# The Zimmerman/Martin case. Why so cleanly divided between the parties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-zimmerman-martin-case-why-so-cleanly-divided-between-the-parties/617036 "2012-03-28T13:11:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-zimmerman-martin-case-why-so-cleanly-divided-between-the-parties/617036/381 "2012-04-12T19:57:33Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > skewing things is one thing, out-and-out lying to the media over audio evidence is more than _skewing_. Do you believe everything that Zimmerman’s lawyers say? > [@](#): > > as for the witnesses, maybe, maybe not. all that hinges on the accuracy of the police forensics collection and the veracity of the “leaked” reports. > > if you want to say ^that has more considerable weight than the witnesses, it just shows your bias toward zimmerman. IIRC the funeral director confirmed that Martin was shot once in the chest. Of course, he could be part of the cover-up. But you are correct - it is possible that when the results of the autopsy are made public, it will turn out that Martin was shot five times in the back. Possible, but not (IMO) likely. Do you think that your discounting of the leaked autopsy results and the account of the funeral director are proof that you are biased against Zimmerman? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-zimmerman-martin-case-why-so-cleanly-divided-between-the-parties/617036/382 "2012-04-12T20:17:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do you believe everything that Zimmerman’s lawyers say? > > IIRC the funeral director confirmed that Martin was shot once in the chest. Of course, he could be part of the cover-up. > > But you are correct - it is possible that when the results of the autopsy are made public, it will turn out that Martin was shot five times in the back. Possible, but not (IMO) likely. > > Do you think that your discounting of the leaked autopsy results and the account of the funeral director are proof that you are biased against Zimmerman? > > Regards, > Shodan we’ve gone over and over and over this. hypothetically, if zimmerman shot twice, he could have connected on just one of the two shots. or it could be he fired once and the second sound on the tape was (insert anything you want). which could be what the witnesses heard. maybe he shot twice but connected once. maybe he shot once and some other loud sound caused the confusion about the second shot. i just don’t think both the witnesses and the lawyers are being maliciously misleading. i think there’s either 1. some unknown component or 2. some obfuscating extra sound on the tape. all of this “funerary conspiracy” is just strawman nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-zimmerman-martin-case-why-so-cleanly-divided-between-the-parties/617036/383 "2012-04-12T21:46:24Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > we’ve gone over and over and over this. Yes we have, and I am surprised you don’t understand yet. > [@](#): > > i just don’t think both the witnesses and the lawyers are being maliciously misleading. Nobody does. However, if it is established that only one bullet is gone from Zimmerman’s gun, and only one shell casing is found on the scene, and Martin was hit by only one shot, then it is not possible that Zimmerman fired more often than once, and the witnesses’ testimony about how they heard multiple gunshots is wrong, and can be discounted. You asked this - > [@](#): > > when the lawyers claim to hear something in a tape that you’ve not heard, and that something that they claim to have heard is put out in the media, you–who is privy to nothing–fails to take them even remotely seriously? > it’s not even worth consideration? > > what do you as well do with all the witnesses who claimed to hear a plural SHOTS? I don’t know about you, but I tend to believe accounts when they jibe with the physical evidence, and am skeptical about those accounts when they don’t. As far as can be determined, the accounts that say they heard multiple gunshots have been contradicted by the physical evidence. Therefore, unless further evidence shows up to change things, I disbelieve that Zimmerman fired multiple shots. As mentioned, Martin’s lawyers account of things can be dismissed almost out of hand. They’re lawyers, it is their ethical duty to represent their clients’ interests as best they can. Casting aspersions on Zimmerman is part of their job. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-zimmerman-martin-case-why-so-cleanly-divided-between-the-parties/617036/384 "2012-04-12T22:13:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes we have, and I am surprised you don’t understand yet.Nobody does. However, if it is established that only one bullet is gone from Zimmerman’s gun, and only one shell casing is found on the scene, and Martin was hit by only one shot, then it is not possible that Zimmerman fired more often than once, and the witnesses’ testimony about how they heard multiple gunshots is wrong, and can be discounted. > > You asked this - > I don’t know about you, but I tend to believe accounts when they jibe with the physical evidence, and am skeptical about those accounts when they don’t. As far as can be determined, the accounts that say they heard multiple gunshots have been contradicted by the physical evidence. Therefore, unless further evidence shows up to change things, I disbelieve that Zimmerman fired multiple shots. > > As mentioned, Martin’s lawyers account of things can be dismissed almost out of hand. They’re lawyers, it is their ethical duty to represent their clients’ interests as best they can. Casting aspersions on Zimmerman is part of their job. > > Regards, > Shodan cool. now show me this physical, official evidence. last i checked all anyone had was the leaky police reports by cops who were deemed rather incompetent and an official statement saying they will not discuss firearm evidence. yet you’ve gone on and decided and have declared it “evidence.” of course you had also decided zimmerman was legally privileged to do what he did, but he’s in jail now, so your presumptions haven’t really worked out so far. all i’ve brought up is the full bore of the available body of evidence, including the phone calls (you’ve not heard) and the evidence (you don’t have) and the witnesses (who’s full testimony you’ve not heard). if you don’t think it’s worth consideration, don’t. but until you can provide the OFFICIAL results from the OFFICIAL investigation, STFU about “the evidence” because what you have is “speculation and hearsay,” as and a slipping presumption of innocents. good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-zimmerman-martin-case-why-so-cleanly-divided-between-the-parties/617036/385 "2012-04-14T02:22:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes we have, and I am surprised you don’t understand yet.Nobody does. However, if it is established that only one bullet is gone from Zimmerman’s gun, and only one shell casing is found on the scene, and Martin was hit by only one shot, then it is not possible that Zimmerman fired more often than once, and the witnesses’ testimony about how they heard multiple gunshots is wrong, and can be discounted. > > You asked this - > I don’t know about you, but I tend to believe accounts when they jibe with the physical evidence, and am skeptical about those accounts when they don’t. As far as can be determined, the accounts that say they heard multiple gunshots have been contradicted by the physical evidence. Therefore, unless further evidence shows up to change things, I disbelieve that Zimmerman fired multiple shots. > > As mentioned, Martin’s lawyers account of things can be dismissed almost out of hand. They’re lawyers, it is their ethical duty to represent their clients’ interests as best they can. Casting aspersions on Zimmerman is part of their job. > > Regards, > Shodan Shodan it’s completely up to you how to proceed, but I suspect that this poster is playing jr high debate and just yanking people’s chains for entertainment. Understanding won’t be acknowledged even if it occurs, and conceeding a legitimate point is out of the question, because those things that oocur in a genuine discussion aren’t part of the game being played. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-zimmerman-martin-case-why-so-cleanly-divided-between-the-parties/617036.md?page=19)