# 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:** 96
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1902 "2012-05-22T13:04:03Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Given the normal understanding of societal standards, who do you think initiated the contact? The one that got out of his truck, and followed the teenager who was on his way home, or the guy that was simply walking home from the 7-11 chatting to his girlfriend? > > Naturally, if some credible evidence comes to hand (other than George’s statement) that Trayvon ambushed the conscientious neighbourhood watch guy, after he previously specifically tried to avoid him, then have at it - Trayvon did initiate the confrontation. Otherwise don’t bend like a reed to hide behind what can be “legally proven” But you said: > [@bengangmo](#): > > +1 on that. > > As has already been explained, it doesn’t take self defence of the table, but it does remove SYG. How can you now claim you’re talking just about normal societal standards? Since when is SYG a “normal societal standard?” And if it is, how can it have some specific rule that “takes it off the table?” See, this is the problem. You want to talk about how morally, Zimmerman is guiltier than a fox in a hen-house, go right ahead. But don’t start trotting out the legal terms and standards, making lofty pronouncements about how they apply, and then try to hide behind the claim that you were just talking about societal standards. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1903 "2012-05-22T13:09:17Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Without the snark, you hit it on the head. What the law says about the issue is irrelevant. The “law” you put on the pedestal is not an edict passed down from Mount Sinai. It’s a flawed series of man-made rules that believe [corporations are people](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html) and taken the view that [blacks are chattel property](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html). Since the “law” changes depending on the whims of the majority, I’m not analyzing the situation under the narrow microscope of law but on the broader view of morality (e.g. right vs wrong). For example, it says a lot that Zimmerman did not request an ambulance for Martin (but instead requests someone contact his wife). That behavior says to me that he didn’t give a flying shit whether Trayvon lived or died. Similarly, when Zimmerman exits his vehicle against the advice of the operator with the intention of confronting Martin _with_ a loaded gun, tells me he was looking for a fight. You don’t have to tell me the latter is perfectly legal under the “law”; I’m just pointing out that it’s an injustice that it is legal for non-law enforcement to approach people at night with a loaded gun. > > - Honesty Since this is an opinion forum my personal opinion is I don’t really care about opinions on this case and only care about discussions involving the actual law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1904 "2012-05-22T13:10:55Z")
> [@michigan](#): > > Beyond “I’m begging you” (which we probably agree will never be offered as evidence in this case") can you cite other examples of evidence that might support the charge of malice or depraved indifference? Does “'effin punks” or “these a-ho’s always get away”? The biggest helper in that regard would be evidence that he was motivated by racial animus. This might appear in his text messages, about which we know very little. Even without “I’m begging,” a witness that could show Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was backing away, arms up, or while Martin was on the ground and Zimmerman over him, would support that finding. > [@](#): > > By the way, sounding angry was my words (not the girl’s words), based on my recollections. Is there some way she could have characterized what she heard in GZ’s voice, apart from content, that would be evidence of malice or depraved indifference? What of her claim that it was Martin she heard saying “Get off, get off”-- ? Yes, that – combined with other evidence – could help such a finding. The idea is that the prosecution needs to show that Zimmerman acted out of an ugly, malicious, ill intent. A pursuit of the fight where the other person is trying to disengage is consistent with that. ---
**Author:** ![michigan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@michigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/michigan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1905 "2012-05-22T13:12:47Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Since this is an opinion forum my personal opinion is I don’t really care about opinions on this case and only care about discussions involving the actual law. It is my opinion that a lot of important issues have been exposed or generated by the Trayvon Martin shooting that merit discussion. I’m not interested in insults or fights, but I do want to hear people’s opinions about the implications of the case beyond narrow readings of the law as it governs this case. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1906 "2012-05-22T13:13:03Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Who’s to say that Martin hauled off and attacked Zimmerman _without provocation_? I’m not aware of anyone claiming that. What I understood you to be saying was that Zimmerman getting out of his car to ask Martin what he was up to constituted “initiating the conflict”, and that therefore Martin was entitled to use violence, or that Zimmerman was legally or morally responsible for the fight. That’s nonsense. > [@](#): > > Ask yourself this: Who has the violent past? Who was booked on charges for beating women? Who killed a guy and didn’t bother calling for an ambulance? If you want to play that game, you need to ask if it was the drug-dealing thief and gangsta wannabe. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1907 "2012-05-22T13:13:38Z")
Keep in mind this whole series of Trayvon threads started with someone asking why Zimmerman wasn’t arrested right away and then after he had been arrested involved lengthy discussions on the likelihood of his conviction for 2nd Degree Murder. It’s disingenuous for people to posit opinions about either of those things and then when shown their opinions collide with the fact, for those people to hide behind the fact this is in IMHO. I’m more starting to wish this thread had been started in GD so people couldn’t hide behind the venue. If someone is solely talking about their opinion on whether Zimmerman was doing something morally objectionable, that’s fine, but it’s disingenuous for people to make legal arguments and claims but then say “hey I’m just saying Zimmerman deserves punishment, not making a legal argument or claim.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1908 "2012-05-22T13:16:50Z")
> [@michigan](#): > > I share many people’s view that George Zimmerman created a situation that night so terrible that he should face some consequences for his actions. Without wishing to undermine any person’s right to self-defense, it is frustrating that Florida law may be so constructed that he won’t face any consequences, or that human error (like an inadequate police investigation or the wrong charges being brought) may mean that George Zimmerman is returned to the streets with the right to buy yet another handgun. > > I appreciate, however, hearing from legal experts here about just exactly what the law is. > > What has been socially difficult is the “hah-hah” triumphalism of many defenders of George Zimmerman at the idea that he will be acquitted. I hope I am not imagining things when I imagine that most people in real life, if they had discovered they had killed an unarmed teenager of any color, even if it was in the course of trying to protect their community and themselves, they would have been filled with anguish. It is my understanding that even cops who kill someone in the line of duty with a clear knowledge they shot a criminal are nonetheless filled with grief. > > I get it that people were annoyed that a too-angelic picture of Trayvon Martin was put forward to manipulate public opinion, and that many believe George Zimmerman was the victim of character assasination and pre-judged to the point of having his life threatened. But Trayvon Martin will never be able to speak in his own defense – including telling us what was in his mind when he punched George Zimmerman that night – and plainly to me his death was a needless tragedy for which George Zimmerman is primarily responsible, even if Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense correctly exonerates him of legal responsibility in a court of law. It’s possible for me to accept that George Zimmerman is “not guilty” and still want to prevent what he did from ever happening again. Really good post. And I agree. I think the problem is Florida’s law. I’m horrified at the needless death of a teenager. And I can’t understand either why there’s a triumphant tone associated with Zimmerman’s seeming legal immunity – it results from a law that’s foolish, shortsighted, and upends ordinary criminal procedure. I am also horrified at the seeming willingness that some people have to react to that tragedy by creating another: advocating punishing Zimmerman regardless of what the law says. We can’t become a society that does that. ---
**Author:** ![michigan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@michigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/michigan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1909 "2012-05-22T13:20:13Z")
Do you think that the fact that so little or Trayvon’s Martin’s blood was found on GZ, or that the position in which Martin’s body was found, is some indication that Martin had disengaged from the altercation before the shot? If I’m not mistaken, a post-shooting analysis of the gun revealed no indication that Martin had touched it, yet GZ claims Martin saw it – which suggests to me that Martin might have partially retreated from a position of dominating Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1910 "2012-05-22T13:23:54Z")
The forensics that have been released indicated it was a very close shot, with one report saying there were indications that the barrel of the gun may have been touching or nearly touching a piece of Martin’s clothing when it was fired (but not pressed against his body.) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1911 "2012-05-22T13:26:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am also horrified at the seeming willingness that some people have to react to that tragedy by creating another: advocating punishing Zimmerman regardless of what the law says. We can’t become a society that does that. I am equally dismayed by the certainty of some that the only way Zimmerman could be convicted is if the law is subverted. ---
**Author:** ![michigan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@michigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/michigan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1912 "2012-05-22T13:32:28Z")
I think that people have been unwilling to concede that Zimmerman might be entiteld to his self-defense claim under the law because of the long and verifiable history of a bias in the application of the law in which black death is treated more lightly than white death, and accused black people face harsher conseuquences than whites. So the Trayvon Martin case briefly appeared to be a moment in which some of that history – which is denied by too many people – could be acknowledged, and we’d move from there. It is fair to say, I think, that black families have a real, actual stake in having that problem acknowledged by the larger society. I too find myself clinging to straws that this case might turn out – in the courtroom – as ascribing some responsibility to Zimmerman for his actions, and should it be proved that he acted out of racism, not self-defense, I hope everyone will accept that he is fully responsible. I realy don’t wish to deprive George Zimmerman of full rights to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, or an acquittal under Florida statues if the state cannot meet its burden. I don’t think George Zimmerman should be made to pay for wrongs he didn’t commit. I don’t want to live in that kind of politicized society. I’m just giving an account of my own inner resistance to let it go, despite all the pundiitry that predicts he will walk away. I think many ill-intended will see it as a victory against anybody who ever raised the issue of the terrible situation many black people (including children) face because they are constantly under suspicion and often the entire legal establishments works against them with extreme bias. ---
**Author:** ![michigan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@michigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/michigan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1913 "2012-05-22T13:34:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The forensics that have been released indicated it was a very close shot, with one report saying there were indications that the barrel of the gun may have been touching or nearly touching a piece of Martin’s clothing when it was fired (but not pressed against his body.) It seems possible to me that Martin could have disengaged and was retreating from his straddle, and that GZ reached forward with the gun to close the distance. ---
**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:** [May 22, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1914 "2012-05-22T13:43:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am also horrified at the seeming willingness that some people have to react to that tragedy by creating another: advocating punishing Zimmerman regardless of what the law says. We can’t become a society that does that. This is my concern about this case, and I will add that in my opinion abandoning the process of law because we don’t like the outcome in one particular case would be a far greater tragedy than the death of one person, because it puts everyone at risk. If the law is wrong, even grievously so, the correct action is to change it going forward, not to ignore it, or for that matter to retroactively criminalise behaviour that is specifically legal at the moment. All that said, if Zimmerman’s story is true, and he was attacked without provocation and was having his head pounded into concrete, it is my opinion that he had a moral right to use lethal force to defend himself. ---
**Author:** ![michigan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@michigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/michigan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1915 "2012-05-22T13:45:06Z")
I’m pretty sure, as a matter of law, GZ’s past record of arrests and testimony about his character could yet be introduced into the trial if the judge rules it is relevant without opening any door to discussion of Trayvon’s past and character The judge indicated in the bail hearing that he was not inclined to consider GZ’s past record of arrests relevant to GZ being a flight risk, but I’m not sure that indicates he will automatically prevent the prosecution from bringing it up if they can show it is relevant to their meeting their burden. I assume others know the law better than I do in this respect. The defense lawyer has already said he has no plans to make Trayvon Martin’s history or character an issue for the defense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1916 "2012-05-22T13:51:43Z")
> [@michigan](#): > > I’m pretty sure, as a matter of law, GZ’s past record of arrests and testimony about his character could yet be introduced into the trial if the judge rules it is relevant without opening any door to discussion of Trayvon’s past and character The judge indicated in the bail hearing that he was not inclined to consider GZ’s past record of arrests relevant to GZ being a flight risk, but I’m not sure that indicates he will automatically prevent the prosecution from bringing it up if they can show it is relevant to their meeting their burden. I assume others know the law better than I do in this respect. > > The defense lawyer has already said he has no plans to make Trayvon Martin’s history or character an issue for the defense. Actually, while it’s true that the two issues are not connected, I don’t see any possible way Zimmerman’s past record of arrests could be introduced during the prosecution’s case-in-chief. In the fake cross-examination thread, I authored [this explanation](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15017075&postcount=276) about prior bad acts and their admissibility: [QUOTE=Bricker] The issue here involves what’s often called 404(b) evidence, after the section of the evidence code defining it: prior bad acts and their admissibility. In general, you can’t bring up something bad the defendant did in the past for the purpose of arguing to the jury, “See? He acted like that before, so we know he probably did the same thing now!” There are exceptions to this general rule. You can bring in prior felony convictions, but only for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s credibility. That is, you can say to the jury, “Don’t believe him; he’s a thrice-convicted felon, so of course he’s ready to lie on the stand.” You can bring up prior bad acts to show a common plan, scheme, or motive. There’s a lot of detail about this that I’ll leave out for now, but in general the idea is that if the accused had some sort of ‘signature’ or some very unusual twist or practice, you could bring up his prior instances and show that the same thing occurred in the present case. Finally, there’s absence of mistake. A shoplifting accusation might be met with the defense of, “I honestly forgot I had those in my hand when I walked out of the store.” If that defense is made, the prosecution can introduce prior shoplifting convictions and argue to the jury that a mistake like that in unlikely from someone who has already been accused and convicted of shoplifting before. [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![michigan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@michigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/michigan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1917 "2012-05-22T13:56:39Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > All that said, if Zimmerman’s story is true, and he was attacked without provocation and was having his head pounded into concrete, it is my opinion that he had a moral right to use lethal force to defend himself. I basically agree with everything you posted, but if I understand SYG correctly, it removes “the duty to retreat” from a person faced with a life-threatening situation. Morality aside, I would prefer that people who have a clear opportunity to retreat from a lethal situation be required to do so by law. It may be shown that in this situation that GZ didn’t have that opportunity, but I don’t want a law that removes the duty to retreat if that option is available to a person who thinks another is threatening them, and especially one that positively blocks the state from bringing the matter to a full trial. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1918 "2012-05-22T13:56:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I am equally dismayed by the certainty of some that the only way Zimmerman could be convicted is if the law is subverted. I suppose there’s some suggestion of that feeling around, but unlike the reverse, it has a basis: that on the strength of the evidence thus far made public, it’s a true statement. Zimmerman can’t be convicted unless the law is subverted. Anyone who makes that statement without the qualifier is, I agree, worthy of your dismay. We simply don’t know what the prosecution has that isn’t public. As one example, I’ve mentioned the text messages, which could contain admissions against interest that could prove the case against Zimmerman. So I don’t think anyone should claim that Zimmerman can’t be convicted without subverting the law, period. But I do think it’s a fair comment – if somewhat meaningless – to observe that based on the available public evidence, he could not be. ---
**Author:** ![michigan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@michigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/michigan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1919 "2012-05-22T14:00:04Z")
thanks again, Bricker, for the explanation. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1920 "2012-05-22T14:03:04Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Well isn’t this telling. If only those uppity niggers would learn to talk right, huh? Why don’t you go ahead and throw in a watermelon or two and complete the stereotype. > > By the way, I’ve heard Martin’s mother, father and brother interviewed on TV and they sound downright … white, to put it in your terms. But, hey, as long as it makes you feel good to paint Martin as some thug negro who couldn’t string three words together, that’s what’s important. It is so typical that someone who is losing an argument will accuse the other person of being a racist. I point out that Trayvon doesn’t speak Standard English based on his twitter feed and you say that other people in his family speak Standard English. I think the fact that he was suspended three time from school indicate that he was having difficulties. You apparently aren’t familiar with idea that all the children in the same family don’t turn out the same. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/1921 "2012-05-22T14:03:20Z")
> [@michigan](#): > > Do you think that the fact that so little or Trayvon’s Martin’s blood was found on GZ, or that the position in which Martin’s body was found, is some indication that Martin had disengaged from the altercation before the shot? > > If I’m not mistaken, a post-shooting analysis of the gun revealed no indication that Martin had touched it, yet GZ claims Martin saw it – which suggests to me that Martin might have partially retreated from a position of dominating Zimmerman. Well, it’s possible. In general, entrance wounds bleed very little compared to exit wounds, so I wouldn’t say it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it can be cumulative evidence that Martin had stepped back or was retreating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=95) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=97)