# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/541 "2013-07-02T01:03:23Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > FWIW, that guy has been tweeting profusely during the trial. Based on his tweets, I can say that he’s incredibly biased, agenda-driven, and a giant dick. > > No idea if his legal analysis is any good, though. This article has an overview of multiple legal analysts. > **[Orlando Sentinel](https://www.orlandosentinel.com/)** > > Orlando Sentinel: Your source for Orlando breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/542 "2013-07-02T01:37:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Honesty** , this case is getting a fair amount of national press, and that means a number of different network legal analysts are commenting. > > Excluding Frederick Leatherman, are there any legal analysts who share your view that today was a wonderful day for the prosecution? Bricker, I don’t care if I’m the only person on the planet that thought today was a good day for the prosecution. Today, I heard Zimmerman vomit out his inconsistent statements and contradict witness statements. I’m glad you and others find that today’s trial benefited the defense - good for you - but I don’t. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/543 "2013-07-02T01:40:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t think incompetence is the only plausible theory. Others include: > > [ol] > [li]The prosecution was politically required, so they went with what they had.[/li] > [li]The prosecutor thought in good faith that there was room for reasonable debate on whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and viewed it as an uphill battle that a jury should decide.[/li] > [li]The special prosecutor’s relationship with the PD is not as strong as local prosecutors.[/li] > [li]They thought the case should plead out, they were wrong, and now they have to go to trial to maintain credibility in their future plea negotiations.[/li][/ol] > > It’s probably a mix of all of the above. But I haven’t seen them do anything that strikes me as incompetent (though I haven’t been following as closely as some). Sounds right; I didn’t consider options 2 and 4. Do you think the defense still needs to be concerned about a conviction on the lesser charge? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/544 "2013-07-02T01:45:46Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > He only had that reasonable fear _ **while the gun was not in his hand** _ Once it was, I think a “Dude, I’m pointing a loaded gun at your heart, wanna get the fuck off?” would have been more than sufficient. Ok, I find this baffling. You’re saying that even if Zimmerman’s account was completely true (meaning that he briefly ran after Martin, stopped, then was attacked and beaten until Martin told him he was going to die and tried to grab his pistol), you’d still support a conviction for second-degree murder, because a) Zimmerman’s "behavior creating everything about [the situation], and b) Zimmerman didn’t issue a verbal warning after winning the struggle for the gun and before firing. As for a), the only behavior that preceded the attack in Zimmerman’s account is his running after Martin for a short time, before losing sight of him and stopping. Suggesting that by opening his truck’s door and running a short distance, Zimmerman lost all right to defend his life or bodily health from an attacker is just…well, evil. Your morality seems to be all over the place here. Martin faces no blame for attacking Zimmerman, instead Zimmerman is responsible for Martin’s acts. Meanwhile, the attacker can’t be fought off without a warning, or better yet, the victim of the attack having a skull fracture to prove he held out as long as possible. What’s the difference between saying Zimmerman’s to blame for “creating” the situation, and saying that a woman in a short skirt who went out alone “created” the situation of her rape? As for b), do you simply oppose self-defense as a moral and legal concept? Because I can’t imagine what else would lead to demand that a person who was facing a violent, sustained attack, including fighting over a lethal weapon, pause and issue a 17-syllable warning before defending himself, as though an attacker will call time-out instead of bashing him in the head or grabbing the gun again, ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/545 "2013-07-02T03:00:01Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > The prosecution made a good point that George actually said the screams on the tape didn’t sound like him. The jury also got to hear Serino point out problems with George’s statement. Things like the length of the non emergency call versus the time George was walking. The questions about smothering and not hearing the screams stop on the 911 tape. Not really a good point for the Prosecution. In Zimmerman’s walkthrough he said Martin covered his mouth when he started screaming so it occurred early in the fight and would have been the trigger that started people looking out the window. There would be a sizeable gap between the first scream and when the 911 call was made. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/546 "2013-07-02T03:40:28Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It’s probably a mix of all of the above. But I haven’t seen them do anything that strikes me as incompetent (though I haven’t been following as closely as some). I haven’t really been following this very closely, but the impression I get is that the prosecution just doesn’t have a very strong case, and that puts them in a difficult position. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/547 "2013-07-02T03:53:08Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ok, I find this baffling. You’re saying that even if Zimmerman’s account was completely true (meaning that he briefly ran after Martin, stopped, then was attacked and beaten until Martin told him he was going to die and tried to grab his pistol), you’d still support a conviction for second-degree murder, because a) Zimmerman’s "behavior creating everything about [the situation], and b) Zimmerman didn’t issue a verbal warning after winning the struggle for the gun and before firing. > > As for a), the only behavior that preceded the attack in Zimmerman’s account is his running after Martin for a short time, before losing sight of him and stopping. Suggesting that by opening his truck’s door and running a short distance, Zimmerman lost all right to defend his life or bodily health from an attacker is just…well, evil. > > Your morality seems to be all over the place here. Martin faces no blame for attacking Zimmerman, instead Zimmerman is responsible for Martin’s acts. Meanwhile, the attacker can’t be fought off without a warning, or better yet, the victim of the attack having a skull fracture to prove he held out as long as possible. > > What’s the difference between saying Zimmerman’s to blame for “creating” the situation, and saying that a woman in a short skirt who went out alone “created” the situation of her rape? > > As for b), do you simply oppose self-defense as a moral and legal concept? Because I can’t imagine what else would lead to demand that a person who was facing a violent, sustained attack, including fighting over a lethal weapon, pause and issue a 17-syllable warning before defending himself, as though an attacker will call time-out instead of bashing him in the head or grabbing the gun again, Her point is that, the second the Zimmerman had the gun, he should no longer have been in fear of his life, as the only reason was in fear for his life was that Martin was trying to get his gun. Therefore he had no right to shoot. Not saying I agree, but I don’t know why you are getting the interpretation you are offering. ---
**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 2, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/548 "2013-07-02T04:20:42Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ok, I find this baffling. Since his various versions can’t all be true, that kind of gums up the whole thought experiment. Sorry about that. I believe in a person’s right to defend themselves. I don’t believe George Zimmerman needed to defend himself, and I don’t believe that’s what he did, even if _ **he** _ believes it. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/549 "2013-07-02T04:21:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Wow. Talk about utter escape from reality. I don’t think that’s anything terribly new. You should read the Leatherbum blog. Folks are literally drowning in the Kool-Aid. ---
**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 2, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/550 "2013-07-02T04:21:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Her point is that, the second the Zimmerman had the gun, he should no longer have been in fear of his life, as the only reason was in fear for his life was that Martin was trying to get his gun. Therefore he had no right to shoot. > > Not saying I agree, but I don’t know why you are getting the interpretation you are offering. Thank you! Sooper simple. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/551 "2013-07-02T04:35:04Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Her point is that, the second the Zimmerman had the gun, he should no longer have been in fear of his life, as the only reason was in fear for his life was that Martin was trying to get his gun. Therefore he had no right to shoot. > > Not saying I agree, but I don’t know why you are getting the interpretation you are offering. But how could he have had full control of the gun in that scenario, with that tight of a space between them? In a legitimate struggle for a gun, it is sometimes impossible to simply hold someone at gunpoint; you need to shoot lest you lose control and get shot yourself. I accept that. However, what I don’t accept is how that scenario played out in this case, according to Zimmerman’s own statements. Where were Zimmerman’s arms? I waited all year for this trial hoping it would come out, and so far - nothing. No one asked him that? How come he couldn’t use his arms to cover his head, or poke Martin in the eyes, or chop his windpipe, or grab his balls, etc., BUT he was able to lift his arm to reach for his gun, across his own body, take aim, and shoot. While screaming, being choked, smothered, slammed, etc. And Martin was doing what? He never touched the gun, according to the evidence. I blame the PD for not seeking clarity for this part of his statement. Can’t say if it was depraved, or self defense, because IMO, his statement doesn’t realistically get to that point. ---
**Author:** ![tralfamidor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/779978/32.png) [@tralfamidor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tralfamidor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/552 "2013-07-02T05:17:33Z")
Well, this almost looks like the 1919 World Series. If you were the defense in the Zimmerman trial, given the unbelievable botching by the prosecution thus far, would you: 1. Present your defense as planned 2. Present a truncated version of the planned defense, avoiding any risky tactics 3. Tilt your chair back, laughing, saying, “The prosecution, I mean the defense, rests.” It would probably be inappropriate for Zimmerman to do an NFL-style victory dance tomorrow in the courtroom but really, how could he lose now? (I still think that a guilty verdict on a lesser charge is the way things will actually go, but strictly on the merits of the case, Zimmerman is not guilty.) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/553 "2013-07-02T05:36:41Z")
> [@camille](#): > > How come he couldn’t use his arms to cover his head, or poke Martin in the eyes, or chop his windpipe, or grab his balls, etc., BUT he was able to lift his arm to reach for his gun, across his own body, take aim, and shoot. While screaming, being choked, smothered, slammed, etc. And Martin was doing what? He never touched the gun, according to the evidence. The advantage of getting on top of someone in a fight is huge. You can pin the other person’s arms down and basically wail on them until they can wriggle free enough to use their arms. The person on top has the advantage of putting his weight into the punches while he person on the bottom cannot. the person on top can weave and move back and forth. The person on the bottom can wiggle. If the person on the bottom gets use of his hands then they will most likely be used to cover his face which at that point has already taken a number of hits with no blocking. I’ve only been in that situation once as a kid but that was back in the day when you could say “I give up” and it was over. You’re screwed if someone gets on top of you. ---
**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 2, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/554 "2013-07-02T05:59:59Z")
> [@camille](#): > > his statement doesn’t realistically get to that point. Bingo. The only way you can buy Zimmerman is if you check your brain at the door. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/555 "2013-07-02T06:46:48Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The only way you can buy Zimmerman is if you check your brain at the door. Then his conviction is assured. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/556 "2013-07-02T11:16:02Z")
This has probably been asked and answered way earlier in the thread, but in criminal cases, do they have some sort of document stating the facts that the prosecution and the defense mutually agree on? And if so, link, please? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/557 "2013-07-02T12:53:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Her point is that, the second the Zimmerman had the gun, he should no longer have been in fear of his life, as the only reason was in fear for his life was that Martin was trying to get his gun. Therefore he had no right to shoot. > > Not saying I agree, but I don’t know why you are getting the interpretation you are offering. > [@Stoid](#): > > Thank you! Sooper simple. > [@Stoid](#): > > Since his various versions can’t all be true, that kind of gums up the whole thought experiment. Sorry about that. > > I believe in a person’s right to defend themselves. > > I don’t believe George Zimmerman needed to defend himself, and I don’t believe that’s what he did, even if _ **he** _ believes it. An attacker trying to take your gun and kill you with it gives you the right to shoot, or nothing does. Again, life doesn’t have time-outs where your attacker pauses in his efforts to kill you while you deliver warnings. Instead, the attacker keeps trying to rip the gun out of your hands until he succeeds. So, to the extent that you believe in a person’s right to defend themselves, it’s a worthless version of the right. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/558 "2013-07-02T13:03:01Z")
> [@camille](#): > > But how could he have had full control of the gun in that scenario, with that tight of a space between them? In a legitimate struggle for a gun, it is sometimes impossible to simply hold someone at gunpoint; you need to shoot lest you lose control and get shot yourself. I accept that. > > However, what I don’t accept is how that scenario played out in this case, according to Zimmerman’s own statements. Where were Zimmerman’s arms? I waited all year for this trial hoping it would come out, and so far - nothing. No one asked him that? > > How come he couldn’t use his arms to cover his head, or poke Martin in the eyes, or chop his windpipe, or grab his balls, etc., BUT he was able to lift his arm to reach for his gun, across his own body, take aim, and shoot. While screaming, being choked, smothered, slammed, etc. And Martin was doing what? He never touched the gun, according to the evidence. > > I blame the PD for not seeking clarity for this part of his statement. Can’t say if it was depraved, or self defense, because IMO, his statement doesn’t realistically get to that point. He didn’t have to reach across his body, the pistol was on his right side and he used his right arm to draw and fire. Martin’s DNA not being on the gun isn’t proof that he never touched it. Detectable amounts of DNA, so called “touch” DNA, does not transfer to plastic, outdoors, in rain, with 100% reliability. Martin’s DNA being detected on the gun would be proof that he touched it, but his DNA _not_ being detected on the gun isn’t proof that he didn’t. This isn’t to endorse the complete accuracy of Zimmerman’s account, but just to point out that those two aspects don’t disprove his account. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/559 "2013-07-02T13:16:51Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Bricker, I don’t care if I’m the only person on the planet that thought today was a good day for the prosecution. Today, I heard Zimmerman vomit out his inconsistent statements and contradict witness statements. I’m glad you and others find that today’s trial benefited the defense - good for you - but I don’t. Here’s the problem, as I see it, with that statement. While a certain amount of what goes on at trial is obviously subjective, as a general principle when most legal analysts agree that a particular event, or series of events, was good for one side or the other, it’s generally because that’s objectively true. So when you say, “I don’t care if I’m the only person on the planet that thought today was a good day for the prosecution,” it seems that you’re denying something that’s objectively true. How MUCH of a good day, or how little, would be a matter for debate, but when there’s such unanimity of opinion from practicing lawyers on the point, why do you regard your analysis as more compelling? That is: what is it that makes you credit your own analysis over the weight of near-unanimous conclusions from actual attorneys? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/560 "2013-07-02T13:19:03Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Thank you! Sooper simple. Can you give an example of a justified self-defense scenario, in your mind, in which an armed person shoots an unarmed person? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=29)