# 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:** 491
**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 18, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9803 "2013-04-18T23:13:13Z")
[Here’s](http://wtvr.com/2012/06/01/judge-revokes-bond-for-george-zimmerman/) the best article I could find on the subject. > [@from the article](#): > > Specifically, the state wants the names and addresses of witnesses kept out of the public record. It asks for the same for crime scene and autopsy photos, a 911 recording of the incident and **cell phone records of Martin** , Zimmerman and one witness. > > De la Rionda is also requesting a judge seal statements Zimmerman made to law enforcement officers, some of which may be used against him at trial because they were “inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses.” > > \*\*Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, filed his own motion agreeing with the prosecution’s desire not to release material. \*\*He said the defense wants 1,000 e-mails received by Sanford police to be sealed, plus statements by Zimmerman. He asked that text messages, e-mail messages or journals made by the defendant be kept private, at least until they can be reviewed. (bolding mine) I can’t readily find anything that confirms that the judge accepted this requested, but I infer that this occurred since none of this information has been released IIRC. The astute reader should note that the defense was in full support of the state’s motion to keep all this information under wraps. Clearly they are counting on people not remembering their previous positions so that they appear like they are doing something other than wasting everyone’s time. What little money that Zimmerman has in his defense fund is paying for motions that are so full of hot air, it seriously puts into question O’Mara and West’s ethics. ---
**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 18, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9804 "2013-04-18T23:22:22Z")
**hmarvin** , cite that the defense has filed a motion asking for Martin’s phone data? According to [this](http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/3/14/new_zimmerman_eviden.html) article, they already have the data. The state gave it to them a while ago. > [@article](#): > > George Zimmerman’s defense team has released new documents and evidence, including photos of Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. > > The evidence was part of the state’s 12th supplemental discovery release to the defense. > > Zimmerman’s lawyers said the discovery also included a data file from Trayvon’s phone, but added: “We believe [it] is not part of the public record, and therefore will not be provided here.” If such a motion really exists, their antics are much worse than I thought. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9805 "2013-04-19T04:43:04Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > The dispatcher doesn’t ask GZ what address he’s is parked in front of until well over a minute _after_ George is out of the truck. By this time George is of course out of the truck and probably up the cut-through neaer the doggie-poo stand. He asked for directions. This is consistent with his attempts to give them. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > The entire converstation up to that point has George meeting the officers at his truck. Why in the world would he go to the otherside of the cut-through to get a house number? That’s not where his truck is. An address on the other side of the cut-through is meaningless. He knows where his truck is in terms of the Clubhouse, he’s already told the dispatch where his truck is. If he had made it to the other side of the street during the call he would have a searchable address to pull up to. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Yes, he does indeed go to great length to stress how the dispatcher ‘needed an address’. About how he ‘thought to get out and look for a street sign’. But as noted above, the dispatch only asks for the address he’s parked in front of looong after he’s out of the car. And you can’t give an address without a street name which he didn’t have. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > You really think he was walking? No, I think he started to run after Martin and then walked. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > There is a row of houses facing outwards towards the street RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. Literally as he’s saying ‘no address because these are the backs of the houses’ as he’s looking to the left for some stupid reason - there’s a house number, lit up with a house light and everything, like 15 feet from his nose. It’d be right in front of him the night of the shooting, right in the direction he would be facing as he moved up the cut-through. The houses he was at the back of was on the street he knew the name of. If the phone call had lasted longer he would have had an address to give to the dispatcher. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Further, in the video walkthrough, he says he got to the end of the street while still on the phone with dispatch. He gets to the end of the street, but then doesn’t give get the address that he said just a minute ago dispatch insisted they need. Doesn’t get the address, and instead says that he agrees to meet back at his truck. Interestingly, he conveniently leaves out the fact that at the very end of the phone call he clearly decided that he -wasn’t- going back to his truck, because he tells dispatch ‘have the police call me when they get here’. His walk through is not linear to the events. He talks about things as he remembers them. The location where the fight starts is consistent with him walking back toward his truck. So it appears he intends to meet the police there. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Oh for christ’s sake. There is no way in hell he was thinking in terms of ‘an exact location or address or street sign’ prior to exiting the vehicle. It’s not color commentary on the phone call, it’s a complete and utter bullshit lie. How do you figure? He’s talking in terms of location the entire time. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Ah, yes the magical gangsta-skipping properties of Martin. On foot, Martin passes George while George is parked at the Clubhouse on the phone with dispatch, Martin gets up to the cut-through before George can stop at his final parking spot, cuts south down the cut-through towards the back entrance, turn back and walk -down- the cut-through all the way to George’s car, circle it, then run back up the cut-through and turn south again, all in like a minute. Not sure what gansta skipping is but Martin tells DD that he ran to the mail boxes. She repeats this back when asked. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > If Martin actually did all this, then it’s even further evidence that George’s testimony as given in the video walk-through is completely wrong. How so? He talks about Martin coming to check him out on the phone call. Do you have evidence this didn’t happen? Do you have evidence that Zimmerman didn’t look for a street sign upon exiting his truck? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9806 "2013-04-19T12:44:28Z")
A quick show of hands here please: how many people here think that even if Zimmerman is telling the truth, that Martin attacked him without provocation and Zimmerman only shot in extremis, that it’s still Zimmerman’s fault for profiling and putting himself in harm’s way? ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9807 "2013-04-19T13:40:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, you don’t get to be openly racist on the job. That makes it other people’s business. This person represented the city and promoting racism is against their policy. You misunderstand; I said openly racist, like openly gay - meaning you don’t hide it. You can be openly gay and yet not treat every day like it’s a pride parade. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9808 "2013-04-19T13:47:12Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > His actions have put into question his judgement, which is the most important skill to have when operating a lethal weapon. Yes, because he has so much influence over the officers in his training, that they’ll suddenly fall in line with his white supremacy thinking and become brain washed machines that go around treating all black hoody wearing persons as targets. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > At any rate, his employers have the freedom to hire and fire as well as they please as long as it is within the bounds of law. His actions made them their outfit look bad. That’s enough reason to fire him by itself. Maybe, but let’s be clear that had this not be a concern over publicity, they wouldn’t have been so quick to kick him to the curb. This goes to show that the department didn’t take some stance on racism inherently, it simply avoided bad press. ---
**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, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9809 "2013-04-19T15:23:17Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > A quick show of hands here please: how many people here think that even if Zimmerman is telling the truth, that Martin attacked him without provocation and Zimmerman only shot in extremis, that it’s still Zimmerman’s fault for profiling and putting himself in harm’s way? This is a ridiculous question because it requires to shut off our brains and accept as truth the words of a noncredible person. But I’ll play. If Zimmerman is telling the truth about: 1. pursuing Martin in his truck some amount of time before… 2. getting out of his car to chase the kid _after_ the kid ran away from him (in contravention with watch protocol), while carrying a loaded weapon (which in all likelihood violates the terms of his gun license), and 3. and never explaining his actions to the kid when they encountered each other… Then I believe Martin was justified in standing his ground against a person who he had reason to believe was trying to hurt him. Thus, this would mean I believe Zimmerman was the agressor in this conflict and as such, needed to use lethal force only as a last resort. IOW, it was incumbent on Zimmerman to at least attempt to retreat, and it was also incumbent on him to defend himself to the best of his ability without putting his gun into play. Is there any evidence whatsoever that he did that? No. In none of his accounts does he even claim he tried to fight back while Martin was supposedly attacking him. He apparently just stood there when the kid plunked him the nose and he just laid there while the kid picked up his head and slammed it repeatedly. Yes, we have to accept that a former bouncer with 46-lb advantage suddenly became a rag doll despite having the balls to chase after a potential burgular in the black of the night. Because this is what he said happened. Since your hypothetical requires us to believe that Zimmerman did not fight back or try to run away, AND his own words damn him as the aggressor of this conflict, I’m left with little choice then to conclude he is guilty of manslaughter at the least. If you’ve made someone fear for their lives because of your conduct, you aren’t allowed to shoot them in cold blood without you first trying to use nonlethal methods. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9810 "2013-04-19T15:51:40Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > 1. getting out of his car to chase the kid _after_ the kid ran away from him (in contravention with watch protocol), while carrying a loaded weapon (which in all likelihood violates the terms of his gun license), and… Which term, specifically, of his gun license do you believe this conduct violates, “in all likelihood?” ---
**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, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9811 "2013-04-19T16:44:46Z")
Discovery shows that Zimmerman had a class C gun permit. He admitted to Serino et al. that he followed Martin because NEN told him to see where he went (which is a lie but whatever). It is my understanding that, in Florida, only Class G license holders can carry firearms when performing security activities. Zimmerman admitted to following Martin to assist the cops, and because of this, it is “likely” he overstepped the bounds of gun permit. He didn’t have the necessary training required by law to properly handle situations in which the likelihood of a fight is intrinsically high while equipped with a gun. I qualify this with the “likely” because I’m not a lawyer, so there may be seem legal nuances that I’m missing. That said, based on my interpretation of what happened and the documents I’ve read, it certainly seems probable that Zimmerman broke the law simply by acting in a “patrol capacity” while carrying a loaded gun without the proper permit. [http://www.freshfromflorida.com/onestop/forms/16008.pdf](http://www.freshfromflorida.com/onestop/forms/16008.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9812 "2013-04-19T17:14:40Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > …2) getting out of his car to chase the kid _after_ the kid ran away from him (in contravention with watch protocol), while carrying a loaded weapon (which in all likelihood violates the terms of his gun license), and What “watch protocol” are you referring to? The Twin Lakes neighborhood watch wasn’t affiliated with the national Neighborhood Watch group. GZ was on his way to the store when he noticed a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community. He called the nen of the PD to report the incident. He described the suspicious person, the location, identified himself, and left his vehicle to get an address. The non-police officer told GZ that they didn’t need GZ to do “that” (follow the suspicious person). There was no violation “of his gun license”. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9813 "2013-04-19T17:23:09Z")
[quote=“you\_with\_the\_face, post:9811, topic:619125”] …I qualify this with the “likely” because I’m not a lawyer, so there may be seem legal nuances that I’m missing. That said, based on my interpretation of what happened and the documents I’ve read, it certainly **seems probable** that Zimmerman broke the law simply by acting in a “patrol capacity” while carrying a loaded gun without the proper permit. /QUOTE] What law are you referring to? GZ had a FLA permit to carry a firearm and he was going to the store. GZ was carrying a loaded gun with the proper permit. If TM not have punched GZ, broken GZ’s nose, beat GZ’s head on the ground, or reached for GZ’s firearm, TM might have survived that night. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9814 "2013-04-19T17:36:42Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > If TM not have punched GZ, broken GZ’s nose, beat GZ’s head on the ground, or reached for GZ’s firearm, TM might have survived that night. Cue **you with the face** repeating yet again that the only reason anyone believes Martin punched Zimmerman, broke his nose, and beat his head against the ground, is that Zimmerman says so. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9815 "2013-04-19T18:09:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Cue **you with the face** repeating yet again that the only reason anyone believes Martin punched Zimmerman, broke his nose, and beat his head against the ground, is that Zimmerman says so. > > Regards, > Shodan And **you with the face** still can’t provide evidence that it didn’t happen but she sure is long-winded about it. ---
**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, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9816 "2013-04-19T18:58:03Z")
[QUOTE=doorhinge] And you with the face still can’t provide evidence that it didn’t happen but she sure is long-winded about it. [/QUOTE] It is not necessary to provide any evidence that it didn’t happen. GZ is the one claiming that it did, so the onus is on him to provide that evidence. And he has very little. All the state needs to prove is that GZ was too busy committing 2nd degree murder to be in reasonable fear for his life. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9817 "2013-04-19T19:10:01Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It is not necessary to provide any evidence that it didn’t happen. GZ is the one claiming that it did, so the onus is on him to provide that evidence. Still having trouble with that pesky notion of the presumption of innocence, I see. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9818 "2013-04-19T19:12:57Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It is not necessary to provide any evidence that it didn’t happen. GZ is the one claiming that it did, so the onus is on him to provide that evidence. And he has very little. > > All the state needs to prove is that GZ was too busy committing 2nd degree murder to be in reasonable fear for his life. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, this isn’t backed by Florida law. In Florida, the physical act of making someone dead is _ **not a crime in of itself** _. It’s only murder or manslaughter if the elements that make it murder and manslaughter are shown to be present. And Florida’s Stand Your Ground law absolves Zimmerman of culpability for not avoiding or retreating from a confrontation. This is more or less the conclusion the police came to when they originally released Zimmerman. He was only charged later when the hue and cry made it politically impossible for government officials to not be seen “doing something”, and hoping either Zimmerman could be bluffed into taking a plea deal or bumping responsibility down the road to a jury. ---
**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, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9819 "2013-04-19T19:31:45Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, this isn’t backed by Florida law. In Florida, the physical act of making someone dead is _ **not a crime in of itself** _. It’s only murder or manslaughter if the elements that make it murder and manslaughter are shown to be present. And Florida’s Stand Your Ground law absolves Zimmerman of culpability for not avoiding or retreating from a confrontation. And this doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. I repeat: The State doesn’t have to prove that Martin didn’t punch Z in the head or slam his head. All they have to prove is that Zimmerman was acting unlawfully when he killed the kid and in fact was committing murder. If Zimmerman insisted that Martin sprouted five arms and used these extra limbs to pummel him to the brink of death, the State would not be obligated to prove Martin didn’t sprout five arms. Likewise, just because Zimmerman claimed Martin attacked him in the manner that he claims he did does not mean the State has to refute every single claim he made about the attack. > [@](#): > > This is more or less the conclusion the police came to when they originally released Zimmerman. He was only charged later when the hue and cry made it politically impossible for government officials to not be seen “doing something”, and hoping either Zimmerman could be bluffed into taking a plea deal or bumping responsibility down the road to a jury. Riiiight. And your evidence of this is…what? The probable cause affidavit that Serino wrote and signed well before the press caught wind of this? Oh wait, that’s evidence for the opposite. Silly me. ---
**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:** [April 19, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9820 "2013-04-19T20:23:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And this doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. I repeat: The State doesn’t have to prove that Martin didn’t punch Z in the head or slam his head. All they have to prove is that Zimmerman was acting unlawfully when he killed the kid and in fact was committing murder. To do so, they have to prove he wasn’t acting in self defence. If Zimmerman presents an argument that a reasonable person would consider shows he _might_ have been acting in self defence, such as that Martin punched him and pounded his head into the floor, the prosecution have to prove it didn’t happen. That’s what beyond reasonable doubt means in this case. If you’ve forgotten, _all_ the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If Zimmerman doesn’t claim self defence at the trial, the prosecution don’t have to account for it, but I think it’s certain he will. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman insisted that Martin sprouted five arms and used these extra limbs to pummel him to the brink of death, the State would not be obligated to prove Martin didn’t sprout five arms. Likewise, just because Zimmerman claimed Martin attacked him in the manner that he claims he did does not mean the State has to refute every single claim he made about the attack. If the claim was made in such a way that a reasonable person could think it might be true, they would have to refute it. I really don’t think you understand “beyond reasonable doubt” at all, despite how many times it’s been explained to you. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9821 "2013-04-19T21:07:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And this doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. I repeat: The State doesn’t have to prove that Martin didn’t punch Z in the head or slam his head. All they have to prove is that Zimmerman was acting unlawfully when he killed the kid and in fact was committing murder. And just what positive proof of unlawful action do you claim is there? And no the simple fact that Martin ended up dead with a bullet from Zimmerman’s gun in him doesn’t count. Even if you concede (and many don’t) that Zimmerman’s account is suspect, that still doesn’t mean that a lack of a convincing story automatically defaults to unlawful killing. The fact is that people who are almost certainly guilty of murder with the most bullshit stories walk when there isn’t sufficient proof against them. Why do you think that TV dramas (and some real life cases) hinge on clever detectives getting a suspect to unwittingly say something incriminating? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9822 "2013-04-19T21:14:28Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It is not necessary to provide any evidence that it didn’t happen. GZ is the one claiming that it did, so the onus is on him to provide that evidence. And he has very little. > > **All the state needs to prove** is that GZ was too busy committing 2nd degree murder to be in reasonable fear for his life. Are you actually admitting that the state has to prove something? The state still has to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that something other than what GZ says happened, happened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=490) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=492)