# Martin / Zimmerman police angle **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 15, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583 "2013-07-15T19:19:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/101 "2013-07-16T22:15:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If they are, then they are making an error – the law does not permit you in this instance to assume that if someone were alive, they’d say such-and-so. Yes, naturally the courts don’t let one conjure helpful testimony into the mouth of the deceased. And Zimmerman’s testimony is, legally, evidence. But where its not corroborated by other witnesses or the physical evidence I see no reason to give it any weight whatsoever. Unless I’ve missed something the only evidence of who started the fight is Zimmerman’s testimony and so I understand the frustration in the pro-Martin camp at some people treating Zimmerman’s unsupported word as gospel just because Martin can’t give his side of the story. And acting as if Zimmerman’s (IMO legally correct) acquittal is some type of governmental endorsement of his story. ---
**Author:** ![Strainger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strainger/32/244_2.png) [@Strainger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strainger)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/102 "2013-07-16T22:15:14Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > His point would be a “good one” if he could give some indication, even one news story, of a “young black man” ever being mistreated by the cops that came to investigate after he called them. One. Is “old black woman” close enough? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7IilhFG2o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7IilhFG2o) ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/103 "2013-07-16T22:16:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, let me lay it out in a bit more detail: > > There is evidence that Trayvon did not follow the law: Zimmerman’s broken nose, and Zimmerman’s testimony as to the cause of that broken nose. > > We know to a reasonable degree of certainty that the broken nose preceded the dead teenager, and was caused by the teenager before he died. > > And Zimmerman’s evidence says that in response to the broken nose, he feared serious bodily injury and used deadly force. > > So that evidence addresses the dead teenager. If believed, it exonerates Zimmerman from criminal liability for the dead teenager. > > So when you say there’s evidence that Zimmerman broke the law: dead teenager – that’s not a complete statement. Not every dead teenager is the end result of a broken law. Teenagers can be killed by people acting legally. There was evidence to indicate that Zimmerman was such a person. There is evidence that Trayvon did not follow the law, but only evidence. Is it evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Hmmmm… Nobody has examined that question that I know of. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/104 "2013-07-16T22:18:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From a legal standpoint that is not evidence. Again I point out to you that if Zimmerman were on trial for assaulting Martin, you must surely understand that you could not convict him if your only evidence were, “Well, Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result.” You’d have to show by some physical or testimonial evidence that such an action actually happened. You could not convict Zimmerman of assault if your only evidence was that Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result. An I want to point out to you (and Shodan) that just because Zimmerman was found innocent does NOT mean that Trayvon was guilty. Do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/105 "2013-07-16T22:22:16Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Bull shit, the only thing determined at that trial was that there was not sufficient evidence to find Zimmerman guilty; there was nothing said about the guilt of Trayvon. > This is what is pissing me off on your stance, we have found at the trial that Zimmerman obeyed the law, he was found innocent by a jury of his peers. This says ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING about whether Trayvon did anything wrong that night. No jury has been asked to examine the evidence of whether Trayvon committed any crime. Right? That’s correct. The moment you move from “There’s insufficient evidence Zimmerman committed a crime,” to “This proves Martin committed a crime,” you shift the burden. Now it’s Martin that’s entitled to the reasonable doubt burden in his favor. Now, there is a legally sufficient case to be made that Martin committed aggravated battery. But no jury has weighed that claim or spoken to it… and merely being “legally sufficient” does not in any way mean it’s convincing. > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > An I want to point out to you (and Shodan) that just because Zimmerman was found innocent does NOT mean that Trayvon was guilty. Do you agree? Absolutely. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/106 "2013-07-16T22:27:45Z")
> [@Strainger](#): > > Is “old black woman” close enough? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7IilhFG2o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7IilhFG2o) Yay you found one. To counter the claim that if she was white, this wouldn’t happen - here is the case of a white guy this happened to: [http://beatyourselfup.com/post/49495539142/a-man-comes-home-to-find-his-son-dead-he-calls](http://beatyourselfup.com/post/49495539142/a-man-comes-home-to-find-his-son-dead-he-calls) ---
**Author:** ![Strainger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strainger/32/244_2.png) [@Strainger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strainger)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/107 "2013-07-16T22:36:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yay you found one. To counter the claim that if she was white, this wouldn’t happen - here is the case of a white guy this happened to: [http://beatyourselfup.com/post/49495539142/a-man-comes-home-to-find-his-son-dead-he-calls](http://beatyourselfup.com/post/49495539142/a-man-comes-home-to-find-his-son-dead-he-calls) True. That’s why I recommend not calling the police, regardless of your race. ---
**Author:** ![Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crocodiles_And_Boulevards)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/108 "2013-07-16T22:40:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. But in this case, we know the order in which the injuries were received: first the broken nose, then the shot to the chest. That places Martin’s attack on Zimmerman first. > > Now, if you wish to postulate an even earlier attack by Zimmerman upon Marin, you must have the evidence. What is it? > > From a legal standpoint that is not evidence. Again I point out to you that if Zimmerman were on trial for assaulting Martin, you must surely understand that you could not convict him if your only evidence were, “Well, Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result.” You’d have to show by some physical or testimonial evidence that such an action actually happened. You could not convict Zimmerman of assault if your only evidence was that Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result. > > Could you? How would one provide evidence that an earlier assault (pulling a gun and aiming it at Trayvon) occurred prior to the punch and tackle? Given a lack of conclusively solid eyewitnesses other than Zimmerman himself. Such an assault would not leave physical markings. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/109 "2013-07-16T22:46:51Z")
> [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](#): > > How would one provide evidence that an earlier assault (pulling a gun and aiming it at Trayvon) occurred prior to the punch and tackle? Given a lack of conclusively solid eyewitnesses other than Zimmerman himself. Such an assault would not leave physical markings. It couldn’t. If the only people that saw it happen are dead or not admitting it, then you can’t show it happened. Which is my point: it can’t be shown. But you see (I hope) the problems in saying, “This happened, and my proof is that I can’t prove it.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/110 "2013-07-16T23:17:17Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Regardless of this opinion, I agree that once the confrontation became physical, Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot Trayvon. BUT, Trayvon was also within his rights to shoot Zimmerman, (or punch Zimmerman and bash his head into the curb) IF Zimmerman was the first to use physical force in the confrontation. Bricker / Shodan, do you agree? This wasn’t addressed to me, but I would respond by saying that it depends on what you mean by “became physical.” Force used must be proportional to the threat. If Z grabbed him, shoved him, or even slapped him, then Martin can respond in kind. However, he can’t respond to non-deadly force with deadly force (and bashing someone’s head into the sidewalk is deadly force). So, unless you have evidence that Z committed far more than even a simple battery on Martin, then Martin’s response was disproportionate and put Z in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. ---
**Author:** ![Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crocodiles_And_Boulevards)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/111 "2013-07-16T23:22:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It couldn’t. If the only people that saw it happen are dead or not admitting it, then you can’t show it happened. > > Which is my point: it can’t be shown. > > But you see (I hope) the problems in saying, “This happened, and my proof is that I can’t prove it.” Ah, I see. You’re simply distinguishing between the theories and the actual available (and admitted) evidence. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/112 "2013-07-17T00:05:25Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This wasn’t addressed to me, but I would respond by saying that it depends on what you mean by “became physical.” Force used must be proportional to the threat. If Z grabbed him, shoved him, or even slapped him, then Martin can respond in kind. However, he can’t respond to non-deadly force with deadly force (and bashing someone’s head into the sidewalk is deadly force). > > So, unless you have evidence that Z committed far more than even a simple battery on Martin, then Martin’s response was disproportionate and put Z in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. There is no evidence that TM used deadly force on GZ. The only pieces of evidence of deadly force in this case is the gun and the gunshot wound in a young man’s chest. A bloody nose and some scratches don’t belong in the same universe, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/113 "2013-07-17T00:53:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. But in this case, we know the order in which the injuries were received: first the broken nose, then the shot to the chest. That places Martin’s attack on Zimmerman first. No it doesn’t. It just means Trayvon manage to harm Zimmerman more before Zimmerman killed him. > [@](#): > > Now, if you wish to postulate an even earlier attack by Zimmerman upon Marin, you must have the evidence. What is it? The evidence is that Zimmerman was acting irrationally and chasing a teenager because Zimmerman thought the unknown teenager was a criminal, even though Martin had done nothing wrong or acted in a suspicious way at all. There is no credible evidence that Martin was acting irrationally. There is absolute evidence that Zimmerman was acting irrationally. > [@](#): > > From a legal standpoint that is not evidence. Again I point out to you that if Zimmerman were on trial for assaulting Martin, you must surely understand that you could not convict him if your only evidence were, “Well, Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result.” You’d have to show by some physical or testimonial evidence that such an action actually happened. You could not convict Zimmerman of assault if your only evidence was that Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result. > > Could you? Now here we begin to agree. There was no physical or eyewitness testimony about which one started the fight. However you assume that Martin did despite the evidence that Zimmerman was irrational, feared Trayvon Martin as soon as he saw him, and in the end killed him without a reasonable basis. Now why given the lack of evidence about who actually assaulted who do you assume it was Trayvon Martin assaulting George Zimmerman. There is no evidence or even rational basis to believe that. Where is your case where a teenager assaulted a strange man who was following him for no apparent reason? This is the key, because it shows that Zimmerman is not credible, and his story is not to be believed. BTW: If you’re interested, I don’t see how a jury could convict Zimmerman based on the prosecution’s evidence. I think the prosecution did a better job of defending Zimmerman than his own attorneys did. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/114 "2013-07-17T03:40:28Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Now here we begin to agree. There was no physical or eyewitness testimony about which one started the fight. However you assume that Martin did despite the evidence that Zimmerman was irrational, feared Trayvon Martin as soon as he saw him, and in the end killed him without a reasonable basis. The six jurors, unanimously, after hearing the evidence presented over weeks of the trial, found that he killed him with reasonable basis. > [@](#): > > BTW: If you’re interested, I don’t see how a jury could convict Zimmerman based on the prosecution’s evidence. Yes, because of reasonable basis for the killing. Now can you explain what evidence you think prosecution missed that would remove that “reasonable basis” from jury’s minds? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/115 "2013-07-17T04:09:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The six jurors, unanimously, after hearing the evidence presented over weeks of the trial, found that he killed him with reasonable basis. The trial verdict is not in question. > [@](#): > > Yes, because of reasonable basis for the killing. Now can you explain what evidence you think prosecution missed that would remove that “reasonable basis” from jury’s minds? There is no reasonable basis for the killing. Teenage boys don’t attack strangers they think are following them. And the only person who says that one did is George Zimmerman, who decided for no rational reason that Trayvon Martin was a criminal just before he killed him. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/116 "2013-07-17T04:15:41Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > There is no reasonable basis for the killing. The jury thought there was. All six of them. Unanimously. In your post you seem to agree with their decision, based on the evidence presented to them. So - what evidence do you think the prosecution missed that would remove that “reasonable basis” from jury’s decision? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/117 "2013-07-17T12:10:02Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > An I want to point out to you (and Shodan) that just because Zimmerman was found innocent does NOT mean that Trayvon was guilty. Do you agree? Zimmerman was not found innocent. Aparr from that, you are correct - Martin was not found guilty in a court of law. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/118 "2013-07-17T12:17:11Z")
> [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](#): > > How would one provide evidence that an earlier assault (pulling a gun and aiming it at Trayvon) occurred prior to the punch and tackle? One would point out that, if Zimmerman had his gun aimed at Martin before Martin attacked him, one would expect that Martin would have been shot a lot sooner - that Zimmerman would probably not wait until after Martin pounded his head against the pavement several times. > [@Tripolar](#): > > Teenage boys don’t attack strangers they think are following them. Cite? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/119 "2013-07-17T13:50:45Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Teenage boys don’t attack strangers they think are following them. And the only person who says that one did is George Zimmerman, who decided for no rational reason that Trayvon Martin was a criminal just before he killed him. Suppose you were to learn that Zimmerman approached Martin and said to him, “Hey, what are you doing here? You don’t belong here – this isn’t your neighborhood, and we don’t like criminal thugs like you around here. Fucking punk! Go back to whatever crime-hole you climbed out of!” Would that, in your mind, make Martin’s physical attack on Zimmerman at least plausible? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583/120 "2013-07-17T14:38:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose you were to learn that Zimmerman approached Martin and said to him, “Hey, what are you doing here? You don’t belong here – this isn’t your neighborhood, and we don’t like criminal thugs like you around here. Fucking punk! Go back to whatever crime-hole you climbed out of!” > > Would that, in your mind, make Martin’s physical attack on Zimmerman at least plausible? Yes. Because that would be an assault. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-police-angle/663583.md?page=7)