# 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:** 569
**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 28, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11364 "2013-06-28T17:13:06Z")
> [@ForumJunky](#): > > Then he wasn’t scared out of his boots of some punk and only wet his pants when he realized he bit off more than he could chew. Zimmerman hasn’t ever said he was afraid of Martin that I recall, outside the the specific and reasonable circumstance of Martin being atop him and beating him. ---
**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 28, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11365 "2013-06-28T17:19:36Z")
> [@ForumJunky](#): > > Then he wasn’t scared out of his boots of some punk and only wet his pants when he realized he bit off more than he could chew. The only time his fear matters is at the moment he pulled the trigger. Not before, not after. I’ll repeat, there’s nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody. ---
**Author:** ![ForumJunky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/77aa72/32.png) [@ForumJunky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ForumJunky)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11366 "2013-06-28T17:24:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The only time his fear matters is at the moment he pulled the trigger. Not before, not after. > > I’ll repeat, there’s nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody. Even if his intent was to confront or subdue? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11367 "2013-06-28T17:25:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Zimmerman hasn’t ever said he was afraid of Martin that I recall, outside the the specific and reasonable circumstance of Martin being atop him and beating him. Well, to be fair, Zimmerman did say “I don’t know what this guy’s deal is”, which is pretty much the same thing as saying “that boy scares me plenty - sure hope I get a chance to shoot his ass.” 😉 Regards, Shodan ---
**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 28, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11368 "2013-06-28T17:31:46Z")
> [@ForumJunky](#): > > Even if his intent was to confront or subdue? Yes. He would have to actually confront Martin and do something illegal, such as assault or subdue him, for it to be a problem. Even if he followed Martin with dubious intent, if Martin then attacked him, he would be entitled to defend himself. You may be underestimating how strong self defence laws are in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11369 "2013-06-28T17:31:55Z")
> [@ForumJunky](#): > > Even if his intent was to confront or subdue? If Zimmerman’s intent was to confront, in the sense of asking him what he was up to, then that is not illegal (or, IMO, wrong - he was the neighborhood watch in a neighborhood plagued by burglaries). If his intent was to subdue, in the sense of assaulting him, then the following itself would not be illegal, but the assault would be. The prosecution would then be obliged to produce evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman assaulted Martin instead of vice versa. If one party had a mark on his knuckles, and the other a broken nose and black eyes, and there were eyewitnesses to testify that the one with the broken nose and black eyes were on the bottom and the other on top, then that would go a long way towards proving which one assaulted the other. And indeed, would demonstrate that whichever of the two renewed the pursuit of the other and re-initiated contact, was guilty of “following with intent to assault”, if there were such an offense. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11370 "2013-06-28T20:24:12Z")
> [@ForumJunky](#): > > Even if his intent was to confront or subdue? Cite that he confronted him. I can cite from the phone call that he stayed in his car when Martin was staring him down. So who is following who at this point? Which person is exhibiting aggressive behavior? Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11371 "2013-06-28T20:38:48Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’ll repeat, there’s nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody. Repetition doesn’t make it so. It’s really a matter of perspective as to when the line has been crossed, and what information we have via the phone call tells us that _from Martin’s perspective_, that line _had_ been crossed. Given that, his acts may well have been self-defense. Cuz Florida is generous about that stuff. > [@](#): > > \*\*The 2012 Florida Statutes > Title XLVI > CRIMES > Chapter 784 > ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE > \*\*View Entire Chapter > **784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—** > > (1) As used in this section, the term: > (a) “Harass” means to engage in\*\* a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.\*\* > > (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, _ **however short,** _ which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests. > > (c) “Credible threat” means _ **a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two,** _ including threats delivered by electronic communication or _ **implied by a pattern of conduct** _, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section. > > (2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly _ **follows** _, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. > > (3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. > > (5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. I’m pretty sure you have a list of reasons why this cannot possibly be applied to anything Georgie did, but fortunately for us all, you are not the arbiter of these matters. It has been made very clear that many, many people, including the person who is now too dead to argue about whether he was justified in being afraid of the man who killed him, find Georgie’s behavior unacceptable and easily interpreted as threatening. So there’s that. ---
**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 28, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11372 "2013-06-28T20:42:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Cite that he confronted him. I can cite from the phone call that he stayed in his car when Martin was staring him down. So who is following who at this point? Which person is exhibiting aggressive behavior? Martin. Wait…looking at someone who has been staring at YOU is aggressive now? But Zimmerman staring at Martin, following him in and out of his truck, that’s perfectly peachy? I don’t know why this still blows my mind at this point, but it does. You are… amazing. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11373 "2013-06-28T20:45:53Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Repetition doesn’t make it so. > > It’s really a matter of perspective as to when the line has been crossed No it is not. “willfully, maliciously, and **repeatedly** ” Also, note that he is not charged with stalking. ---
**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 28, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11374 "2013-06-28T20:45:53Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And one other thing, Zimmerman did not claim he shot Martin because he was in fear of his life as a result of the head slams to the cement. He said he shot Martin over a struggle for the gun. He would be within his rights to shoot Martin in self defense over the head injuries but that is not the narrative he gave. We don’t know if he had the opportunity to do so with Martin on top of him. Well, as we know Mr. Z has claimed a variety of things. But you have gotten my attention with the above. If the brutal headslamming and punching wasn’t Z’s reason for fearing for his life, why have y’all been harping on it so much? You appear to be saying that Z was justified in killing Martin because Martin (supposedly) said he was going to kill Z and (supposedly) reached for Z’s gun. None of the rest of that had anything to do with it. Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11375 "2013-06-28T20:48:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Well, as we know Mr. Z has claimed a variety of things. > > But you have gotten my attention with the above. If the brutal headslamming and punching wasn’t Z’s reason for fearing for his life, why have y’all been harping on it so much? You appear to be saying that Z was justified in killing Martin because Martin (supposedly) said he was going to kill Z and (supposedly) reached for Z’s gun. None of the rest of that had anything to do with it. > > Is that correct? **Bricker** told you, repeatedly, with citations, that Florida precedent establishes that a punch to the nose is enough to establish reasonable fear for the purposes of self-defense. You keep ignoring him. ---
**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 28, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11376 "2013-06-28T20:52:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No it is not. > > “willfully, maliciously, and **repeatedly** ” > > Also, note that he is not charged with stalking. Doesn’t matter. Steophan was under the misapprehension that “there’s nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody.” He was incorrect in making that assertion. The law of Florida clearly recognizes that following someone can be threatening and scary. Whether Z committed the crime of stalking or not, is not the point. The point is that following someone can be a crime, and therefore it is not ridiculous for someone being followed to feel threatened. As Martin easily may have. And Steophan was wrong. ---
**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 28, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11377 "2013-06-28T21:01:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > **Bricker** told you, repeatedly, with citations, that Florida precedent establishes that a punch to the nose is enough to establish reasonable fear for the purposes of self-defense. You keep ignoring him. I’m not asking Magiver to clarify the law for me.:rolleyes: I am asking Magiver to clarify \*\*\*his own \*\*\*understandings and assertions, seeing as how he has devoted so much time and energy to it. ---
**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 28, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11378 "2013-06-28T21:05:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > **Bricker** told you, repeatedly, with citations, that Florida precedent establishes that a punch to the nose is enough to establish reasonable fear for the purposes of self-defense. … **Bricker** DIRC that that case involved a broken nose that required a surgical repair? ADIRC that common law(?) drew a significant distinction between a battery that left the victim with a permanent disfigurement and one which did not without regard to the other facts of the battery? E.G. a sustained beating that left your face pulp but with no permanent damage wasn’t as bad as a quick [fish-hooking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish-hooking) that split your cheeks and left a scar. 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 28, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11379 "2013-06-28T21:21:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Do you have evidence that Martin died instantly? Yes, no? Someone in Martin’s situation would have experienced a massive dose of adrenalin prior to dying. It’s what the human body does in a crisis situation. That’s a given. Regardless of what Zimmerman would have done to Martin the natural response to a wound would be to draw your hands to it. I think it more likely than not that Martin would have attempted this. I believe you have been telling us for a very long time now that there is nothing which refutes Zimmerman’s story and that the evidence we have is either neutral or supports it. Zimmerman has claimed that he spread Martin’s hands wide, and held them that way. Absolutely no human being involved in this case has ever even hinted at the possibility that Martin was conscious and able to pull his hands under his body, especially _ **after** _ Z had already_ **sat on his mortally wounded torso** _ to spread them apart in the first place. To “restrain” him. Not even Z himself has tried to make that ridiculous claim. Nor is there a single scrap of other evidence supporting such a ludicrous thing. You have become nearly apoplectic when anyone else has inferred or assumed anything without producing a stack of evidence to prove it, but you have the nerve to come in here and completely _ **invent** _ Martin being consciously aware and in control of his body past the time Z sat on his mortally wounded torso and using this conscious awareness and strength to pull his hands under his body? With absolute zero evidence that such a thing could possibly be true? And only so you don’t have to acknowledge that Zimmerman lied. I believe you are what is known as a “piece of work”. ---
**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 28, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11380 "2013-06-28T21:24:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Doesn’t matter. Steophan was under the misapprehension that “there’s nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody.” He was incorrect in making that assertion. The law of Florida clearly recognizes that following someone can be threatening and scary. Whether Z committed the crime of stalking or not, is not the point. The point is that following someone can be a crime, and therefore it is not ridiculous for someone being followed to feel threatened. As Martin easily may have. And Steophan was wrong. Nope, there is nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody. Just as there is nothing illegal or wrong about killing somebody. Just because following somebody _and doing other things at the same time_ is illegal or wrong, doesn’t make following somebody a problem. Also, are you claiming that this wasn’t the first time Zimmerman had encountered Martin? If not, why bring stalking into it? It’s irrelevant. I am, as usual (but not quite always), right about this. Just because the law recognises something as threatening and scary (why the unnecessary repetition? Don’t you use enough words as it is?) doesn’t mean it’s wrong or illegal. If someone does something that happens to scare you, tough, unless it’s illegal, or an imminent threat of violence. Following someone is not an imminent threat, and is not in itself a crime. Go on, find me a crime _anywhere_ where the only element is following someone. Whether it’s Florida or Finland, I don’t care. I guarantee you you won’t find it. But, just in case you still want to claim that Zimmerman was stalking Martin despite the singular nature of the incident, read it again and remember _why_ Zimmerman was following Martin. There was no malice, simply an attempt to ensure the police could find him. So, if someone a)wilfully, b)maliciously, and c)repeatedly d)follows someone, they have committed a crime. But, as we’ve discussed before, _all_ the elements need to be present for the crime to have been committed. Just as killing someone isn’t a crime without several other elements present, following someone is not a crime. Once again, **Stoid** , your own citation shows you to be utterly wrong, and me to be right. I will say this for you, you have the same tactics as the prosecution in the trial, as all their witnesses are showing that Martin was the aggressor, and Zimmerman the innocent party. ---
**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 28, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11381 "2013-06-28T21:31:02Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I believe you have been telling us for a very long time now that there is nothing which refutes Zimmerman’s story and that the evidence we have is either neutral or supports it. > > Zimmerman has claimed that he spread Martin’s hands wide, and held them that way. > > Absolutely no human being involved in this case has ever even hinted at the possibility that Martin was conscious and able to pull his hands under his body, especially _ **after** _ Z had already_ **sat on his mortally wounded torso** _ to spread them apart in the first place. To “restrain” him. Not even Z himself has tried to make that ridiculous claim. Nor is there a single scrap of other evidence supporting such a ludicrous thing. > > You have become nearly apoplectic when anyone else has inferred or assumed anything without producing a stack of evidence to prove it, but you have the nerve to come in here and completely _ **invent** _ Martin being consciously aware and in control of his body past the time Z sat on his mortally wounded torso and using this conscious awareness and strength to pull his hands under his body? With absolute zero evidence that such a thing could possibly be true? > > And only so you don’t have to acknowledge that Zimmerman lied. > > I believe you are what is known as a “piece of work”. Let’s say Zimmerman is, for whatever reason, lying about that. What, exactly, do you think that shows? At the absolute most, it can cause you to ignore any part of his testimony that isn’t corroborated by other evidence. How much, exactly, do you think that is? Remember, we know Martin went home and came back, we know Zimmerman stopped following him, and we know Martin was on top, and injured Zimmerman. All but Zimmerman stopping are from _prosecution_ witnesses, and him stopping can be clearly heard on the tape. It is quite simply not the case that, if you can show one part of Zimmerman’s testimony is wrong, then you have shown he’s guilty of murder. Hell, unless Florida has different rules to most other places, an uncorroborated _confession_ wouldn’t prove him guilty. That despite the fact that you haven’t proven him to be lying, or even mistaken, you have merely shown there is no additional evidence to back him up. Get a medical professional to say that Martin couldn’t have moved at that point and you’ll have that evidence, but until then you don’t. Evidence. Facts. Get them, use them. I am doing, you are ignoring them. ---
**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 28, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11382 "2013-06-28T21:35:22Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Well, as we know Mr. Z has claimed a variety of things. > > But you have gotten my attention with the above. If the brutal headslamming and punching wasn’t Z’s reason for fearing for his life, why have y’all been harping on it so much? You appear to be saying that Z was justified in killing Martin because Martin (supposedly) said he was going to kill Z and (supposedly) reached for Z’s gun. None of the rest of that had anything to do with it. > > Is that correct? Oh, and this? Having one reason to be afraid of death or serious injury doesn’t preclude there being another one. If the injuries were sufficient to do so, the he was entitled to shoot Martin. If, in the process of trying to do that, Martin grabbed for the gun, that’s an additional, and indeed more pressing, threat. Do you really think Zimmerman should have lain there and let Martin cripple or kill him, rather than defend himself, because you don’t think his head’s been slammed into the concrete enough? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11383 "2013-06-28T21:47:23Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Nope, there is nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody. Just as there is nothing illegal or wrong about killing somebody. “Hey, you got your stalking in my homicide!” “You got your homicide in my stalking!” “Wow… it’s _delicious_!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=568) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=570)