# 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:** 537
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10723 "2013-06-11T21:17:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In Florida, self-defense is not a traditional affirmative defense. > > An affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof to the defense, who must prove by preponderance of the evidence that self-defense was what happened. > > In Florida, one must merely make a prima facie self-defense claim, and the burden rests on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense did NOT occur. I haven’t been following the thread until now, but I had to chime in to say I am shocked by this. Between this and Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, it seems that it would be pretty easy to get away with murder in Florida by claiming self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10724 "2013-06-11T21:24:13Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I haven’t been following the thread until now, but I had to chime in to say I am shocked by this. Between this and Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, it seems that it would be pretty easy to get away with murder in Florida by claiming self defense. Why is that shocking? Put yourself in this situation. You are attacked, you defend yourself, you kill the attacker. No eyewitnesses, except after the fight you’re found standing there with the smoking gun (and let’s say a few lacerations). Would you prefer Florida’s law or the one where you have to prove to the court that you’re innocent of the murder? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10725 "2013-06-11T21:31:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > … Martin was walking in the rain, looking into houses. … Walking where exactly, the sidewalk/street or through the front yards? Big difference right? (IIRC Taffe’s house was by a well used shortcut to get from the street and into the neighborhood without walking down to the official entrance gate. Kinda hard to count this unless Z specifically said M was looking into theses windows as opposed to at them.) Looking into houses (i.e. actually being right up by the windows) or looking at houses which is pretty impossible not to do in a residential area? Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall this in Z’s statements so far (or any mention that he was looking into every parked car he passed either), so got a cite? CMC fnord! ---
**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:** [June 11, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10726 "2013-06-11T21:54:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes you did. You said all the evidence shows is that Zimmerman killed Martin. It does. It is an undisputed fact that Zimmerman killed Martin. The question to be decided is whether he did so _unlawfully_. > [@](#): > > If you’re a juror and you think a reasonable person may think Zimmerman is not guilty, you must acquit. Do you understand this concept? In fact, if you’re a juror and you’re convinced that Zimmerman is a killer, but you think a reasonable person may decide, based on the evidence, that Zimmerman is not guilty, you must acquit. I understand the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” perfectly well. But I don’t think you do. The standard is not “Is it possible that _any_ reasonable person could come to a different conclusion that I have? If so, then I am obligated to find differently than I personally believe based on this possibility.” Jurors are not charged with speculating about whether someone _else_ would come to a different conclusion. Jurors are charged with weighing the evidence, coming to a conclusion about what the evidence proves and in so doing, making sure to thoroughly explore and test their conclusions, and if they doubt, examining those doubts to see if they are sufficient to prevent them from finding the accused guilty, like so: “I am a reasonable person. I have heard all the evidence, which has included many things which are open to different interpretations as to meaning, if any. I have also been charged with determining the accuracy and/or veracity of testimonial evidence offered by various witnesses and experts. Based on this, I personally do not find it genuinely _reasonable_ to believe X, Y, or Z, and since I do not believe those things, the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that the accused is guilty. While I concede that alternate explanations are possible, I find such explanations so unlikely that I believe it would be an injustice to do other than find the accused guilty as charged. Therefore, to the extent that I _might_ doubt the guilt of the accused, I do not find such doubts truly reasonable.” ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10727 "2013-06-11T21:58:34Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > According to [Osterman](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/21/169233/george-zimmermans-friends-book.html#.UbZfBcu9KSM) (who I do believe is a prosecution witness): Except that your own link even states that Zimmerman has never said this on record. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This is what Zimmerman told Serino during his [post-reenactment intervie](https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025)w: > > And in Zimmerman’s [reenacment](http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=NwnvPwZMzY4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNwnvPwZMzY4), he of course shows how he pinned Martin’s arm with his own before reaching for his gun. > > The thing that stands out in all of these stories is that _Zimmerman was successfully able to defend himself against Martin once he actually used his hands and arms like an reasonably intelligent person_. Up until that moment of truth, Zimmerman supposedly did nothing except lie there like a rag doll. His tactical flashlight had traveled with him all the way to where Martin’s body lay, but did he ever indicate using it as a defensive weapon? No. Did he ever say he tried to push the kid away or strike back? No. His hands didn’t have any defensive injuries either (see [here](https://www.google.com/search?q=zimmerman's+hands+pictures&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C10%3Bd%7CXwVcp1osqwPzjM%3A)). > > If he’d been able to gain control of Martin enough to keep him from suffocating him and grabbing his gun, then it was not necessary for him to take things to the next step and shoot him. If he’s deemed to be the aggressor of the conflict, that is especially the case. Closing your arm to your body does not make a “wrist lock”, nor is it effective in keeping someone subdued. Try it with a friend, it’s very easy to pull your hand out. By using the term wrist lock and saying things like “he aimed the gun and fired it into Martin’s chest. There was no fight in progress when this happened” you are severely distorting the truth. What you are implying is that Martin was subdued in some Steven Segal movie hold that made it impossible for him to escape while Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired while spouting some tired cliché. One thing that has become abundantly clear during this thread is that you have zero understanding of how confrontations like this unfold. You’re not grasping that being in a real fight is a traumatic experience. Prime example, you wonder why someone didn’t use a flashlight as a weapon. Being in a fight, you don’t think of the best/most effective thing at the time. It’s kind of like arguing with your spouse, you only think of the perfect thing to say about 30 minutes afterward. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10728 "2013-06-11T22:19:46Z")
Just posting to say that Trayvon was not looking INTO houses. According to Zimmerman, he was looking AT houses and looking ABOUT. Re: Shodan’s post [10707](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16372155&postcount=10707) ---
**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:** [June 11, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10729 "2013-06-11T22:54:00Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Again, you are reasonably coming to your reasonable conclusion about what you believe the evidence reasonably shows. I disagree, as do many others. And that is my point… You are absolutely convinced that the reasonable, believable interpretation to be drawn from the fact of these injuries is the justifiable use of deadly force. Many other people obviously find differently (especially if one does not find Zimmerman credible, which leaves it open about when and how the injuries occurred, most critically in relation to the moment of zimmerman’s use of deadly force. considering all the other evidence as well, the jurors need to believe a series of things leading to the conclusion that Z’s choice to use deadly force was justified) That’s all fine; my point was that belief in Zimmerman’s credibility, meaning that one is inclined to believe his word even when it’s not supported (or even mildly contradicted) by other evidence, isn’t required to believe he should be acquitted, because of the existence of other evidence. I’m sure some do believe every word he’s said, of course. > [@Stoid](#): > > But For me to argue to you exactly how and why others see it differently is not my point, because that’s what’s been going on for 10,000 pages… That is _ **exactly why** _ it has been going on for 10,000 pages. Because reasonable people can reasonably find the evidence in this case to reasonably prove entirely different things. The plurality of the Internet that seems to be devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, Obama-related conspiracy theories, and other hogwash makes be doubt using the sheer number of characters typed as evidence of legitimately reasonable disagreement. ---
**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:** [June 11, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10730 "2013-06-11T23:42:47Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s all fine; my point was that belief in Zimmerman’s credibility, meaning that one is inclined to believe his word even when it’s not supported (or even mildly contradicted) by other evidence, isn’t required to believe he should be acquitted, because of the existence of other evidence. “One” meaning you and those who think in the same general way that you do about it. However, you evidently missed this part of what you declared “that’s all fine” about: > [@](#): > > which leaves it open about **when and how the injuries occurred, most critically in relation to the moment of zimmerman’s use of deadly force.** For you, the unadorned fact that he was injured apparently leads to only one reasonable possibility: at the moment of pulling the trigger, Zimmerman was in fear of his life. But other people (again, I am among them) do not agree that “injuries = fear for life leading to justified use of dealy force” is the only or even the most likely conclusion at all. In addition to limiting oneself to only one possible conclusion about that evidence, it’s a little bit ridiculous to assert that one single piece of evidence (the fact of Zimmerman being injured) can _ **reasonably** _ be considered to render all other evidence superfluous. In fact it’s very hard for me to imagine _ **any** _ kind of evidence being so irrefutably conclusive that it would automatically render all other evidence meaningless by its mere existence. Even a videotape, unless it is up close, in color, with sound and bright lighting capturing everything in clear detail from start to finish, can be deceiving. And with all due respect, the fact that you seem to consider such evidence the only thing you’d need to come to an unshakable conviction that self-defense was the only reasonable explanation possible, so rock solid that no doubt could be considered reasonable nor could any rock solid belief by anyone else of an opposite bent be considered solid enough to escape reasonable doubts, makes me question exactly how reasonable and thoughtful you would be as a juror. > [@](#): > > The plurality of the Internet that seems to be devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, Obama-related conspiracy theories, and other hogwash makes be doubt using the sheer number of characters typed as evidence of legitimately reasonable disagreement. As does your willingness to dismiss everyone who does not think as you do as being incapable of reasonable, intelligent and legitimate thoughts about these matters. One hopes that the people who are impaneled are more open-minded and careful in their deliberations than that. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10731 "2013-06-12T00:08:22Z")
Self defence does not need to be the only possible option for Zimmerman to be not guilty, it merely needs to be _one_ possible option. If a reasonable person can think from the evidence that it _might_ have been self defence, the jury must acquit. As you have said, the evidence admits more than one possible conclusion. In the absence of further evidence to change this, were you a juror, you would have to acquit, regardless of what you believed actually happened. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10732 "2013-06-12T00:13:01Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Why is that shocking? > > Put yourself in this situation. You are attacked, you defend yourself, you kill the attacker. No eyewitnesses, except after the fight you’re found standing there with the smoking gun (and let’s say a few lacerations). > > Would you prefer Florida’s law or the one where you have to prove to the court that you’re innocent of the murder? But you don’t normally have to prove it was self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. You just have to show by a preponderance of the evidence – in other words, that it was _probably_ self defense. Under Florida law, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self-defense. It seems in Florida I could just walk up to someone on an empty street and shoot them dead, and claim they were threatening to do me bodily harm. My word against a dead man. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10733 "2013-06-12T00:23:58Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > It seems in Florida I could just walk up to someone on an empty street and shoot them dead, and claim they were threatening to do me bodily harm. My word against a dead man. Ultimately, yes you could. It is _always_ possible to get away with crimes if there is no proof that you committed it. This is not fundamentally different to being able to shoot someone on a deserted street, then claim you were never there. If there’s no proof you were, you are not guilty. Shooting someone in self defence is, in Florida, _legal_. It is not an excuse that lets you get away with a crime, it is not in any way a crime. In my opinion, and clearly in the opinion of those who decide these things in Florida, one is innocent of a crime until proven guilty, not just until probably guilty. That’s a standard I personally would like to see maintained. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10734 "2013-06-12T00:54:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **Human Action** covered this (again). Martin was walking in the rain, looking into houses. According to Zimmerman. At least at times when he said that and didn’t say something else. And, of course, assuming he is neither intentionally lying nor misperceiving the situation due to his vigilante complex or racism. The difference between “looking around for a few seconds to determine where I am in a neighborhood I’m just visiting and happening to turn my head in the direction of a house during the process” and “looking into houses” is EXTREMELY subjective even for an honest person under perfect conditions. For a person looking through a car window, at night, in the rain, who is predisposed to believe everyone unfamiliar he sees is a criminal, and may also be predisposed to certain beliefs about black people…it’s not any easier to make the distinction. Again–no one is obligated to believe everything Zimmerman said, and you can bring this thread to twenty thousand or twenty million posts based on the premise of “I believe Zimmerman because his statement matches the evidence, which is his statement” but that won’t make it any less of a circular assertion. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10735 "2013-06-12T01:14:25Z")
What does in matter whether Martin was, in fact, looking into houses or not? Whether Zimmerman was correct, or mistaken, or lying because he hated black people, doesn’t affect whether or not he was entitled to use lethal force in self defence. He could be the head of the KKK, and if Martin attacked him he would be entitled to defend himself. I’ve said before that I have no issue with Zimmerman calling the police about behaviour he considered suspicious, and indeed that’s what I’d hope people would do. It also has little bearing on the case. It’s not inconceivable that he called the police, then in frustration decided to take the law into his own hands (although I don’t see any actual evidence for that). It’s also possible he profiled Martin, and he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but then Martin came and attacked him for unrelated reasons. But disbelieving Zimmerman on this part doesn’t cast doubt on the parts of his statement that _are_ supported by evidence - namely, that Martin attacked him and pinned him to the ground. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10736 "2013-06-12T01:16:05Z")
Anything that shows that he is prone to either intentionally lying, misperceiving, or misremembering impacts the credibility of his statement. Duh? ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10737 "2013-06-12T01:34:41Z")
So, discount his story entirely, and work solely from the other evidence. Explain how Zimmerman was not acting in self defence, when he was being beaten by a guy on top of him. The evidence for that - the injuries to Zimmerman we see in various photographs, and described in the medical report, the witnesses who saw two people fighting, one atop the other, and the grass stains on Zimmerman’s back and Martin’s knees. The evidence against… well? ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10738 "2013-06-12T02:03:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Self defence does not need to be the only possible option for Zimmerman to be not guilty, it merely needs to be _one_ possible option. If a reasonable person can think from the > evidence that it _might_ have been self defence, the jury must acquit. > > As you have said, the evidence admits more than one possible conclusion. In the absence of further evidence to change this, were you a juror, you would have to acquit, regardless of what you believed actually happened. There are all almost always multiple possibilities, and their mere existence does not preclude conviction. It is the jury’s job to decide the weight and likelihood of those possibilities being true. As my example from earlier illustrates: > [@](#): > > “I am a reasonable person. I have heard all the evidence, which has included many things which are open to different interpretations as to meaning, if any. I have also been charged with determining the accuracy and/or veracity of testimonial evidence offered by various witnesses and experts. Based on this, I personally do not find it genuinely reasonable to believe X, Y, or Z, and since I do not believe those things, the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that the accused is guilty. While I concede that alternate explanations are possible, I find such explanations so unlikely that I believe it would be an injustice to do other than find the accused guilty as charged. Therefore, to the extent that I might doubt the guilt of the accused, I do not find such doubts truly reasonable.” ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10739 "2013-06-12T02:28:50Z")
Likelihood isn’t really relevant. It is, for example, extremely unlikely that I will win the lottery - but if my defence hinges on me having done so, in the absence of any evidence that I haven’t, one should not convict. If, however, you can prove I didn’t buy a ticket, it would be unreasonable to think I’d won. Not _impossible_, as I could have found a discarded winning ticket, but that’s not a reasonable possibility. Obviously, in this instance, there are better ways to prove either way, but I hope the analogy is clear enough. I don’t think that applies to this case, however, as I don’t believe _any_ reasonable person can say, on the basis of the evidence we’ve seen, that the only believable scenario is Zimmerman’s guilt. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10740 "2013-06-12T02:33:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > So, discount his story entirely, and work solely from the other evidence. Explain how Zimmerman was not acting in self defence, when he was being beaten by a guy on top of him. The evidence for that - the injuries to Zimmerman we see in various photographs, and described in the medical report, the witnesses who saw two people fighting, one atop the other, and the grass stains on Zimmerman’s back and Martin’s knees. The evidence against… well? Do you think simply being in a fight is enough to justify self-defense? I could stumble across two guys wrestling in an alley and then quickly run off before they could see me. If later the police track me down and ask if I thought one of the guys was justified in shooting the other, what would I be able to say? All I’d be able to do is confirm that the two were in a confrontation. Since that’s not under contention, I don’t know how much help I could provide. Simply being on the losing end of a fight does not mean that Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin. He had to have sufficient cause to fear for his life. Neither witness testimony nor his wounds support this claim. All they do is support the claim that a fight took place. Which no one has denied. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10741 "2013-06-12T02:48:26Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I don’t think that applies to this case, however, as I don’t believe _any_ reasonable person can say, on the basis of the evidence we’ve seen, that the only believable scenario is Zimmerman’s guilt. Yes, and thats been my point: there is passionate conviction on both sides that each side is absurdly clear and it is difficult to imagine how everyone doesn’t agree. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10742 "2013-06-12T02:54:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **if Martin attacked him** Would you be a dear and bring me up to speed on what evidence we have that this is the case? I ask sincerely, as I have not been closely following the case over the past year as others have. My recollection is that the only evidence for this is Zimmermans claim that this is how it happened, but perhaps something else has surfaced. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=536) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=538)