even if we all know they are occasionally right? > > See the problem? Probable? Versus not probable? I didn’t really think Serino was a broken watch, ya know? My point is, he knew in his gut, heart and head that Z’s story was wrong, but his hands were tied behind his back by the bs laws supposedly designed to protect people from oddballs like George. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8305 "2012-11-22T18:11:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > None of that has any relevance to whether he was acting in self defence or not. > > Why? That’s all that’s required to establish that he had such reason, absent evidence to the contrary. Evidence that you, or anyone else for that matter, continue to claim exists but notably fail to provide. > > But, just for the sake of it, I will. Zimmerman had fresh injuries at the time the police arrived, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and multiple cuts, bruises, and abrasions to the front and back of his head. He was, according to witnesses, engaged in a physical struggle with Martin immediately prior to shooting him, in which Martin was on top. > > Florida law states that one may use lethal force in self defence if one is in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, and if one is unable to escape by any other means, one may use such force even if one initiated the fight. > > It is reasonable to think that someone with such injuries, and on the losing end of a fight in which they have sustained serious head injuries, would be in such fear, and that it would be reasonable. It is also reasonable to think that someone in such a position may have had no other means of escape other than lethal force. > > Therefore, one may conclude that the force Zimmerman used may have been legitimate. > > The word “may” is important here. I’m not claiming to have proved that the force used was legitimate, and I’ve repeatedly said that I’m not sure that’s possible - hence my opinion that he may well not be granted immunity. What I am claiming is that, in the absence of any evidence that the force was not legitimate - evidence I’m asking you to supply, as you’re claiming it exists - there was no probable cause for arrest. I’m further claiming that, even if such evidence exists, the fact that it’s reasonable to conclude he may have been using legitimate force provides reasonable doubt to the claim that he wasn’t, therefore he is not guilty of murder, and cannot be found guilty at trial. > > At trial, the prosecution will not merely have to provide opposing evidence to mine, but will have to either show my reasoning is not based on facts - that is, what I’m claiming as evidence is demonstrably false, or show my reasoning is flawed. That is, of course, in addition to providing evidence that proves his guilt - merely disproving one scenario where he’s innocent does not accomplish that. > > So, that’s how it’s done. Your turn now. Bring some evidence, and reasoned argument. > ETA - No reference to Zimmerman’s statement needed, apart from the initial claim that it was self defence. That’s a heck of a lot of words to say “the evidence I choose to deem important backs me up.” ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8306 "2012-11-22T18:20:31Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > I didn’t really think Serino was a broken watch, ya know? My point is, he knew in his gut, heart and head that Z’s story was wrong, but his hands were tied behind his back by the bs laws supposedly designed to protect people from oddballs like George. Whether you think the laws are bullshit or not, they apply to Zimmerman just as much as they apply to anyone else. That’s the problem with so many people in this thread - they think that because, in their opinion, Zimmerman’s behaviour _should_ be illegal, it _is_ illegal. That’s not how a justice system works, it’s how, as has been said many times, lynch mobs work. > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > That’s a heck of a lot of words to say “the evidence I choose to deem important backs me up.” Still unable to actually refute me, eh? I’m not overly surprised. But it’s not the evidence I deem important, it’s the evidence that actually exists. If there’s some I’ve missed, be a good chap and provide it, like I’ve repeatedly asked. ---
**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:** [November 22, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8307 "2012-11-22T18:25:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain what law would have permitted the police to test Zimmerman? The same law that allowed them to put handcuffs on his wrists and interrogate him at the station for 3-5 hrs. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8308 "2012-11-22T18:32:16Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The same law that allowed them to put handcuffs on his wrists and interrogate him at the station for 3-5 hrs. Please provide a cite that the law allowing brief detention also allows for invasive drug testing, specifically in Florida law. It doesn’t. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8309 "2012-11-22T18:37:49Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Please provide a cite that the law allowing brief detention also allows for invasive drug testing, specifically in Florida law. > > It doesn’t. Knowing Florida, you can be tested for using alcohol if you are seen running a stop light, but catch you with a gun stood over a dead body, and it’s suddenly a civil rights transgression to even think about wanting to know what’s fueling you. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8310 "2012-11-22T18:41:11Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Whether you think the laws are bullshit or not, they apply to Zimmerman just as much as they apply to anyone else. That’s the problem with so many people in this thread - they think that because, in their opinion, Zimmerman’s behaviour _should_ be illegal, it _is_ illegal. That’s not how a justice system works, it’s how, as has been said many times, lynch mobs work. A lynch mob would have dragged him out of the police station on the night. If you’re going to use hyperbole, do it right. > [@Steophan](#): > > Still unable to actually refute me, eh? I’m not overly surprised. But it’s not the evidence I deem important, it’s the evidence that actually exists. If there’s some I’ve missed, be a good chap and provide it, like I’ve repeatedly asked. Nope, I’m not that interested in even attempting to sway your view. I’m just responding to you when the mood suits. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8311 "2012-11-22T18:41:50Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Knowing Florida, you can be tested for using alcohol if you are seen running a stop light, but catch you with a gun stood over a dead body, and it’s suddenly a civil rights transgression to even think about wanting to know what’s fueling you. That sounds about right. Driving is a privilege, and submitting to said tests is a condition of doing so, but bearing arms is a right, as is self defence. Of course, if they had probable cause to believe he was not, in fact, exercising those rights, but was breaking the law, they could have tested him. I will point out that, even if he was off his face, he could still have been acting in legitimate self defence. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8312 "2012-11-22T18:45:49Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That sounds about right. Driving is a privilege, and submitting to said tests is a condition of doing so, but bearing arms is a right, as is self defence. Of course, if they had probable cause to believe he was not, in fact, exercising those rights, but was breaking the law, they could have tested him. > > I will point out that, even if he was off his face, he could still have been acting in legitimate self defence. I’m fairly sure by now that you could point out reasons why he was acting in legitimate self-defence if he’d used a sawn-off shotgun and claimed he thought Trayvon was a black bear with a hoody, or some such shit ---
**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:** [November 22, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8313 "2012-11-22T18:48:27Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Please provide a cite that the law allowing brief detention also allows for invasive drug testing, specifically in Florida law. It would only have been invasive if Zimmerman [refused](http://www.ibtimes.com/trayvon-martin-shooting-why-wasnt-george-zimmerman-given-drug-alcohol-tests-travyon-was-428096) to be tested and they forced it on him. He had just as much freedom to refuse handcuffing and interrogation, but he complied. He also had the freedom to decline that pseudo-lie detector test, but alas, he took that as well. So why would it have been illegal for the cops to test this guy for drugs? As with all the other stuff, he could have said no. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8314 "2012-11-22T18:49:18Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > I’m fairly sure by now that you could point out reasons why he was acting in legitimate self-defence if he’d used a sawn-off shotgun and claimed he thought Trayvon was a black bear with a hoody, or some such shit Only if he _reasonably_ thought that. Otherwise, it’s not guilty by reason of insanity. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8315 "2012-11-22T18:50:01Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Here’s why your scenario is full of shit. We have to assume that: OK DragonAsh, lets go through this rationally and without the emotional baggage that seems to follow those who know what Zimmerman was thinking at the time. I’ve reviewed his phone call and the video again and agree that the phone call ended after he got to the street. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > GZ decided that rather than have the cops meet him at his truck, he’s going to find an address across the cut-through and have the cops meet him there. Not where he thinks Martin went (remember, he thinks Martin was running towards the back entrance). The back entrance is South in the direction Martin ran. In the video he walks to the end of the sidewalk and then back toward his truck. The fight starts on his way back toward the truck which is consistent with the video reenactment and is after the phone call ends. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Nowhere near his truck. He apparently was prepared to just stand out there on the street, out in the open, no concern about how long the cops might take, even though he was concerned enough about not knowing where the ‘asshole/punk’ was that he didn’t want to say his home address out loud. His intent throughout the conversation is consistent. He calls the police and keeps Martin in sight and avoids direct confrontation. He does not get out of his car when Martin approaches. Martin on the other hand approaches his car which shows his intent to confront. It makes sense that Zimmerman does not want Martin to know his address and he demonstrates that by a reluctance to give it out on the phone. Yes, he is prepared to stand out in the open and look for Martin. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > He’s still on the phone with the dispatch as he gets to the doggie pooper station, says that he can’t see Martin, and then keeps walking to the other side of the cut-through - it’s barely a 15-20 second walk. > > Upon getting to the end of the cut-through, finally with houses on a street he actually remembers, he -doesn’t- give the dispatcher any house number, and instead insists that he tells the dispatch to ‘just meet me at my truck, it’s just past the clubhouse’, and the hangs up. Yes, looking at the video he says he still wants to meet with the police even though he’s lost sight of Martin. He has lost sight of Martin for the second time and he is still looking for him. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > d) So now he -doesn’t- need an address? Because early in the phone call with dispatch he’s already told them where he’s at (past the clubhouse, turn left). And he says the only reason he got out was to find a street sign, then a house number, specifically so he could tell the cops where he was at. clearly he’s looking for Martin. Are you suggesting that he can’t multi-task or that a solid address wouldn’t be useful. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > And of course we know this is bullshit because we have the actual phone call recording: GZ -didn’t- ask to have the police officers meet him at his truck, he asked them to call when they arrived. If that was the case, then it’s even -more- odd that he didn’t get a house number if he wanted to let them know where he was at. There is no bullshit involved. If he spots Martin then he can direct the police in the right direction when they call. He originally intended to give an address and did not. This does not negate the thought process for walking in that direction it reinforces it. If he was solely searching for Martin at the time of the call he would have walked South on the sidewalk towards Martin’s house which is the last known direction Martin was heading. But he chose to walk East. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > See, he didn’t have to ‘stay on the phone longer’. According to him he was IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CUT-THROUGH WHILE STILL ON THE PHONE TO DISPATCH. He had every oppportunity to give dispatch a home address, and he didn’t take it. Gee, I wonder why? > > Or is this just something else that GZ ‘mis-remembered’? His video re-enactment is not linear to the phone call. It’s not rehearsed yet he remembers toward the end of the walk to the street that he said the dispatcher asks him if he’s following Martin and then agreeing not to follow him. He points backwards to where that was said. The call continues on for another minute and a half. This does not negate the statement that he walked to the street or the reason behind it. Based on the location of the fight it appears that he stayed in that area which is consistent with his account. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8316 "2012-11-22T18:50:03Z")
**Steophan** , no long-winded waffle to respond to from me - I’ll keep it short and sweet. With great power - eg. the right to be able to take another person’s life - comes great responsibility, yes? Do you think Z showed great responsibility that evening? ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8317 "2012-11-22T18:56:39Z")
I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Hope everyone is having a good holiday–and I mean it. We’ll continue the war tomorrow–peace today LOL. ---
**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 22, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8318 "2012-11-22T19:06:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > His video re-enactment is not linear to the phone call. It’s not rehearsed yet he remembers toward the end of the walk to the street that he said the dispatcher asks him if he’s following Martin and then agreeing not to follow him. He points backwards to where that was said. The call continues on for another minute and a half. This does not negate the statement that he walked to the street or the reason behind it. Based on the location of the fight it appears that he stayed in that area which is consistent with his account. Look, **Mac** , do you believe he was where he said he was when he ended his nen call, at the rightmost tip of the T? Realistically, how long would it have taken him to walk to the point where he says Trayvon came out of the shadows if he was heading straight back to his truck? Can you see how he HAS to be wrong about the fight happening so soon after the nen call ended? Now, why would you not be concerned about this discrepancy? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8319 "2012-11-22T19:15:08Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Knowing Florida, you can be tested for using alcohol if you are seen running a stop light, but catch you with a gun stood over a dead body, and it’s suddenly a civil rights transgression to even think about wanting to know what’s fueling you. Again, you are wrong about Florida law. Maybe it’s because you don’t live in the United States. Police must have probable cause to test someone. Probable cause would consist of acting in a altered state such as weaving on the road or slurred speech or the smell of alcohol or marijuana or other conscious altering drugs. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8320 "2012-11-22T19:19:21Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Look, **Mac** , do you believe he was where he said he was when he ended his nen call, at the rightmost tip of the T? Realistically, how long would it have taken him to walk to the point where he says Trayvon came out of the shadows if he was heading straight back to his truck? > > Can you see how he HAS to be wrong about the fight happening so soon after the nen call ended? Now, why would you not be concerned about this discrepancy? Realistically he would have been looking for Martin in the last known area he saw him and not seeing him walk toward the direction he expects the police to arrive. What else would you expect him to do? ---
**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 22, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8321 "2012-11-22T19:22:41Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > **Steophan** , no long-winded waffle to respond to from me - I’ll keep it short and sweet. > > With great power - eg. the right to be able to take another person’s life - comes great responsibility, yes? I don’t think that quote particularly applies to this situation, but I’ll answer your question in a sec. What I will say is that it very much **does** apply to the police, who have the power to arrest, and the courts, who have the power to imprison or even kill, and they have the responsibility to use that power only at need, and with the strongest of proof. > [@](#): > > Do you think Z showed great responsibility that evening? I’ll answer that in two parts. Firstly, at the instant he shot Martin, his responsibility is to himself and to those who depend on him. Martin, by putting Zimmerman in the position he was in, lost the right to care by Zimmerman. At that precise moment, _if_ he is in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, he has no responsibility to look after Martin. Secondly, I’ll talk about what happened shortly prior to that. Zimmerman saw someone acting in a way that made him suspect criminal activity. Rather than ignore it, he took responsibility and phoned the police. He made the rather foolish decision to follow Martin, but when he was asked to stop doing so by the dispatcher, he stopped. Again, I would say that was a responsible act. He was then attacked by Martin, despite as far as we know having done nothing to him to provoke it. He didn’t immediately fight back, judging by the lack of injuries to Martin, but instead called for help. When that help didn’t arrive, and as his injuries mounted, and his fear increased, he shot Martin to protect himself. I certainly don’t consider that irresponsible, but it is of course extremely unfortunate that he didn’t wait a few seconds longer. So, I think his actions were responsible. I don’t believe he could reasonably have expected to be attacked following his actions, and I don’t believe he could reasonably expect his actions would lead to the death of anyone. That, to me, is a sufficient level of responsibility. ---
**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 22, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8322 "2012-11-22T19:23:07Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Again, you are wrong about Florida law. Maybe it’s because you don’t live in the United States. Police must have probable cause to test someone. Probable cause would consist of acting in a altered state such as weaving on the road or slurred speech or the smell of alcohol or marijuana or other conscious altering drugs. But, if they **did** see them weaving, even if they didn’t kill anything, it’d be fine to pull them over and test them? Is that what you are saying? And you think that’s reasonable, but testing someone with minor injuries who claims to have killed someone in self-defence is not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=415) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=417)