# 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:** 22
**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 15, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/421 "2013-07-15T17:27:33Z")
> [@Lunchy](#): > > If I could only find the news article that said The Martin family told CBS news that their son was 6’2’’ and between 140 and 160 lbs. The fact most photos I’ve seen him in, (at his oldest anyway) he seems to be head and neck taller than some people, and always taller than anyone else (even males), add to the fact the medical examiner can’t get his facts straight, lead me to believe he’s over 6 foot. I’m not rallyin for anything, other than, I’m good at judging height (I should work at a carnival). So if anything, I’m trying to prove to myself, I’m not insane in thinking he’s the same height as me. If you don’t trust the medical examiner’s ability to measure a body, are there any other things that the medical examiner said that you do trust? ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/422 "2013-07-15T17:28:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **None** of that is even warning-worthy? And he **got** his warning after the first post. No, but it was banning-worthy. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/423 "2013-07-15T17:32:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > …we have no solid evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. Yes we do. We have no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin at all. We have physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. > [@](#): > > What we do know for sure is that Zimmerman made a stupid error of judgment in assuming a person engaged in legal, unsuspicious behaviour of no significance was a criminal, and then inserted himself into a situation that didn’t need him in it. That we know for sure. No, we don’t know that for sure. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman must also bear moral responsibility. No, he does not. It is not reasonable to expect to be attacked when stepping out of your truck. Therefore, it is not reckless or irresponsible to step out of your truck, and you do not incur moral guilt for having done so. Suppose Zimmerman did not have his gun with him that night, but everything was the same. Would it then have been morally OK for him to leave his truck? If he had, then Martin would been able to inflict further serious injury on Zimmerman, or kill him. Then Zimmerman would not have had the means to defend himself, and therefore would possibly have been killed. So your implication seems to be that, because Zimmerman had the means to prevent Martin from injuring or killing him, he should not be allowed to defend himself. Even if he was seriously injured or killed. There is no evidence that Zimmerman got out of his truck for any other reason than to find a house number or street name, so as to meet up with the police. He did not have his gun in his hand when Martin attacked him. IOW there is no reason to believe that Zimmerman, in getting out of his truck and being attacked, was acting in any way that he would not have done if he had not been armed. Statements to the contrary are conjecture, backed up by no evidence at all. The standard is “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If you need the gun and don’t have it, you get your head smashed in. If you need the gun and do have it, you are morally culpable for not letting someone smash your head in. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/424 "2013-07-15T17:38:50Z")
And if you stay home and don’t act like a wannabe cop, you don’t get into situations like that. If you follow Neighborhood Watch regulations, you don’t get into situations like that. If you don’t decide it’s your sacred duty to PERTECT YER TERRITRY! you don’t get in situations like that. It’s strange. I’m a white, middle-aged, pudgy male and yet I’ve never once had any kind of confrontation with an African-American man, teenager or otherwise. Wonder how I managed to be so lucky? ---
**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 15, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/425 "2013-07-15T17:40:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Doesn’t justify him using the lethal force he used after that point, when he smashed Zimmerman’s head against the ground. Something for which we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever outside of the liars assertion. The fact that Zimmerman had two lacerations on the back of his head does not indicate that someone, anyone picked up his head and smashed it into the ground. We also have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, other than the liar’s assertion, about exactly when the gun was produced. At whatever point the gun was produced, or at whatever point Zimmerman threatened use of the gun, Martin was then free to use whatever force could muster to protect himself from Zimmerman’s gun. > [@](#): > > \*\*\*when the evidence clearly shows you’re wrong \*\*\* What evidence shows that I am wrong about what, exactly? Because the general consensus is not that Zimmermans story is true, the general consensus is that there is so little evidence it is difficult to ascertain what is true. So what is it that _you_ are absolutely certain of, based on the evidence? And I have to say it is amusing to see how offended you are by anybody else’s certainty. At least I have the decency to own it as my certainty as opposed to your righteousness about your omniscience. Which is, of course, the reason you become so offended: how dare I be certain when you know all? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/426 "2013-07-15T17:42:50Z")
> [@Lunchy](#): > > If I could only find the news article that said The Martin family told CBS news that their son was 6’2’’ and between 140 and 160 lbs. [Here you go](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57407115-504083/trayvon-martin-shooting-what-do-we-know-/). Fact is, they were wrong. Plus we don’t have any idea which segment of the Martin family said that. It could have been his third cousin Steve from Albuquerque who hadn’t seen him since 2004, or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/427 "2013-07-15T18:06:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In fairness, it also describes me until I’ve had my morning coffee. Coffee recapitulates phylogeny. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/428 "2013-07-15T18:07:45Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I don’t care for the “Hispanic” tag . . . Do you prefer “Latino”? Of course, neither term really applies to actual Spaniards. ---
**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 15, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/429 "2013-07-15T18:09:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, Zimmerman is morally culpable for Martin’s death. > > Knowing he was armed, and knowing the police were on their way, Zimmerman had no good reason to go on foot at all. He did, and set in motion a chain of events that ended with Martin’s death. Zimmerman’s actions were completely legal, but unwise and foolish. > > In my opinion, of course. So from this should we take it that your opinion is also that Zimmerman’s report of the altercation and who did what is true, or close enough? Whether he could be proved guilty under the law is not my question… I am asking if you believe his story. And if you do believe the story, can you tell me why? Especially the parts about the smothering smashing gun grabbing arm spreading he didn’t know he hit him… Do you _believe_ all that? And if by chance you do not believe all and you believe something else, perhaps that Zimmerman is lying about all of that because he really did kill Martin unjustly, then that would mean you believe he’s legally guilty as well, you just don’t think it can be proved. Could that be true? ---
**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 15, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/430 "2013-07-15T18:36:22Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Something for which we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever outside of the liars assertion. The fact that Zimmerman had two lacerations on the back of his head does not indicate that someone, anyone picked up his head and smashed it into the ground. We also have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, other than the liar’s assertion, about exactly when the gun was produced. At whatever point the gun was produced, or at whatever point Zimmerman threatened use of the gun, Martin was then free to use whatever force could muster to protect himself from Zimmerman’s gun. And you know we have no evidence for that how? Did you follow the trial? Of course not, you couldn’t be bothered because you already knew the answers… There are multiple experts who testified that those wounds were consistent with his story. We do not have to believe him for his own sake, we have to believe him because the evidence shows it’s true. > [@](#): > > What evidence shows that I am wrong about what, exactly? Because the general consensus is not that Zimmermans story is true, the general consensus is that there is so little evidence it is difficult to ascertain what is true. So what is it that _you_ are absolutely certain of, based on the evidence? Go watch the fucking trial. The one with all the evidence that showed he was not guilty of murder. The one that proved you utterly, completely, 100% wrong. > [@](#): > > And I have to say it is amusing to see how offended you are by anybody else’s certainty. At least I have the decency to own it as my certainty as opposed to your righteousness about your omniscience. Which is, of course, the reason you become so offended: how dare I be certain when you know all? I’m not offended by your certainty. I’m offended by you spreading your ignorance everywhere, by you insulting those who have repeatedly shown how wrong you are, and how stupid you are, and how you have no basis for any certainty about what happened because YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FUCKING EVIDENCE. I do not know all, but I know a fuckload more than you. Because, unlike you, I actually pay attention to the facts of this case, and the law involved, and I do my best not to let any prejudice get in the way. TL;DR - I’m not offended by your certainty, but by your stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/431 "2013-07-15T18:50:39Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So from this should we take it that your opinion is also that Zimmerman’s report of the altercation and who did what is true, or close enough? Whether he could be proved guilty under the law is not my question… I am asking if you believe his story. And if you do believe the story, can you tell me why? Especially the parts about the smothering smashing gun grabbing arm spreading he didn’t know he hit him… Do you _believe_ all that? > > And if by chance you do not believe all and you believe something else, perhaps that Zimmerman is lying about all of that because he really did kill Martin unjustly, then that would mean you believe he’s legally guilty as well, you just don’t think it can be proved. Could that be true? I absolutely believe his guilt cannot be legally proved. If you want my speculation on the events, I can give it. Utterly meaningless in any context except chatting about what might have happened… I think Zimmerman got out of the vehicle in order to follow Martin to ensure he didn’t get away. I believe him when he says he didn’t know what address he was near. I believe he entered the cut-through to find Martin, that Martin hid and Zimmerman passed him, then Martin emerged from hiding and Zimmerman reversed direction, and they came face to face. I think that Zimmerman asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood, and did so in a very accusatory and insulting way. I think Martin took offense and shoved Zimmerman, Zimmerman shoved back, and then Martin punched Zimmerman, breaking his nose and knocking him down. At that point I believe Zimmerman began screaming for help and Martin began shoving him – not by the head but by the shoulders – in an effort to get him to stop shrieking. This caused the lacerations on the back of his skull. Zimmerman then worked the gun free and shot at martin. This is consistent with the expert testimony about both the distance from which the gun was fired, and the expert testimony that showed that the bullet hole in Martin’s clothes proved that Martin was not on his back or standing straight up when shot, but rather was leaning far forward. I believe Martin then rolled back off Zimmerman, and Zimmerman did not realize instantly that his shot had hit, since martin was still able to speak. This comes from the expert testimony about the pericardial sac filling with blood and the amount of time that took. That’s my opinion. Because it can’t be proved, it’s meaningless except as interesting conversation fodder. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/432 "2013-07-15T19:01:00Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > There are multiple experts who testified that those wounds were consistent with his story. We do not have to believe him for his own sake, we have to believe him because the evidence shows it’s true. No, the evidence shows reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case (if we accept the jury’s verdict). That’s a far, far cry from saying that the defense’s story is true. > [@](#): > > Go watch the fucking trial. The one with all the evidence that showed he was not guilty of murder. The one that proved you utterly, completely, 100% wrong. See above. The prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s far from saying Zimmerman is innocent of any wrongdoing. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/433 "2013-07-15T19:09:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes we do. We have no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin at all. We have physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. We have evidence Martin struck Zimmerman; we do not know for sure who initiated the altercation. It is entirely possible Zimmerman grabbed or shoved Martin first. You don’t know, _and you never will know_, for sure. Accept it. > [@](#): > > No, we don’t know that for sure. But in fact, we DO know this (that Zimmerman erroneously assumed Martin was a criminal, and went after him on that assumption) with near certainty,\*\* because George Zimmerman said so.\*\* It is a fact - we have it on tape, and he admits to it - that Zimmerman believed Martin was a prowler, a criminal of some sort who was up to nefarious work. It is a fact that Martin was not, and that he was merely returning from the store to the place he was staying. You know these facts to be true. Zimmerman’s error was, of course, not a crime. But it was an error. I don’t know why you’re so weirdly stubborn about acknowledging facts that even Zimmerman himself acknowledges. > [@](#): > > No, he does not. It is not reasonable to expect to be attacked when stepping out of your truck. Therefore, it is not reckless or irresponsible to step out of your truck, and you do not incur moral guilt for having done so. Indeed, I would agree people who merely step out of vehicles should not be attacked, but that wasn’t what I said Zimmerman did wrong. > [@](#): > > Suppose Zimmerman did not have his gun with him that night, but everything was the same. Would it then have been morally OK for him to leave his truck? You’re asking a falsely misleading question by stating his act as simply “leaving his truck.” I certainly would not see any moral problems had he “left his truck” when he got home, thinking “huh, that black guy I saw didn’t have a raincoat, I hope he doesn’t get too wet before he gets back to his place.” Which is what I would have done. Let me put it more accurately; suppose Zimmerman had been unarmed. Would he still have been wrong to assume Martin was a criminal, and go chasing after him, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, with a baseless suspicion? Yes, that would have been stupid and wrong. His assumption would have been wrong, and his actions pointless and reckless. Does his being armed ADD to his moral culpability? Why, I believe it does, yes. A person who elects to arm themselves assumes greater moral responsibility for the consequences thereof. But that is just my opinion. > [@](#): > > If he had, then Martin would been able to inflict further serious injury on Zimmerman, or kill him. Then Zimmerman would not have had the means to defend himself, and therefore would possibly have been killed. That certainly is quite possible, and would have been an awful thing. > [@](#): > > So your implication seems to be that, because Zimmerman had the means to prevent Martin from injuring or killing him, he should not be allowed to defend himself. Even if he was seriously injured or killed. No, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong, I am saying nothing of the sort. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/434 "2013-07-15T19:16:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But in fact, we DO know this (that Zimmerman erroneously assumed Martin was a criminal, and went after him on that assumption) with near certainty,\*\* because George Zimmerman said so.\*\* No, we don’t. We know Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. The “fact” that he thought Martin was a criminal is an invention of yours. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/435 "2013-07-15T19:17:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, the evidence shows reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case (if we accept the jury’s verdict). That’s a far, far cry from saying that the defense’s story is true. > > See above. The prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s far from saying Zimmerman is innocent of any wrongdoing. What prosecution evidence contradicted Zimmerman’s story? See, here’s the point you seem to constantly miss. If Zimmerman testifies that he shot Martin while Martin was on top of him, you don’t have to believe him. But you are not permitted to say, “Since I don’t believe Zimmerman, I will conclude that the shot hit Martin while Martin was standing straight up.” Do you understand that distinction? In order to conclude that the shot hit Martin while Martin was standing straight up, some piece of evidence must say so. What piece does? ---
**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 15, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/436 "2013-07-15T19:17:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > And you know we have no evidence for that how? Did you follow the trial? Of course not, you couldn’t be bothered because you already knew the answers… > > There are multiple experts who testified that those wounds were consistent with his story. We do not have to believe him for his own sake, we have to believe him because the evidence shows it’s true. No, it shows it _ **could** _ be true, especially if you assume he exaggerated, since someone who had their head bashed into concrete repeatedly would have more than a couple of little lacerations. > [@](#): > > Go watch the fucking trial. The one with all the evidence that showed he was not guilty of murder. The one that proved you utterly, completely, 100% wrong. It’s kind of cool the way you can be so forcefully vague. Because of course the trial did not prove that I was 100% wrong at all, and it did not prove that Zimmerman’s story of defending himself was true. The only thing the trial actually “proved” was that there were enough questions in the minds of the jurors to lead them to have reasonable doubts. That’s all. That you cannot distinguish between the jurors having doubts and having anything else, positive or negative proved to be 100% anything, is not surprising. > [@](#): > > I’m not offended by your certainty. I’m offended by you spreading your ignorance everywhere, \*\*\*by you insulting those who have repeatedly shown how wrong you are, \*\*\* Yes!!_ **Exactly** _ as I said: you are offended, _ **insulted** _, that I have the gall to be certain about anything when you are The Giver Of Truth. How dare I? :D:cool: > [@](#): > > …how you have no basis for any certainty about what happened because YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FUCKING EVIDENCE. You are confused: I ignore \*your interpretation \*of the evidence, not the evidence itself. Again, I recognize that you are incapable of discerning the difference, but that is your burden, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/437 "2013-07-15T19:29:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What prosecution evidence contradicted Zimmerman’s story? > > See, here’s the point you seem to constantly miss. If Zimmerman testifies that he shot Martin while Martin was on top of him, you don’t have to believe him. > > But you are not permitted to say, “Since I don’t believe Zimmerman, I will conclude that the shot hit Martin while Martin was standing straight up.” > > Do you understand that distinction? In order to conclude that the shot hit Martin while Martin was standing straight up, some piece of evidence must say so. > > What piece does? ? I’m not concluding anything in particular. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/438 "2013-07-15T19:38:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Do you prefer “Latino”? > > Of course, neither term really applies to actual Spaniards. Exactly right. So neither. White Spaniard is fine – even if we’ve gone through the ‘color scheme bullshit’ enough times here guess we have to play. I don’t see what more “ethnic” divisions they need. BTW, I never applied to any school or job as a minority while Stateside for 20 years – simply because I am not. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/439 "2013-07-15T19:42:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, we don’t. We know Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. The “fact” that he thought Martin was a criminal is an invention of yours. He explicitly referred to Martin as being one of the “fucking punks” and how “those assholes always get away with it.” So yeah, he pretty clearly believed Martin was a criminal unless you think that he wasn’t referring to prowlers when he referred to “fucking punks” and the “assholes” who “always get away.” Speaking of which, since members of Team Zimmerman(and here I’m not referring to any posters here) have long claimed that there’d been eight burglaries committed by black males in the neighborhood in the past two years, how could they know ALL of the burglars were “black” if they “always” got away. Were all the burglaries recorded or did all of them have eyewitnesses? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/440 "2013-07-15T19:48:01Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I don’t care for the “Hispanic” tag but it’s required under “ethnic background” then they name a few countries from Latin America with the most immigrants and if you don’t belong to then they ask you to list “other” and specify. So it goes like this > Hispanic -\>other-\>Spaniard-\>white > > Only “racism” I ever experienced in the US is when I say my name and people respond: “But you don’t look Hispanic at all nor do you have an accent” :rolleyes: Thanks for the response and I know how you feel at the end. I’ve had plenty of well-meaning people compliment me on how well I speak English, particularly without an accent. I always say, “thanks, but I’ve lived here since I was two.” My father on the other hand still sounds like he’s fresh off the boat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=23)