# The pitting of people who mistakenly conflate justice with legality (Martin/Zimmerman related) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2013, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028 "2013-07-20T13:04:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/21 "2013-07-20T15:29:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok, let’s say Zimmerman initiated the fight by talking to Martin, and wasn’t in fear of his life at that time. > > Florida law still says he can use deadly force if he becomes in fear of his life and has no avenue of escape. > > So even granting your idea of what happened, Flrida law excuses Zimmerman. Well yes, but obviously **Chronos** has no interest in looking at the situation logically. It’s pure emotion, and demonstration of his faux moral superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/22 "2013-07-20T15:33:19Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I found [this article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html) quite interesting. If focuses on the instructions that were given to the jurors before deliberations. In essence, Florida’s “stand your ground” law can’t be used to justify self-defense by someone who was the initial aggressor in a conflict, but the jurors were not informed of that. If that’s all true, then I think Zimmerman’s actions before the shooting are entirely relevant, to decide if he meets the definition of “initial aggressor”. Yes, they are. But for the judge to give the initial aggressor instruction, there has to be some evidence in front of the jury that, if believed, would prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. This does not mean supposition, or “it might have happened this way.” What evidence was before the jury that would have let them cast Zimmerman as a physical aggressor? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/23 "2013-07-20T15:40:33Z")
What it seems to boil down to is this: it is indeed possible that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and was looking for an excuse to shoot a black kid because Zimmerman was such a hater of black people. Oh, he also was never in fear for his life and just, as the idiot prosecutor stated, shot Trayvon because he wanted to, not because he had to. That theory is _possible_. But there are two problems with. Not only is there zero evidence that argues for it, there is plenty of evidence arguing against it. On second thought, maybe this Zimmerman character is craftier than he appears. Maybe he allowed Trayvon to break his nose, mount him, an bang his head against the concrete just so he would be able to shoot a black kid and get away with it. And maybe he planned this for years, and that black girlfriend he took to the prom, the black kids he tutored in his home and that black guy who was beat my the cops that he stood up for were all part of the plan he put in motion a decade ago. Yes, crafty indeed. On a more serious note, watching some of the liberals on TV argue that Zimmerman is a murdering racist stalking a child and that Trayvon did nothing wrong (one guy said, “Maybe Zimmermen fell and broke his nose”! :rolleyes:) makes me cringe. I’m embarrassed for the people just throwing away any credibility they might have. Yeesh. ---
**Author:** ![Werekoala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7993a0/32.png) [@Werekoala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Werekoala)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/24 "2013-07-20T15:40:39Z")
I would be interested to know the opinion of the folks who are all up in arms about this trial regarding the OJ verdict. He was acquitted despite, literally, buckets of evidence that he did it, yet I don’t recall lots of moral outrage or candlelight vigils over that one. Quite the opposite. Wonder why there’s such a disconnect here… hmmm, what could it be… ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/25 "2013-07-20T15:43:04Z")
The jury instructions did actually contain this piece, though: > [@](#): > > If George Zimmerman was not engaged in any unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. If the jury actually believed Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful activity, then they could have believed his self defense claim and rejected it. But as Bricker has mentioned, the Florida self defense laws have this to say about initial aggressors using lethal force: > [@](#): > > Use of force by aggressor.–The justification described in the preceding section of this chapter is not available to a person who: > > (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or > (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: > (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or > (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. So basically in Florida, just because you start a fight does not mean if you lose, the other party gets to beat you (or try to) beat you to death leaving you with no legal means of ending the assault. In most States if someone starts a fight with me and I beat them to death I’m going to be in serious trouble, there should be some protection for people who lose fights–even ones they start. Now, I would disagree a bit with Florida law. If someone starts a fight, loses, and can demonstrate the winner was putting him in danger of grievous bodily harm or death I’d say he should be able to stop that overdone assault. However, if he kills in stopping that assault, I’d say he should be able to use his self defense claim as a “mitigation” and reduce the charge to something like negligent homicide (which in states with said statute it typically is punished much more leniently than manslaughter.) But that’s neither here nor there. But it’s worth noting the prosecution never provided a single bit of physical or witness evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. I’ve said it in several threads now, but there was also no evidence Zimmerman was in _any fear of Martin_ when he stepped out of his vehicle. Even in a duty to flee state you do not have a duty to flee when you perceive no danger (and it would be a ridiculous concept if you had a duty to flee before you had any way of knowing you were in imminent danger in the first place.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/26 "2013-07-20T15:43:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > He did break the law by committing murder. His argument of self-defense is not valid because, as you say, it hinges on the question of whether he was in legitimate fear of his life. From all of the evidence, it is clear that he was not in legitimate fear of his life at the time he initiated the fight. The fact that he might have become in fear of his life during the fight is irrelevant, because he wasn’t at the time he started it. What evidence are you talking about that proved MZ initiated the fight? To be clear, a verbal exchange, even a taunt is not “a fight”. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/27 "2013-07-20T15:56:26Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > I would be interested to know the opinion of the folks who are all up in arms about this trial regarding the OJ verdict. He was acquitted despite, literally, buckets of evidence that he did it, yet I don’t recall lots of moral outrage or candlelight vigils over that one. Quite the opposite. > > Wonder why there’s such a disconnect here… hmmm, what could it be… I support the Zimmerman verdict but I’ll point out that one of the prosecution witnesses, an investigator on the case, perjured himself in his testimony in the OJ trial. An investigator on the case willing to lie on the stand would scare me as a juror, and make me be leery of believing even parts of the physical evidence. That is why even the hint that you have a corrupt police investigator on the case has to throw the entire case into serious doubt, because such a man could fabricate evidence or do any number of things that calls into doubt the entirety of the prosecution’s case. I think it’s also good to bring up another famous case that I think is being terribly misrepresented by this one. The Emmett Till case several things happened: 1. Two witnesses to the crime were put in jail by a county sheriff to prevent the prosecution from becoming aware of them and to prevent their testimony. 2. Despite the two missing witnesses, there was a good eye witness to the fact the white men had taken Till and had him. 3. The defendants admitted to kidnapping Till, but said they let him go and then some totally different person (a black man) murdered him. This admission alone is insane and would probably make the jury vote for guilt in most cases with an unbiased jury. 4. The jury has said years later they believed the defendants were guilty. However, the only possible punishments in Mississippi for murder were life in prison without the possibility of parole, or execution. The jury did not believe that was an appropriate punishment in the case of a white man killing a black. So there’s really no denying whatsoever that the jury in the Till case was basically driven to its result entirely by racism. That the government itself interfered in the prosecution to undermine the prosecution because of racism. That even despite all that there was strong evidence of guilt and no compelling claims of reasonable doubt (one claim was that the body was that of a white person, which was ridiculous and no one could seriously believe it seeing photos of the body.) That’s so different from the Zimmerman case as to be ridiculous. The prosecutor in the Zimmerman case was vigorously dedicated to convicting Zimmerman (compared to the prosecutors in the Till case, who did make a good faith attempt at conviction but even conceded in open court it was wrong for Till to whistle at a white woman.) There is no evidence the police interfered with the prosecution, in fact one of the investigators wanted to charge Zimmerman the first night. There was also basically little to no evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against Zimmerman while there was substantial eye witness testimony and even a partial admission of guilt in the Till case. (Despite admitting to the kidnapping, Till’s murderers were never even charged with that crime.) It’s a great disservice to Emmett Till to compare his case to Zimmerman’s. Zimmerman was acquitted because there was no evidence to support his conviction. Emmett Till’s murderers were acquitted solely because of racism. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/28 "2013-07-20T16:07:03Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > That is where I stopped. Why? Because she’s using that to say the jury instructions were “wrong.” She’s literally saying, “it’s wrong that the jury was told if they had reasonable doubt about who started the fight, to acquit Zimmerman.” The fact that she finds a problem with acquitting someone over reasonable doubt existing means she is retarded and should probably never be read again. That’s rather beside the point. From the OP: > [@bump](#): > > But going on and on about what happened prior to the actual shooting is retarded- it has NO bearing on the actual case whether or not Martin stole shit from a house near his school. It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was a petty knucklehead who called 911 40-some-odd times before that night. It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was a racist, or if Martin was a violent thug. My point was just that their actions before the shooting are relevant to determine who was the “initial aggressor” according to the stand-your-ground law. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/29 "2013-07-20T16:10:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What evidence are you talking about that proved MZ initiated the fight? The evidence is that a non-black gun-nut shot and killed an unarmed black person who looks sweet and innocent, or at least he did a few years ago. Therefore the gun-nut must be a murderer. Since it’s impossible to deny that the sweet innocent black kid beat up the gun-nut, the non-black gun-nut must have deserved the beating and must have done something to provoke it. Therefore the gun-nut must have initiated the fight. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/30 "2013-07-20T16:10:57Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > My point was just that their actions before the shooting are relevant to determine who was the “initial aggressor” according to the stand-your-ground law. I agree, but if the prosecution has no evidence whatsoever about what happened prior to the confrontation or who started the confrontation then the jury really shouldn’t consider it one way or another. It has to presume Zimmerman is innocent, not presume he started the confrontation unless he proves otherwise. The point would have been relevant if the prosecution had some evidence of which party started the confrontation, but it did not–making it an irrelevance. There’s a reason it wasn’t in the jury instructions and it isn’t because of “bad Florida is bad”, but because it was never something the prosecution seriously demonstrated so the judge had no basis to include that in the jury instructions. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/31 "2013-07-20T16:14:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok, let’s say Zimmerman initiated the fight by talking to Martin, and wasn’t in fear of his life at that time. > > Florida law still says he can use deadly force if he becomes in fear of his life and has no avenue of escape. > > So even granting your idea of what happened, Flrida law excuses Zimmerman. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, they are. But for the judge to give the initial aggressor instruction, there has to be some evidence in front of the jury that, if believed, would prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. > > This does not mean supposition, or “it might have happened this way.” What evidence was before the jury that would have let them cast Zimmerman as a physical aggressor? Is “initial aggressor” defined anywhere? Is it whoever threw the first punch, or is Zimmerman the initial aggressor just for following Martin? And if following Martin is establishes Zimmerman as the aggressor, then I don’t believe he exhausted “every reasonable means to escape” between that moment and the shooting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/32 "2013-07-20T16:15:21Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > That’s rather beside the point. From the OP: > > My point was just that their actions before the shooting are relevant to determine who was the “initial aggressor” according to the stand-your-ground law. Yes, but then we reach the underlying problem: there was no solid evidence about their actions before the fight that would permit the jury to find that he was the initial aggressor. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/33 "2013-07-20T16:15:23Z")
And can we also pit people who think if you agree with the jury’s decision you must be a GZ fan? Because that’s just not fucking true. ---
**Author:** ![11811](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/9d8465/32.png) [@11811](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/11811)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/34 "2013-07-20T16:15:59Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Both of those may be true, but in the context of the legal case, NEITHER MATTERS. > > That’s what pisses me off so badly- we’re a nation where the rule of law is paramount, except when there’s an element of race or ethnicity is involved, and then it’s totally emotion and calls for blood (or innocence) with no rational thought involved. > > \ And it’s worth mentioning that when race is involved, the rule of law mostly acts against racial/ethnic minorities. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/35 "2013-07-20T16:17:15Z")
Quite a few of us were alive when it would have been legal for both Martin and Zimmerman to have been excluded from the gated community altogether. Ill-conceived and -constructed laws have never been “justice.” ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/36 "2013-07-20T16:19:24Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I agree, but if the prosecution has no evidence whatsoever about what happened prior to the confrontation or who started the confrontation then the jury really shouldn’t consider it one way or another. It has to presume Zimmerman is innocent, not presume he started the confrontation unless he proves otherwise. What moment would you consider to be the start of the confrontation? I did not follow what facts were presented during the trial, but I heard plenty about Zimmerman parking his truck, calling the police, and choosing to follow Martin. Does that not count as evidence prior to the confrontation, or of who started it? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/37 "2013-07-20T16:19:57Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Quite a few of us were alive when it would have been legal for both Martin and Zimmerman to have been excluded from the gated community altogether. Ill-conceived and -constructed laws have never been “justice.” Do you believe it should be the law that you can be convicted when the prosecution can produce no evidence or witness testimony proving the elements of the crime? The prosecution can’t even proven Zimmerman followed Martin immediately prior to the conflict. Only that he had followed him for a bit on foot before losing sight of him. Should that be enough evidence to convict someone of murder or manslaughter? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/38 "2013-07-20T16:24:24Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > What moment would you consider to be the start of the confrontation? I did not follow what facts were presented during the trial, but I heard plenty about Zimmerman parking his truck, calling the police, and choosing to follow Martin. Does that not count as evidence prior to the confrontation, or of who started it? The moment battery was committed by one person upon another. If prior to that, either party _provoked_ the battery, that can be relevant legally. I’ve seen a lot of case law cited over the months of this case, and a lot of statutes. I feel reasonably informed, probably in the top 10 percentile of informed lay people on self defense laws because of this case. I know of no situation in which following someone in a non-threatening manner (and the prosecution would have to prove threatening manner, which it could not in this case) is a crime, or would constitute assault or menacing or anything like that. Using the evidence that Martin found Zimmerman “creepy” as evidence that Zimmerman was committing a crime is about the same logic that Zimmerman used when he found it suspicious that Martin was walking slowly in the grass behind the townhouses instead of on the street. I don’t think you could make an argument even in Canada or the UK, that it was illegal for Zimmerman to get out of his car to see what Martin was doing, or even to follow his path briefly. That’s not starting a confrontation. If you go to duty to flee jurisdictions, I also do not believe “duty to flee” attaches before _perceived danger_. If I see (hypothetical) my neighbor’s ex-husband whom I know she has a restraining order against hanging around her porch and I call the police, but continue about my business and am later attacked I would argue that just because I saw that guy and called police that would not be a time when “duty to flee” attaches. I had no reason to fear him personally, I just wanted police aware he was there. I was taken by surprise when he attacked out of nowhere, and had to use self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/39 "2013-07-20T16:26:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What evidence are you talking about that proved MZ initiated the fight? To be clear, a verbal exchange, even a taunt is not “a fight”. Really? I can walk into a biker bar, yell stupid stuff at the patrons, and when they come at me, and I start to fear for my life, mow them all down? ---
**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 20, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/40 "2013-07-20T16:29:06Z")
When it comes to high profile court cases some people always look at it from an emotional context. For some a particular case resonates emotionally. Those of us that have dealt with many tragic cases can look at individual cases that don’t effect us dispassionately. Others can’t. From the beginning I saw huge problems with the case. The outcome did not surprise me at all. For another example, take the Casey Anthony case. The day after the verdict I was eating lunch with a bunch of detectives. Not one was surprised by the verdict. We all knew that the case was a stretch. Charging murder when you can’t even prove the cause of death? They went with what they had and lost. But many could not understand and were outraged. Our system is purposely set up so that it is much more likely for the guilty to go free than an innoocent person goes to jail. It is by no means perfect. But feel free to come up with something better. Most are all for their own Constitutional protections. But they are willing to throw it out when its someone else and they are emotionally invested in their punishment. Somebody must pay! Its easy to feel but its a bad concept to base a legal system on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=3)