# 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:** 420
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8383 "2012-11-23T19:59:57Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > **Bricker** , you must have a fair idea of what the miscarriage of justice rate is like in the USA, and can probably find out what it is in individual states - do you think the average innocent Floridan going into a courtroom needs to be overly worried about becoming an addition to those statistics? It’s the voters in Florida and other states who are demanding SYG and more reasonable self-defense laws. You don’t have that option. The Crown is nice enough to make these decisions for you plus you can not be trusted with firearms or your own self-defense. The Bobbies will be along within minutes when seconds count. You object to firearm ownership and use and you object to Florida laws as they currently exist. Neither of your objection prove that GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8384 "2012-11-23T20:06:30Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > But if he was meticulously taking out customers in a shopping mall, you wouldn’t suspect he might be on an amphetamine binge comedown? > > In Z’s case, the importance of drug testing him would be to see if he was taking the medication he was supposed to be taking, which had a 1 in 10 chance of causing him behavioural problems, even if he was following his treatment to the letter. OMG, you’ve got to stop watching TV crime shows. A sobriety drug test would not test for this. ---
**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 23, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8385 "2012-11-23T20:08:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > OMG, you’ve got to stop watching TV crime shows. A sobriety drug test would not test for this. The only crime show I watch is Dexter. Which, funnily enough, is set in Florida. I guess you’re right about where I’m getting all my expertise and background information from. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8386 "2012-11-23T20:12:26Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > Agreed on the former part, disagree on the latter. We’re not doing this again are we? They had nothing to arrest him for. I don’t think we have done this before, but I get what you mean. Sorry, but I believe the provision that forbades arrest without probable cause of illegal use of force was well meaning but shortsighted and ill conceived. In the future I think you will see departments risk a bad arrest should the existence of probable cause be close to in doubt. Though in actuality, I doubt that portion of the FL SYG law will survive. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8387 "2012-11-23T20:29:06Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > You’re talking to me about stupid speculation and you’re suggesting the possibility of a healthy 17 yr old maybe having a heart attack before he had it blown out. > > MY speculation is all based on the available evidence and the implications thereof. > > As an exercise in showing you know what you are talking about, quote back a few of my more outrageous speculations, and we’ll see if they’re as stupid as the Trayvon heart attack analogy. He said “IF” just like you’ve been doing all through the thread and then went on to say that the EVIDENCE shows he died of a gunshot wound. wooosh goes the point. ---
**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 23, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8388 "2012-11-23T20:30:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He said “IF” just like you’ve been doing all through the thread and then went on to say that the EVIDENCE shows he died of a gunshot wound. > > wooosh goes the point. And I’m saying my IF’s are better than his. It’s not rocket science, pal. Do try and keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8389 "2012-11-23T20:30:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not specifically illegal, that I know of – but it’s certainly reckless enough to make manslaughter a lock. It appears that while it is illegal to carry or use a firearm while impaired, there is an exemption for lawful self-defense. _790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties.— (1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge. (2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand. (3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state. (4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property. History.—s. 1, ch. 91-84; s. 1210, ch. 97-102._ ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8390 "2012-11-23T20:38:37Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > And I’m saying my IF’s are better than his. It’s not rocket science, pal. Do try and keep up. And he’s saying IF is a pointless exercise in imagination. ---
**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 23, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8391 "2012-11-23T20:42:05Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > It appears that while it is illegal to carry or use a firearm while impaired, there is an exemption for lawful self-defense. > > _790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties.— > (1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge. > (2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand. > (3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state. > (4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. > (5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property. > History.—s. 1, ch. 91-84; s. 1210, ch. 97-102._ To my inexpert eye, that seems to suggest that you could be out walking your dog intoxicated and as long as you wasn’t drunk and disorderly, if someone attacked you and you killed them, your alcohol intake would not be held against you? Also, If you are in a place you have every right to be, you can be drunk(but not illegally intoxicated, I’m hoping?) and still kill a person and claim self-defence, and if the evidence is in your favour that you WAS attacked, you’d be in the clear. ---
**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 23, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8392 "2012-11-23T20:50:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And he’s saying IF is a pointless exercise in imagination. Are you saying that speculation is useless when it comes to determing a person’s involvement in a crime? I’m not talking about baseless speculation, I’m talking about things that could be reasonably inferred from the available facts. How do you think detectives do their job? Do you think they have a handbook with a checklist of all possible facts that they can take into account when making their daily decisions? ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8393 "2012-11-23T20:52:05Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > And I’m saying my IF’s are better than his. It’s not rocket science, pal. Do try and keep up. Problem is that your if’s have to be _ **beyond** _ a reasonable doubt. His only have to be reasonable. Presumption of innocence seems to be a concept many in this thread are willing to set aside to further their argument. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8394 "2012-11-23T20:58:26Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > To my inexpert eye, that seems to suggest that you could be out walking your dog intoxicated and as long as you wasn’t drunk and disorderly, if someone attacked you and you killed them, your alcohol intake would not be held against you? > > Also, If you are in a place you have every right to be, you can be drunk(but not illegally intoxicated, I’m hoping?) and still kill a person and claim self-defence, and if the evidence is in your favour that you WAS attacked, you’d be in the clear. pretty much. You’re generally allowed to defend yourself in this country. Castle laws differ from state to state (even city to city) but location plays a part in it too. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8395 "2012-11-23T21:05:22Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > To my inexpert eye, that seems to suggest that you could be out walking your dog intoxicated and as long as you wasn’t drunk and disorderly, if someone attacked you and you killed them, your alcohol intake would not be held against you? Seems accurate under current FL law which protects those exercising lawful self-defense from prosecution. Otherwise you might still be on the hook for a misdemeanor. Bricked or another can clarify if I am in error. > [@](#): > > Also, If you are in a place you have every right to be, you can be drunk(but not illegally intoxicated, I’m hoping?) and still kill a person and claim self-defence, and if the evidence is in your favour that you WAS attacked, you’d be in the clear. Seems so. Not sure why intoxication should remove ones right to legally defend themselves\*. Should we be doing breathalyzer tests at polling places too? \*of course such instances should be scrutinized closely. And as bricked pointed out, intoxication raise issues with establishing key elements of a legal defense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8396 "2012-11-23T21:07:39Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > **Bricker** , you must have a fair idea of what the miscarriage of justice rate is like in the USA, and can probably find out what it is in individual states - do you think the average innocent Floridan going into a courtroom needs to be overly worried about becoming an addition to those statistics? No. But let me explain my comment a bit better. As a public defender, the vast majority of my clients were guilty. Those few that were not factually guilty of what they were charged with were the ones that fell victim to the Commonwealth’s overcharging them: that is, they were not lily-white innocent, even though they were innocent of the specific charge(s) they faced. In this environment, I worked as their zealous advocates – I secured acquittals or dismissals sometimes, reduced charges or sentences other times, and was perfectly content to do that, because the system required a zealous advocate even for the guilty. My nightmare was always that I encountered a truly innocent client. Because if I did, then many of the checks and balances would have already failed: despite his innocence, the police would have been convinced of his guilt, and the Commonwealth Attorney would also be convinced of his guilt and believe the evidence was strong enough to go to trial. A grand jury would have believed the evidence was sufficient to return an indictment. And now the person responsible for stopping a miscarriage of justice would be: me. An absolutely scary place to be. To get back to your question: I would have advised you, innocent or guilty, to say: “I haven’t done anything wrong, and I want to speak to my attorney. Period.” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8397 "2012-11-23T21:12:11Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Are you saying that speculation is useless when it comes to determing a person’s involvement in a crime? I’m not talking about baseless speculation, I’m talking about things that could be reasonably inferred from the available facts. > > How do you think detectives do their job? Do you think they have a handbook with a checklist of all possible facts that they can take into account when making their daily decisions? the problem is that you keep restating the same baseless “what ifs” even when shown otherwise. Point in fact is speculation that Zimmerman parked in a different location and ran in a different location even though it’s been brought up that there is a witness who heard 2 people run by. The detectives are presented with a fairly straight forward event with lots of evidence it occurred as Zimmerman said it did. And has already been pointed out repeatedly that the case begins with the fight. Absent a witness that says Zimmerman started the fight it’s a matter of self defense. Everyone in this thread would welcome a high resolution 3D filming of the event from all different angles but we don’t have that. So it’s not a function of a detective determining Zimmerman is guilty and then going on a witch hunt to hang him. That’s not how the law works. When you talk about the police only interviewing a witness for 10 minutes you imply that’s not enough time to describe an event that took up maybe 2 minutes total of observation. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8398 "2012-11-23T21:16:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > pretty much. You’re generally allowed to defend yourself in this country. Castle laws differ from state to state (even city to city) but location plays a part in it too. And there are still a dozen plus with ridiculous “duty to retreat” clauses. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8399 "2012-11-23T21:25:01Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > It appears that while it is illegal to carry or use a firearm while impaired, there is an exemption for lawful self-defense. > > _790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties.— > (1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge. > (2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand. > (3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state. > (4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. > (5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property. > History.—s. 1, ch. 91-84; s. 1210, ch. 97-102._ This doesn’t reach Zimmerman’s conduct of walking about with a holstered pistol, though it would the moment he drew it, unless of course the moment he drew it was in exercising lawful self-defense. ---
**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 23, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8400 "2012-11-23T22:47:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > the problem is that you keep restating the same baseless “what ifs” even when shown otherwise. Point in fact is speculation that Zimmerman parked in a different location and ran in a different location even though it’s been brought up that there is a witness who heard 2 people run by. Well, considering that Z was never supposedly that close to Trayvon after he’d got out of his truck and before the fight started, you’d expect that witness to say one person ran by, then another did, not that 2 people ran by. What does that even mean, anyway, without further clarification? This is where it would have been helpful if Serino had asked Z where abouts near the T he started running, but alas, that wasn’t to be. And there’s at least one witness who says they heard 2 people run by in a direction Z was never have supposed to be going in. > [@Magiver](#): > > The detectives are presented with a fairly straight forward event with lots of evidence it occurred as Zimmerman said it did. And has already been pointed out repeatedly that the case begins with the fight. Absent a witness that says Zimmerman started the fight it’s a matter of self defense. When there is only Z’s say-so as to how the fight started, that’s when it is imperative to investigate the potential crime scene THOROUGHLY and not just accept the story you’ve been given because there’s no immediatelly obvious guilty pointer. > [@Magiver](#): > > Everyone in this thread would welcome a high resolution 3D filming of the event from all different angles but we don’t have that. See now, despite all the Big Brother fears, had The Retreat been cctv’d up the ass, Z wouldn’t be in this predicament. There are obvious advantages to a well-regulated surveillance and incident recording system and the tech is out there to implement it. > [@Magiver](#): > > So it’s not a function of a detective determining Zimmerman is guilty and then going on a witch hunt to hang him. That’s not how the law works. I wasn’t expecting a witch hunt from Serino or SPD, just some common sense investigative work. You know, like determining the exact position of the ground fight and finding corroborative disturbance of the area it happened. Or do you think you can have a violent struggle on wet ground and not leave any evidence you’d ever been there? > [@Magiver](#): > > When you talk about the police only interviewing a witness for 10 minutes you imply that’s not enough time to describe an event that took up maybe 2 minutes total of observation. If they were interviewed for 10 minutes each, you might have a point, but when the incident being described is 2 minutes long and the investigator only spends a minute confirming what you are saying, that is some shoddy interviewing right there. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8401 "2012-11-23T22:54:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This doesn’t reach Zimmerman’s conduct of walking about with a holstered pistol, though it would the moment he drew it, unless of course the moment he drew it was in exercising lawful self-defense. Understood. I assumed it would also be understood that I was speaking specifically to the use. Can you comment on the applicability or not of 790.155 with regard to Zimmerman? ---
**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 23, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8402 "2012-11-23T23:17:38Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > Understood. I assumed it would also be understood that I was speaking specifically to the use. > > Can you comment on the applicability or not of 790.155 with regard to Zimmerman? If you have a concealed weapon permit, are you legally allowed to forget you’re carrying the gun you’ve been trusted to act responsibly with? Aren’t you under an obligation to be aware you are carrying it at all times and act accordingly? Does anyone really believe Z forgot he had it with him? How often do people on here who use guns for their protection forget they are carrying? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=419) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=421)