# 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:** 546
**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 14, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10903 "2013-06-14T03:52:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > what? Is there a witness I’m not aware of? Cite your evidence of what transpired and not what you would like to have happened. He got shot through the heart. People who get shot through the heart don’t unleash zingers. They die. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10904 "2013-06-14T04:45:02Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > He got shot through the heart. People who get shot through the heart don’t unleash zingers. They die. that premise was shown to be false when it was introduced earlier in the thread. So I ask you again what evidence do you have that he did or did not say something upon being shot. ---
**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 14, 2013, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10905 "2013-06-14T07:51:56Z")
About 95% of the issue we are having with the whole “prove murder/disprove self-defense” is less about big misunderstandings of the law itself and much more about bad communication on all sides. (And of course the usual shmear of ego-driven bullshit, but there’s no cure for that…) I think the other 5% is a failure of clarity and understanding about what is really meant by various terms. The “scintilla of evidence” message is more than a little meaningless standing all naked like that, and so far it has created a focus on the wrong thing entirely, at least in terms of answering the question of the distinctions. Focusing on who has what burden is not the issue. \*We all know. \* So say it with me, class: “THE PROSECUTION!” I haven’t noticed anyone arguing otherwise, so the relentless repetition mystifies and frustrates me. The holding in _Murray_, stripped of all the legal obfuscation, simply means that the defendant can assert self defense and it doesn’t matter what the evidence for it is; it can be as insubstantial as a statement to police: “He attacked me and I was sure I was going to die so I killed him.”[/INDENT]\* If the defendant chooses to leave it at that as far as the evidence he wishes to present in support of his assertion, he is entitled. Stupid, but entitled. That’s the “burden of proof” he must meet in order to get the legal payoff: the right to have the jury consider the possibility that he was defending himself. What it does _ **not** _ entitle him to is a presumption that _he really did act in self-defense_, meaning that a failure to specifically “disprove beyond a reasonable doubt” his simple assertion _requires_ the jury to acquit. _ **It does not.** _ The defendant has the right to claim he killed in self-defense, which then requires the jury to _ **consider the claim** _, no matter how lame and obviously weak it might be. But considering it isn’t the same as swallowing it. And if the prosecution has proved to them, beyond any doubt, that the elements of the crime have been met, and that the killing happened in such a way as to preclude the believability of self-defense, they can go right ahead and convict. But as with any other defense, affirmative or not, if they instead find themselves _doubting_ whether they should really convict this person because hey, it’s kinda possible he was defending himself, then that is the very definition of reasonable doubt and hence, they should acquit. In other words, this has been a mash-up about what meeting one’s “burden of proof” actually gets you: If the prosecution meets its legally required “burden of proof”, they “get” is a conviction from the jury, who must find that proof believable to such a degree that they have no reasonable doubts about it. That makes it a really tough burden to meet, but a conviction a pretty big “get”, so it’s proper to set the bar so high. On the other hand, if the defense meets its legally required “burden of proof” for a claim of self-defense, what they “get” _ **is not an acquittal** _, it is simply special instructions to the jury telling them that they _have_ to consider the possibility. Since that’s really not such a big “get”, the bar is so low it’s nearly touching the ground. The full instructions are [here](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf), and I have edited them thusly, emphasis mine of course: > [@](#): > > 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE > > An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which Zimmerman is charged if the death of Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. > > “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. > > \*\*A person is justified in using deadly force if \*\*he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. > > **However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:** > > Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless the force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he **reasonably** believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm _ **and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Martin.** _ > > In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which by was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that \*\*\*a reasonably cautious and prudent person \*\*\*under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided _ **only through the use of that force.** _ Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real. > > **No duty to retreat.** > There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification. > > If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. > > **Reputation of victim. \*\* > If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and t**_hat [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant,_\*\* you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation. _(NOTE: I left this in specifically because of the question of Martin’s rep…I don’t know whether that’s been ruled upon or if it’s just media or what, but I have seen talk around here about it and I’m leaving this to point out that in terms of legal determination about Zimmerman, vs. our speculation, it wouldn’t matter because Zimmerman didn’t know Martin. But I hope that Martin’s rep is at least as inadmissable as Zimmermans)_ > > In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim). > > 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. And that’s all of it. That is what the jury is told regarding how to consider the issue of self defense. There’s nothing in there about the prosecution having to “disprove” anything in some separate and distinct way. Because they don’t. They just have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, as they always do, but it’s certainly in their best interests to also do what they can to overcome anything which might serve to steer the jury towards believing the defendant’s weak-ass assertion. Or not, in which case they will almost certainly lose. So Bricker, with all due respect to your expertise, which you know I do recognize and respect, I think you’ve been overselling the significance of the dicta in the Brown case: [QUOTE= Bricker] And here’s the money quote: While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. [/QUOTE] There really is no meaningful distinction between “Proving criminal guilt so awesomely and thoroughly that claims of self-defense crumble like cookies in milk.” and “Disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” (and I know you are aware that this has been helping some folks get themselves all puffed up and peacocky with what turns out to be pretty garbled, and in some cases totally nonsensical, declarations about What It All Means.) ---
**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 14, 2013, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10906 "2013-06-14T09:34:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > About 95% of the issue we are having with the whole “prove murder/disprove self-defense” is less about big misunderstandings of the law itself and much more about bad communication on all sides. No, the issue is 100% with you and others repeatedly posting false statements like this - > [@](#): > > What it does _ **not** _ entitle him to is a presumption that _he really did act in self-defense_, meaning that a failure to specifically “disprove beyond a reasonable doubt” his simple assertion _requires_ the jury to acquit. _ **It does not.** _ when you’ve been shown statute and caselaw that prove you wrong. The jury instructions you quote prove you wrong. They say that if there is reasonable doubt on the question of self defence, the jury must acquit. It’s in the second-to-last paragraph you quoted. The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not acting in self defence. Your own cite says that in plain language. I’ll make this clear again. If Zimmerman asserts that he acted in self defence, or the self defence issue is otherwise raised in court, the jury may only convict if there is no reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defence. My cite is the jury instructions in your previous post. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10907 "2013-06-14T09:36:53Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Possibilities: > \ > 2. Martin didn’t say it, Zimmerman is [misremembering](http://www.alphagalileo.org/AssetViewer.aspx?AssetId=63182&CultureCode=en) (Link is to study on the effects of exertion on recall and recognition. The effects are dramatic), filling in details based on the emotions he recalls. > \ Well, doesn’t that mean _that every single part of his testimony_ may well be inaccurate because he is…er, ‘misremembering’? Why is this only an issue for the ‘you got me’ quote but not an issue for everything else he said? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10908 "2013-06-14T09:48:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Why did Trayvon leave the area of his house instead of simply entering it. Maybe because he didn’t want to risk letting the crazy guy following him know where he lived? ---
**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 14, 2013, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10909 "2013-06-14T09:49:54Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Well, doesn’t that mean _that every single part of his testimony_ may well be inaccurate because he is…er, ‘misremembering’? Why is this only an issue for the ‘you got me’ quote but not an issue for everything else he said? It is an issue, which is why so many people keep saying that his story should be believed only where it is supported by the other evidence. Bear in mind, though, that should the jury find him an unreliable witness all them may do is disregard his testimony, they may not infer that the opposite of what he says is true. ---
**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 14, 2013, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10910 "2013-06-14T11:46:00Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > What it does _ **not** _ entitle him to is a presumption that _he really did act in self-defense_, meaning that a failure to specifically “disprove beyond a reasonable doubt” his simple assertion _requires_ the jury to acquit. _ **It does not.** _ That’s what _Brown v State_ says, though, very clearly: > [@](#): > > While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. > [@Stoid](#): > > The defendant has the right to claim he killed in self-defense, which then requires the jury to _ **consider the claim** _, no matter how lame and obviously weak it might be. But considering it isn’t the same as swallowing it. And if the prosecution has proved to them, beyond any doubt, that the elements of the crime have been met, and **that the killing happened in such a way as to preclude the believability of self-defense** , they can go right ahead and convict. But as with any other defense, affirmative or not, if they instead find themselves _doubting_ whether they should really convict this person because hey, it’s kinda possible he was defending himself, then that is the very definition of reasonable doubt and hence, they should acquit. Bolding mine. In that instance, the state **did** disprove self defense. You and **you with the face** seem to be rejecting this idea because you think it’s too difficult for the state to _ever_ disprove self defense, but it isn’t. It’ll be difficult in this particular case, though. In other words, this has been a mash-up about what meeting one’s “burden of proof” actually gets you: > [@Stoid](#): > > On the other hand, if the defense meets its legally required “burden of proof” for a claim of self-defense, what they “get” _ **is not an acquittal** _, it is simply special instructions to the jury telling them that they _have_ to consider the possibility. Since that’s really not such a big “get”, the bar is so low it’s nearly touching the ground. Right, they don’t get an acquittal just for making the claim. No one here has said they do. They get an acquittal if the state can’t disprove the claim. > [@Stoid](#): > > And that’s all of it. That is what the jury is told regarding how to consider the issue of self defense. There’s nothing in there about the prosecution having to “disprove” anything in some separate and distinct way. Because they don’t. Yes, there is: > [@](#): > > 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. How else would the jury not have a reasonable doubt, other than the state proving to them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant wasn’t acting in self defense? > [@Stoid](#): > > There really is no meaningful distinction between “Proving criminal guilt so awesomely and thoroughly that claims of self-defense crumble like cookies in milk.” and “Disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” (and I know you are aware that this has been helping some folks get themselves all puffed up and peacocky with what turns out to be pretty garbled, and in some cases totally nonsensical, declarations about What It All Means.) Yes, there is, because it’s possible to prove the elements of a crime without disproving self defense. **Bricker** even provided an example of this. ---
**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 14, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10911 "2013-06-14T11:56:03Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Well, doesn’t that mean _that every single part of his testimony_ may well be inaccurate because he is…er, ‘misremembering’? Why is this only an issue for the ‘you got me’ quote but not an issue for everything else he said? Not every single part, but everything during the struggle and immediately after it, yes, it is an issue. So, one more time: We should only believe Zimmerman’s account where it is backed up by other evidence, because he could be lying or misremembering. Nothing in this case should be taken on trust. For example: Zimmerman says Martin bashed his head on the sidewalk. Should we believe that, just on his say-so? No, we should look at the other evidence. Witness 6 stated that the fight was moving toward the sidewalk and “intensifying” when he ducked back inside to call 911. Zimmerman has cuts on the back of his head. So yes, it seems that that is what happened. For example: Zimmerman says Martin used his hands to cover his mouth and strangle him. Should we believe that, just on his say-so? No, we should look at the other evidence. Zimmerman had already been punched in the nose, and yet Zimmerman’s blood wasn’t found on Martin’s hands. So no, we can’t positively assert that that happened. This is what I mean when I say Zimmerman’s credibility isn’t very important. The parts of his story that demand an acquittal if they are true are backed up by other evidence. We don’t need to take his word for whether he was in a fight in which Martin was on top of him, and beating him: witnesses and physical evidence back this up. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Maybe because he didn’t want to risk letting the crazy guy following him know where he lived? If Martin was scared of the “crazy guy”, why did he double back to him? That’s what DeeDee’s statement and the spot where the confrontation began indicate. If he were scared to enter his house, why not keep moving away from where he last saw Zimmerman? There’s no way Zimmerman would ever catch him. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10912 "2013-06-14T12:31:08Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Maybe because he didn’t want to risk letting the crazy guy following him know where he lived? They had lost sight of each other - Dee Dee said that in her testimony. Besides, that doesn’t make a lot of sense - “I don’t want him to know where I live, so I will go back and find him and punch him in the face”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10913 "2013-06-14T12:58:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They had lost sight of each other - Dee Dee said that in her testimony. > > Besides, that doesn’t make a lot of sense - “I don’t want him to know where I live, so I will go back and find him and punch him in the face”. I don’t know how you get from ‘ran away from Zimmerman’ to ‘doubled back to punch Zimmerman’. It’s equally likely that he tried to stay hidden but ‘I spent two minutes after the dispatch phone call not going back to my truck’ found him. If GZ did at some point go through the cut-through to the other side, and if Martin didn’t want to go near his house, and didn’t want (or couldn’t?) cut between the houses, he would obviously have to double-back towards the T, just in time for Zimmerman to bump in to him. It’s not at all out of the realm of possibility that Martin was worried about going home with a crazy guy running after him. Zimmerman didn’t want to give his address over the phone because he didn’t know where the a$$hole punk running \*away \*from him was. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10914 "2013-06-14T13:07:35Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I don’t know how you get from ‘ran away from Zimmerman’ to ‘doubled back to punch Zimmerman’. From Dee Dee’s testimony. > [@](#): > > It’s equally likely that he tried to stay hidden but ‘I spent two minutes after the dispatch phone call not going back to my truck’ found him. No, it isn’t equally likely. There is no evidence in its favor, for one thing. For another, if Martin wanted to avoid Zimmerman, he could have gone into his father’s girlfriend’s house. Dee Dee said he told her “he right by his father’s house”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10915 "2013-06-14T13:11:48Z")
Even if it were equally likely (which it isn’t, we have evidence suggesting one, and none suggesting the other), that means Zimmerman must be acquitted. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10916 "2013-06-14T13:26:14Z")
Good point, and one that needs to be kept in mind. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10917 "2013-06-14T13:30:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > From Dee Dee’s testimony. > No, it isn’t equally likely. There is no evidence in its favor, for one thing. What do you mean, there’s ‘no evidence’? They eventually ran into each other. We know from Zimmerman himself that before the altercation, a) Martin was running \*away \*from George, and b) George was running \*after \*Martin. > [@Shodan](#): > > For another, if Martin wanted to avoid Zimmerman, he could have gone into his father’s girlfriend’s house. Dee Dee said he told her “he right by his father’s house”. Asked and answered: He very reasonably could have decided that it was better tha the crazy guy running after him didn’t know where he or his family members lived. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Even if it were equally likely (which it isn’t, we have evidence suggesting one, and none suggesting the other), that means Zimmerman must be acquitted. I thought you said who started the fight was irrelevant to GZ’s guilt or innocence. ---
**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 14, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10918 "2013-06-14T14:08:49Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I thought you said who started the fight was irrelevant to GZ’s guilt or innocence. Not that I recall; it isn’t irrelevant, nor is it the end-all, be-all of this case. Even if Zimmerman started the fight, under Florida law he can use deadly force in self defense under certain circumstances. See [776.041](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html): > [@](#): > > Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: > (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or > > (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: > (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or > > (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. Compare to [776.013](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html): > [@](#): > > A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Thus, if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he can only use deadly force in self-defense if he’s in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, AND he’s exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, OR if he’s withdrawn from physical contact in good faith. If Zimmerman was not the aggressor, he can use deadly force if he reasonably thought it were necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. So, if it could be proven that Zimmerman were the aggressor, he’d have a harder time with a self defense claim, because there are additional criteria that apply to aggressors. However, it _can’t_ actually be proven that Zimmerman was the aggressor with the evidence we have; on the contrary, there is evidence that he wasn’t (lack of fighting wounds to Martin, DeeDee’s account of Martin’s movements, the location where the fight occured). That is what I meant by “Zimmerman must be acquitted”: if it’s reasonably possible **both** that Martin attacked Zimmmeran and Zimmerman defended himself, and that Zimmerman attacked Martin and murdered him, then the burden of proof hasn’t been met and he must be acquitted. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10919 "2013-06-14T14:13:51Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > What do you mean, there’s ‘no evidence’? They eventually ran into each other. We know from Zimmerman himself that before the altercation, a) Martin was running \*away \*from George, and b) George was running \*after \*Martin. We also know from Zimmerman and from Dee Dee that they had lost sight of each other. There is no evidence that Zimmerman found Martin; there is evidence that Martin found Zimmerman. > [@](#): > > Asked and answered: He very reasonably could have decided that it was better tha the crazy guy running after him didn’t know where he or his family members lived. No, that is not reasonable. Since Martin was out of sight of Zimmerman (as indicated by Dee Dee’s testimony), then there was no chance that Zimmerman would be able to tell what house Martin lived in. Instead of doing the safe thing and walking back into the house, he doubled back and went looking for Zimmerman and punched him in the face. This is not the way to make sure nobody knows where you live. It _is_ the way you act if you are _not_ afraid of someone, but want to start a fight with them. So, we have two scenarios -[ol][li]Martin is afraid to let the crazy guy see where he lives. No evidence in its favor.[\*]Martin is not afraid, but wants to start a fight. Evidence in its favor - Dee Dee’s account of Martin’s movements (and the subsequent evidence showing that Martin attacked Zimmerman).[/ol][/li] And, to repeat **Human Action** ’s point, if you have two equally plausible scenarios, one pointing to Zimmerman’s guilt and one pointing away, then Zimmerman is Not Guilty. And to repeat my point, if you have two scenarios, one of which has evidence in its favor and points to Zimmerman’s innocence, and one with no evidence in its favor and points to Zimmerman’s guilt, then Zimmerman is Not Guilty then as well. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10920 "2013-06-14T15:37:58Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Lol. In **Bricker’s** world, a defendant can confess to committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and then confess to killing his target–victimized solely because of the color of skin, I might add–during the commission of this crime, and the State can’t convict him if the defendant claims he killed in self defense. He typed this all serious-like and everything. I can practically see the confidence in his face when he hit “submit reply”. Of course, your summary is not an accurate one. (No shock to regular readers of your prose, I imagine). You conflate “they can’t convict him” with my point, which was: if he claims self-defense, they must prove additional facts in order to convict him. > [@](#): > > An astute reader should have already observed that **Bricker** has just said that a defendant can’t kill someone lawfully if it is determined they were in the process of committing an independent forcible felony when the killing occurred. I mean, he just posted the language for this law. If the State has texts which show Zimmerman went after Martin with the intent to scare him with his gun for the offense of being a black, then saying they disproved self defense is actually an understatement. They make self defense entirely moot. Again a key error. In Florida, a “forcible felony” under the final clause of section 776.08 is a felony whose statutory elements include the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. What crime does Zimmerman commit if the facts show he intended to scare Martin the offense of being black? I know you simply don’t understand that crimes have statutory elements, but try to wrap your head around it anyway. ---
**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 14, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10921 "2013-06-14T18:46:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What crime does Zimmerman commit if the facts show he intended to scare Martin the offense of being black? I know you simply don’t understand that crimes have statutory elements, but try to wrap your head around it anyway. So you persist with the absurdity. Not terribly surprising, but damn, at least make this challenging for me. This is what you posted: > [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose the state adduces evidence that shows Zimmerman texted his brother as follows: “Hey, there’s this black kid hanging out under the awning. Calling the cops to fuck with him and teach blacks to come hang around here!” and **“The little asshole just walked by my truck. I’m gonna chase him down and scare the shit out of him with my gun,”** and “shit shit shit I got into it with him and I ended up shooting him.” A high school drop out can guess what crime that is, **Bricker**. But since you can’'t, here are the laws to spell it out for you. > **[Chapter 776 Section 08 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate](https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/776.08)** > [@Florida statute 776.08](#): > > 776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; **aggravated assault** ; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. > History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195. > **[Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799%2F0784%2FSections%2F0784.021.html)** > [@Florida statute 784.021](#): > > 784.021 Aggravated assault.— > (1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault: > **(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill;** or > (b) With an intent to commit a felony. > (2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. > History.—s. 2, ch. 3275, 1881; RS 2402; GS 3228; RGS 5061; CGL 7163; s. 1, ch. 29709, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-345; s. 731, ch. 71-136; s. 18, ch. 74-383; s. 8, ch. 75-298. > Note.—Former s. 784.04. [http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/784.011.html](http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/784.011.html) > [@Florida 784.011](#): > > 784.011 Assault.— > > (1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.. The fact that I’m having to post this shit is why I can’t take you seriously. You’re the reason why the eyeroll emoticon was invented. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10922 "2013-06-14T19:01:13Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The fact that I’m having to post this shit is why I can’t take you seriously. You’re the reason why the eyeroll emoticon was invented. You have no credible evidence to support your cites in respect to this case and you don’t know anything about the law yet you continue to argue with a lawyer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=545) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=547)