# 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:** 587
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11724 "2013-07-02T23:30:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m reasonably sure he was not punched 25 times. > > If he said that, I agree he was either outright lying, or confused. > > Did he say that, though? If the 911 call was 38 seconds how long do you think the fight was and how many blows would be delivered in that time frame? If Martin took his time he would easily exceed 25 punches in 38 seconds and we know the fight lasted longer. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11725 "2013-07-02T23:30:32Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > I infer that because Zimmerman lied, he is not credible. But what does that imply, exactly, about his broken nose and the trauma to the back of his head? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding or I missed this, and I’m not trying to be difficult. But that’s the part of your syllogism I’m missing. You find him “not credible,” and…what? He didn’t get his ass kicked? What does your assessment of his credibility lead you to conclude with regard to his injuries? Because no matter how I speculate about anything else, I am still left with the fact that Martin put a beat-down on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin, the guy who was kicking his ass. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11726 "2013-07-02T23:31:56Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > I infer that because Zimmerman lied, he is not credible. I’ve gone to pains to point out that the severity of the injuries in and of themselves does not rule out self-defense. But Team Zimmerman is interested in going circles about demanding explanations and citations a ninth or tenth time, ignoring passages that don’t fit their narrative, etc, so I can see how you could have missed that every time it’s been posted. you have yet to establish a single lie. Why don’t you prove one first and then build on your premise. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11727 "2013-07-02T23:36:22Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > I infer that because Zimmerman lied, he is not credible. I’ve gone to pains to point out that the severity of the injuries in and of themselves does not rule out self-defense. But Team Zimmerman is interested in going circles about demanding explanations and citations a ninth or tenth time, ignoring passages that don’t fit their narrative, etc, so I can see how you could have missed that every time it’s been posted. But remember, you are not permitted, by Team Zimmerman Special Rules, to use your own reason and experience of life to examine the various facts and compare them to your understanding of how the world operates and conclude that Zimmerman lied _to begin with._ You are supposed to justify why you don’t think he’s just “misremembering”, because it appears that by Team Zimmerman Special Rules, the default is to give him the benefit of the doubt and your failure to do so must be explained, even though it’s been explained dozens of times. And you must cite evidence that has been cited dozens of times. And you must connect the dots of your reasoning even though the connections between the dots have been drawn dozens of times. And you know, start over and do it again. Because no answer other than “holy shit, you’re right and I’m wrong, thank you for the enlightenment, Wise Ones!” will ever be considered an acceptable response. Fortunately, whether they do or don’t, the jury is not required to decide whether GZ has lied by applying Team Zimmerman Special Rules, just by using their good sense and life experience. > [@](#): > > The false nature of the defendant’s statement may be shown by _ **inconsistencies** _ in the defendant’s own testimony, _ **his or her pretrial statements, or by any other prosecution evidence.** _ (People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 498 [244 Cal.Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803] ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11728 "2013-07-02T23:46:47Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Fortunately, whether they do or don’t, the jury is not required to decide whether GZ has lied by applying Team Zimmerman Special Rules, just by using their good sense and life experience. As Stratocaster stated up thread. What exactly does establishing that Zimmerman isn’t credible get you? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11729 "2013-07-02T23:48:30Z")
The only problem Stoid, is that you have to PROVE someone lied in order to INFER IT. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11730 "2013-07-03T00:32:43Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Fortunately, whether they do or don’t, the jury is not required to decide whether GZ has lied by applying Team Zimmerman Special Rules, just by using their good sense and life experience. Why do you keep quoting California caselaw? ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11731 "2013-07-03T03:21:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you keep quoting California caselaw? Cause it’s all the same amirite? 😃 ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11732 "2013-07-03T03:32:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The only problem Stoid, is that you have to PROVE someone lied in order to INFER IT. Ahem…Magiver ol’ pal… if something is proved, no inference is necessary. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11733 "2013-07-03T03:38:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you keep quoting California caselaw? Because California is a huge state with a ginormous population and therefore boatloads of caselaw that comes up on searches for general topics in law that are common across jurisdictions. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11734 "2013-07-03T03:40:13Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Ahem…Magiver ol’ pal… if something is proved, no inference is necessary. Ok, but what does Zimmerman’s lack of credibility lead to? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11735 "2013-07-03T03:52:04Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Ahem…Magiver ol’ pal… if something is proved, no inference is necessary. what lie has been proved? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11736 "2013-07-03T04:06:42Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > I have not heard the prosecution offer an actual specific account of what they think happened. I have yet to hear a plausible one from any anti-Zimmerman folks either. If I were on the jury I wouldn’t want to try to reconstruct the scene by myself from the confusing witnesses. I’d expect the prosecution to present their version. It wouldn’t have to be definite; for example they could say “We’re not sure which of the two was on top at the beginning, but Zimmerman was on top after the shot was fired.” or “We’re not sure, but it must have been either [scenario 1] or [scenario 2].” In the absence of such, I’d probably end up feeling compelled to acquit. … Unless, that is, I decided to go with _“jury nullification”_. :smack: :smack: “Yeah, the wannabe is technically innocent by virtue of self-defense, but I’m going to send a message…” 🆒 (As I mentioned earlier, I’d never be allowed to sit on a jury.) ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11737 "2013-07-03T04:18:50Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Because California is a huge state with a ginormous population and therefore boatloads of caselaw that comes up on searches for general topics in law that are common across jurisdictions. Just because a topic is common across jurisdictions doesn’t mean the law is - either statute law or caselaw. > [@Hbns](#): > > Ok, but what does Zimmerman’s lack of credibility lead to? Exactly. There still seems to be confusion about what happens if the jury disbelieves a witness. They may not infer anything from the fact that his testimony is unreliable, they may simply disregard his testimony. They cannot decide that, because Zimmerman claimed he acted in self defence, and they don’t believe him, that he did not act in self defence, they can only decide that they don’t know. Other evidence is required to show that he did not. Evidence that is, so far, lacking in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11738 "2013-07-03T04:28:20Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Because California is a huge state with a ginormous population and therefore boatloads of caselaw that comes up on searches for general topics in law that are common across jurisdictions. That’s hilarious. “What are you doing looking around under the light here?” “Looking for my wallet.” “Where did you lose it?” “Over there - a 100 ft away or so.” “So why are you looking for it here?” “Because it’s dark over there.” ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11739 "2013-07-03T05:00:30Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > As Stratocaster stated up thread. What exactly does establishing that Zimmerman isn’t credible get you? Stratocaster asked of COndescending Robot: > [@Stratocaster](#): > > Is this similar to the [Chewbacca defense](http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/the-chewbacca-defense)? What do we know, as a matter of settled fact? Zimmerman got a broken nose and trauma to the back of his head. How that leads to a conclusion that self defense is implausible is where you lose me, bro. Seriously, I am not following the syllogism you seem to think is so self-evident. “This ass-kicking was not nearly as bad as he described,” even if true, does not change the fact that an ass-kicking occurred. > > Zimmerman had a broken nose and trauma to the back of his head, and no one is disputing that was the result of the altercation. Ignoring Zimmerman’s comments, what do you infer from that exactly? What circumstance do you hypothesize produced that outcome, one supported by the evidence, that makes self defense evaporate? > [@Stratocaster](#): > > But what does that imply, exactly, about his broken nose and the trauma to the back of his head? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding or I missed this, and I’m not trying to be difficult. But that’s the part of your syllogism I’m missing. You find him “not credible,” and…what? He didn’t get his ass kicked? What does your assessment of his credibility lead you to conclude with regard to his injuries? > > Because no matter how I speculate about anything else, I am still left with the fact that Martin put a beat-down on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin, the guy who was kicking his ass. I am not Condescending Robot, and I directed the following post to him: > [@Stoid](#): > > **C. Robot** , my friend, I think you focus too much on the wrong thing. Whatever the punch number and degree of injury, that argument accepts that most of _the rest_ of what he has said is true, and that’s where my problem lies. > > Here’s something that doesn’t get talked about much at all: witnesses have only reported seeing the two before the shot and after. Before the shot, there is some question about who was on top and/or if only one party was on top the entire time. After the shot, the only thing any witness has reported seeing that included both of them still on the ground is GZ on top Martin’s back. > > There is no reason to accept that the actual shot occurred where and when it did with the two positioned as GZ claims, because no one saw them at the moment of the shot. Nor did anyone see the moment when GZ shifted from on his back to any other position. > > But since no one DID see that incredibly important few seconds/minute?, it’s EXTREMELY important to examine all the forensic evidence as rigorously as human science is able to see if there’s anything there that either confirms or undermines Zimmerman’s account. > > If (for instance, just out of the hat, haven’t looked at the forensic stuff in a few days and didn’t memorize, so I’m just throwing this out as a “what if” example of how it would change the picture) the forensic report stated that the trajectory/stippling/powder, whatever-dunno-im-not-a-forensics-expert was not consistent with the story that GZ tells and in fact could only be consistent with a scenario where (again FOR INSTANCE, not saying this is it so save your breath, Team Zimmerman!) the two were at least x distance apart and Martin was positioned X… fill in the blank. > > In other words, it’s abundantly obvious that if GZ was afraid he can sell it as sufficiently so if the only thing we ever get to know is the fact that he had some injuries. Absolutely reasonable doubt if that’s the make-or-break evidence. So why argue about it? Some people are (clearly) going to see it as more than sufficient and the law doesn’t disagree. So just concede THAT aspect of the evidence and law. > > But there’s more than that to look at. I sure hope the prosecution has made sure to get the best evidence they possibly can to make sure it does get included. I think focusing on the injuries is stupid and misses the bigger picture entirely. So not only do I not quite understand why you are directing the question to me as though I have the same issues about the injuries as C.R, but also I have answered the question about what his lack of credibility says to me: the fact that you (GZ) have lied about so many material things tells me you have something to hide, and it tells me that in any instance where we have no corroborating evidence for your version of events, it’s entirely likely that your version is not truthful. But since your version is the only human version, we have to look hard at all the evidence to see what other story might be told. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11740 "2013-07-03T05:16:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That’s hilarious. Are you (the man who thinks that benefit of the doubt means reasonable doubt) under the impression that there is a huge difference in how “inference” is defined in Florida, vs. California, vs. Massachusetts vs. in Federal Court? Do you think that Blacks Law Dictionary puts out separate editions for every state? Do you think that the jury’s function to determine credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence is radically different in Louisiana vs. New York? And if you believe that, why are you going on about reasonable doubt? Don’t you have to check Florida statues specifically to determine if, in Florida, juries have to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe in Florida they only have to find guilt beyond outrageous doubts, no doubts, all doubts? Case law quotes from varying locations are offered to illustrate very basic legal concepts common to all states and the Federal government. To the extent that any differences exist, they do not have any meaningful impact on the concepts I was illustrating. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to show me how. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11741 "2013-07-03T05:30:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > what lie has been proved? Lots, but that has nothing to do with what you said, which was that inferences have to be proved. And proof obviates the need for inference. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11742 "2013-07-03T06:26:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > … I have answered the question about what his lack of credibility says to me: the fact that you (GZ) have lied about so many material things tells me you have something to hide, and it tells me that in any instance where we have no corroborating evidence for your version of events, it’s entirely likely that your version is not truthful. But since your version is the only human version, we have to look hard at all the evidence to see what other story might be told. Ok… Do you think it likely that omitting all of Zimmerman’s story leaves evidence worthy of conviction under California or Florida law? I suspect you think we are all dullards for not seeing what is so clearly evident to you. However your opening response to my question (omitted for brevity) showed a clear inability to filter for the important details. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11743 "2013-07-03T07:01:37Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Are you (the man who thinks that benefit of the doubt means reasonable doubt) No. The “beyond reasonable doubt” standard favors the defendant WAY more than the “benefit of the doubt” one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=586) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=588)