# 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:** 53
**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, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1041 "2012-04-26T19:13:55Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Why exactly? Well first because he is a personal injury attorney. Basically that makes him a SPOH by default. Also because he seems to be more interested in trying his cases in the media than the courts. Media hound attorneys also tend to be SPOH in my book. He also seems to be a lot more interested in getting a big civil settlement than a conviction of George Zimmerman. If convicting Zimmerman was his primary concern, then he would have immediately took DeeDee to the special prosecutor, not to a press conference. I think he is a lot more interested in a civil suit against Retreat at Twin Lakes than putting Zimmerman in Prison. Of course, this is my opinion. If you think Crump is a knight in shining honor defending the downtrodden. Go right ahead. ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1042 "2012-04-26T19:30:04Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > Wait, are you suggesting that Crumb had Dee-dee modify her account of what she heard? That he is gambling his license to practice on the hope that a sixteen-year-old girl didn’t relate her unmodified story to anyone else before she was counselled to commit perjury? > > Golly, what an idiot! No I’m not. Actually asking somebody to lie would be stupid, unnecessary and unreliable. You just nudge their memories in the desired direction. You slant your questions to get the desired response. You paraphrase their response in a slightly different manner or reorder events a little. Pretty soon the witness is remembering your version of events and will think they are telling the 100% truth. [http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm](http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm) Look at what happened in the McMartin case. We don’t need anything that extreme here. Just a little tweak here and here. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1043 "2012-04-26T19:33:53Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > No I’m not. Actually asking somebody to lie would be stupid, unnecessary and unreliable. You just nudge their memories in the desired direction. Like having the girlfriend say that [she heard Martin pushed to the ground](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/03/sanford_fla_cops_new_leaked_account_of_trayvon_martin_s_killing_.html). ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1044 "2012-04-26T19:46:30Z")
> [@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? But is the state gets past the self defense hearing, then isn’t it pretty much in a Ante-SYG condition? The Judge’s decision in the Garcia case seems pretty bizarre, but we don’t even know if that will survive appeal. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1045 "2012-04-26T19:59:48Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Okay, great. What the fuck does that mean in practice? “Factual disputes” as opposed to what? Emotional and psychological disputes?? No, no. A dispute about what happened is a factual dispute. A man goes into a bank, pulls out his dentures, and says, “Gimme the money, or I’ll reach over the counter and bite ya with these! You know how dangerous a human bite is?” Factual disputes: was the accused that man? Legal disputes: does the act of threatening with dentures constitute armed robbery? > [@](#): > > Jesus. Fucking. Christ. WHAT WAS THE LEGISLATURE THINKING??? Unintended results don’t arise from thinking. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1046 "2012-04-26T20:01:26Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Well first because he is a personal injury attorney. Basically that makes him a SPOH by default. > > Also because he seems to be more interested in trying his cases in the media than the courts. Media hound attorneys also tend to be SPOH in my book. > > He also seems to be a lot more interested in getting a big civil settlement than a conviction of George Zimmerman. If convicting Zimmerman was his primary concern, then he would have immediately took DeeDee to the special prosecutor, not to a press conference. I think he is a lot more interested in a civil suit against Retreat at Twin Lakes than putting Zimmerman in Prison. > > Of course, this is my opinion. If you think Crump is a knight in shining honor defending the downtrodden. Go right ahead. That makes very little sense. If Zimmerman earns a criminal conviction, the civil suit against him is fifty times easier to try. ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1047 "2012-04-26T20:03:10Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > But is the state gets past the self defense hearing, then isn’t it pretty much in a Ante-SYG condition? The Judge’s decision in the Garcia case seems pretty bizarre, but we don’t even know if that will survive appeal. Sorta. The defense has had a good peek at the prosecution playbook that they normally wouldn’t get. That’s of great value, in my view. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1048 "2012-04-26T20:18:45Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > 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. It’s not about what I prefer, though. It’s what I believe. Do I think the State would be able prove my theory to a jury? It would be hard. Especially without witnesses who saw enough of the conflict to say that Martin wasn’t attacking Zimmerman. But I think it’s quite possible they could. Specifically because of that yelling. It’s a blood-curding scream of desperation. To shoot someone who was in such a helpless state of fear points to a depraved mind. So the State’s challenge would be to convince a jury that it wasn’t Zimmerman who was screaming, it was Martin. And this is not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Proving something beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt doesn’t mean the State has to have mountains of perfect, unimpeachable, 100% definitive evidence. It just means having to strongly convince a jury that their explanation for the event is true. How easy that will be largely depends on the jury. ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1049 "2012-04-26T20:32:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That makes very little sense. If Zimmerman earns a criminal conviction, the civil suit against him is fifty times easier to try. Zimmerman has no assets. Trying to a get civil verdict against him is hardly worth it. Remember his parents had come up the 15,000 for the bond. What point is there in getting an award against an indigent defendant? Getting an award against Retreat at Twin Lakes could be worth millions. I was wondering if Zimmerman wins the self-defense hearing if any his immunity would transfer to Twin Lakes? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1050 "2012-04-26T20:37:30Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Actually asking somebody to lie would be stupid, unnecessary and unreliable. You just nudge their memories in the desired direction. How much of a nudge do you think is needed, and in what direction? It seems to me that DeeDee’s statement is significant to the degree that it contradicts Zimmerman’s account, and the _most_ significant variance is that in Zimmerman’s account, he was walking _away_ from Martin, when Martin (as the agressor) came towards him and began an assault. This would have had to have happened within a two minute window between the end of Zimmerman’s call with the police dispatcher and the beginning of the confrontation. One of Zimmerman’s problems is that DeeDee’s account is much more plausible when considered in the context of a fact which Zimmerman had no way of knowing: That Martin had an open call on his Bluetooth headset when the confrontation began. It’s one thing to assert that someone with no history of violence launched a brutal attack with such little provocation - there has to be first time for everything, right? But I think most people who are actively looking to administer a beat-down to someone are going to end their call and secure their valuable electronics first. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1051 "2012-04-26T20:41:37Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And this is not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Proving something beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt doesn’t mean the State has to have mountains of perfect, unimpeachable, 100% definitive evidence. It just means having to strongly convince a jury that their explanation for the event is true. How easy that will be largely depends on the jury. There are two hurdles. Even if you convince a jury, your trial record has to be solid enough to convince an appeals court. They won’t disturb a jury’s factual finding as long as there’s evidence in the record to support the finding, but if the jury just decides something happened even without something to point to, the appeals court will kick it back. In other words, you might get a jury that votes to convict on general feelings, or on a dislike of Zimmerman, or because they’re anti-gun. But without a solid grounding in the record, the appeals court (or the trial judge) may not let it stand. I’ve speculated before that Zimmerman might actually do better with a bench trial. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1052 "2012-04-26T20:46:05Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Zimmerman has no assets. Trying to a get civil verdict against him is hardly worth it. Remember his parents had come up the 15,000 for the bond. What point is there in getting an award against an indigent defendant? Getting an award against Retreat at Twin Lakes could be worth millions. > > I was wondering if Zimmerman wins the self-defense hearing if any his immunity would transfer to Twin Lakes? That’s a really good question. My guess – and I can’t stress the word ‘guess’ enough – is no. The legislature makes him immune from prosecution and a civil suit. It doesn’t declare that he has acted without negligence. To the extent that there’s some kind of supervisory negligence (and I’m not saying there is) it seems to me that there’s no automatic immunity there. But this is not my area of law, and it’s not my state, so I welcome comments from someone who knows. ---
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1053 "2012-04-26T20:47:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sorta. The defense has had a good peek at the prosecution playbook that they normally wouldn’t get. That’s of great value, in my view. But doesn’t the prosecution see the defense playbook also? Also the defense has to show a preponderance of evidence, so they can’t hold anything back for trial? Since the Prosecution has a lower standard, then they have the option of not showing all their cards. ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1054 "2012-04-26T21:11:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It means that, _ **if the killing was in self defence** _, no murder occurred. And the _ **reverse** _. :smack: > [@newme](#): > > There are factual disputes and their are legal disputes. > [@Bricker](#): > > No, no. A dispute about what happened is a factual dispute. > > Legal disputes: does the act of threatening with dentures constitute armed robbery? > Unintended results don’t arise from thinking. Thank you… I did learn that, but had forgotten it. Especially in the heat of total annoyance. (In fact it was the topic of one of my [early](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505306) law threads, I was trying to wrap my head around the ideas of “ultimate facts” vs. “Legal conclusions” - I knew it sounded familiar…) > [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > But I think most people who are actively looking to administer a beat-down to someone are going to end their call and secure their valuable electronics first. Funny yet still true point! ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1055 "2012-04-26T21:26:00Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And the _ **reverse** _. :smack: Not necessarily, no. There are plenty of ways that someone could kill someone else without it being either murder or self defence. Criminal ways, such as manslaughter and negligent homicide, plus unfortunate but legal accidents. What will it take for you to accept that there is much more to proving a murder than simply proving that someone killed someone? The plain text of the laws, caselaw, and the opinions of the people on this board who are actually qualified in law don’t seem to have any effect on your views, so I’m frankly at a loss to know what will. I’m going to ask you two simple questions, and I hope you’ll answer honestly. 1. Is it your belief that _all_ the prosecution has to do in this case is to show that Zimmerman killed Martin, and that it was not in self defence? 2. If not, what do you believe they have to show? ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1056 "2012-04-26T21:48:20Z")
> [@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. I must not have asked my question well enough. Thank you anyway. I see you answered my question further down. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1057 "2012-04-26T23:31:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What will it take for you to accept that there is much more to proving a murder than simply proving that someone killed someone? I ALREADY KNOW THAT. Really, no, I dont’ have the strength to do this anymore. We are not communicating in the same language. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1058 "2012-04-26T23:41:33Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > But I think it’s quite possible they could. Specifically because of that yelling. It’s a blood-curding scream of desperation. To shoot someone who was in such a helpless state of fear points to a depraved mind. So the State’s challenge would be to convince a jury that it wasn’t Zimmerman who was screaming, it was Martin. > > And this is not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Not at all. I think it would be a stunning feat to convince anyone that the voice IS Zimmerman. Nothing about it suggests that in the slightest way. And nothing about it suggests a big football player overpowering a poor defenseless (except for that loaded gun, of course) ex-bouncer with a rage problem and a history of violence. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1059 "2012-04-26T23:50:09Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And this is not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Proving something beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt doesn’t mean the State has to have mountains of perfect, unimpeachable, 100% definitive evidence. It just means having to strongly convince a jury that their explanation for the event is true. How easy that will be largely depends on the jury. I don’t think I was making it out to be anything. I am just saying why even go there? Why risk putting up a point that is hardly a slam dunk if you don’t have to? Why try to make a half court shot when all you need is an easy lay up? ---
**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 27, 2012, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1060 "2012-04-27T00:00:28Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > Why try to make a half court shot when all you need is an easy lay up? Because they have nothing to lose by charging him with 2nd degree. If they fail to convince the jury it was murder, the jury can still convict him of manslaughter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=54)