# 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:** 33
**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 17, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/641 "2013-07-17T21:46:16Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > It’s funny really. Zimmerman is perfectly ok to start following Martin for suspiciously walking “casually in the rain”. But it’s not ok to fear imminent attack when a man you’ve never met starts following you in the dark. > > I’ll just come out and explain my position here. If I’m on my way home, and I notice you, a stranger, following me, then I may fear for my safety. I certainly won’t just go straight home, because I have people who I value there. I may well double back and try to work out what’s going on. Hell, I might even walk up to you and ask what you’re doing, and tell you to go away if you know what’s good for you. > > Does that seem reasonable so far? Apart from the threat at the end, it’s OK. You don’t have the right to threaten, as I’m doing nothing wrong. > [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Except many other witnesses do not support his story, as you know. Shall I list them here or will you just accept it was a really quite silly claim? True, some are neutral on it. But feel free to provide the list. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/642 "2013-07-17T22:04:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Apart from the threat at the end, it’s OK. You don’t have the right to threaten, as I’m doing nothing wrong. Actually, I do have the right to tell you to back off, and indeed threaten to hit you if you approach me, etc. So basically you’re entirely happy that a reasonable person might well have done everything Martin did right up to when the fight started. I repeat, slowly for the hard of thinking. The avoidable death of Martin was brought about by the foolhardy actions of Zimmerman. All he had to do was return to his car, identify himself, or even just not leap to the conclusion that a person walking casually in the rain was up to no good. A young man who was doing nothing wrong is dead. It is really quite depressing you and your like can pretend this is a desirable outcome. And no, it’s not just a case of witnesses agreeing with him or being neutral. And you know that: “Cutcher and her roommate maintain that their account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman’s, and they demanded the police issue a retraction.[134]” “The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. During the time that she witnessed the incident, the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.[139” etc. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/643 "2013-07-17T22:11:44Z")
Well, now, he said “some were neutral”. Taking “neutral” to mean “not corroborating Z’s account”, we may fairly take the witnesses direct refutation as being “neutral”. And if there are more than one, well, that’s “some”, isn’t it? Explicitly! ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/644 "2013-07-17T22:11:47Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Really? You deny that Martin attacked Zimmerman? All the evidence points to this being the case. Or are you just being overly literal and saying that Martin can’t be convicted of it because he’s dead? Or something. > > Martin attacked Zimmerman. This is not in dispute. Sympathizers to Martin love glossing over this fact, but it is a fact. But you don’t know why, and never will. How do you know it was a criminal act? I mean, Zimmerman shot Martin to death, but you seem okay with the fact that, since it cannot be proven to have been a crime, we don’t know for sure that it was. ---
**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 17, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/645 "2013-07-17T22:54:21Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > We may either believe Zimmerman, or we may accept we don’t know what happened. You always leave out the fact that we can take Zimmerman’s lies, which, if we are the jury, we determine ARE or ARE NOT lies, based on the evidence and reasonable inferences we draw therefrom, and examine them to see if they are around issues which could prove him guilty of unlawfully killing Martin. If they are, we may, if we are the jury, view that as \*\*\*evidence itself \*\*\*that Zimmerman is aware of his guilt and is deliberately trying to avoid punishment. We cannot convict on that alone, but it definitely _counts_ as evidence of guilt. Just making sure we don’t forget that extremely crucial reality about defendant credibility. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/646 "2013-07-17T23:30:20Z")
I don’t really know what weight to give to the issue, but what about Martin’s fear of whites? Especially, armed whites. Not Z, he is, by his own testimony, entirely free of any racial animosity, he only hates punks and assholes. Is racially derived fear a “reasonable” fear I would wish it were not so, but I have testimony from people who’s opinion I trust that it is a very real fear. Are we allowed to consider that, or are we obliged to dismiss it? And how many of us here believe that race played no part of Z’s suspicions? Martin “looked like he was on drugs”? How does one look like they are on drugs? From what distance can you detect the tell-tale signs of being high? Twenty yards? Fifty? And he was looking at houses. He was surrounded by houses, yes? What was he to do, stare straight up at the sky, or watch his shoes? Go ahead, walk through a forest and not look at trees. Did Z not know there were black people living in his neighborhood? Why wasn’t his first thought that Martin was somebody’s kid? Are we truly willing to believe that race played no part in Z’s suspicions? That they were based on solidly objective criteria, like looking to be on drugs, and reckless eyeballing of private property? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/647 "2013-07-18T00:48:30Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I see your point. Hitting someone isn’t always a crime. > > But it wasn’t just a punch. We’re talking about someone knocking a person down and then mounting them and repeatedly hitting them and bashing them into the concrete. > > I guess I could find some wiggle room in there somewhere that the scenario is possible and not a crime. But, I’d say 99% chance it was. > > I’ll put it this way. If Zimmerman had been unarmed and simply continued to get beaten for a couple minutes until the cops showed up I think it’s highly likely that the cops would have arrested Martin for assault. Sure, we can’t know for certain, though. If we’re speculating, I can easily craft a scenario: Zimmerman grabs Martin in an effort to detain him, prompting the “Get off!” that Jeantel heard. Martin strikes Zimmerman when Zimmerman won’t let go of him. Zimmerman punches Martin, leaving no discernible injury (consistent with the gym instructor’s “0.5” rating of Zimmerman’s fighting ability). Martin punches back, breaking Zimmerman’s nose, because Martin is NOT a 0.5. Zimmerman threatens to shoot him, and Martin, fearing for his life, realizes if he runs he’s dead, tackles Zimmerman and holds him down, causing Zimmerman’s back to be wet with grass and his head to be scratched as he tries to squirm free. Zimmerman eventually works the gun free and fires. (This is not consistent with **monstro’s** “No one goes towards what they fear,” but you can’t have everything. The point is it’s trivially easy to imagine highly plausible scenarios in which Martin committed no crime at any stage of the encounter. And in the context of a criminal inquiry about Martin, that’s what we must do. Obviously, in the context of a criminal inquiry about Zimmerman, we must bend of backwards to imagine Zimmerman as the innocent one. You cannot extend that viewpoint to Zimmerman but refuse it to Martin. > [@](#): > > I’ll put it this way. If Zimmerman had been unarmed and simply continued to get beaten for a couple minutes until the cops showed up I think it’s highly likely that the cops would have arrested Martin for assault. Sure, we can’t know for certain, though. If they showed up and Martin told them the story I just did? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/648 "2013-07-18T00:51:49Z")
But that would mean a lawful gun owner would have done something irresponsible with his gun, and common sense tells us \*that \*never happens. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/649 "2013-07-18T01:00:17Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > But that would mean a lawful gun owner would have done something irresponsible with his gun, and common sense tells us \*that \*never happens. Context is all. At Zimmerman’s criminal trial, he’s entitled to that sort of deference (not “never,” of course, but “not this time,”) and you have to eliminate every plausible scenario except that of guilt. But when you turn around and start discussing the criminal liability of Martin, then he’s the one who gets every inference in his favor. I’m not seeing too many people understand that basic point. Those that favor Zimmerman are not able to switch gears and consider Martin’s position if accused; those that favor Martin don’t seem to understand reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/650 "2013-07-18T01:02:49Z")
You mean that the only person who is clear eyed and objective about this is you? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/651 "2013-07-18T01:06:16Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > It’s funny really. Zimmerman is perfectly ok to start following Martin for suspiciously walking “casually in the rain”. But it’s not ok to fear imminent attack when a man you’ve never met starts following you in the dark. > > I’ll just come out and explain my position here. If I’m on my way home, and I notice you, a stranger, following me, then I may fear for my safety. I certainly won’t just go straight home, because I have people who I value there. I may well double back and try to work out what’s going on. Hell, I might even walk up to you and ask what you’re doing, and tell you to go away if you know what’s good for you. > > Does that seem reasonable so far? . . . .except that a jury found that Zimmerman validly used self-defense, so your little effort to come up with your own version of the story is just so much mental masturbation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/652 "2013-07-18T01:07:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You mean that the only person who is clear eyed and objective about this is you? Me, Oakminster, BottledBlondeJeanie, pravnik, and Really Not All That Bright all come to mind as people who have shown a clear understanding of the issues and correctly summarized and responded to the relevant law. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but rather a quick attempt to recall names. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/653 "2013-07-18T01:08:16Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Defend ourselves from feral proto-humans. Us Euro-Americans buying the guns needed to deal with Trayvon Martin and Rodney Kings, and black lawlessness in general. > > Don’t even fucking attempt such a weasel defence for the racist prick. That would be demeaning even for you. I see you are attending the Stoid correspondence course and have gotten through the “argument by underlining” portion. I can’t wait to see what you can do once you learn bold and italics. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/654 "2013-07-18T01:09:32Z")
When you assume the guy you got beef with is armed with a gun, then running away doesn’t make sense. It’s fight to the death. Shoot or be shot. It’s scary. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/655 "2013-07-18T01:11:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > . . . .except that a jury found that Zimmerman validly used self-defense, so your little effort to come up with your own version of the story is just so much mental masturbation. The jury found that the state failed to prove every element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Even assuming, _arguendo_, that they based their acquittal on the issue of self-defense, all that means is the state failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words: the jury could have decided the self-defense story was pretty unlikely, and still acquitted. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/656 "2013-07-18T01:11:36Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I see you are attending the Stoid correspondence course and have gotten through the “argument by underlining” portion. I can’t wait to see what you can do once you learn bold and italics. Hah! Good one! Seriously. Witty rejoinder. On the other hand, it pretty much proves that you’re full of shit, so, win-win, really. ---
**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 18, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/657 "2013-07-18T01:11:45Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > . . . .except that a jury found that Zimmerman validly used self-defense, so your little effort to come up with your own version of the story is just so much mental masturbation. No, the jury found that the state did not rebut Zimmerman’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not to say that the “what might have happened” stuff isn’t pointless. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I see you are attending the Stoid correspondence course and have gotten through the “argument by underlining” portion. I can’t wait to see what you can do once you learn bold and italics. You seem to have opted for the “argument by calling people Stoid” strategy, which while effective, is unavailing here. Given the history of the poster in question you know as well as anyone that he meant exactly what he was banned for saying. ETA: ninja’d. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/658 "2013-07-18T01:18:02Z")
And, elucidator, who else is taking Rand Rover, Terr, and Steophen to task when they err, and also taking monstro, ywtf, and The Second Stone to task when they do? Seriously – who other than me has written responses that attack positions taken by advocates for each side? ETA: ok, who other than me and RNaTB? ---
**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 18, 2013, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/659 "2013-07-18T01:20:19Z")
'tis a heavy burden. Even Superman only fought the commies. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/660 "2013-07-18T01:21:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And, elucidator, who else is taking Rand Rover, Terr, and Steophen to task when they err, and also taking monstro, ywtf, and The Second Stone to task when they do? Seriously – who other than me has written responses that attack positions taken by advocates for each side? You have a tendency to be especially sanctimonious towards one side. So please don’t pretend you’ve always been completely objective about this. You have never been, you still aren’t, and you never will be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=34)