# Question about the Trayvon Martin Case? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504 "2012-04-11T22:28:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/141 "2012-04-12T21:38:13Z")
I agree with you domestic violence hypothetical, she should go free. Cases like this are why I am a big believer in jury nullification. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/142 "2012-04-12T21:39:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 1. Zimmerman’s dad wasn’t there. Zimmerman was, was interrogated about his version of events for five hours, and, according to police, didn’t change his story even once during those interrogations. Problem is, we have no idea what exactly he told the police.. I thought I made it clear that I understood that that it was Zimmerman’s father’s retelling. I’m just taking it at face value. BTW, apparently the lead investigator [wanted charges brought against Zimmerman that night](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57405716-504083/trayvon-martin-lead-investigator-wanted-george-zimmerman-arrested-the-night-of-the-fatal-shooting/) so maybe Z wasn’t all that convincing after-all. > [@](#): > > 1. That “while being beaten” continued more than a minute, according to your timeline above. The recount above makes it seem like the decision to shoot was immediate. It wasn’t.. Yes, a beating (now it’s either a smothering or shaken baby syndrome) that left him just one blow from having to live the rest of his life in diapers being spoon-fed by his brother. We’ve heard all this. > [@](#): > > 1. When someone punches you in the face, very few people respond with “Hello, my name is \*\*\*\*.”. The alleged punch which allegedly broke his nose occurred after the you got a problem question and after had responded, “No, I don’t have a problem.” And of course, this account contradicts the girlfriend who claims she heard the initial confrontation, but I guess he will say that she’s lying. And his account also contradicts earlier statements by family that he claimed he was blindsided/jumped from behind. Look, I’m not saying Z is guilty. I’m saying that I understand why the SA thinks that there was probable cause. From what has been released, it just doesn’t add up. Where it goes from here will depend upon the facts, facts that we the public don’t have. Autopsy, medical records, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/143 "2012-04-12T21:42:30Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I agree with you domestic violence hypothetical, she should go free. Cases like this are why I am a big believer in jury nullification. That’s kind of a flimsy argument. Especially considering the miniscule number of cases of jury nullification. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/144 "2012-04-12T21:45:04Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I agree with you domestic violence hypothetical, she should go free. Cases like this are why I am a big believer in jury nullification. What if the jury decided to “nullify,” say, anti-discrimination laws? “Well, the so-called Civil Rights Act says an employer can’t fire the plaintiff due to his race. But you know, I get where the employer is coming from. Not guilty.” Or, “The law says I can’t consider how the victim was dressed when determining guilt on a rape charge. But that’s just women’s lib hokum. Enjoy your freedom, defendant!” Still a big believer in “jury nullification” now? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/145 "2012-04-12T22:13:21Z")
Or if the OJ Simpson jury let him go so he could be in the next _Police Squad_ movie! Or if the jury let Lee Harvey Oswald go because he was a Communist, as an act of revolutionary solidarity? Still believe? Oh, OK, then how about if they let Kayzer Sozay go because he was all gimped up? How about _now_?! ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/146 "2012-04-12T22:15:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Or if the OJ Simpson jury let him go so he could be in the next _Police Squad_ movie! Or if the jury let Lee Harvey Oswald go because he was a Communist, as an act of revolutionary solidarity? Still believe? Oh, OK, then how about if they let Kayzer Sozay go because he was all gimped up? How about _now_?! Are you taking a position on the propriety of so-called “jury nullification” or just being a wiseass? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/147 "2012-04-12T22:29:09Z")
Little of both. I don’t doubt there are circumstances where jury nullification is just and needful, but that such cases are and ought to be exceedingly rare. The important questions almost never have one simple, clear answer. As for “wiseass”, well, birds gotta swim, fish gotta sing… ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/148 "2012-04-12T22:34:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That’s kind of a flimsy argument. Especially considering the miniscule number of cases of jury nullification. Totally different thread, I should not have brought it up. That said, I have seen estimates that 20% of acquittals are the result of jury nullification. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > What if the jury decided to “nullify,” say, anti-discrimination laws? “Well, the so-called Civil Rights Act says an employer can’t fire the plaintiff due to his race. But you know, I get where the employer is coming from. Not guilty.” Or, “The law says I can’t consider how the victim was dressed when determining guilt on a rape charge. But that’s just women’s lib hokum. Enjoy your freedom, defendant!” Still a big believer in “jury nullification” now? Yes. Even though I agree there is a downside in some cases. But what’s your problem? Your hypothetical people were tried by a jury of their peers, isn’t this what the constitution calls for? On edit: I am happy to discuss this topic, but it should perhaps be left to another thread. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/149 "2012-04-12T22:44:12Z")
Oh, no you don’t! You brought it up, its \*your \*hi-jack! All the rest of us are just innocent victims of your perfidy! ---
**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:** [April 13, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/150 "2012-04-13T01:48:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 1. Zimmerman’s dad wasn’t there. Zimmerman was, was interrogated about his version of events for five hours, and, according to police, didn’t change his story even once during those interrogations. Problem is, we have no idea what exactly he told the police. > > 2. That “while being beaten” continued more than a minute, according to your timeline above. The recount above makes it seem like the decision to shoot was immediate. It wasn’t. > > 3. When someone punches you in the face, very few people respond with “Hello, my name is \*\*\*\*.”. Keep in mind that Zimmerman’s dad has already been caught making blatantly false statements so I don’t think he has any credibility. Beyond that, if Zimmerman really did tell the police that Trayvon Martin said “what’s your problem Homie” then that would be even further reason to not believe him because this is 2012, not 1992. The only thing missing from Zimmerman’s dad’s account of Trayvon’s words and actions was him declaring “I’m gonna get you, suckah!” ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/151 "2012-04-13T03:05:55Z")
[Alan Dershowitz](http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/12/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_arrest_affidavit_irresponsible_and_unethical.html) on the second-degree murder charge. > [@](#): > > “Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.” Watching the whole video Dershowitz makes some very cogent points, He suspects that the prosecutor has deliberately overcharged in order to pressure Zimmerman into a deal on manslaughter. I certainly agree with one of his contentions: that the American system of elected prosecutors and judges is not conducive to justice in such high-profile cases. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/152 "2012-04-13T06:29:58Z")
This law seems to favor whoever survives an altercation. Drug deal gone bad-“but I felt my life was threatened” Neighbor gets on your nerves-“I felt my life was threatened” If you want someone dead and there are no witnesses, just claim, “My life was threatened” and bloody your own nose. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/153 "2012-04-13T06:57:54Z")
For example: On the cul-de-sac I grew up on there was a hated neighbor. He was an ass and very mean to all us kids (he and his wife had no children). In high school a friend had a loud motorcycle and one night the mean neighbor stopped my friend and showed him his handgun and told him never to ride that noisy bike in the neighborhood again. Now if this kid had killed the mean neighbor, he could easily get off by claiming he felt his life was in danger. Or if mean neighboor had killed the kid, he could say he felt his life was in danger. This law makes it very easy to get away with killing, justified or not. Just stress you felt your life was in danger and maybe scratch your face and bloody your nose. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/154 "2012-04-13T14:14:27Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > Or if mean neighboor had killed the kid, he could say he felt his life was in danger. And then he’d be charged with murder or manslaughter anyway. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/155 "2012-04-13T14:30:30Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > This law seems to favor whoever survives an altercation. > > Drug deal gone bad-“but I felt my life was threatened” > > Neighbor gets on your nerves-“I felt my life was threatened” > > If you want someone dead and there are no witnesses, just claim, “My life was threatened” and > bloody your own nose. But that’s how self-defense has worked since the beginning of time. In the absence of SYG laws, you generally have a duty to retreat. If retreat isn’t an option, you’re free to blast away. So if you’re the only surviving witness, it’s not hard to fabricate a scenario wherein you felt your life was in danger, but you couldn’t retreat. SYG laws are responses to cases like the pharmacist who went back into his store to shoot an armed robber a second time. Why did he shoot the guy again? He felt he still might be in danger. Ah, but then why did he run back into the store? SYG eliminates that last question from the equation. If a SYG law had been on the books, it wouldn’t _matter_ why he ran back into the store, because he’d had a legal right to do so, and he’d have had no legal obligation to retreat. Similarly, the guy in Texas who told the 911 operator that he was going to go shoot the two guys robbing his neighbors house. Pre-SYG, one might question why he felt the need to leave the safety of his own home. Post-SYG, all that matters is that he had a legal right to be in his front yard, and once there, he felt his life was threatened. In both of those cases, though, a felony was in progress when the person decided to inject themselves into harms way. In the Martin/Zimmerman case, SYG wouldn’t really come into play, because up until the first punch was thrown, Zimmerman had no reason to think that his life was in danger, and therefore wouldn’t have had a legal requirement to retreat from anything. Once the first punch was thrown, he can argue (given Martin’s inability to testify) that retreat wasn’t an option, without needing to invoke any SYG law. This is why gun nuts have been blithering on about “If you’re going to shoot someone in self defense, better make sure you kill them so there’s only 1 side of the story” for as long as I’ve been on the internet. It’s disgusting, but that doesn’t mean it’s not sound advice. What the Florida version of SYG does is make policework much harder, even in cases where it wouldn’t necessarily be invoked, such as this one. Bricker has explained how in other threads. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/156 "2012-04-13T15:05:14Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Similarly, the guy in Texas who told the 911 operator that he was going to go shoot the two guys robbing his neighbors house. Pre-SYG, one might question why he felt the need to leave the safety of his own home. Post-SYG, all that matters is that he had a legal right to be in his front yard, and once there, he felt his life was threatened. > > In both of those cases, though, a felony was in progress when the person decided to inject themselves into harms way. Just wanted to point out that in the [Joe Horn shootings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy), the felony was no longer in progress, and Mr. Horn shot both of the victims in the back. Neither of the victims was armed. A detective witnessed the shootings and his report states that one of the men had in fact moved towards Mr. Horn before angling away from him and running towards the street before he was shot in the back. There is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Horn was ever in danger, nor that a reasonable person would feel endangered in a similar situation; it is rare (to the point of being preposterous) that a person could be in danger from someone facing away and not in close proximity. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/157 "2012-04-13T18:45:33Z")
Here is a question about invoking this SYG law: Normally self defense is a matter for trial, but in this case they defense will be presenting evidence at pre-trial. Unless there is a lot of evidence I am unaware of, the SYG assertion must rest mostly on the testimony of Zimmerman. Does the defendant have to waive his right to not testify to use SYG? Normally, the defendant would only testify about self defense after the prosecution has presented its case. If Zimmerman takes the stand in pre-trial does the DA get to cross? Can the DA then call the defendant as a witness? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/158 "2012-04-13T19:13:45Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Here is a question about invoking this SYG law: Normally self defense is a matter for trial, but in this case they defense will be presenting evidence at pre-trial. Unless there is a lot of evidence I am unaware of, the SYG assertion must rest mostly on the testimony of Zimmerman. > > Does the defendant have to waive his right to not testify to use SYG? Normally, the defendant would only testify about self defense after the prosecution has presented its case. If Zimmerman takes the stand in pre-trial does the DA get to cross? Can the DA then call the defendant as a witness? Excellent questions. Based on general principles of evidence, the DA can cross-examine Zimmerman in an evidentiary hearing in which he gives testimony. However, this does not waive his right to avoid self-incrimination at trial, and the DA could not call Zimmerman as a prosecution witness. However, Zimmerman’s testimony would be admissible under the prior testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and if Zimmerman chose to testify at trial he could be impeached with his prior testimony under the prior inconsistent statement exception to the hearsay rule. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/159 "2012-04-13T19:57:00Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > If I understand the bill correctly, it says that you can meet force with force and have no duty to retreat. Nobody knows what happened that night (except Zimmerman), but if Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon after stalking him and pursuing him through the neighborhood, it is entirely reasonable under the law for Trayvon to defend himself with physical force. I don’t know about you, but when I was 17 years old I would have been scared to death if there was some guy following around a neighborhood at night. > > For the record, the writer of the law (Florida state representative Dennis Baxley) seems to agree with me in principle (from NPR’s Talk of the Nation): > Emphasis added by me. I heard only part of that show. Very Interesting. I’ve adjusted my thinking a bit. I’ve been thinking that we’d have to find out who was the aggressor when they came face to face, but reading that I think he may be suggesting that when Z’man got out of his vehicle to follow Martin the SYG law applies to Martin more than Z’man. Even if Martin approached Z’man and said “why are you following me” the SYG rule is protecting Martin not Z’man who had pursued him. That may be why Z’man’s story has been framed as it has been. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/160 "2012-04-13T20:43:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excellent questions. > > Based on general principles of evidence, the DA can cross-examine Zimmerman in an evidentiary hearing in which he gives testimony. However, this does not waive his right to avoid self-incrimination at trial, and the DA could not call Zimmerman as a prosecution witness. > > However, Zimmerman’s testimony would be admissible under the prior testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and if Zimmerman chose to testify at trial he could be impeached with his prior testimony under the prior inconsistent statement exception to the hearsay rule. Can Zimmerman’s brother & father as well as “family friend” Joe Oliver be subpoenaed to testify as to what George told them about the encounter between him and Martin or would hearsay rules prohibit their testimony as to those conversations. I was wondering about that considering the amount of time they’ve spent before the media in interviews making statement about what supposedly happened that evening that seem to indicate Zimmerman had told them his version of the events. I’m asking because I always thought the only people from the defendant’s side who should give that kind of interview where they go beyond acting as character witnesses to presenting the defendants version of events should either be his attorney or his spouse since attorney-client and spousal privilege prevents them from having to testify to conversations with the defendant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504.md?page=9)