# 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:** 52
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1021 "2012-04-26T17:11:15Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > It’s ridiculous for you to say “but how could it be a criminal act if it was self-defense?” as though self-defense were a fact gathered as part of the forensic evidence, rather than a _defense_ to a charge of murder. _We don’t know if it is self-defense yet._ Thats what trials are for I hate to belabor this point, because you’re essentially right. But not in Florida. In Florida, the legislature changed self-defense from an affirmative defense, to be determined at trial, to a plea that must be adjudicated before trial can even start… and THEN a fact to be determined at trial. Florida law makes a person who uses self-defense immune from arrest, trial, or even being detained in custody. That protection is meaningless if the only way to determine if you get that immunity is by having a trial, right? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1022 "2012-04-26T17:25:38Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > If his self-defense story collapses significantly his reasonable doubt is gone. Note that at a criminal trial Zimmerman doesn’t need to present any story at all. The burden of establishing that the crime of second-degree murder was in fact committed will fall entirely on the State. ---
**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 26, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1023 "2012-04-26T17:29:44Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > If it was not self-defense, it empathetically _was_. Seriously, put on your thinking cap: the “act” that Zimmerman took was to point and shoot. If the Act was self-defense then it was not criminal. If the act was not self-defense then it was criminal. > > It’s ridiculous for you to say “but how could it be a criminal act if it was self-defense?” as though self-defense were a fact gathered as part of the forensic evidence, rather than a _defense_ to a charge of murder. _We don’t know if it is self-defense yet._ Thats what trials are for In practice, if Zimmerman shot and killed him not in self defence, it would be a criminal act - but there still needs to be more than just the killing for a crime to have occurred. You seem to be of the opinion that self defence justifies murder. This is not the case - if it is self defence, it is not murder, nor is it any form of criminal act whatsoever. Also, it does not need to be determined that it _was_ self defence. It needs to be _proven_ that it _wasn’t_. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1024 "2012-04-26T17:33:15Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [Trayvon Martin's Girlfriend Was Hospitalized After His Wake](http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/03/trayvon-martin-girlfriend-hospitalized-following-death) > > “The day after his wake, Trayvon’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, who had been conducting his own extensive investigation because cops had determined the shooting was in self defense, told Trayvon’s girlfriend she was the last person to talk to him,” a source close to the situation tells [RadarOnline.com](http://RadarOnline.com). "George had reviewed Trayvon’s cell phone bill and it was revealed that she was on the phone with him in the moments before Trayvan was shot. > > The wake was March 3rd. First time the girlfriend’s testimony about the call was trotted out to the press was somewhere in March 20s. > > So - no, it was not just a few days before the announcement. He sat on it for weeks. I am sure this will come out at the trial as well. I read that story and actually reported it as true before, But then I read this: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation\_n\_1409277.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1\_lnk3%26pLid%3D150284](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D150284) > [@](#): > > Attorneys for Martin’s family said it wasn’t until weeks later, when Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father, was looking through the teen’s cell phone bill that he noticed the timing of the last call. The family and their attorneys then contacted Trayvon’s girlfriend and heard her account of the night. Lawyer Benjamin Crump, who represents the family, recorded an interview with the girl and provided it with Martin’s cell phone records to federal authorities, who by then had joined the investigation. This story actually sound more plausible to me and the author has a Pulitzer and used to work for the Ny Times. There is a lot of stuff running around the internet even if you accept this time line. I found sites that claim Crumb spent a lot of time scrubbing DeeDee twitter accounts before he released his story because it didn’t fit his narrative of a girlfriend that was devastated by Trayvon’s death. I hope that one isn’t true. I like to think that when I get new information, I can change my mind. I still think Crumb is steaming pile of horse manure though. ---
**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 26, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1025 "2012-04-26T17:35:22Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > II like to think that when I get new information, I can change my mind. I still think Crumb is steaming pile of horse manure though. Why exactly? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1026 "2012-04-26T17:35:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The wake was March 3rd. First time the girlfriend’s testimony about the call was trotted out to the press was somewhere in March 20s. > > So - no, it was not just a few days before the announcement. He sat on it for weeks. I am sure this will come out at the trial as well. What’s the significance of when he went to the _press_? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1027 "2012-04-26T17:39:01Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Once again, the state has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, Zimmerman’s guilt. “Putting enough holes in Zimmerman’s story” does not meet this standard. The state has to present its “story” and prove it, beyond reasonable doubt. What part does the state have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt exactly? I thought self-defense was an affirmative defense? If the self-defense case cannot pass muster then what? The defendant walks even though his self-defense defense didn’t hold up? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1028 "2012-04-26T18:06:35Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > I thought self-defense was an affirmative defense? Post 1021. It’s right here on this same page. In Florida, the legislature changed self-defense from an affirmative defense, to be determined at trial, to a plea that must be adjudicated before trial can even start… and THEN a fact to be determined at trial. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1029 "2012-04-26T18:12:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I hate to belabor this point, because you’re essentially right. > > But not in Florida. > > In Florida, the legislature changed self-defense from an affirmative defense, to be determined at trial, to a plea that must be adjudicated before trial can even start… and THEN a fact to be determined at trial. > > Florida law makes a person who uses self-defense immune from arrest, trial, or even being detained in custody. That protection is meaningless if the only way to determine if you get that immunity is by having a trial, right? Yes, I know. We all know.. that INSANE fucking law. BUT… so far it appears that it’s no longer in play, at least to the extent that it hasn’t worked to keep Zimmy from being charged altogether, so we can be thankful for that. As it stands today, it appears that things are moving forward in the normal, SANE manner: Person A shoots and kills Person B, the state sees a crime and the wheels of justice begin to turn… we’ll see how Florida’s insane immoral laws play into the rest of this situation. Hopefully it will be the normal course of events: state makes it’s case that Zimmerman murdered Martin by presenting its evidence and Martin defends himself by doing whatever his team ends up doing to assert that it was justifiable because Martin was afraid for his life, he did not instigate, or if he did he exhausted all means other than killing. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1030 "2012-04-26T18:14:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …THEN a fact to be determined at trial. What does this mean? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1031 "2012-04-26T18:19:17Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > In practice, if Zimmerman shot and killed him not in self defence, it would be a criminal act - but there still needs to be more than just the killing for a crime to have occurred. I have no idea what you are saying here. If Zimmerman killed Martin and it did not fall under the rules for justifiable homicide, that’s all ya need for the crime, whether it’s first or second degree murdeer, or manslaughter. What in god’s name do you mean there needs to be “more than just the killing for a crim to have occurred”??? > [@](#): > > You seem to be of the opinion that self defence justifies murder. Not possible, since I can’t even parse what the hell THIS means, either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1032 "2012-04-26T18:23:08Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Yes, I know. We all know.. that INSANE fucking law. > > BUT… so far it appears that it’s no longer in play, at least to the extent that it hasn’t worked to keep Zimmy from being charged altogether, so we can be thankful for that. As it stands today, it appears that things are moving forward in the normal, SANE manner: Person A shoots and kills Person B, the state sees a crime and the wheels of justice begin to turn… we’ll see how Florida’s insane immoral laws play into the rest of this situation. Hopefully it will be the normal course of events: state makes it’s case that Zimmerman murdered Martin by presenting its evidence and Martin defends himself by doing whatever his team ends up doing to assert that it was justifiable because Martin was afraid for his life, he did not instigate, or if he did he exhausted all means other than killing. Well… sorta. Thing is, the SYG law hasn’t finished its machinations yet. As we learn from _Peterson v. State_, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. DCA 2008), when the accused raises self defense and is prosecuted anyway, he gets to present his case to the judge before trial even starts: > [@](#): > > The wording selected by our Legislature makes clear that it intended to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. In particular, in the preamble to the substantive legislation, the session law notes, “[T]he Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.” (citation omitted) > > We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist. > . > . > . > Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1033 "2012-04-26T18:24:17Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > What does this mean? It means that in Florida, the defendant can have a pre-trial hearing, and make his case in front of a judge. All he has to do is show by preponderance of the evidence that self-defense was likely. If the judge agrees, the defendant is immune from trial. ---
**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 26, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1034 "2012-04-26T18:30:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It means that in Florida, the defendant can have a pre-trial hearing, and make his case in front of a judge. All he has to do is show by preponderance of the evidence that self-defense was likely. If the judge agrees, the defendant is immune from trial. So if Zimmerman fails to win at the pre-trial hearing and this goes to trial, does his case then get treated the same way it would for any affirmative defense situation? ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1035 "2012-04-26T18:40:22Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I don’t believe in your theory mainly because my gut tells me that if Trayvon hadn’t yelled, he’d still be alive. OK, I can go along with that. However, I still prefer my scenario, as it doesn’t require identification of the voice on the 911 recording. Your way, the defense shows reasonable doubt that the voice isn’t Martin, but is in fact Zimmerman and that throws a wrench in the whole thing. I don’t share your gut or your confidence that the source of the screams can be identified that precisely as Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1036 "2012-04-26T18:41:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > when the accused raises self defense and is prosecuted anyway, he gets to present his case to the judge before trial even starts: > [@](#): > > We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only \*\*\*factual disputes. \*\*\*The court may not deny a motion simply because **factual disputes exist.** > . > . > . > Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by **a preponderance of the evidence** that the immunity attaches. Okay, great. What the fuck does that mean in practice? “Factual disputes” as opposed to what? Emotional and psychological disputes?? And who is disputing… unfortunately we don’t have both parties giving disputed stories, we have one person’s story, then evidence of all kinds which may or may not make that story look like bullshit. What is the court going to call a genuine “fact”, apart from the obviously indisputable ones, like Martin being dead? Zimmermans words lacking any other evidence? I sure hope not because then my head will be forced to explode. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. WHAT WAS THE LEGISLATURE THINKING??? ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1037 "2012-04-26T18:46:53Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Not possible, since I can’t even parse what the hell THIS means, either. It means a guy can approach and punch to death a knife wielding tire slasher and thanks to immoral, insane laws not even be arrested let alone face charges. ---
**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 26, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1038 "2012-04-26T18:53:45Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I have no idea what you are saying here. If Zimmerman killed Martin and it did not fall under the rules for justifiable homicide, that’s all ya need for the crime, whether it’s first or second degree murdeer, or manslaughter. What in god’s name do you mean there needs to be “more than just the killing for a crim to have occurred”??? I mean that homicide is not a crime under Florida law. Every crime that involves homicide has other necessary elements that need to be present for that crime to have occurred. > [@](#): > > Not possible, since I can’t even parse what the hell THIS means, either. I mean you don’t seem to understand what self defence is, at least in the jurisdiction in question. It does _not_ mean you are allowed to murder someone if your life is in danger. It means that, if the killing was in self defence, no murder occurred. Really, not that difficult to understand. Again, that you don’t like these laws doesn’t mean they don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1039 "2012-04-26T18:57:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > So if Zimmerman fails to win at the pre-trial hearing and this goes to trial, does his case then get treated the same way it would for any affirmative defense situation? Yes, I think so. Of course, the defense has the benefit of having seen all the prosecution’s cards already. Discovery usually means that the defense sees all the evidence ahead of time anyway, but there’s a difference between that and actually seeing how a witness is on the stand, how the prosecution presents their case… in general, that kind of exposure is a benefit for the defense. ---
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1040 "2012-04-26T19:06:05Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Okay, great. What the fuck does that mean in practice? “Factual disputes” as opposed to what? There are factual disputes and their are legal disputes. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question\_of\_fact](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact) for factual disputes. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question\_of\_fact](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact) for legal disputes. If we had a video of the night in question, it would resolve most factual disputes, such as who struck the first blow, and who was yelling, was Zimmerman getting his head bashed on concrete. The legal dispute would be, given these facts, is it Murder, Manslaughter, or Justifiable Homicide? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=51) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=53)