# 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:** 44
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/861 "2013-07-21T02:25:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, he stopped when he was advised to. He may have attempted to find Martin again after the phone call ended, but that’s unknown. [From the Sanford PD interview transcript](https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079). Underlining is mine. > [@](#): > > Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don’t need you to do that, what went through your mind? > Zimmerman: He’s right. > Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle. > Zimmerman: I still wanted to give him an address. > Serino: OK. > (plays tape 2:34 to 2:40) > Serino: You said he ran again. OK, this is, this is because you don’t see him? > Zimmerman: Correct. > Serino: So at this point he has to be hiding from you. > Zimmerman: I don’t know where he was. > Serino: Well you… > Zimmerman: I don’t see him. > Serino: Well the law of the physics says that he’s hiding from you at this point. He could not have made it home…and came back to attack you in that time, so…What’s your, what’s your, um, account is that you don’t see him at this point. You’re at the T now, right? Here’s the pavement, correct? You’re looking down that way? That passage? > Zimmerman: No, sir. > Serino: Where’re you at? > Zimmerman: Once he told me not to follow him… > Serino: Mm hmm. > Zimmerman: And I wasn’t following him. I was just going in the same direction he was. Once he said… > Serino: That’s following (laughs). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/862 "2013-07-21T06:04:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Serino: I need you to give me an approximate time of when he starts to smother you. > > Zimmerman: I don’t know when. It’s hard to… > > Serino: That’s you, yelling for help. > > Zimmerman: (unintelligible) > > Serino: Help me, help me. > > Serino: That’s when you shot him. (clears his throat) Can you recall (coughs) excuse me…at what point the suffocation happened? Prior to, prior to you shooting him, he was on you, correct? > > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > > Serino: OK. And you were able to reach into your holster. > > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > > Serino: OK. You shot him at point blank range. He was on top of you, right? > > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > > Serino: OK. And in the middle of all that yelling, nobody came out to help you. And I can’t, I can’t pinpoint where you were smothered. That’s the problem I’m having. And nobody’s saying they saw him smothering you. People are saying they saw you, saw him on top of you, but they didn’t see about the smothering part. So… > > Singleton: And when we’re listening to the screaming, doesn’t sound like there’s a hesitation in the screaming. It sounds like it’s continuous, and if someone’s being hurt (imitates scream being muffled) It’s gonna stop. But we don’t hear the, we don’t hear it stop. Further excerpts from above link. Zimmmerman’s story doesn’t have holes. It’s _all_ holes! Like he’s talking about the smothering. Where’s the bashing of the head onto the sidewalk? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/863 "2013-07-21T07:23:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Zimmmerman’s story doesn’t have holes. It’s _all_ holes! Not guilty. Deal with it. ---
**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 21, 2013, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/864 "2013-07-21T08:45:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Not guilty. Deal with it. He’s a liar who murdered a kid and got away with it. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Passion\_of\_the\_Shrubber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a5b964/32.png) [@Passion\_of\_the\_Shrubber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Passion_of_the_Shrubber)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/865 "2013-07-21T09:43:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not a majority of calls, though? I mean, when you say “whole lotta,” and there are seven calls about black people, out of 47 total calls, that’s an interesting definition. That’s seven more calls about black people than I’ve ever made in my entire lifetime and I live in a predominantly black neighborhood. And who calls 911 on a pothole or a bag of garbage in the street or an open garage door? Sounds like Z was a bit of a nut, to my mind. A little too preoccupied with the goings-on in his neighborhood, perhaps? ---
**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 21, 2013, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/866 "2013-07-21T09:56:02Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > He’s a liar who murdered a kid and got away with it. Deal with it. Except, **Terr** ’s claim is factual, decided by the finders of fact at trial. Yours is based on nothing whatsoever. You’ve failed to even show evidence he was a liar, and the evidence presented at the trial (you know, that thing you decided not to bother watching, because you already magically knew all the answers) shows that no murder was committed. That will be borne out when there’s a civil case or immunity hearing, and Zimmerman wins. Unless there’s some other evidence that, inexplicably, wasn’t presented at the trial. I really wish libel laws were used against such false, defamatory claims on message boards. It would be _hilarious_ to see you in another legal battle, no doubt defending yourself and using all the strategies lawyers tell you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![fudrucker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fudrucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fudrucker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/867 "2013-07-21T10:50:15Z")
> [@Passion\_of\_the\_Shrubber](#): > > That’s seven more calls about black people than I’ve ever made in my entire lifetime and I live in a predominantly black neighborhood. > > And who calls 911 on a pothole or a bag of garbage in the street or an open garage door? Sounds like Z was a bit of a nut, to my mind. A little too preoccupied with the goings-on in his neighborhood, perhaps? Perhaps. But doesn’t a person have a right to a trial by his peers? And if the verdict is not guilty don’t we all have a moral obligation to get off his back? ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/868 "2013-07-21T11:39:07Z")
We have a legal obligation to not prosecute them anymore, and a moral obligation to not harass them. But there is no obligation to stop discussing the case. And I ain’t hiring Casey Anthony as a babysitter, and I’d decline an offer to play golf with OJ. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/869 "2013-07-21T12:29:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Except, **Terr** ’s claim is factual, decided by the finders of fact at trial. Yours is based on nothing whatsoever. You’ve failed to even show evidence he was a liar, and the evidence presented at the trial (you know, that thing you decided not to bother watching, because you already magically knew all the answers) shows that no murder was committed. That will be borne out when there’s a civil case or immunity hearing, and Zimmerman wins. Unless there’s some other evidence that, inexplicably, wasn’t presented at the trial. It’s strange that you keep saying that others should only stick to purely factual claims, and then you blithely assert that it “ **will** be borne out when there’s a civil case or immunity hearing, and Zimmerman wins.” That’s only a guess on your part that is not guaranteed to be correct. Even if the jury was completely correct to acquit him due to reasonable doubt, that in no way means that they totally believed his story. The jury could have believed that he was lying about parts or most of his story, and still thought the state didn’t present enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury could have thought that he was mostly likely or probably guilty, or beyond a preponderance of the evidence - but that’s not the standard a criminal trial requires. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman would lose a civil case or immunity hearing, even if there isn’t any additional evidence that wasn’t presented at trial (contrary to your claim). > [@fudrucker](#): > > Perhaps. But doesn’t a person have a right to a trial by his peers? And if the verdict is not guilty don’t we all have a moral obligation to get off his back? What a strange idea. Of course a not guilty verdict means the _government_ has to “get off his back” as far as criminal charges go (ie. double jeopardy). But members of the public or on the internet have no moral obligation to get off his back, and every right to have their own opinions, however strong. Zimmerman has been found legally not guilty (not innocent, just not guilty), and he and his supporters can say whatever they want (free speech); his detractors also have that same right. It’s interesting how so many Zimmerman supporters in this thread state that they are just following the rule of law and that they are obviously the only ones here making factual claims - and then they demonstrate that they really don’t understand some fundamental (and important) concepts. ---
**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 21, 2013, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/870 "2013-07-21T12:46:00Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > It’s strange that you keep saying that others should only stick to purely factual claims, and then you blithely assert that it “ **will** be borne out when there’s a civil case or immunity hearing, and Zimmerman wins.” That’s only a guess on your part that is not guaranteed to be correct. It’s a bit more than a guess, it’s a prediction based on the evidence available. But yes, clearly I don’t have a time machine or crystal ball, and am not stating a fact about the future. > [@](#): > > Even if the jury was completely correct to acquit him due to reasonable doubt, that in no way means that they totally believed his story. The jury could have believed that he was lying about parts or most of his story, and still thought the state didn’t present enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury could have thought that he was mostly likely or probably guilty, or beyond a preponderance of the evidence - but that’s not the standard a criminal trial requires. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman would lose a civil case or immunity hearing, even if there isn’t any additional evidence that wasn’t presented at trial (contrary to your claim). We have the interview with one of the jurors who says the majority of them believed he was, in fact, innocent. Unless and until the others speak, that’s unconfirmed, but it’s clear at least one juror did. I am making my own judgement based on the evidence available that the preponderance of it points to justified self defence, mainly because there’s virtually no credible evidence (in my opinion) that suggests it wasn’t. People claiming it wasn’t are drawing unwarranted inferences from the lack of evidence. > [@](#): > > What a strange idea. Of course a not guilty verdict means the _government_ has to “get off his back” as far as criminal charges go (ie. double jeopardy). But members of the public or on the internet have no moral obligation to get off his back, and every right to have their own opinions, however strong. Zimmerman has been found legally not guilty (not innocent, just not guilty), and he and his supporters can say whatever they want (free speech); his detractors also have that same right. Ultimately, it comes down to how much you respect the law, and how much you value a society controlled by a justice system. I consider it important to treat an acquitted man as innocent, as any one of us could end up falsely accused of a crime, and it is for the protection of _everyone_ (not specifically Zimmerman) that I believe this. If you don’t consider this important, and consider your own morality superior to that of the society you live in, and your own judgements better than that of a jury, then you will presumably feel differently. Of course, pretty much everybody thinks this at least some of the time, but I don’t feel that the appropriate response is to say that you should be able to violate the law without consequence, or treat those who have not been shown to have violated it as criminals. You are, of course, within your rights not to vote for Zimmerman as your next neighbourhood watchman, or hire him as a security guard or whatever. The line is crossed, in my opinion, when people refer to him as a murderer. ---
**Author:** ![Passion\_of\_the\_Shrubber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a5b964/32.png) [@Passion\_of\_the\_Shrubber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Passion_of_the_Shrubber)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/871 "2013-07-21T13:11:50Z")
> [@fudrucker](#): > > Perhaps. But doesn’t a person have a right to a trial by his peers? And if the verdict is not guilty don’t we all have a moral obligation to get off his back? Funny you should mention a moral obligation to stay off of Zimmerman’s back; didn’t he have a moral obligation to stay off of Trayvon’s back since all the kid was doing was “walking and looking about” according to Zimmerman’s own words? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/872 "2013-07-21T13:18:50Z")
I apologize if my opinions just echo those expressed by others earlier. What a minute. This is the Pit, right? No, Fuck you. I’m not apologizing for being too lazy to skim this whole fucking thread. Who could ever keep up anyway? These _GZ supporters say the stupidest things_ threads, if combined, would be longer than the _Republicans say the stupidest things_ thread. And that takes a lot of stupidity. Let me dispose of some of the stupidest memes: [ul][li]Gun fanatics aren’t racist. We know that because one gun nut supported one black one time.[/li]\* Yeah. And one girl was too drunk to say no to you once. Does that mean every girl wants you to fuck her? [li] He was found Not Guilty. Therefore he is Not Guilty.[/li]\* This is even stupider. One of the jurors implied that GZ was a cold-blooded asshole she’d have loved to see fry, but the jury felt bound by the Letter of the Law. The outrageous laws which, for example, in Texas allow you to murder in cold-blood and with impunity someone fleeing if you suspect them of $150 fraud. :smack: … If it’s night-time. :smack: :smack: [li] Yes, GZ said he had no regrets about killing TM and that it was God’s plan _but that doesn’t count because 20 minutes later, after consulting with his lawyer, he said he misspoke._[/li]\* Even **Brickhead** fell for this! As intellectual leader of your band of imbeciles, I used to think you weren’t a clinical imbecile, **Brickhead** – just a moron. Now I’m not sure. [li] (This is **Aceplace** ’s take): Although this cold-blooded killer was set free, and will doubtless make millions over the years appearing on FauxNews _Reality Killers_ or whatever, this is a sad day for America. When I’m placed in GZ’s position with the opportunity to get out of car and kill me some innocent nigger, I’ll have to think twice. Look what GZ was subjected to.[/li]\* Yes, a Doper actually took this view. I won’t hunt down the URL; I’d have to read his vile post again. [li] Race was irrelevant.[/li]\* I’ll give the Dopers who said this credit and assume they’re just liars and hypocrites. Otherwise I’d have to demote them from imbecile to idiot. [/ul] > [@Bricker](#): > > [Jimmy McNulty] > what the fuck did I do? > [/Jimmy McNulty] You post too often when you’re drunk or off your meds or something; that’s what you do wrong. You differ from other right-wing blabbering idiots in that some of your posts do seem sane and sober. Tell you what: You promise to post only when sober and I’ll monitor you for a while and decide if you’re worth reading. I don’t set Dopers to Ignore but right now you’re on my Read-only-for-laughs list. ---
**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 21, 2013, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/873 "2013-07-21T13:27:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [li] He was found Not Guilty. Therefore he is Not Guilty.[/li]\* This is even stupider. One of the jurors implied that GZ was a cold-blooded asshole she’d have loved to see fry, but the jury felt bound by the Letter of the Law. No, that’s exactly what it means. The jury, the finder of fact, determined that he was not guilty. That is now a fact. That they disliked his actions, or him personally, no matter how strongly, does not make him guilty. He broke no law, based on the actual evidence. The “Letter Of The Law” is far more important than your feelings, especially when they are based on misinformation and idiocy. He is factually not guilty of murder, and will remain so unless there are exceptional circumstances that call into question the jury’s decision - such as for example, OJ writing a book where he all but confessed to murder. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/874 "2013-07-21T13:35:48Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > We have the interview with one of the jurors who says the majority of them believed he was, in fact, innocent. Unless and until the others speak, that’s unconfirmed, but it’s clear at least one juror did. Juror B37 didn’t say that the majority believed he was innocent. She said the initial vote when they started their deliberations was three for not guilty, two for manslaughter, and one for guilty. That’s a 50/50 split. And “not guilty” != “innocent”. Interesting that you reference the interview with juror with B37, but apparently you are unaware of the [open letter](http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/16/_4_george_zimmerman_.html) from four of the other jurors on July 16 (five days ago). They \*have/I] spoken, and they said (my emphasis in bold): > [@](#): > > We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives. **We also wish to point out that the opinions of Juror B-37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below**. > > Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us. The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts but\*\* in the end we did what the law required us to do\*\*. > > We appeal to the highest standards of your profession and ask the media to respect our privacy and give us time to process what we have been through. > > Thank you, > > Juror B-51 > Juror B-76 > Juror E-6 > Juror E-40 They said they did “what the law required them to do”. Absent further elaboration, their statement can be interpreted various ways. It could easily mean that they thought Zimmerman was probably guilty of something, but that unfortunately the state didn’t quite meet the standard of evidence required, and they had to hold their nose and acquit. That’s speculation on my part, but it’s not inconsistent with their statement. > [@Steophan](#): > > I am making my own judgement based on the evidence available that the preponderance of it points to justified self defence, mainly because there’s virtually no credible evidence (in my opinion) that suggests it wasn’t. People claiming it wasn’t are drawing unwarranted inferences from the lack of evidence. So you’re saying there’s no credible evidence (in your opinion), but then people who claim differently **are** wrong? :dubious: Just because you are drawing your own conclusions about the self defense claim and whether it meets a preponderance of the evidence doesn’t mean you’re correct and that people who look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion are “unwarranted.” > [@Steophan](#): > > Ultimately, it comes down to how much you respect the law, and how much you value a society controlled by a justice system. I consider it important to treat an acquitted man as innocent, as any one of us could end up falsely accused of a crime, and it is for the protection of _everyone_ (not specifically Zimmerman) that I believe this. Spare me the self righteousness. IMHO, the reason many people are protesting the verdict is _because_ they value a society controlled by a justice system, and they think that the system needs to be improved or reconsidered in certain respects. Sure, anyone can be falsely accused of a crime and (in general) people who are acquitted should be treated as innocent. But this doesn’t mean that everyone needs to turn off their brains. All other things being equal, and if I’m not aware of the details of a case, then my personal morality would lead me to treat an acquitted person as most likely innocent. But often all other things _aren’t_ totally equal. In this case, most of us known a lot of details about the case and we can draw our own conclusions. You say that you would treat _any_ acquitted person as being actually innocent. But surely that doesn’t apply in every case? What if someone was **absolutely and clearly** guilty of a crime, but it’s after the statute of limitations has passed and a conviction would not be legal? Would you still personally view them as innocent? What if their guilt was clear (say it was videotaped and there is no doubt), but the evidence was improperly obtained or there were other fatal errors by the police or prosecution and the accused must be found not guilty? Would you personally view them as now totally innocent just because they couldn’t be convicted? > [@Steophan](#): > > You are, of course, within your rights not to vote for Zimmerman as your next neighbourhood watchman, or hire him as a security guard or whatever. The line is crossed, in my opinion, when people refer to him as a murderer. So you “consider it important to treat an acquitted man as innocent, as any one of us could end up falsely accused of a crime” and yet now your only objection is which terminology we use? It’s okay to refuse to associate with him, to state your opinions about him, and to not hire him for a job. But when we have our negative opinions about him, but was just can’t refer to him as a “murderer”? I thought your position was that anyone (including yourself) could be falsely accused so we should treat him as innocent? ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/875 "2013-07-21T13:44:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > He is factually not guilty of murder, and will remain so unless there are exceptional circumstances that call into question the jury’s decision. The know that your statement is correct from a (pedantic) legal point of view, but that’s not the colloquial sense of how nearly everyone uses the word “factual”. IMHO, Zimmerman is legally not guilty of murder (or manslaughter). But he could be _actually_ guilty of one or the other, even though the jury’s decision was technically the correct one for them to make. Yeah, yeah “juries are the finder of fact” so that makes him “factually not guilty” from a legal point of view. But what would be the correct terminology to use for someone who actually committed the crime but was properly acquitted? ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/876 "2013-07-21T14:20:00Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > But what would be the correct terminology to use for someone who actually committed the crime but was properly acquitted? “Not Guilty”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/877 "2013-07-21T14:21:59Z")
Truly a marvelous thing, the jury verdict is a metaphysical engine. And resolves the old paradox of Shrodinger’s cat: if the the jury says the cat is dead, then the cat is dead. If a jury says the sun rises in the west, the axial rotation of the planet will reverse. That could get kinda messy, we had best not put that question to a jury. ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/878 "2013-07-21T14:35:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Truly a marvelous thing, the jury verdict is a metaphysical engine. And resolves the old paradox of Shrodinger’s cat: if the the jury says the cat is dead, then the cat is dead. If a jury says the sun rises in the west, the axial rotation of the planet will reverse. That could get kinda messy, we had best not put that question to a jury. Should it be shown as a matter of scientific fact that Zimmerman is guilty, I’ll change my mind, as it will be shown the jury were wrong. However, as a question of _legal_ fact, the kind that matters when discussing guilt, the jury is supreme when they declare he’s not guilty. Bear in mind that, although we may accurately say OJ Simpson is guilty, as a matter of legal fact he is not guilty of murder. It so happens that in that exceptional case, something that trumps legal fact is present. That could happen in the Zimmerman case, if someone presents compelling evidence of guilt. That’s not happened yet, so the jury’s verdict stands unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/879 "2013-07-21T15:16:51Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [li] Yes, GZ said he had no regrets about killing TM and that it was God’s plan _but that doesn’t count because 20 minutes later, after consulting with his lawyer, he said he misspoke._[/li]\* Even **Brickhead** fell for this! As intellectual leader of your band of imbeciles, I used to think you weren’t a clinical imbecile, **Brickhead** – just a moron. Now I’m not sure. I’d like to bid to get my moron status back. After seeing the exact question asked, it became obvious to me that his reasons for supposedly “misspeaking” were false. I said as much, only a few posts later. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419/880 "2013-07-21T15:44:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d like to bid to get my moron status back. After seeing the exact question asked, it became obvious to me that his reasons for supposedly “misspeaking” were false. I said as much, only a few posts later. Here’s a clue: Morons review quotes _before_ commenting on them. (And in the thread, I’d just previously posted a link to the full interview on TouTube, set to start 19 minutes in, at the relevant part.) Imbeciles just let the neurons controlling their fingers type randomly without bothering first to acquire knowledge, thereby disrespecting any Doper who hasn’t kowtowed to the imbecilic right-wing fantasies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-zimmerman-trial-circus/663419.md?page=45)