# 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:** 456
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9103 "2012-12-12T22:57:31Z")
By the way, if [this article](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-serino-changes-affidavit-20121212,0,43028.story) is any indication, we might see more “new” evidence surface before the trial. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9104 "2012-12-12T23:09:50Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’ve not seen anyone taking the opposite position - that is, that because guns are good, he should be let off even if he’s provably guilty. And I don’t see what you’re inferring: anyone stating that because guns are bad, he should sent to jail even if he’s proven innocent. And that pretty much identifies your blinders on this subject. Here I am, “anti-gun” (for lack of better term), fully admitting my biases on the matter. You, on the other hand, see no biases in yourself on the subject. In your world, non-gun owners are just pants-pissing pussies who don’t know shit from shinola, where gun-owners are all responsible, morally right thinkers who understand that, shucks, sometimes you just have to shoot somebody. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9105 "2012-12-12T23:12:50Z")
> [@Mgalindo13](#): > > By the way, if [this article](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-serino-changes-affidavit-20121212,0,43028.story) is any indication, we might see more “new” evidence surface before the trial. I did not get that at all from the article. It does sound like Serino was pressured in his written statement. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9106 "2012-12-12T23:15:54Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’ve read you post and I discern anything that supports the idea that she would withhold evidence that is favorable to her case. I have no idea “IF” Corey “would” actually withhold evidence. With her time on the job, experience, and winning record, I’m sure she would “know how” to drag her feet turning over evidence “IF” she felt the need to. I said, “I’m sure she knows how far she can push an issue before she gets her hand officially slapped by the court.” Maybe that wasn’t clear enough? As an example, Crump has possession of an interview between DeeDee and Crump that was attended by TM’s family and friends. Crump has produced, to Corey, an edited version of that interview. GZ’s legal team is asking for the full interview and access to the original recording device. The defense can not directly force Crump to turn over the full interview or the recording device. The defense can only ask the court to force Crump to surrender the interview and device to the court/SA’s office. The defense can then ask Corey, or ask the court to force Corey, to turn over the evidence to them for examination. “IF” Corey drags her feet getting the full interview, for whatever reason, the defense can’t examine that interview or the recording device. Not getting that interview could only benefit the prosecution. Getting that interview and the recording device “might” benefit both the prosecution and the defense (depending on what information is contained in the interview. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9107 "2012-12-12T23:19:13Z")
> [@Mgalindo13](#): > > By the way, if [this article](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-serino-changes-affidavit-20121212,0,43028.story) is any indication, we might see more “new” evidence surface before the trial. It’s possible, but I don’t see much indication of it from the article. I don’t see how the fact that the lead investigator spent a lot of time revising his report as evidence of much in particular. If Serino had access to evidence of second-degree murder, I wonder why he would revise the report to recommend manslaughter instead. I hope I have repeated “all this is based on the evidence we have to date” for everything I have posted enough. So some new bombshell could come to light that would show Zimmerman’s guilt beyond question. But shouldn’t the defense have access to that evidence already? Or maybe the defense does know about it already, but the public doesn’t. If the “new evidence” is something like what the article says - that the lead investigator took a lot of time with his report, and wound up recommending indictment on a lesser charge than second-degree - then I don’t think it clarifies the case any. We shall see, I guess. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9108 "2012-12-12T23:24:09Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And that pretty much identifies your blinders on this subject. Here I am, “anti-gun” (for lack of better term), fully admitting my biases on the matter. You, on the other hand, see no biases in yourself on the subject. In your world, non-gun owners are just pants-pissing pussies who don’t know shit from shinola, where gun-owners are all responsible, morally right thinkers who understand that, shucks, sometimes you just have to shoot somebody. That really doesn’t sum up my views at all. I guess you’ve not bothered to read my posts, and are projecting here. There’s several people here who think Zimmerman should be punished for his actions. They’ve been challenged repeatedly to show what laws he broke, and to supply the evidence they use to reach that conclusion, and instead of doing so they resort to stating that he was carrying a gun, which he used to shoot Martin. Which is neither in doubt, nor necessarily illegal. If you’ve missed the numerous posts saying there’s something wrong with him following Martin _with a gun OMG_ then you’re the one with wilful blindness. On the opposing side you have plenty of people, including several who would prefer that what Zimmerman did wasn’t legal, and including people like me who have never even held a gun, and live somewhere it would be illegal to possess one, who have the ability to research the law of the relevant jurisdiction, and to judge accordingly. Florida is, legally speaking, pro-gun. The place for anti-gun activism is not on a jury. It’s not an equal situation - someone anti-gun would be more likely to disagree with the law that made Zimmerman’s actions legal than someone pro-gun, and if they were inclined to make the wrong judgement based on that, they should be excluded from the jury. There isn’t the opposing risk with the pro-gun people. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9109 "2012-12-12T23:29:59Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And I don’t see what you’re inferring: anyone stating that because guns are bad, he should sent to jail even if he’s proven innocent. > > And that pretty much identifies your blinders on this subject. Here I am, “anti-gun” (for lack of better term), fully admitting my biases on the matter. You, on the other hand, see no biases in yourself on the subject. In your world, non-gun owners are just pants-pissing pussies who don’t know shit from shinola, where gun-owners are all responsible, morally right thinkers who understand that, shucks, sometimes you just have to shoot somebody. No less an authority than the State of Florida OK’d GZ carrying a firearm in FLA. If you believe that GZ is guilty “BECAUSE” he carried a firearm, then you don’t understand FLA law. GZ is not guilty of violating any FLA law “BECAUSE” he carried a firearm. The firearm is only a tool that GZ used to save his own life. The legal question that will be decided by the court/jury is whether GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder for using lethal force to stop TM from beating him. Did GZ believe his life was in immediate danger or not? FLA allows the use of lethal force “IF” GZ believed his life was in imminent danger. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9110 "2012-12-12T23:32:32Z")
> [@Mgalindo13](#): > > By the way, if [this article](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-serino-changes-affidavit-20121212,0,43028.story) is any indication, we might see more “new” evidence surface before the trial. How did you reach that conclusion based on that article? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9111 "2012-12-12T23:34:10Z")
No … I’m sure you’re right, **Steophan**. No dis-passion on that side of the issue. Don’t what I was thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9112 "2012-12-12T23:38:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Or maybe the defense does know about it already, but the public doesn’t. Florida sunshine laws - what evidence defense receives has to be released to public. ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9113 "2012-12-12T23:42:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > How did you reach that conclusion based on that article? The point being that new “evidence” is still being turned over to the defense, not that the items in the article are of particular significance. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9114 "2012-12-12T23:49:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > …By way of example, I don’t think the OJ jurors were capable of dealing with the evidence and facts in that case. They were not removed. Which OJ jury? OJ was aquitted in 1994, of two murders and one of those jurors had been replaced for spending too much time admiring OJ’s Heisman Trophy during a jury field trip to the OJ residence. OJ was later found guilty in 2008 of armed robbery and kidnapping someone who was selling OJ memorabilia. ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9115 "2012-12-12T23:51:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s possible, but I don’t see much indication of it from the article. I don’t see how the fact that the lead investigator spent a lot of time revising his report as evidence of much in particular. > > If Serino had access to evidence of second-degree murder, I wonder why he would revise the report to recommend manslaughter instead. > > I hope I have repeated “all this is based on the evidence we have to date” for everything I have posted enough. So some new bombshell could come to light that would show Zimmerman’s guilt beyond question. But shouldn’t the defense have access to that evidence already? > > Or maybe the defense does know about it already, but the public doesn’t. > > If the “new evidence” is something like what the article says - that the lead investigator took a lot of time with his report, and wound up recommending indictment on a lesser charge than second-degree - then I don’t think it clarifies the case any. > > We shall see, I guess. > > Regards, > Shodan I wasn’t saying the content of the article had any importance. Just that since evidence is still being turned over to the defense as recently as today, it may indicate we’ll see more at a later date. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9116 "2012-12-13T00:40:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know anything about Florida specifically, but my general understanding is that attorneys for each side have the ability to challenge potential jurors based on certain valid grounds which have to pass muster with the judge, but they have the option of challenging or passing on such jurors, and they can decide what to do based on whether they think a given juror would be predisposed to favor their case or not. In addition, they get a limited number of free passes to challenge potential jurors without giving a reason. > > I’m not an expert on any of this. But one way or another, it’s widely reported that attorneys can influence jury selection. And jury selection consultants are paid for a reason. > > Do you disagree with any of this? Sorta, yes. It’s true that, in general, each side has a certain number of peremptory challenges, by which they can reject a potential venireman without giving a reason. Except that neither side can use that process for racial reasons. This rule came into effect in the mid-1980s, as a result of a case called _Batson v. Kentucky_. A prosecutor that seeks to stack the racial deck by using his peremptory challenges is subject to objection by the defense, and if the defense makes a prima facie case for racial criteria, must provide an on-the-record, race-neutral reason for his strikes. And more fatal to your theory: both the prosecution and the defense have an equal number of peremptory challenges. So again: > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But the prosecution has the upper hand here. Because they would have a much easier time stacking the jury with African Americans than the defense would have in excluding them. How,specifically, would the prosecution have an easier time in this circumstance? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9117 "2012-12-13T00:41:22Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Florida sunshine laws - what evidence defense receives has to be released to public. Except telephone records. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9118 "2012-12-13T01:00:32Z")
> [@Mgalindo13](#): > > By the way, if [this article](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-serino-changes-affidavit-20121212,0,43028.story) is any indication, we might see more “new” evidence surface before the trial. An interesting article. There was a lot of political pressure to charge Zimmerman with a crime. The Sanford Police Department passed the buck to Wolfinger. Wolfinger passed the buck to the Grand Jury. Governor Rick Scott passed the buck to Angela Corey, who actually followed orders and charged Zimmerman. It makes it clearer why Serino hired his own lawyer. I wonder how long before everybody e-mail gets subpoenaed ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9119 "2012-12-13T02:34:12Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Yes, because only non-gun owners have strong opinions on gun-ownership. Makes perfect sense. This. Aw fuck! Do I really have to agree with Jack? Gun owner. Gun user. Gun rights supporter. Don’t believe Zimmerman’s tale, but suspect he is going to be the lucky recipient of a verdict based on ill conceived Florida law that neutered the “checks and balances” part of the process. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9120 "2012-12-13T03:46:23Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I have no idea “IF” Corey “would” actually withhold evidence. With her time on the job, experience, and winning record, I’m sure she would “know how” to drag her feet turning over evidence “IF” she felt the need to. Please don’t quote my posts like you are actually responding to my posts. It is confusing when Your posts doesn’t actually have a relevant response. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9121 "2012-12-13T14:33:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sorta, yes. > > It’s true that, in general, each side has a certain number of peremptory challenges, by which they can reject a potential venireman without giving a reason. > > Except that neither side can use that process for racial reasons. This rule came into effect in the mid-1980s, as a result of a case called _Batson v. Kentucky_. A prosecutor that seeks to stack the racial deck by using his peremptory challenges is subject to objection by the defense, and if the defense makes a prima facie case for racial criteria, must provide an on-the-record, race-neutral reason for his strikes. > > And more fatal to your theory: both the prosecution and the defense have an equal number of peremptory challenges. > > So again: > > How,specifically, would the prosecution have an easier time in this circumstance? I’ve already addressed this in the very post you quoted, and you seem to be ignoring what I’ve written. Not sure why. 1. I’m not talking only of peremptory challenges. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know anything about Florida specifically, but my general understanding is that attorneys for each side have the ability to challenge potential jurors **based on certain valid grounds which have to pass muster with the judge, but they have the option of challenging or passing on such jurors, and they can decide what to do based on whether they think a given juror would be predisposed to favor their case or not.** In addition, they get a limited number of free passes to challenge potential jurors without giving a reason. 1. Real life does not always follow abstract legal theory. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There’s a lot more political sensitivity to underrepresentation of minorities on juries than there is to overrepresentation. And this case is already racially sensitive. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and opinion and if you disagree with me I’m interested in hearing why. But it would be helpful if you would acknowledge what I’ve written and address it rather than acting as if I’d not written it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9122 "2012-12-13T15:03:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [QUOTE=Terr] > > Florida sunshine laws - what evidence defense receives has to be released to public. Except telephone records. [/QUOTE] Which I suppose implies that, if there is some smoking gun contained in Zimmerman’s (or Dee Dee’s, or someone else’s) phone records, the prosecution has not released it to the defense. And if it is truly some dramatic proof of Zimmerman’s guilt, wouldn’t the prosecution be compelled to turn it over already? Correct me if I am wrong about this, Great Legal Minds of the SDMB[sup]TM[/sup]. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=455) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=457)