# 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:** 538
**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, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10743 "2013-06-12T03:00:04Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > 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. He does not have to prove he was justified in killing Martin. A witness statement that says there was a fight, but no more, is as you say little help. So, unless there is further evidence, he is not guilty. Oh, and he did not have to have cause to fear for his life to be justified in shooting him. Why keep making statements like that which have, over and over again, been demonstrated to be incorrect? ---
**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, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10744 "2013-06-12T03:07:27Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > 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. The injuries to Zimmerman’s face and head. They do not prove that Martin attacked him, but they are evidence of it, as there is no-one else who was there to do it. That Martin, for unknown reasons, returned from the house he was staying at to where Zimmerman was, whilst Zimmerman was waiting for the police. That Zimmerman knew the police were coming, and so was unlikely to attack Martin. Of course, Zimmerman’s claim _is_ evidence that it happened that way. None of this constitutes _proof_ that it happened this way, but as I’m sure you are aware, that is not requires. It is evidence of it, and the state need to prove it was not the case, or prove that, despite the attack and injuries, Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear of death or serious injury when he shot Martin. Don’t forget, even if Martin did not attack Zimmerman, it is still possible he was entitled to defend himself, if Martin did not give him opportunity to retreat. ---
**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, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10745 "2013-06-12T03:14:23Z")
He does have to have a reason, if he wants to convince a jury not to swallow the prosecution’s narrative. If he is expecting the pictures to speak for themselves, he’s expecting wrong. ---
**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, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10746 "2013-06-12T03:19:47Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > He does have to have a reason, if he wants to convince a jury not to swallow the prosecution’s narrative. > > If he is expecting the pictures to speak for themselves, he’s expecting wrong. I have to say, I am intrigued to see what that narrative is, how they explain the injuries, and how they will prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of death or serious injury, when the evidence suggests he had already received such injury. If said narrative isn’t sufficiently strong or credible, it won’t even get to the stage where the defence have to refute it. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10747 "2013-06-12T04:05:59Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Do you think simply being in a fight is enough to justify self-defense? I would argue that self defense is a basic human right. If you’re attacked, well, yeah, that’s enough to justify defending yourself. Are you justified in using deadly force? That’s a different ball of a different color. > [@](#): > > 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. Part of the Florida statute reads that deadly force is permissible when: > [@Florida Penal Code 776.012](#): > > He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The statutes don’t say you need to be injured. You don’t even have think your life is in danger just that you believe you might suffer from great bodily harm. So it’s night time and you find yourself with a man pinning you to the ground and roughing you up. Are you in fear for your life or that you might suffer some great bodily harm? I bet the answer is yes. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10748 "2013-06-12T04:24:00Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > So it’s night time and you find yourself with a man pinning you to the ground and roughing you up. Are you in fear for your life or that you might suffer some great bodily harm? I bet the answer is yes. Well, duh. Yeah. That’s not debateable. _If_ you’re pinned to the ground being roughed up and and have no other means of defending yourself, lethal force is justified. But can’t you see that’s a mighty big if in Zimmerman’s case? (No of course you can’t.) He wasn’t pinned down and he admitted as much in his narrative(s). His hands were free the entire time. The kid was unarmed and significantly lighter than his opponent. His hands bore no signs of roughing up anyone. But this gets dismissed in favor of the defendan’ts rather convenient claim of self-defense. According to your logic, all someone needs to do is hurt themselves a little bit, fabricate a story, and they should get away with murder no matter what the circumstantial and forensic evidence says. Victim is a 60-lb unarmed kindergartner and the killer is a grown man with a gun? Shoot, the guy had a bump on his head and he says the kid did it. Guess that means we have turn off our brains and vote to acquit, right? Because as long as it’s not impossible for a kindergartner to beat up a grown up, then the guy can’t be touched. If this sounds like cuckoo logic, that’s how yall sound like to me. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10749 "2013-06-12T04:28:47Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > I guess I’ll rephrase for the intentionally obtuse: on what possible basis besides being “suspicious” of black people in his neighborhood was Zimmerman suspicious of Martin in the first place? The question of Zimmerman being an overeager wannabe cop, a racist, or some combination of the two has obvious relevance to whether he reasonably evaluated the threat posted by Martin later and to the credibility of everything he says. The fact that “anyone is allowed to call the police” is not what’s relevant. We’re not obtuse, your argument is biased and without merit. Standing on someone’s property, at dusk, in the rain, looking at the house, is suspicious activity on it’s face value. On top of that the house was thought to have been broken into before. On top of that Zimmerman knew the owner so he would know who ISN’T the owner and should not be there. I stopped a car theft because I observed someone standing on the sidewalk. It’s very easy to pick up on visual ques that make a routine act look suspicious. The correct action to take is to call the police. This is what Zimmerman did. He then avoided direct confrontation with Martin. Twice. Once at his car and again when he stopped running after him. It’s the exact opposite of overeager wannabe cop. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10750 "2013-06-12T05:02:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If this sounds like cuckoo logic, that’s how yall sound like to me. His hands were free so that’s proof that Zimmerman wasn’t pinned to the ground? That’s just one example of why you’re not worth engaging in this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10751 "2013-06-12T05:09:57Z")
Something other than fruitless rehashing of same stuff over and over: The judge postponed the end of the hearing on audio experts - anyone know to when? Has to be before the beginning of the 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:** [June 12, 2013, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10752 "2013-06-12T05:10:18Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > His hands were free so that’s proof that Zimmerman wasn’t pinned to the ground? That’s just one example of why you’re not worth engaging in this discussion. Stop using words like “pinned” when describing Zimmerman and maybe I won’t have to correct you. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10753 "2013-06-12T05:39:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Stop using words like “pinned” when describing Zimmerman and maybe I won’t have to correct you. When one person is sitting on the chest of another he has that person pinned down. ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10754 "2013-06-12T05:58:15Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Stop using words like “pinned” when describing Zimmerman and maybe I won’t have to correct you. Is that anything like how you use the term “wrist lock” when describing the events of that night? ---
**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, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10755 "2013-06-12T07:04:37Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The injuries to Zimmerman’s face and head. They do not prove that Martin attacked him, but they are evidence of it, as there is no-one else who was there to do it. Really? Gotta differ with you on that: **Zimmerman** : “See this bump on my head and the trickles of blood? That proves that Martin attacked me and I was defending myself!” **The Ghost of Trayvon Martin** : “See that piece of meat lying on the ground with a hole blasted into the chest? Well, that used to be me and it proves that I was defending myself against Zimmerman’s attack!” See how that works there? **At best** , Zimmerman’s injuries are decent evidence that Zimmerman and Martin were in an altercation during which Zimmerman was injured - they don’t even convincingly prove that Martin was the _direct cause_ of those injuries: absent Zimmerman’s testimony, which we the jury find to be wholly made of steaming bullshit, we have\*\*\* no other evidence for how \*\*\*that injury came about, whether it happened because his head struck the ground when he went down (and if so exactly how he went down to begin with), or because Martin actually grabbed his head and slammed it. Or something else. And I say “at best” because of course he could easily have slipped and fallen on the wet streets while he was playing cops ‘n’ robbers and cracked his head then, with Martin nowhere in sight. But we have no evidence of that at all, whereas we do have evidence that the men were, at one point, physically struggling with each other, and that at one point, the point that was very briefly observed by others\*, Zimmerman was on his back with Martin on top. So, in looking at the evidence to see how it supports or undermines the assertions and theories, the injuries are fairly good evidence for this alone: that Zimmerman was injured during the altercation. Not that Martin bashed Zimmerman’s head into the ground, not that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, not for any other thing. Therefore, assuming we haven’t neglected anything else, it seems the only evidence directly and unambiguously supporting the assertion that Martin attacked Zimmerman, requiring Zimmerman to defend himself from the unprovoked attack and making his use of deadly force acceptable, is Zimmerman’s testimony. Since that’s all you got and I, the juror, have determined that his testimony is steaming poo, then you have _ **no evidence at all** _ that Martin attacked Zimmerman \*\*\*\*\*\*, and you must watch in horror as your (previously believed to be unassailable) defense of self-defense dissolves right before your eyes…poof. \*And please let us never forget what I would think we have all learned by now about how shockingly unreliable eyewitness testimony is under the best of circumstances… > [@Steophan](#): > > I have to say, I am intrigued to see what that narrative is, how they explain the injuries, and how they will prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of death or serious injury They don’t have to prove that he was not in said fear, how silly. That makes the bizarre assumption that the prosecution is accepting as true a whole bunch of things for which there is no evidence whatsoever outside of Zimmerman’s testimony, and why in the world would they do that? In order to focus on convincing the jury that Zimmerman was not afraid, they would be explicitly or implicity telling the jury that Martin _did_ attack Zimmerman, to start with. Not bloody likely. What they DO have to prove to the satisfaction of the jury is that the facts, as supported by evidence, are sufficient to convict Zimmerman of second degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. And as I said before, if they fail there and the jury has no other lesser offenses they can fall back on, they will likely acquit and then the prosecution (or Florida law? What are the rules?) is the fuckup. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10756 "2013-06-12T07:23:34Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > They don’t have to prove that he was not in said fear, how silly. That makes the bizarre assumption that the prosecution is accepting as true a whole bunch of things for which there is no evidence whatsoever outside of Zimmerman’s testimony, and why in the world would they do that? In order to focus on convincing the jury that Zimmerman was not afraid, they would be explicitly or implicity telling the jury that Martin _did_ attack Zimmerman, to start with. Not bloody likely. > > What they DO have to prove to the satisfaction of the jury is that the facts, as supported by evidence, are sufficient to convict Zimmerman of second degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to do that, they have to disprove Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, which means the claim of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. It’s been explained to you, time and time again, just how wrong you are in this. By lawyers and non-lawyers. Yet you wallow in denial. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10757 "2013-06-12T07:41:48Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > What they DO have to prove to the satisfaction of the jury is that the facts, as supported by evidence, are sufficient to convict Zimmerman of second degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. And as I said before, if they fail there and the jury has no other lesser offenses they can fall back on, they will likely acquit and then the prosecution (or Florida law? What are the rules?) is the fuckup. The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman didn’t act in self defense because that’s how it’s done in Florida. Even if Zimmerman doesn’t testify his lawyers are going to introduce his injuries, the grass stains on both Martin and Z-Man’s clothes, any statement Zimmerman made to police and witness accounts including the phone conversation that has Martin seeking Zimmerman out. In light of that, how is a jury of six people going to look at the evidence and rule out self defense? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10758 "2013-06-12T08:00:27Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > **At best** , Zimmerman’s injuries are decent evidence that Zimmerman and Martin were in an altercation during which Zimmerman was injured - they don’t even convincingly prove that Martin was the _direct cause_ of those injuries: that’s simply not true. there is evidence that a fight took place with one person on top of the other backed up by witnesses and physical evidence. Unless there is evidence that prior to fight Zimmerman was injured then those injuries can only come from Martin. cite evidence that Zimmerman’s account didn’t happen. You can’t just make stuff up in court without something to go by such as blood on Zimmerman’s truck or another location not connected to the fight. ---
**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, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10759 "2013-06-12T08:14:28Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I would argue that self defense is a basic human right. If you’re attacked, well, yeah, that’s enough to justify defending yourself. Are you justified in using deadly force? That’s a different ball of a different color. > > So it’s night time and you find yourself with a man pinning you to the ground and roughing you up… And the critical questions become: _was_ Z actually pinned on the ground? Was he actually being roughed up? (please don’t say the injuries prove that he was…see the my previous post.) And most critical of all is this: even if he was pinned, roughed, bashed, and Trayvon Martin struck the first blow…why? If Zimmerman’s actions made Martin afraid for his own life and safety, then Zimmerman provoked Martin and he cannot be found to have acted in self-defense. (We covered this way back at the beginning, by the way…) > [@Magiver](#): > > Standing on someone’s property, at dusk, in the rain, looking at the house, is suspicious activity on it’s face value. A: the phrasing is either “at face value” or “on its face”. B: No, it isn’t. C: If we accept that Zimmerman was speaking the true facts of Martin’s _ **behavior** _ as he genuinely perceived them when he made the call (and that is **the only evidence** we have for what Martin was doing) then your characterization is a tad spinilicious. Let’s remove all of Zimmerman’s “coloring” and descriptions of Martin’s appearance and consider only the actual behavior he was reporting to 911: “he’s just walking around and looking about.” “he’s just staring” “Now he’s staring at me” “now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waistband.” “yep, he’s coming to check me out.” “He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.” Then Zimmerman offers: “These assholes, they always get away.” Then a little bit later: “He’s running.” (Just for fun, consider the above descriptions of behavior but with very different kinds of people and check in with yourself again about how suspicious you would find the actual behavior Zimmerman is describing, “on its face”. Try it on, say, an 80 year old Asian man with a cane. Or a 10 year old white boy with red hair in jeans and a T-shirt. Early 30’s Hispanic woman in a miniskirt and high heels. And so forth…) This is the evidence, and it is the very best evidence because it was at the very moment he was observing Martin, not after he’d killed him, and it doesn’t show that Martin was “standing on someone’s property” or that he was “looking at the house” at all.Since you seem to have been around for all 10K posts of this thread and also seem capable of using Google, why would you say that? Or this: > [@](#): > > On top of that the house was thought to have been broken into before. On top of that Zimmerman knew the owner so he would know who ISN’T the owner and should not be there. I believe that you would say that because you are exactly what you are accusing others of: biased. So much so that you have re-imagined the evidence to better serve your beliefs. > [@](#): > > He then avoided direct confrontation with Martin. Twice. Once at his car and again \*\*\*when he stopped running after him. \*\*\* Ahem. A: When and how did Zimmerman act to avoid direct confrontation with Martin at his car, and what is the evidence you are relying on for this assertion? There’s nothing in the 911 call about it. B:When did he stop running after him? Can you pinpoint when that happened and what evidence you are relying on? Because again, the best evidence for what happened is the 911 call, which was contemporaneous, and there is nothing in that call indicating that Zimmerman stopped or even intended to stop following Martin at all; when the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that.” all he said was “ok”, not “okay I won’t” and the background sound doesn’t change to the quiet inside the truck. On top of that, Zimmerman’s unwillingness to pick an exact meeting place with the police followed by his request that the police call when they arrive is pretty clear evidence that he had no way of knowing in advance where he would be when they arrived, \*\*\*because he planned to keep following Martin. \*\*\* So please, enlighten us about your different understanding and source. > [@Magiver](#): > > When one person is sitting on the chest of another he has that person pinned down. Agreed. Now, do we have anything other than Zimmerman’s testimony to indicate that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest? (Which, when you think about it, is pretty hard to imagine…if he was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest, that would mean his asscheeks were on Zimmerman’s tits… does that seem likely?) Has anyone described that as the case, even Zimmerman himself? Somehow I think it more likely that Martin was on his knees putting some of his weight on Martin at the waist or below…chest sitting is a pretty tricky thing to pull off even under the friendliest circumstances, it’s damned hard to see how Martin could have done it against the much heavier Zimmerman’s will. Now, unlike the chest sitting, when one person who is 60 pounds lighter than another person is straddling their waist or hips, or even sitting directly on their waist or hips with all of their weight (which they can only do if they are sitting upright, and we’ve been told Martin was picking up Zimmerman’s head and bashing it on the ground, an action that would not really permit Martin to maintain the posture that would put his full weight on Zimmerman, as he’d have to lean forward…) they aren’t really pinning them 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:** [June 12, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10760 "2013-06-12T09:39:58Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In order to do that, **they have to disprove Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense,** which means the claim of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. > [@Odesio](#): > > **The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman didn’t act in self defense** because that’s how it’s done in Florida. Gentlemen, your excitement has led you astray, making a hash of this. By continuing to insist that that a defendant’s claim of self-defense must be “disproved”, you appear to believe that a defendant’s claim of self-defense must be accepted by the jury as true automatically, making it the job of the prosecution to “disprove” the claim. (I’m not even sure what you mean by that…if the state succeeds in proving to the jury that Zimmerman’s actions were 2nd degree murder, they have “disproved” the defendant’s claim of self-defense…what is the distinction between those two things you mean to draw?) But that’s not the case, of course. But my explaining it means nothing. So let’s start with the very simplest citation demonstrating your misunderstanding, which is Florida’s jury instructions on the subject: > [@](#): > > If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. You do understand what that means, right? It’s not some magic tranfiguration of the standard way that criminal trials work, it’s just a little extra clarifying verbiage regarding the issue of self-defense specifically, but in the end it boils down to the same thing it always does, creation of reasonable doubt about the prosecutions theory of the case, it’s just one means of doing so. Reword it: “you guys consider all the evidence the state has presented to convince you, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s actions were unlawfully carried out. If you are so convinced, convict. But if you have any reasonable doubts, don’t convict. Oh, and by the way, if the defendant has offered evidence that leads you to believe there is a good possibility that the defendant acted in self-defense, then that is a reasonable doubt about his being guilty and you should not convict. But if you don’t find the evidence that he’s offered sufficient to create that belief and that doubt, then convict.” There is no special burden on the prosecution to “disprove” anything, other than the usual way they “disprove” _whatever_ the defense counters with, which is by successfully _ **proving** _ their case beyond reasonable doubts, no matter how any such reasonable doubts might be created in the juries’ minds. If you want more, read the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion about it: **[Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17786011989911935064&q=Murray+v.+State+937+So.2d+277&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1)** > [@](#): > > In criminal trials the law requires a high level of confidence in the guilt of the accused.[1] That requirement is vital to the outcome.[2] By long tradition, the State is required to produce evidence of defendant’s guilt “to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.”[3] This burden of proof lasts throughout the entire trial.[4] The State is never freed from the imperative to make defendant’s guilt appear virtually certain.[5] > > **But there are issues for which the defendant himself may incur some obligation to present evidence.** For one, there are the yes-but defenses. Essentially they admit the critical facts charged but then seek to avoid culpability on the basis of still other facts. If a defendant claims: “I didn’t know what I was doing” (insanity); “I was forced to do it against my will” (coercion); “I was only defending myself” (justification); or “I wouldn’t do such a thing and was seduced by the police” (entrapment), **he will have to do something to get the crucial additional facts into evidence before the jury**. > > In this case the State charged defendant with aggravated battery. He sought to avoid culpability with the legal justification of self-defense, claiming that his deadly force against the roommate was legally permitted because the roommate was already committing an aggravated battery against him.[6] Under Florida law a defendant may claim this defense if there is evidence indicating that initially he was the object of a “forcible felony” such as aggravated battery.[7] **_Thus, to be lawfully allowed 279_279 to use deadly force defendant had to produce evidence that his roommate brought the knife into their fight.** \* > > While the State bore the ultimate burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, **defendant laid upon himself a requisite of producing evidence of the additional facts necessary for his defense of justification.** But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a “burden of proof” identical to the State’s? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard— say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value — other than they might be true? > > The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force.[8] Hence, **if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.** Note the last bolded part carefully: “if he wanted his self-defense to be considered” - Just considered. It has no special power. There is no suggestion of any kind that a defendant’s assertion of self-defense must be believed or that whatever evidence he offers must be accepted as proof of his claim. It’s just one more thing for the jury to _ **consider** _ in deciding whether the defendant is guilty of a crime, that’s all. (In this case they were looking at the burden of proof issue in relation to the instructions given to the jury, finding that the instructions were bogus because they erroneously led the jury to believe that it was the burden of the defendant to \*prove beyond a reasonable doubt \*that he was acting in self-defense, and that’s not the defendant’s burden so obviously telling a jury that it is can lead to a bad verdict.) ---
**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, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10761 "2013-06-12T10:01:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > that’s simply not true. there is evidence that a fight took place with one person on top of the other backed up by witnesses and physical evidence. Unless there is evidence that prior to fight Zimmerman was injured then those injuries can only come from Martin. Please re-read the post. You may believe that the injuries could only have come from Martin, and you’re entitled, but your beliefs don’t actually operate to change truth and reality directly. > [@](#): > > cite evidence that Zimmerman’s account didn’t happen. I don’t need to, and neither does the prosecution, at least not directly. They just have to present evidence and a theory that the jury finds convincing. And they really don’t need to if the jury does not find Zimmerman credible to begin with. > [@](#): > > You can’t just make stuff up in court without something to go by such as blood on Zimmerman’s truck or another location not connected to the fight. I’m not really sure what you are talking about here, so I can’t respond to it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10762 "2013-06-12T11:18:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > (I’m not even sure what you mean by that…if the state succeeds in proving to the jury that Zimmerman’s actions were 2nd degree murder, they have “disproved” the defendant’s claim of self-defense…what is the distinction between those two things you mean to draw?) If the state has not proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not have reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury, then it fails to prove 2nd degree murder. Pure and simple. > [@](#): > > Note the last bolded part carefully: “if he wanted his self-defense to be considered” - Just considered. It has no special power. There is no suggestion of any kind that a defendant’s assertion of self-defense must be believed or that whatever evidence he offers must be accepted as proof of his claim. In the absence of the state proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s assertion of self-defense is not valid, yes, it must be accepted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=537) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=539)