# Pitting the Zimmerman trial circus **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 13, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419 "2013-07-13T19:53:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/301 "2013-07-14T21:58:35Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > How can it possibly be twisted logic when that’s _ **precisely** _ what happened to Trayvon Martin? Wrong. Again. ---
**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 14, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/302 "2013-07-14T21:59:09Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Fair enough. > > Apology accepted. > > Few people are willing to apologize for or admit they made mistakes on the internet so I’ll sincerely congratulate you for doing so. Thankyou. > [@](#): > > Also, I do think you’re completely wrong regarding the Till case and naive if you think the jury would have convicted had the prosecution done a better job. White southern juries back then had no problem with blacks getting murdered by whites, but I’ll retract my other statements and apologize for them. I specifically said in one of my posts I thought the jury would still have acquitted if the prosecution had done their job. Having read some interviews with them, several openly said that the punishment they’d have got if convicted was too harsh for the killing of a black man. That doesn’t change my opinion that they could not have honestly considered them guilty based solely on the evidence presented in court. One thing that came of the Emmett Till case (among other things) was sweeping judicial reform. If enough people think the result of _this_ case is bad enough, they can effect change once again. I think it’s obvious where I stand on that issue, but ultimately people decide the laws they live under. ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/303 "2013-07-14T22:02:36Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > It’s very clear, isn’t it? Not to some folks… Zimmerman has some injuries = Trayvon Martin attacked him for no reason and nearly beat him to death. It’s evidence that supports that theory. It is _not_ proof that that theory is true. You still seem confused between the two. > [@](#): > > My favorite logical wackitude I think is “Jeantel said Martin said he was near his father’s house. THEREFORE: Martin was \*\*\*at \*\*\*home, left home to find Zimmerman and attack him for no reason.” She said he told her he was “right by” the house. Not “near”. How do you account for Martin being where he was found, when he was earlier right by the house, if he didn’t go back under his own power? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/304 "2013-07-14T22:03:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > He was never instructed not to follow him… Google “Zimmerman instructed not to follow”. Read the first 100 or so results. Get back to me. > [@](#): > > …Nope, he was entitled to be armed. It makes no difference to whether his actions were reasonable or reckless… Are you fucking serious? It makes “no difference if his actions were reasonable or reckless”? On what planet? > [@](#): > > …It could have happened like that. It could also have been space aliens that broke his nose. Both possibilities are equally supported by the evidence… Except for the guy who testified he told Z about the “stand your ground” defense. > **[Zimmerman Studied ‘Stand Your Ground’ in Class, Florida Court Is Told...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/witnesses-tell-of-zimmermans-interest-in-law-enforcement.html?_r=0)** > > Prosecutors contrasted testimony with George Zimmerman’s contention in an interview that he had never heard of the deadly force law. > [@](#): > > …The gun was not holstered behind his back. It was at his right hip… Where Martin would have seen it? And then decided to get into a fist fight with a guy with a gun? Huh? You buy that? Seriously? > [@](#): > > …Well then, it must have been the space aliens again, as there was none of Zimmerman’s DNA on the gun either… We’re pretty sure about his handling the gun, because, well, he said so. > [@](#): > > …He was not told to do that, and indeed spoke to no-one with authority to tell him to do that… See citations above. Yes, he did speak with them and yes, they told him to back off. > [@](#): > > …and in your claim that he didn’t stop following when he was advised to. Advice he was give for his own safety, not because he should not have followed him. But you just said he _wasn’t_ told not to follow. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/305 "2013-07-14T22:08:11Z")
[_Washington Post_ reports:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-says-it-will-consider-whether-to-file-civil-rights-charges-in-zimmerman-case/2013/07/14/ad73c76c-ecc0-11e2-b46e-f15eec37b46c_story.html) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Sunday it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors will file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. > > The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. > > In a statement, the Justice Department said the criminal section of its civil rights division, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida are continuing to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal probe, in addition to the evidence and testimony from the state trial. Boy, does that take you back! Like, to [_Mississippi Burning._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Burning) ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/306 "2013-07-14T22:12:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Google “Zimmerman instructed not to follow”. Read the first 100 or so results. Get back to me. Google “Zimmerman NEN transcript”. Read the first, er, one result. Then realise I’m correct. > [@](#): > > Are you fucking serious? It makes “no difference if his actions were reasonable or reckless”? On what planet? That’s not what I wrote. I wrote “Nope, he was entitled to be armed. It makes no difference \*\*to \*\*whether his actions were reasonable or reckless”. Only a small difference in letters, but worlds away in meaning. > [@](#): > > Except for the guy who testified he told Z about the “stand your ground” defense. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/witnesses-tell-of-zimmermans-interest-in-law-enforcement.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/witnesses-tell-of-zimmermans-interest-in-law-enforcement.html?_r=0) How is that evidence Zimmerman broke his own nose? > [@](#): > > Where Martin would have seen it? And then decided to get into a fist fight with a guy with a gun? Huh? You buy that? Seriously? No, I’m of the understanding that his gun was concealed, as that’s the law, and as I’ve no reason to think otherwise. If what I’ve seen is correct, his gun was on his right hip, just towards the rear. If you imagine his waist is a clock, with 12 forward, the gun would be at about 4. Covered by his jacket. > [@](#): > > We’re pretty sure about his handling the gun, because, well, he said so. Yes, but he’s a lying liar who lies, and as there’s no DNA on the gun, he can’t have touched it… So, space aliens. > [@](#): > > See citations above. Yes, he did speak with them and yes, they told him to back off. Nope. The dispatcher did not have authority to order him not to follow, and did not in fact so order. Did you look at the transcription? When Zimmerman confirms he’s following the suspicious person, the dispatcher tells him “We don’t need you to do that”. No command, nor order, in fact just a passive statement. Zimmerman acknowledged that, he replied “OK”, the appears to either slow down or stop, judging by the ambient noise and by his breathing. > [@](#): > > But you just said he _wasn’t_ told not to follow. Correct. ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/307 "2013-07-14T22:14:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **Stoid** , why are you still clinging to the notion that Zimmerman lied about what happened, despite all the evidence presented at the trial that supported him? I’m tellin’ ya, Steophan, you are comedy! One more time, with feeling: what you see as supporting evidence, others see as either untrue or evidence supporting an entirely different conclusion. So while you point at something as proof of X, others see in it proof of Y. Your profound inability to see or even imagine anything outside your belief system and your perspective will always prevent you from comprehending or even recognizing the existence of anything that doesn’t fit inside that belief system and perspective, which will lead to you repeatedly asking questions that have been answered, quite literally, _ **dozens** _ of times. I imagine it’s all very puzzling for you. My sympathies, I hate when that happens. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/308 "2013-07-14T22:18:03Z")
So, the whole of your point is that when he was told “We don’t need you to do that”, the clear meaning of those words is “Gee, damned nice of you to offer, but we don’t need that, but if you want to, well, heck, go ahead and thanks, citizen!”? Seriously? You actually believe that? ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/309 "2013-07-14T22:21:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, the whole of your point is that when he was told “We don’t need you to do that”, the clear meaning of those words is “Gee, damned nice of you to offer, but we don’t need that, but if you want to, well, heck, go ahead and thanks, citizen!”? > > Seriously? You actually believe that? What do _you_ think it means? I think it means that the dispatcher thinks it would be a bad idea for Zimmerman to get involved - certainly that’s borne out by the injuries he received - and that he’s advising him not to. What else could it be? It’s not a command, he’s not telling him what to do. Why would he? That’s not what he’s there for. ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/310 "2013-07-14T22:26:16Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’m tellin’ ya, Steophan, you are comedy! > > One more time, with feeling: what you see as supporting evidence, others see as either untrue or evidence supporting an entirely different conclusion. So while you point at something as proof of X, others see in it proof of Y. No, they don’t. They ignore the evidence, and claim their speculation as truth, just like you’re doing. > [@](#): > > Your profound inability to see or even imagine anything outside your belief system and your perspective will always prevent you from comprehending or even recognizing the existence of anything that doesn’t fit inside that belief system and perspective, which will lead to you repeatedly asking questions that have been answered, quite literally, _ **dozens** _ of times. Nope, you’ve not once laid out a plausible scenario which fits the evidence where Zimmerman murders Martin. You’ve tried, but in all cases you have (hilariously) failed to consider the evidence _and_ failed to create a scenario where he’s guilty. > [@](#): > > I imagine it’s all very puzzling for you. My sympathies, I hate when that happens. Ha ha not even slightly. They are doing it because they consider their opinions to be of more worth than the law, than the facts, and than reality. It’s not at all puzzling, just stupid. It does not surprise me that you are familiar with being puzzled, though. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/311 "2013-07-14T22:29:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What do _you_ think it means? I think it means that the dispatcher thinks it would be a bad idea for Zimmerman to get involved - certainly that’s borne out by the injuries he received - and that he’s advising him not to. > > What else could it be? It’s not a command, he’s not telling him what to do. Why would he? That’s not what he’s there for. In fact, when asked, the dispatcher explicitly said it was not a command, they are not allowed to give commands to people. ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/312 "2013-07-14T22:37:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In fact, when asked, the dispatcher explicitly said it was not a command, they are not allowed to give commands to people. It’s just more people flailing around trying (and failing) to show Zimmerman did something wrong, as opposed to stupid, before Martin attacked him. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/313 "2013-07-14T22:42:56Z")
> **[Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police](https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman/?embed=1)** Whereupon he said “OK”, that he would comply, and goes on further to discuss with the dispatcher where he would meet the police. He gave the dispatcher every indication that he would follow the “advice”. But then he didn’t. Notice how he gives such excellent location instructions, addresses, the works. But then, later… > **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. > [@](#): > > …Zimmerman told the police officer that he lost track of Martin and got out of his truck to look for a street name he could relay to police dispatcher… He’s apparently lying. He makes up a story about seeking to comply with the officers’s “advice”, but he already told the dispatcher precisely where he was! ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/314 "2013-07-14T22:49:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Someone putting a hand on you (even if that happened, and you have absolutely no evidence it did) does not qualify. It’s amazing that you’ve spent the better part of what, eighteen months? arguing this, and you still fail to get it. Whether the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm is a question of fact for the jury. There is no point of law holding that “someone putting a hand on you . . . does not qualify.” A defendant very well could contend that, and if the jury believed that the circumstances of this “putting hands on” were such that a reasonable person would feel he or she faced imminent serious bodily harm, then an adequate claim of self-defense has been made. Now, my expectation would be that this would be a very tough sell to any given jury, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that some set of circumstances would support of a finding of a reasonable fear of SBH from having someone put hands on you, and there certainly is no legal bar that prevents this from being the predicate act to a viable claim of self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/315 "2013-07-14T22:58:48Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > It’s amazing that you’ve spent the better part of what, eighteen months? arguing this, and you still fail to get it. > > Whether the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm is a question of fact for the jury. There is no point of law holding that “someone putting a hand on you . . . does not qualify.” A defendant very well could contend that, and if the jury believed that the circumstances of this “putting hands on” were such that a reasonable person would feel he or she faced imminent serious bodily harm, then an adequate claim of self-defense has been made. Again, good luck arguing to the jury that “he touched me, and that caused me to fear serious bodily harm”. In fact, I think that if you did that, and somehow found jury that was dumb enough to convict, it would be overturned in a JMOL since the jury clearly was not reasonable. ---
**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 14, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/316 "2013-07-14T23:00:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Whereupon he said “OK”, that he would comply, and goes on further to discuss with the dispatcher where he would meet the police. He gave the dispatcher every indication that he would follow the “advice”. > > But then he didn’t. > > Notice how he gives such excellent location instructions, addresses, the works. Have you listened to the tape? You can hear him struggling to give directions, then asking the dispatcher to get the police to call him. Why do you keep saying he didn’t follow the advice? > [@](#): > > He’s apparently lying. He makes up a story about seeking to comply with the officers’s “advice”, but he already told the dispatcher precisely where he was! Ha ha, no, no that’s not what happened. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and your theory has been shown to be nonsense. Fortunately, anyone who wants can listen to the call and see. ---
**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 14, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/317 "2013-07-14T23:02:16Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Again, good luck arguing to the jury that “he touched me, and that caused me to fear serious bodily harm”. > > In fact, I think that if you did that, and somehow found jury that was dumb enough to convict, it would be overturned in a JMOL since the jury clearly was not reasonable. **Kimmy** is right here, and in fact I’d go further. It can be legitimate self defence even if there’s no physical contact whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/318 "2013-07-14T23:07:04Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > A rigorous fact finding would be necessary for a conviction in a court of law. > > For my own opinion, based on what I’ve read, I am sure he committed those crimes. He’s a violent, impulsive man who has been in trouble with the law, and will be in trouble again. Is there a time frame you’d be comfortable betting on? Say if he’s not in legal trouble from some new incident in the next two years, you lose? Or what kind of time frame are you talking about, specifically? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/319 "2013-07-14T23:08:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Again, good luck arguing to the jury that “he touched me, and that caused me to fear serious bodily harm”. > > In fact, I think that if you did that, and somehow found jury that was dumb enough to convict, it would be overturned in a JMOL since the jury clearly was not reasonable. Here’s how I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. A guilty verdict can be annulled JNOV (and by the way, not JMOL, as that term applies to motions for summary judgment). Acquittals never can. This is hornbook Seventh Amendment law. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/320 "2013-07-14T23:10:36Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Here’s how I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. A guilty verdict can be annulled JNOV. Acquittals never can. This is hornbook Seventh Amendment law. My mistake, for some reason I thought that you were talking about a conviction (as you can see from my “dumb enough to convict” statement). As for your scenario, yes, jury nullification is always possible. So is a meteor strike. But you don’t count on either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=17)