# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/421 "2013-07-26T01:22:01Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > And we are supposed to buy that strictly on his say so? While of course, obviating all the other “inconsistencies” in his narrative. Why is that? Primarily because it’s what he said at the time, on tape, before any disaster gave him a motive to fabricate. > [@](#): > > We’re agreed. And I think he acted according to the “fight or flight” principle. Human nature, you know. Precipitated by the reckless vigilante acts of _someone else_. Agreed. But, unfortunately, not legal justification. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/422 "2013-07-26T01:23:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I most likely have reached the same conclusion. But I can’t be sure of that… That line should read, “I most likely would not have reached the same conclusion…” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/423 "2013-07-26T01:28:01Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why wouldn’t I? It makes sense, and it fits the facts. I meant, that racial bias is not racist. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/424 "2013-07-26T01:36:21Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You don’t have to. You can also consider the fact that it is consistent with all the other evidence in this case. > > And if that’s not enough to satisfy you, then please remember the phrase “reasonable doubt.” You don’t have to believe the reason that Zimmerman gave for his suspicions. Unless you can refute it though, it amounts to another tick in the reasonable doubt column. I understand that well enough. But again, how do you put a dead kid on trial vs what his killer says? Pretty fucked-up laws when you only get one side of the story to convict/absolve on – especially the one trying to save his hide by _any means possible_. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/425 "2013-07-26T01:41:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I most likely have reached the same conclusion. But I can’t be sure of that; I’m adding my own conjecture to the situation. Knowing what I now know, I suspect Martin was walking slowly because he was on the phone with Jeantel. And he was looking at houses in the same way that anyone who is walking looks at houses: what else is there to look at? > > But I don’t think Zimmerman’s conclusion is blatantly, obviously wrong. He didn’t know Martin was on the phone. And he saw someone acting suspiciously. If I learned that a police officer who saw the same scene pulled to the curb and asked Martin if he could speak with him for a moment, I wouldn’t be shocked. > > I think the drugs thing is extremely thin. And while I grant that Martin’s race may have had something to do with it, I’m reasonably confident that Zimmerman would have made the same call about a white teenager. Zimmerman liked making calls. That’s a very reasoned and humane response, Rick (including your [clarification](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16512652&postcount=422)) So no pun intended when I say that although – as always – you been on the side of “the law” this whole time, you don’t actually think this was a fair verdict? And again, please forget legaties for a sec and stay human…for one more post anyway. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/426 "2013-07-26T01:47:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, I picked a side then, as the evidence came out, changed my mind. Please link to an earlier post of yours defending Martin. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/427 "2013-07-26T01:55:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Agreed. > > But, unfortunately, not legal justification. Knowing how much you are a stickler for the Law, do you think a case like this one (and likely hundreds we don’t read about) show that laws shouldn’t be immutable and many of them are just stupid…or at least not well thought out and changes ought to be made? Not going to get into the whole SYG discussion, but how does that make any society more civilized? I mean there have been a myriad of examples on these M/Z threads that it makes States that have them, Wild-West like. Not to mention racists as hell as currently applied. And I don’t need to be black to read facts. Would you agree to a reform? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/428 "2013-07-26T03:52:17Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > That’s funny. You jump to a conclusion, then when called on it, double down on it. Very classy indeed. I forgot that when something is inserted parenthetically like (correctly), that automatically makes it gospel and beyond debate, therefore meaning you get to retain your status as arbiter of conclusion jumping the world over and in this thread in particular. Here’s a LOL, just for you. > > If you want to advance the cause of reading comprehension, try not to post emotional, incoherent half-thoughts that require us with lesser minds and biased dispositions to connect dots. > > So, just to ensure I’m following, Occam’s razor should be applied to the detective’s statement, meaning the most obvious conclusion requires us to ignore Jeantel’s testimony because, after all, “by the house” could mean he was by the mailbox, it could mean he was in the driveway, who knows where? Who could solve such a mystery? “By the house” could place him anywhere, including 300 feet away, back at the T, hiding in wait for Zimmerman. Is that it? It’s hard for us weak-minded to keep up with the Zen wisdom of your commentary. > > And if you respond, remember, stay classy, sis. And always, always, keep on LOL’ing. You could have saved yourself the effort by simply typing, “I know you are, but what am I?” You weren’t “required” to read my posts at all, and you didn’t reply to the post you claimed to be confused by; you chose to comment on my final “LOL” reply to Terr because something obviously pushed your buttons. I can only guess, because - thankfully - I don’t know you. Was it the LOL that upset you so much? I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve used LOL in a reply here (and still have a finger left to raise in your direction). Occasionally, things reach a point where posts don’t warrant a serious answer. I’d be surprised if Terr was even expecting one in that instance. You read it wrong, because you didn’t know the context. I took the time to explain it to you. But somehow your mistake was, and continues to be, my problem? That was a LOL worthy post. There was nothing left to say. I’m sorry if LOL triggers some personal issue you have with being laughed at, but you’re still overreacting to an insignificant exchange that didn’t involve you in the first place. Get over yourself. ---
**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 26, 2013, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/429 "2013-07-26T06:09:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > There has been a great deal of argument and disagreement with her and several lawyers Psst. Look again. SWB didn’t think it was possible with the evidence to have convicted GZ. Neither did you. Neither did many others. I laid out exactly how it was possible. With the evidence. Under the law. Bricker agreed with me and no one else disagreed with me. Whether you or sleeps with butterflies or anyone else would have found the same things is completely irrelevant. The question is _ **was there sufficient evidence to convict him of manslaughter** _? Yes, there was. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2013, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/430 "2013-07-26T07:08:41Z")
[ > [@Juror B29 (Maddy)](#): > > George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can’t get away from God. And at the end of the day, he’s going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. > [@](#): > > The second juror to speak publicly told ABC News in an interview made available Thursday that she feels George Zimmerman got away with murder for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, but that there wasn’t enough evidence at trial to convict him under Florida law. ]([http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US\_NEIGHBORHOOD\_WATCH\_JUROR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-26-01-23-32](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH_JUROR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-26-01-23-32)) ---
**Author:** ![fudrucker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fudrucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fudrucker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/431 "2013-07-26T09:14:05Z")
That’s the whole point ace. If you don’t have sufficient evidence you can’t convict someone. That’s how the U.S. justice system works. ---
**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 26, 2013, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/432 "2013-07-26T10:25:12Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Psst. Look again. SWB didn’t think it was possible with the evidence to have convicted GZ. Neither did you. Neither did many others. I laid out exactly how it was possible. With the evidence. Under the law. Bricker agreed with me and no one else disagreed with me. Um, no, that’s not what happened. Like most people, after following the trial, I was of the opinion that there was in fact probable cause (the standard you’re talking about, the legally sufficient evidence), but that no jury could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. You have done nothing to change that view. > [@](#): > > Whether you or sleeps with butterflies or anyone else would have found the same things is completely irrelevant. The question is _ **was there sufficient evidence to convict him of manslaughter** _? > > Yes, there was. There was sufficient evidence that a conviction could not be overturned for lack of evidence. There was not sufficient evidence to convict, as the standard for conviction is “beyond reasonable doubt”, and even in your lovely numbered post you show your own reasonable doubt several times. The whole of numbers 1,2,5 and 7 are nothing but doubt. ---
**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 26, 2013, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/433 "2013-07-26T10:26:33Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Please link to an earlier post of yours defending Martin. I don’t think I posted until after the evidence came out. I’m on record as saying I originally thought it was manslaughter, until the truth came out. The same as many people here. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/434 "2013-07-26T10:34:32Z")
> [@camille](#): > > You read it wrong, because you didn’t know the context. I took the time to explain it to you. But somehow your mistake was, and continues to be, my problem? I cop to misreading the exchange. Was not the first time, nor will it be the last (though I’d still say your point is a weak one). That was why I asked you to clarify–I wasn’t following your logic. That happens some times, you know? A question that is a form of “I’m just not following you, can you clarify?” isn’t calling for a response that includes, “If you only just followed me, I wouldn’t have to clarify this, you know?” Duh. But that wasn’t my point in response, which is admittedly a minor one. But since you felt it necessary to snark at me over jumping to conclusions as a result of my bias–me, a person you thankfully don’t know–I was amused. It’s a character defect of mine that I react to sarcasm and snark in kind, and I really ought to just let things slide. But I didn’t. I pointed out to you that chastising someone for jumping to conclusions, while in that same sentence jumping to a conclusion, didn’t help your credibility. I’ll point out here that having started our loving association with your call to read for context, I’m just as amused that you seem to continue to miss this actual point, which was, “Gosh, sister, has the hypocrisy of that comment you made actually escaped your scrutiny?” A minor hypocrisy, but one I enjoyed pointing out when you answered my honestly offered request for clarification with snarky bullshit. And you double downed on the hypocrisy by implying that when you did so, it wasn’t jumping to a conclusion because, after all, you may have guessed, but your spider-sense assured you it was a _correct_ guess. The last ironies I’ll point out is your separate snarks about classlessness and overreaction coming in an exchange where it would have been so easy for you to say, “Yeah, I overeacted a bit there and did exactly what I accused you of doing.” No need to thank me for enlightening you this way. Feel free to wave whatever digit in response you’d like. Just part of my ongoing campaign to make the world a sunshinier, LOL-ier place. ---
**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 26, 2013, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/435 "2013-07-26T10:58:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I meant, that racial bias is not racist. Oh, that. Of course I do. If the description of a suspect is black, it makes sense, and is not racist, to bias the search based on race. There needs to be other information besides just race, though. For example, not being recognised as a resident in a gated community, walking slowly in the rain looking at houses, that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/436 "2013-07-26T11:36:58Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The question is _ **was there sufficient evidence to convict him of manslaughter** _? > > Yes, there was. Yes there was. As I pointed out before, that’s a trivial question. Like “is water wet”? Self-defense is an “affirmative defense” because the defendant “affirms” that he did commit the crime. EXCEPT - self-defense. The pesky thing you keep forgetting. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/437 "2013-07-26T11:38:08Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > You skipped something. Like the juror stating that she didn’t think this should have come to a trial at all. ---
**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 26, 2013, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/438 "2013-07-26T11:59:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes there was. As I pointed out before, that’s a trivial question. Like “is water wet”? Self-defense is an “affirmative defense” because the defendant “affirms” that he did commit the crime. > > EXCEPT - self-defense. The pesky thing you keep forgetting. Yep, once again she’s decided she knows best and doesn’t even have to consider that if she doesn’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/439 "2013-07-26T13:25:14Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Knowing how much you are a stickler for the Law, do you think a case like this one (and likely hundreds we don’t read about) show that laws shouldn’t be immutable and many of them are just stupid…or at least not well thought out and changes ought to be made? Not going to get into the whole SYG discussion, but how does that make any society more civilized? I mean there have been a myriad of examples on these M/Z threads that it makes States that have them, Wild-West like. Not to mention racists as hell as currently applied. And I don’t need to be black to read facts. > > Would you agree to a reform? I don’t agree that the law is racist, except indirectly – by that I mean in this country race correlates somewhat strongly with poverty, and the law **is** more friendly to those people that can write a large check to pay for legal defense. But yes, I agree that this particular law is poorly thought-out, in that it elevates pride above human life, and it needs to be changed. But it would have been a great wrong to convict Zimmerman anyway. Change the law to handle future wrongs correctly; don’t ignore the law to convict someone. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/440 "2013-07-26T13:30:11Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > That’s a very reasoned and humane response, Rick (including your [clarification](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16512652&postcount=422)) > > So no pun intended when I say that although – as always – you been on the side of “the law” this whole time, you don’t actually think this was a fair verdict? And again, please forget legaties for a sec and stay human…for one more post anyway. I think the verdict was fair, in the sense that it applied the existing law to a set of facts found by the jury, and I think the jury made reasonable choices in their fact-finding. I think the underlying law is unsound, for two reasons: it places the burden of disproving self-defense on the prosecution, when I think a more fair approach is to require someone who claims self-defense to prove his claim by preponderance of the evidence; and it allows someone claiming self-defense to respond with lethal force instead of retreat, when preservation of human life should be the highest principle enshrined. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=23)