# 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:** 510
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10183 "2013-05-23T23:42:17Z")
Incidentally, DeeDee texted Trayvon after his phone went dead. 7:08:03, which is about 9 minutes before the shot was fired. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10184 "2013-05-24T02:02:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s understandable, I should have been more thorough and mentioned that Ekman was from _Blink_. > > I had some extra time on my hands, so I fetched my copy of _Blink_. The below is what I suspect you must have been thinking of, because it’s the only thing close to “white people, on average, can’t smell bullshit”, and as you’ll see, it isn’t close at all. This is from page 239 of the paperback: > > Bolding mine. > > As mentioned above, Ekman claims to be able to teach others to detect lies, which he does for a profit. His incentives are rather obvious. Can he actually do so? This point is controversial. This [Nature](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/full/465412a.html) article covers it well, including Ekman’s contribution to the TSA’s SPOT program. > So, where does this leave us? Ekman never said that socioeconomic status, let alone race, made on better at detecting exception, _if_ he is correct that detecting deception is a skill that can be acquired, which is far from clear. **Human Action** , I don’t mean to gush but this is an impressive post. You’ve highlighted the pertinent part of the book (I lent out my copy), so thank you. You’re right that Ekman has never espoused the view that race or socioeconomic status has an effect on mind-reading. What he did say was that “People who have had highly abusive childhoods … had to practice the difficult art of reading minds”. Taking into account demographics of blacks comprising 12% of the population, reported [child neglect](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf#page=28) is higher in African-Americans (22%) than in Whites (58%). So basically, Ekman’s hypothesis would make African-Americans disproportionately more able to mind-read compared to Whites who make up \>70% of the population but only comprise 58% of the child neglect cases. Now if you can slide over into your right hemisphere, for a moment, I think when you take into account how minorities are treated in this country, an Ekman from the 1920’s might have found that black families that grew under the terror of the KKK would be better at spotting liars. I also think what Ekman is doing - teaching other people read facial expressions - is what blacks have been teaching their children via cultural memes for quite sometime. The higher [incidence and frequency of spanking](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173466) observed in African Americans, I think, is one of those cultural memes that have persisted to this day. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10185 "2013-05-24T02:54:21Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > So Martin was texting about getting his ass kicked by someone else. In a manner bizarrely similar to Zimmerman’s story, no less. Okay. Lol. > > His use of the “1st round” suggests this was consensual fight. Not an assault. It shows Martin was a troubled youth kicked out of school (and his mother’s house) whose hobby is street fighting. So we’ve gone from the [younger picture of Trayvon](http://media.philly.com/images/3-17-12-Trayvon-Martin_full_600.jpg) that looks like he was on his way to Disney World to the [real world image](https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/trayvon-martin-double-finger.jpg) of a [trouble maker](http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/trayvon-martin-finger.jpg) who bills himself on facebook as No\_limit\_Nigga. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10186 "2013-05-24T10:43:33Z")
Troubled youth who likes (but is not very good at, apparently) mutual combat street fighting does not equal a rageaholic killing machine capable of overpowering a much heavier opponent and simulatenously smothering, punching, and slamming his head into concrete. The defense knows this shit has no chance in hell of getting admitted into court, and in fact, their worst nightmare is that it will. Because it then allows Zimmerman history to come into play. Everything they can fault for Martin on, Zimmerman tops. Battery to a police officer, slapping a girlfriend, kicking a dog, a Myspace post that references violence, sexual coercion against a minor, workplace bullying, getting fired for being an overly aggressive bouncer, harrassing his black neighbors…do I really need to go on? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10187 "2013-05-24T12:47:28Z")
**you with the face** , do you understand that the jury isn’t going to hear the things that you exaggerated, misrepresented, or made up, about Zimmerman either? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10188 "2013-05-24T12:55:18Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > You’re right that Ekman has never espoused the view that race or socioeconomic status has an effect on mind-reading. What he did say was that “People who have had highly abusive childhoods … had to practice the difficult art of reading minds”. Taking into account demographics of blacks comprising 12% of the population, reported [child neglect](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf#page=28) is higher in African-Americans (22%) than in Whites (58%). So basically, Ekman’s hypothesis would make African-Americans disproportionately more able to mind-read compared to Whites who make up \>70% of the population but only comprise 58% of the child neglect cases. From page 21 of the cited report: > [@](#): > > Four-fifths (78.5%) of (unique count) victims were neglected, 17.6 percent were physically abused, and 9.1 percent were sexually abused. I don’t think neglect was what Ekman was referring to. Neglect is characterized by the lack of interaction with caregivers, as opposed to abuse, which is characterized by high-risk interactions with dangerous caregivers. That is to say, being locked in a room while your mother goes out won’t make you any better at reading people. Trying to avoid a beating might not either, but Ekman seems to believe that it can. So, only 26.7%of the cases in the report are the type that might lead to the effect Ekman claims to have observed. The type-of-abuse numbers are not broken down by racial group. There’s a deeper issue here, though, which is that Ekman’s claim that detecting deception is a skill that can be acquired has not been supported by modern, peer-reviewed studies, because he refuses to publish his work. He attributes this to security concerns, and he could be sincere. I can’t be the first person, however, to point out that if peer review doesn’t support his findings, his ability to sell training to law enforcement, and his (relative, for a scientist) fame, complete with a TV show based on him, would be adversely affected. We can dither over the racial implications of his work, but until the work itself is substantiated, it might be akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. > [@Honesty](#): > > Now if you can slide over into your right hemisphere, for a moment, I think when you take into account how minorities are treated in this country, an Ekman from the 1920’s might have found that black families that grew under the terror of the KKK would be better at spotting liars. I also think what Ekman is doing - teaching other people read facial expressions - is what blacks have been teaching their children via cultural memes for quite sometime. The higher [incidence and frequency of spanking](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173466) observed in African Americans, I think, is one of those cultural memes that have persisted to this day. I’ve no doubt that there are deeply-ingrained cultural differences between American populations that had disparate experiences. For this to extend to detecting deception requires that detecting deception be a skill that can be learned. The evidence that this is so is flimsy at best. With all due respect to Ekman, I’m unwilling to take him on his word, especially when he earns a living on his claims. By way of analogy, the people of the Western states might put more stock in dowsing than those in wetter parts of the nation. An observer might conclude that because they were in an arid region, it was only plain sense that they’d be forced to develop uniquely effective means of locating water. But, _until it can be demonstrated that dowsing actually works_, one shouldn’t hire a Westerner to detect a spot for your well, or assume that they are experts on locating water. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10189 "2013-05-24T13:38:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **you with the face** , do you understand that the jury isn’t going to hear the things that you exaggerated, misrepresented, or made up, about Zimmerman either? > > Regards, > Shodan They will if they attempt to attack Martin’s character. What have I exaggerated or misrepresented, by the way? His arrest record is indisputable, and so are the witnesses who have come forward with allegations about his behavior. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10190 "2013-05-24T13:59:53Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The defense knows this shit has no chance in hell of getting admitted into court, and in fact, their worst nightmare is that it will. Because it then allows Zimmerman history to come into play. Everything they can fault for Martin on, Zimmerman tops. Battery to a police officer, slapping a girlfriend, kicking a dog, a Myspace post that references violence, sexual coercion against a minor, workplace bullying, getting fired for being an overly aggressive bouncer, harrassing his black neighbors…do I really need to go on? Do you _still_ not understand the reason that Martin’s past is admissible and Zimmerman’s isn’t? It’s been explained to you literally dozens of times. Zimmerman is on trial. That means he gets full protection, and full benefit of the doubt. Martin doesn’t, and indeed doesn’t need it, being unable to be hurt by anything that happens at the trial. Also, we have to prove that Zimmerman is guilty. Nothing from his past can prove that, so it’s irrelevant. We _do not_ have to prove Martin started the fight (making Zimmerman innocent), merely show it’s possible, and his past can absolutely show that, so it’s highly relevant. Why do you still refuse to understand that it’s not a level playing field? All the advantage (correctly) goes to Zimmerman. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10191 "2013-05-24T14:01:55Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > They will if they attempt to attack Martin’s character. This is an outright lie. You can’t claim ignorance of the fact that it’s false, so it can only be deliberate. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10192 "2013-05-24T14:19:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Do you _still_ not understand the reason that Martin’s past is admissible and Zimmerman’s isn’t? It’s been explained to you literally dozens of times. Sadly, it is you and others who are ignorant of the law. Once Zimmerman opens up an attack on Martin’s history, he gives the state full permission to do the same to him. From here: [Character evidence - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence) > [@](#): > > Character evidence offered by the prosecution [edit]In the United States, character evidence is inadmissible in a criminal trial if first offered by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence to show that a defendant is likely to have committed the crime with which he or she is charged—the prosecution may not, in other words, initiate character evidence that shows defendant’s propensity to commit a crime. **However the prosecution may introduce character evidence for certain limited purposes after the defendant does so—after the defendant has “opened the door”—through the permissible methods and purposes explained below in “Character evidence offered by the defendant,” to rebut what defendant tried showing through character evidence, and to “offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait.”** [4] You see that part in bold? Read it until it sinks in. Now read the part underlined. This is really what will nail Zimmerman. If the only sign of violence in Martin was that he was fan of organized street fighting and wanted to own a gun, what does it say about Zimmerman…the guy who has a a history of domestic violence and battering a cop, who carries a gun everywhere he goes? ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10193 "2013-05-24T14:48:08Z")
They may introduce evidence that shows the same character trait. Got any evidence that Zimmerman was a street thug? (Hint - no you haven’t). What you have is Zimmerman being charged with _non-violently_ resisting an officer (after the original charge of violence was dropped), and an unproven claim of domestic violence which led to Zimmerman and his ex getting mutual restraining orders. [Cite](http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite). This is not evidence of violent character. Not that that will be admissible, unless the defence claim Martin was involved in fighting the police or his girlfriends. So no, the prosecution can’t even introduce these facts about Zimmerman’s past, let alone tell the lies about it that you want them to. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10194 "2013-05-24T14:48:27Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If the only sign of violence in Martin was that he was fan of organized street fighting and wanted to own a gun, what does it say about Zimmerman…the guy who has a a history of domestic violence and battering a cop, who carries a gun everywhere he goes? Could you please produce evidence that Zimmerman was convicted of domestic violence or battering a cop? Because you are running into the same problems as the prosecution will - when the prosecution starts misrepresenting the facts, the defense will object and the judge will sustain. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10195 "2013-05-24T15:55:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Troubled youth who likes (but is not very good at, apparently) mutual combat street fighting does not equal a rageaholic killing machine capable of overpowering a much heavier opponent and simulatenously smothering, punching, and slamming his head into concrete. The evidence shows an athletic 17 year old who liked to fight did in fact overpower a shorter man in what can only be described as a fit of rage. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10196 "2013-05-24T16:30:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They may introduce evidence that shows the same character trait. Got any evidence that Zimmerman was a street thug? (Hint - no you haven’t) You say that like there’s evidence that Martin was a street thug, when there isn’t. > [@](#): > > What you have is Zimmerman being charged with non-violently resisting an officer (after the original charge of violence was dropped)… The violence is still on his record, though. Just because a charge is dropped, doesn’t mean the offense never happened, and it doesn’t mean the jury can’t hear about it if the defense accuses Martin of being violent. Do you really think a a single text message about being beaten up by a mutual combatant is enough to damn Martin as a “street thug”, but having an arrest and an injunction on his record for violent acts is a non-issue for Zimmerman? Because his lawyers would have to be retarded to think that. > [@](#): > > , and an unproven claim of domestic violence which led to Zimmerman and his ex getting mutual restraining orders. Cite. This is not evidence of violent character. Not that that will be admissible, unless the defence claim Martin was involved in fighting the police or his girlfriends. And this is a pretty retarded statement. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10197 "2013-05-24T16:36:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you please produce evidence that Zimmerman was convicted of domestic violence or battering a cop? Cite that a conviction is necessary for an arrest to constitute admissible evidence? It’s stupid to think a single text message, completely taken out of context from Martin’s phone, could be admissible evidence against the victim, but Zimmerman’s history of having multiple run-ins with the law for violent offenses somehow would not. The law doesn’t work like yall would like. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10198 "2013-05-24T16:45:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Do you really think a a single text message about being beaten up by a mutual combatant is enough to damn Martin as a “street thug”, but having an arrest and an injunction on his record for violent acts is a non-issue for Zimmerman? > And this is a pretty retarded statement. A street thug would be someone who attacks a stranger and beats his head into the cement. That evidence will certainly be entered in court. The text message shows that Trayvon enjoyed fighting. It’s a skill he was developing as a hobby. The kind of skill one would use to bring down an opponent. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10199 "2013-05-24T16:54:13Z")
The text message shows that, regardless of if he enjoyed it, he was rather short on skill. At any rate, a good many boys and men enjoy fighting. This is why boxing and WWF remain popular sports, and why violent video games are common household fixtures. It means nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10200 "2013-05-24T16:59:46Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Sadly, it is you and others who are ignorant of the law. Once Zimmerman opens up an attack on Martin’s history, he gives the state full permission to do the same to him. > > From here: [Character evidence - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence) > > You see that part in bold? Read it until it sinks in. > > Now read the part underlined. This is really what will nail Zimmerman. If the only sign of violence in Martin was that he was fan of organized street fighting and wanted to own a gun, what does it say about Zimmerman…the guy who has a a history of domestic violence and battering a cop, who carries a gun everywhere he goes? Not a lawyer, here, but that “defendant’s same trait” rule doesn’t seem to exist in Florida law. [Here is](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404) the part of the federal rules of evidence dealing with character evidence: > [@](#): > > (a) Character Evidence. > > (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. > > (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case: > > (A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it; > > (B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may: > > (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and > > (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and > > (C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. Now, [here is](http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2010/TitleVII/chapter90/90_404.html) the part of Florida’s rules of evidence dealing with character evidence: > [@](#): > > 90.404 Character evidence; when admissible. > > (1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except: > > (a) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait. > > (b) Character of victim. > > 1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or > > 2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor. > > (c) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610. See what’s missing? The rules are largely the same, except the Florida statute doesn’t contain “evidence of the defendant’s same trait.” So, without getting into what traits are suggested by what evidence, it seems like Flordia doesn’t allow for the sort of evidence you’re speaking of. I, of course, welcome any corrections on parsing the statutes. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10201 "2013-05-24T17:13:42Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The text message shows that, regardless of if he enjoyed it, he was rather short on skill. At any rate, a good many boys and men enjoy fighting. This is why boxing and WWF remain popular sports, and why violent video games are common household fixtures. It means nothing. There is no dispute that the attack was prolonged and violent. That speaks for itself. The text just shows that Martin enjoyed fighting as a hobby. It lends credence to Zimmerman’s statement that he was punched in the nose at the outset of the confrontation. It means nothing to you because you have managed to ignore a stack of evidence that backs up Zimmerman’s statement. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10202 "2013-05-24T18:38:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > See what’s missing? The rules are largely the same, except the Florida statute doesn’t contain “evidence of the defendant’s same trait.” Hey, looky there. You may be right. The State may not be able to point out that Zimmerman’s past looks just as suspicious as Martin’s, if not ten times as much. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say for sure, but I will not argue with you on this. Your own cite suggests there is no chance in hell the cellphone stuff will be admissible, which renders this moot anyway. I will say this. What does it say about someone’s principles and common sense if they see nothing wrong with slandering a possible murder victim as a thug based on trivialities taken from a phone, but will defend to the death a guy with a violent arrest record who has actually shot and killed someone? It doesn’t say a whole lot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=509) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=511)