# 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:** 589
**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, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11764 "2013-07-03T13:20:11Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Didn’t you just spend a fucking page trying to contort this trial into INDIANA caselaw, and Indiana caselaw about a crime with which the defendant in this case is not even charged, at that? Jesus. No shame, these Zimmermanites. No. While I did quote Indiana (and Illinois) caselaw, I reported it as it was quoted from Florida caselaw. That is done when a state accepts as persuasive, and adopts, another state’s reasoning as its own. So I was in fact quoting Florida caselaw, and I specifically cited it as such: > [@Bricker](#): > > In Florida, a broken nose is, as a matter of law, sufficient injury to permit lethal force to be used. > > > [@](#): > > > > In People v. Smith (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 259, 285 N.E.2d 460, the defendant therein argued that his conviction for aggravated battery must be reversed because the victim’s injuries were not “great bodily harm”, a necessary element in the offense of aggravated battery. . . . In affirming the conviction, the Illinois appeals court said: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Whether aggravated battery is committed when the injury inflicted does not break the skin, does not injure the bones and does not leave disfigurement or permanent injury of any kind, is a question of fact to be determined by the judge or jury. > > > > In Anderson v. State (1973, Ind. App.), 291 N.E.2d 579, wherein there was involved the interpretation of an aggravated assault and battery charge in which the victim was struck five blows with a fist, the court in affirming conviction on said charge, said: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > “Great bodily harm defines itself and means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery… . Whether the evidence describing such harm or injury is within the meaning of the statute … is generally a question of fact for the jury.” > > > > **That analysis, though it comes from Illinois and Indiana, was added to Florida law when it was quoted with approval by _Owens v. State_, 289 So. 2d 472 (Fl. DCA 1974).** Well? See, here’s an issue where you can’t hide behind bullshit. It’s objectively verifiable. I gave the case citation. I showed precisely where and when the Florida courts adopted that reasoning and caselaw. So why did you say I was trying to contort this trial into Indiana caselaw? According to you, one Zimmerman lie is sufficient to disbelieve everything he says. Now we see that you claimed I was trying to contort this trial into Indiana caselaw, and that wasn’t an accurate statement, was it? So… how should readers treat the rest of your statements, given the inaccuracy of this one, and given the rule you propose to apply to Zimmerman? ---
**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 3, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11765 "2013-07-03T13:23:27Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Team Zimmerman don’t find that at least a little bit of a concern? He’s saying that given the chance to do it over again…he wouldn’t do anything differently. As it relates to his guilt? No, I don’t find it troubling. Why is it? I suspect it’s an attempt to not say something that can be used against him. “So, \*even you \*regret your actions from that evening! You yourself say your actions were not the correct ones! A-ha!” But that’s my speculation, as is this: Zimmerman would give anything for that evening not to have occurred, and if he could do it all over again, he’d stay home that night. This has horribly impacted his life. I don’t believe this statement, even if he has convinced himself it’s true. I think a better answer would have been, “Knowing then what I know now? I would have gotten back in my car. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. At the time, I only knew what I knew, and I acted as best I could in a very traumatic situation.” Either answer would serve the objective I believe he was trying to achieve, which was to convey, “I didn’t do anything wrong.” The latter would raise less eyebrows perhaps, though, again, I don’t see what this is supposed to imply in terms of his guilt. If it makes him a shitty person somehow, whatever. I don’t plan on hanging out with him. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11766 "2013-07-03T13:28:30Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Are you high? No. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > That’s =exactly= what he’s saying. Trayvon Martin’s death was God’s plan. Zimmerman getting out of the truck that night was God’s plan. Yeah, that’s not the same as “God wanted Trayvon Martin to die and my client was the instrument of His righteous judgment”. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > And that ties directly into his statement that he didn’t regret any of his actions, that he wouldn’t do anything differently because according to him, everything was God’s plan - Right, that seems to be his position. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > i.e., I have no freewill in this, none of this was my fault, blame the Guy Upstairs. Whereas this is your interpretation of it. Given that he also says he thinks he’d be dead if he hadn’t has his firearm that night, I don’t think he’s blaming God, he’s blaming Martin, while invoking God’s plan as religious people are wont to do. When a tornado blows their house down, a religious person might say that it was God’s plan. That’s not blaming God, or believing that God was punishing them. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > It’s the same fucking question. Given the chance to do things differently, _he wouldn’t change a thing_. It is plainly _not_ the same question as “Do you wish it had never happened?”. Zimmerman _might_ well answer that one with something like “It’s not for me to judge God’s plan” or something similar, but it’s not the same question. You can regret an outcome without regreting your actions. “Do you wish it had never happened?” allows for “Well, I wish Martin hadn’t attacked me and left me no choice but to kill him”, “Do you regret such-and-such action?” does not. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11767 "2013-07-03T13:30:14Z")
As a general tip, a good way to avoid being forced into a situation where your only options are “admit to murder” and “claim that you should be exonerated of murder because God wanted your victim to die anyway” is to not go on TV and take interviews about the time you killed someone. That Zimmerman, even after his arrest, thought he was going to become some sort of celebrity for ridding his neighborhood of one of Those People, and prioritized doing so even over his own best legal interests, tells me a bit about his thought process. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11768 "2013-07-03T13:36:17Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > As a general tip, a good way to avoid being forced into a situation where your only options are “admit to murder” and “claim that you should be exonerated of murder because God wanted your victim to die anyway” is to not go on TV and take interviews about the time you killed someone. That Zimmerman, even after his arrest, thought he was going to become some sort of celebrity for ridding his neighborhood of one of Those People, and prioritized doing so even over his own best legal interests, tells me a bit about his thought process. Soo…how does saying “Yes, I regret getting out of my car” admit to murder? How is saying “No, I don’t regret anything I did” claiming that he should be exonerated because God wanted Martin dead? It is a bad idea to do much of what Zimmerman did - the lengthy interview with police without an attorney, the walkthrough, the TV interviews - and the fact that after all those poor decisions, of the sort that cause innocent people to slip up and get convicted, the state _still_ can’t prove that he’s guilty ought to give you pause in your certainty of his guilt. But, of course, it won’t, as your fantasy life, where Zimmerman was “ridding his neighborhood of one of Those People” and sought celebrity for it, is far richer and more interesting than life in reality. ---
**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 3, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11769 "2013-07-03T13:40:54Z")
I can definitely see why Zimmerman felt the need to publicize his side after this story broke. Heck, I was one of the pseudo-lynch mob outraged over this horrific act, demanding swift justice. The story that crystallized was a bad, _bad_ story for him. I think it was a bad strategy to go public with his side (always better to keep your mouth shut). But I can understand why he’d feel the need. Whether or not his commentary has been clumsy at times is a different matter. But I don’t see any of this as a celebrity grab. ---
**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, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11770 "2013-07-03T14:11:33Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Team Zimmerman don’t find that at least a little bit of a concern? He’s saying that given the chance to do it over again…he wouldn’t do anything differently. Yes, to be honest it is a bit troubling. It shows someone unwilling to learn from bad events that happen to them, whether those events are their fault or not. Any response to having killed someone less than “I wish that hadn’t happened”, if not something stronger, is pretty distasteful. Also, as a somewhat fervent atheist, I find the religious side of it deeply unpleasant, and somewhat hypocritical, if he actually believes in a “decent” god. I don’t particularly like Zimmerman, and I think some of his actions were foolish, and I would say that a sensible person shouldn’t do them. However, foolish is not reckless, let alone murder. Being a fool is not a crime, neither is being a christian, and for that matter, neither would being glad that one had the opportunity to legally shoot someone, no matter how disgusting that view would be. I don’t actually think Zimmerman feels that way, but I’m sure there are people who do. The reason I support Zimmerman is because he is not guilty of any crime, based on the evidence I’ve seen. As a general rule, I believe that anyone not provably guilty of breaking the law should not be subject to any punishment by the courts or by the government. > [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Didn’t you just spend a fucking page trying to contort this trial into INDIANA caselaw, and Indiana caselaw about a crime with which the defendant in this case is not even charged, at that? Jesus. No shame, these Zimmermanites. No, he did not. Are you lying here, or are you mistaken? Either way, it shows you have no credibility, and that none of your statements are of any worth. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11771 "2013-07-03T14:19:56Z")
Holding the issue of “out of state case law only applies when it helps my side and never when it doesn’t” for a more thorough treatment, do you really not understand the difference between “Zimmerman can’t tell the truth therefore Zimmerman asserting things is not a basis to believe those things are true” and “you said something I disagree with/isn’t true therefore other statements from external reality to which you have referred are not valid?” I could stand in this thread denying the Holocaust and saying that 2 plus 2 is 5, it wouldn’t change the fact that people who get their head repeatedly slammed into concrete develop bruising and concussions. That’s the basis of what the “ad hominem” fallacy is–disputing independently verifiable facts by attacking the person alluding to them. ---
**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, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11772 "2013-07-03T14:28:29Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Holding the issue of “out of state case law only applies when it helps my side and never when it doesn’t” for a more thorough treatment, do you really not understand the difference between “Zimmerman can’t tell the truth therefore Zimmerman asserting things is not a basis to believe those things are true” and “you said something I disagree with/isn’t true therefore other statements from external reality to which you have referred are not valid?” I could stand in this thread denying the Holocaust and saying that 2 plus 2 is 5, it wouldn’t change the fact that people who get their head repeatedly slammed into concrete develop bruising and concussions. That’s the basis of what the “ad hominem” fallacy is–disputing independently verifiable facts by attacking the person alluding to them. Out of state case law doesn’t apply. I quoted Florida case law: _Owens v. State_, 289 So. 2d 472 (Fl. DCA 1974). Correct? ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11773 "2013-07-03T14:28:32Z")
No one seems to actually _disagree_ that “Zimmerman asserting things is not a basis to believe those things are true”, though. This has been repeated over and over: Zimmerman should only be believed to the extent that evidence backs up his statements. Some things he’s said are backed up by other evidence, and some are not. Not much is actually _contradicted_ by other evidence, and what little there is could be the result of honest misremembering, or of lying, with no readily apparent way to know which. What he’s said that is backed up by other evidence supports his self-defense claim, and precludes proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**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, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11774 "2013-07-03T14:33:39Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Holding the issue of “out of state case law only applies when it helps my side and never when it doesn’t” for a more thorough treatment, **Bricker** cited Florida caselaw, and that citation - from a specific Florida case - cited out of state law. So, out of state caselaw counts as caselaw only when it has already been cited in a case in Florida. That seems utterly obvious. > [@](#): > > do you really not understand the difference between “Zimmerman can’t tell the truth therefore Zimmerman asserting things is not a basis to believe those things are true” and “you said something I disagree with/isn’t true therefore other statements from external reality to which you have referred are not valid?” I could stand in this thread denying the Holocaust and saying that 2 plus 2 is 5, it wouldn’t change the fact that people who get their head repeatedly slammed into concrete develop bruising and concussions. That’s the basis of what the “ad hominem” fallacy is–disputing independently verifiable facts by attacking the person alluding to them. It is not an independently verifiable fact that people who get their head repeatedly slammed into concrete _always_ develop bruising and concussion. If you’d come here saying that people who’ve suffered that _often_ have bruising and concussion, so you’d disregard Zimmerman’s claim excepting where it’s supported by external evidence, you would be being reasonable. Sadly, you are not being reasonable, but instead making sweeping, demonstrably false claims of both fact and Zimmerman’s intentions. Your example is useful, though. Even if Zimmerman came into court denying the holocaust and saying that 2 plus 2 is 5, it wouldn’t change the fact that he killed Martin in legitimate self defence. That fact is true, or not, based on the evidence, and Zimmerman’s statement doesn’t affect the truth of it. Fortunately for him, the vast majority of the evidence is either neutral or in support of his claim, and so his credibility as a witness is irrelevant. Also fortunately for him, neither you nor anyone else has actually been able to show he’s lied, so he’s not likely to be in trouble for either perjury or contempt. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11775 "2013-07-03T14:39:43Z")
The State’s case against George is rather hampered by the minor detail that the other key witness in the case is DEAD. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > What he’s said that is backed up by other evidence supports his self-defense claim, and precludes proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt. What evidence - besides his own statements, which are at best self-serving and at worst have been shown to be inconsistent on numerous points - supports his self-defense claim? ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11776 "2013-07-03T14:41:57Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > The State’s case against George is rather hampered by the minor detail that the other key witness in the case is DEAD. It certainly is, but there’s no way around that. The fact that Martin is dead can’t legally or morally be used to convict Zimmerman on the basis that “If Martin were alive, he might well contradict Zimmerman’s account of what happened”. ---
**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, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11777 "2013-07-03T14:43:12Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > The State’s case against George is rather hampered by the minor detail that the other key witness in the case is DEAD. > > What evidence - besides his own statements, which are at best self-serving and at worst have been shown to be inconsistent on numerous points - supports his self-defense claim? He doesn’t need evidence to support it. The state needs to disprove it. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11778 "2013-07-03T14:44:45Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The fact that Martin is dead can’t legally or morally be used to convict Zimmerman on the basis that “If Martin were alive, he might well contradict Zimmerman’s account of what happened”. Plus if he were alive, we’d have to burn Martin at the stake after properly exorcising him, since God’s will wants him dead. The carbon offsets alone could bankrupt the county. ---
**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, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11779 "2013-07-03T14:47:34Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Plus if he were alive, we’d have to burn Martin at the stake after properly exorcising him, since God’s will wants him dead. The carbon offsets alone could bankrupt the county. That’s the most accurate thing you’ve posted in this thread. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11780 "2013-07-03T14:56:56Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > What evidence - besides his own statements, which are at best self-serving and at worst have been shown to be inconsistent on numerous points - supports his self-defense claim? 1. Good’s testimony that Zimmerman and Martin were fighting, with Martin atop Zimmerman. 2. Zimmerman’s injuries, which are consistent with a fight. There’s more, but that’s enough, right there. Zimmerman was in a fight with Martin in which he was wounded and held down. It cannot be proven who started this fight. Thus, the legal requirement for use of deadly force is just reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Which Zimmerman reasonably could have had in the situation he was in. Therefore, he’s not guilty of second degree murder. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11781 "2013-07-03T15:01:06Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Plus if he were alive, we’d have to burn Martin at the stake after properly exorcising him, since God’s will wants him dead. The carbon offsets alone could bankrupt the county. You know that 87% or so of this country is religious, right? The idea of “God’s plan” isn’t some bizarre peccadillo of George Zimmerman, it’s what most people believe in. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11782 "2013-07-03T15:02:46Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. Good’s testimony that Zimmerman and Martin were fighting, with Martin atop Zimmerman. That’s evidence of some sort of struggle. Not evidence of self-defense. Unless you’re suggesting Good saw the fight in its entirety, from beginning to end. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. Zimmerman’s injuries, which are consistent with a fight. As you yourself pointed out - his ‘minor’ and ‘insignificant’ injuries are evidence of some sort of struggle. Not of self defense. ---
**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, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/11783 "2013-07-03T15:06:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. Good’s testimony that Zimmerman and Martin were fighting, with Martin atop Zimmerman. > > 2. Zimmerman’s injuries, which are consistent with a fight. > > There’s more, but that’s enough, right there. Zimmerman was in a fight with Martin in which he was wounded and held down. It cannot be proven who started this fight. Thus, the legal requirement for use of deadly force is just reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Which Zimmerman reasonably could have had in the situation he was in. > > Therefore, he’s not guilty of second degree murder. What if it can be proven, forensically, that at the moment he shot Martin he was standing and trayvon was still on the ground? Would that change your assessment? Or what if both men were standing 2 or 3 feet apart? I ask because it seems as though everybody is completely okay with assuming that it doesn’t matter whether Zimmermans story of \*the actual shooting itself \*is true or not, because Martin was getting the best of him for a few seconds, he therefore had the right to kill Martin, period. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=588) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=590)