# 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:** 25
**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 16, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/481 "2013-07-16T02:08:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > He didn’t claim that on the NEN call. He just said the kid was walking slowly and looking around. That was from his trial testimony. > [@monstro](#): > > I just don’t understand how it could be enough of an experience to write a book about. > > An interview in a decent magazine? Sure. But a whole book, with chapters and everything? It just can’t see it being very interesting. YMMV. Me either. I’m not saying she ought to write a book and certainly not that I’ll buy it, just that there’s nothing _wrong_ with it. In general, I kind of like it when jurors talk about their deliberations because it’s one thing nobody really knows much about (including lawyers). ---
**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, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/482 "2013-07-16T02:13:38Z")
By the way, **Ibn Warraq** , Martin’s friend, DeeDee, claimed, both on the stand and just today in an interview, that Martin thought Zimmerman was a “rapist”. Or, if you prefer, suspected it. Wouldn’t you say that Martin first racially “profiled” Zimmerman as a “cracker” (explicitly, I must say) and then incorrectly “profiled” him as a “rapist”? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/483 "2013-07-16T02:13:43Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > To anyone: has Zimmerman ever said what action(s) of Martin’s he observed that led him to be suspicious of Martin? “Walking around and looking about” and “looking at houses” when “it was raining.” Based on that “it looks like he’s (Martin’s) up to no good.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/484 "2013-07-16T02:14:11Z")
Got a question been gnawing for some time. When did Martin first find out that Z was armed? We are told he carried his holster on his hip, towards the back. Not directly visible, but perzackly hidden either. Z says he tried to grab the gun, so that testifies that Martin knew it was there, but not when he found out about it. If, of course, Z is telling the truth. If someone is approaching you, or following you and you are suspicious and uneasy about them, call that DefCon 4. Finding out they are armed, that’s at least DefCon 2. AAARRoooooga! AAAARRooooooga! (There’s some personal experience in this appraisal, and my reactions may not be universal. Bet its pretty darned close.) Doesn’t seem like anybody asked that question of Z. And I wonder why. ---
**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 16, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/485 "2013-07-16T02:17:52Z")
Zimmerman couldn’t have testified about when Martin discovered he was armed. He has no personal knowledge of what Martin knew. ---
**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, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/486 "2013-07-16T02:20:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Who are you, and what have you done with **Bricker**? If its money you want, we can probably pitch in and raise something in the high two figures. This is exactly what I said in 2012 when asked, on this very board. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/487 "2013-07-16T02:27:04Z")
And not that I’d expect him to tell the truth if it were disadvantageous. Just wondering why nobody asked. See, if Martin thinks he being followed by some ordinary white guy with hostile feelings, that’s one thing. If he knows that guy has a gun, that’s a whole different kettle of piranha, isn’t it? ---
**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 16, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/488 "2013-07-16T02:28:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > By the way, **Ibn Warraq** , Martin’s friend, DeeDee, claimed, both on the stand and just today in an interview, that Martin thought Zimmerman was a “rapist”. Or, if you prefer, suspected it. Wouldn’t you say that Martin first racially “profiled” Zimmerman as a “cracker” (explicitly, I must say) and then incorrectly “profiled” him as a “rapist”? Actually, it seems that Martin’s belief that Zimmerman was a “creepy-ass cracker” was proven correct. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/489 "2013-07-16T02:40:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is exactly what I said in 2012 when asked, on this very board. I swear, **Bricker** , sometimes I think you would take a beating better than you take a joke. (Punch line being I’m pretty much in agreement with that post. Could have said it _better_, of course, but not different in any substantial way.) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/490 "2013-07-16T02:56:23Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Whilst there is some truth to the suggestion that black people commit more _violent_ crime (but not overall crime) than average, his “reasoning” is so far beyond the pale that it can fairly be considered hate speech. Do poor black people commit more violent crime than poor white people? > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Does he really believe Zimmerman was found not guilty simply because Trayvon was black? Yeah. Self defense is an affirmative defense which (IIRC) means you have to prove it. He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt (or at least thats the way I remember it) when it comes to proving self defense, he’s got to convince the jury that it was self defense, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove it wasn’t self defense. I don’t think that an acquital was a foregone conclusion and I think that Jesse Jackson Jr. suspects that a jury might have found a charge of self defense more belivable because the dead guy was a young black man, even though the guy claiming self defense was the one with a gun. > [@Bricker](#): > > You’re convinced he committed those crimes, based solely on the fact he was accused? You don’t need any sort of rigorous fact finding? Someone said it, so it must be true? Thats an awful lot of smoke if there isn’t any fire. And now we’ve got a dead teenage black boy to add more smoke. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > No, we don’t know that Martin “went out if his way to attack” Zimmerman or that he even attacked him. We know they had a fight and at one point Martin seemed to have the upper hand, but no evidence, other than word of paranoid, racist liar with a history of violence, that Trayvon “attacked” him. This is a very micro case of history being written by the victors. > [@Terr](#): > > A gun is a much more effective self-defense tool than bare hands. No matter how skilled in self-defense techniques you are. “Sinanju training enables one to…dodge bullets (even at point-blank range)…and bring a woman to the heights of sexual ecstasy.” -wikipedia > **[Sinanju (martial art)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinanju_(martial_art))** > > Sinanju is a fictitious Korean martial art (the "Sun Source" of all martial arts) of the cult paperback book series The Destroyer, by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir. The Destroyer series lampoons politicians, politics, and other adventure novels, and features gory violence on evildoers, martial art adventures and more. > After a faked execution, the protagonist, ex-cop Remo Williams, is recruited by a secret U.S. organization, CURE, for missions that must be handled covertly outside the boundarie... > [@Gatopescado](#): > > You can’t sell guns on eBay. Gunbroker is the ebay of guns. > [@Steophan](#): > > It _should_ be difficult, extremely difficult, to find someone guilty of a crime and deprive them of their liberty. If there’s _any_ reason to doubt their guilt, they should go free. In this case, there are many reasons for such doubt. Reasonable doubt /= any reason to doubt. Besides the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense. He is absolutely guilty of killing that boy, he has to prove it was self defense. > [@Steophan](#): > > 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. He still ignored the dispatcher and bad things happened. Doesn’t make him a bloodthirsty murderer but he created a situation that became lethal. That boy was walking home, he wasn’t bothering anyone (unless just being a young black man is bothersome). He wasn’t some big black thug with a hair trigger like the conservative media wants you to believe. > **[Trayvon Martin Photos](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-trayvon-martin-photographs/)** > > Photographs purportedly showing shooting victim Trayvon Martin are actually pictures of other people. Martin was about 5 inches taller and 10 pounds lighter than Zimmerman. Not that this doesn’t mean self defense is not possible but some of the pictures that have been floating around have just been random scary looking black guys. > [@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. Would you say he didn’t act reasonably? In the tort sense? Sure you can concoct a story that portrays Zimmerman playing the defensive role, you could just as easily craft a story about this loose cannon Zimmerman (a guy with a history of violence) who took the law into his own hands one night to try and detain a young black man at gunpoint and when the young black man (in fear for his life) attacks Zimmerman, gets shot. If it wasn’t for his history of violence, I would probably go with your story. The fact that he has a bunch of mug shots that his detractors could choose from (from earlier in his life when he was bigger and in better shape), makes me believe your version a lot less. I certainly don’t think Zimmerman clearly presented a preponderance of the evidence ---
**Author:** ![Tequila\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@Tequila\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tequila_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/491 "2013-07-16T03:03:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > None of those things happened, you fucking moron. It’s his right given by the people of Florida (or rather, not taken away by them) to follow whomever the fuck he so desires. There’s no evidence he brandished his gun, and lots that he didn’t, and also no evidence that it was him specifically, rather than the owners of the _private gated community_ he lived in that decided who had the right to walk there. > > This was not a public place anyone had the right to walk through. Questioning strangers there is not just acceptable, but outright good practice. > > Facts. Try looking at them sometimes, instead of whatever nonsense you’re basing your opinion on. It’s also apparently his right, by the state of Florida, to murder an unarmed teenager in cold blood simply because he wanted to and it’s idiots like you who’ll believe his version of events. If those are “facts,” I’ll leave you and your fellow apologists to them. As for your drooling bullshit, I’m done. I have no time to waste on those who are so incredibly stupid. > [@Bricker](#): > > See, that’s Doper Land. We insist on accurate statements about Martin’s height. We rely on things like tape measures and scales. But we’re fine with “…who may have been shouting things at you…” That one’s just fine. > > Trayvon martin was 71 inches tall, because that’s what the evidence showed. And he was 158 pounds at his autopsy, because that’s what the evidence showed. > > The evidence did not show Zimmerman shouting things at Martin while following him. How could the evidence show that Zimmerman was shouting things at Martin if there were no witnesses? Oh wait, let’s just take the murderer’s word on what happened. Surely none of what he has to say will be self-serving. > [@Terr](#): > > Zimmerman didn’t “think” that Martin was a criminal. He suspected him of being one. “Suspect” implies uncertainty. “Think” is pretty definitive. Jesus Christ you people are pathetic. See, I’m not _explicitly_ calling YOU pathetic, rather I’m suspecting you of being pathetic. Hey, I kind of like how that lunacy works in fantasy land. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/492 "2013-07-16T03:09:55Z")
Oh, **man!** Jon Oliver on _The Daily Show_ just Pitted Florida hard enough to cook the oranges! ---
**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, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/493 "2013-07-16T03:16:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah. Self defense is an affirmative defense which (IIRC) means you have to prove it. Not according to Florida law. > [@](#): > > He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt (or at least thats the way I remember it) when it comes to proving self defense, he’s got to convince the jury that it was self defense, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove it wasn’t self defense. Not according to Florida law. > [@](#): > > Besides the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense. He is absolutely guilty of killing that boy, he has to prove it was self defense. Not according to Florida law. > [@](#): > > I certainly don’t think Zimmerman clearly presented a preponderance of the evidence I think he did but it’s irrelevant. He didn’t have to. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/494 "2013-07-16T03:43:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Doesn’t justify him using the lethal force he used after that point, when he smashed Zimmerman’s head against the ground. > > Of course, that you are sure of what happened when the evidence clearly shows you’re wrong just shows how much of a fucking idiot you are. smashed his head?:dubious: I’ve seen heads that were smashed against sheetrock (a decidedly softer material) and the back of the guy’s head had more than a few scratches. > [@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. No we don’t we have no idea who started the altercation. Was it the mall ninja with the gun and a history of violence, or was it the black male? > [@](#): > > 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. It is unreasonable to act the way he did and I suspect a civil jury will agree with me. > [@](#): > > 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. I suspect Zimmerman wouldn’t have left his truck to confront a scary black guy without the gun. But it was unreasonable for him to follow the kid and unreasonable for him to get out of his truck to pursue the kid on foot. > [@](#): > > 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. There’s no evidence either way, other than Zimmerman’s testimony which contains more than a few inconsistencies. > [@](#): > > 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. Or you could try not inserting yourself into situations like that in the first place. A situation that the police has asked you to stay out of. He may not be criminally liable but I am hoping that he is civilly liable and has to file bankruptcy after the civil lawsuit. > [@Terr](#): > > Not according to Florida law. > Not according to Florida law. > Not according to Florida law. > I think he did but it’s irrelevant. He didn’t have to. WHAT?!?!? Really? Not that I don’t believe you but you got a cite? ---
**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, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/495 "2013-07-16T03:45:07Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > WHAT?!?!? Really? Not that I don’t believe you but you got a cite? Read the Zimmerman trial jury instructions. Do you need a link? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/496 "2013-07-16T04:14:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Got a question been gnawing for some time. When did Martin first find out that Z was armed? At a guess, about a half-second before Z pulled the trigger. But only one person knows for certain. > [@elucidator](#): > > Doesn’t seem like anybody asked that question of Z. And I wonder why. Because the question is largely irrelevant? _If_ Z was carrying concealed properly, there’s no way M could have known he was being followed/stalked by an _armed_ man. _If_ Z was carrying concealed _improperly_ and allowed M to become aware of it _before_ the confrontation, why in the hell would M turn back around and physically confront an armed man, _barehanded?_ ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/497 "2013-07-16T04:16:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > “Walking around and looking about” and “looking at houses” when “it was raining.” Based on that “it looks like he’s (Martin’s) up to no good.” Yes, I’ve read/heard the 911 call. I was wondering in anything else had come out expanding upon those comments. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/498 "2013-07-16T04:22:08Z")
To add to the circus, what’s with [Juror B37??](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html) She’s saying some dumb shit. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/499 "2013-07-16T04:38:45Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > …_If_ Z was carrying concealed _improperly_ and allowed M to become aware of it _before_ the confrontation, why in the hell would M turn back around and physically confront an armed man, _barehanded?_ Could try and outrun the bullet, I suppose. I lean towards cry like a girl and beg for mercy. But I wouldn’t rule assault out of the question. People do crazy ass shit when they are horny, but nothing like how they behave when they are afraid. After all, didn’t Z say Martin went for his gun? Seem to remember that. Maybe that was why, knock him down before he could deploy. Whatever, I guess. I agree the essential facts are as **Bricker** outlined in his post, and I’ve almost gotten over it. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/500 "2013-07-16T06:28:08Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I just don’t understand how it could be enough of an experience to write a book about. > > An interview in a decent magazine? Sure. But a whole book, with chapters and everything? It just can’t see it being very interesting. YMMV. A whole book on the deliberations? I’d be surprised. A book on the whole circus, with one chapter as an insiders view of the deliberations - that could work [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=26)