# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/441 "2013-07-26T14:04:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … 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. Out of curiousity, would you apply this principle to the castle doctrine - that is, would you require me to retreat from my home to avoid an attack? Let me know if you would prefer me to open another thread, in this or a different forum. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/442 "2013-07-26T15:10:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Out of curiousity, would you apply this principle to the castle doctrine - that is, would you require me to retreat from my home to avoid an attack? Let me know if you would prefer me to open another thread, in this or a different forum. No. I’m comfortable with the concept that within your home, the law should not compel you to retreat, except if the conflict is with another person with equal claim to presence in your home. In other words, if you live in a home with your brother, and he threatens to stab you, and you can retreat, you should rather than using lethal force. If your encounter is with an intruder, I agree that the balance of interests is in protecting yourself instead of retreating. ---
**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, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/443 "2013-07-26T16:12:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I’m comfortable with the concept that within your home, the law should not compel you to retreat, except if the conflict is with another person with equal claim to presence in your home. So then “preservation of human life” should not be the “highest principle enshrined”? Or is that “highest principle” geographically situational? ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/444 "2013-07-26T16:20:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Thank you. Good summation; pretty much expresses my feelings (and the outrage) I’ve felt throughout this sordid affair. ---
**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/445 "2013-07-26T16:30:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So then “preservation of human life” should not be the “highest principle enshrined”? Or is that “highest principle” geographically situational? Terr, you tricky devil! I never thought of that one! Eegads, you’ve bested me! Fortunately, I just now thought of an answer. The preservation of human life remains the highest principle. But within that highest principle, there are further gradients. The very topic of self-defense requires such analysis, because it requires weighing human life against human life. So: a permissible inference is that a person in my home intends to do me harm, or has a risk so high of doing me harm to avoid his own capture that the risk cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the concept of retreating when the safe retreat of the home has already been breached is secondary to the risk posed by the intruder. This concept also explains the exception I mention above: if the threat comes from someone who has every right to be in the home, the principle no longer applies. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/446 "2013-07-26T16:47:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Accordingly, the concept of retreating when the safe retreat of the home has already been breached is secondary to the risk posed by the intruder. This presupposes that you “retreated” to the home in the first place from somewhere else to begin with. I say that in virtually all cases when you’re faced with the attacker, it is safer, objectively, to shoot the attacker. If you shoot him, it’s 95% certain you will survive (5% chance you will miss or even if he’s shot he kills you somehow). If you don’t shoot him and retreat, it is not even close to 95% certainty you will survive - maybe he can run faster than you, or maybe he has a gun you don’t know about, maybe he has a knife he can throw, maybe he can throw a rock at you etc. etc. So - do you think the law should require you to increase the danger to yourself by retreating? ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/447 "2013-07-26T17:06:01Z")
How was SYG a factor in this case anyway? The defense’s story didn’t rely on SYG–in fact, it rendered SYG an irrelevancy, didn’t it? The judge included SYG instructions to the jury, but weren’t they essentially an irrelevancy as well? Zimmerman didn’t retreat, and according to the defense he COULDN’T retreat. You can disbelieve that, but that’s a separate debate, ISTM. You’d still be countering a “self defense” story, not a SYG one. The defense did not invoke SYG at any point, did they? Lots of confusing (to a non-lawyer) noise in talking head land. This is simultaneously a “non-SYG” case and one that cries out for overturning SYG because of how horribly this case turned out. Which is it? ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/448 "2013-07-26T17:08:30Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > How was SYG a factor in this case anyway? The defense’s story didn’t rely on SYG–in fact, it rendered SYG an irrelevancy, didn’t it? The judge included SYG instructions to the jury, but weren’t they essentially an irrelevancy as well? The judge didn’t include “SYG instructions”. The judge included standard Florida self-defense instructions. Those include “no duty to retreat”. > [@](#): > > Lots of confusing (to a non-lawyer) noise in talking head land. This is simultaneously a “non-SYG” case and one that cries out for overturning SYG because of how horribly this case turned out. Which is it? Most talking heads know very little about the specifics of the stuff they’re talking about. It takes time and effort to sit down and learn the details. The talking heads are always about the “big picture”. ---
**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, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/449 "2013-07-26T17:12:38Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > This presupposes that you “retreated” to the home in the first place from somewhere else to begin with. > > I say that in virtually all cases when you’re faced with the attacker, it is safer, objectively, to shoot the attacker. If you shoot him, it’s 95% certain you will survive (5% chance you will miss or even if he’s shot he kills you somehow). If you don’t shoot him and retreat, it is not even close to 95% certainty you will survive - maybe he can run faster than you, or maybe he has a gun you don’t know about, maybe he has a knife he can throw, maybe he can throw a rock at you etc. etc. > > So - do you think the law should require you to increase the danger to yourself by retreating? I think the law should be re-written to require you to provide evidentiary support for those percentages. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/450 "2013-07-26T17:13:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The judge didn’t include “SYG instructions”. The judge included standard Florida self-defense instructions. Those include “no duty to retreat”. Okay, but that’s a legal distinction too subtle for me. And I’d still say, it’s an irrelevancy. Having no duty to retreat is not a factor in a defense story that precludes the possibility of retreat. > [@](#): > > Most talking heads know very little about the specifics of the stuff they’re talking about. It takes time and effort to sit down and learn the details. The talking heads are always about the “big picture”. That’s true. But if this is truly NOT an SYG case, this is a particularly egregious misunderstanding. The Internet, TV, and newspapers are festooned with the SYG implications of this case. And I’m talking as well about reporters, not columnists. Let me pose my question differently, to anyone knowledgeable enough to answer: would this case have turned out any differently (all other things being the same) if Florida had no SYG law? ---
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/451 "2013-07-26T17:17:33Z")
> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#): > > Watching the trial, hearing the witnesses and 911 tapes, and absorbing massive amounts of testimony it’s insane to me how different the picture is from what the media presented. Whatever your opinions are now I would encourage anyone to watch all of the information presented. I can honestly say it’ll be a long time before I trust news stations/reporters again. Along these lines, via [The Volokh Conspiracy](http://www.volokh.com/): > [@](#): > > Earlier this month, The New Republic posted an article by Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford on the Zimmerman trial. As noted by my co-blogger David Bernstein and Michelle Meyer at The Faculty Lounge, this article included some factual inaccuracies. Most notably, the article (as originally published) contained the following sentence: > > > [@](#): > > > > . . . Zimmerman was an edgy basket case with a gun who had called 911 46 times in 15 months, once to report the suspicious activities of a seven year old black boy. (emphasis in original) > > As written, this sentence contained three errors: 1) the 46 calls were not all to 911, some were to a non-emergency police number, 2) the calls were made over several years, not 15 months, and 3) Zimmerman called the police to report that a young boy was unattended by an adult and was concerned for the boy’s safety, not to report that the child was engaged in “suspicious activities.” > > Both the author of the post and TNR were alerted to these errors. I personally e-mailed both last week, as did others. Eventually, TNR made some changes to the sentence. The sentence now reads: > > > [@](#): > > > > . . . Zimmerman was an edgy basket case with a gun who had called the polics 46 times in 15 months, once to report on a seven year old black boy. (emphasis and typo in original) > > Yet as Michelle Meyer points out, after the quick revision the sentence still contains an inaccuracy (and a typo) and one of the revisions is such that most readers will still be left with a mistaken impression about the nature of the call about the seven-year-old boy. On top of that, the editor’s note at the bottom only acknowledges one of the changes. It reads: > > > [@](#): > > > > This article has been corrected. Zimmerman called various law enforcement officials 46 times, not just 911, as originally stated. > > It’s almost as if the editors don’t care about the errors, can’t admit to their mistakes, or can’t bring themselves to disrupt the narrative. ---
**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, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/452 "2013-07-26T17:21:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think the law should be re-written to require you to provide evidentiary support for those percentages. How exactly do you propose someone provide “evidentiary support” for: “maybe he can run faster than you, or maybe he has a gun you don’t know about, maybe he has a knife he can throw, maybe he can throw a rock at you etc. etc.”? ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/453 "2013-07-26T17:23:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > How exactly do you propose someone provide “evidentiary support” for: “maybe he can run faster than you, or maybe he has a gun you don’t know about, maybe he has a knife he can throw, maybe he can throw a rock at you etc. etc.”? I don’t. But that’s not all you said. I’m fine with the unquantifiable “maybes.” It’s just that you quantified them: > [@Terr](#): > > If you shoot him, it’s 95% certain you will survive (5% chance you will miss or even if he’s shot he kills you somehow). If you don’t shoot him and retreat, it is not even close to 95% certainty you will survive - maybe he can run faster than you, or maybe he has a gun you don’t know about, maybe he has a knife he can throw, maybe he can throw a rock at you etc. etc. I’d like to know where these 95% and 5% figures came from. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/454 "2013-07-26T17:27:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d like to know where these 95% and 5% figures came from. It’s a guess. It is also a guess on what the chances of survival are when you retreat. It is also a guess that the retreat chance or survival is way less than the chances when you shoot. In case of the attack scenario, all these guesses are made under enormous stress. So - how would you propose someone provide “evidentiary support” for these guesses during trial? ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/455 "2013-07-26T17:40:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It’s a guess. It is also a guess on what the chances of survival are when you retreat. It is also a guess that the retreat chance or survival is way less than the chances when you shoot. In case of the attack scenario, all these guesses are made under enormous stress. So - how would you propose someone provide “evidentiary support” for these guesses during trial? By describing the specific factual conditions in play. I was right by the bank vault door and maybe I could have stepped inside and closed it, but I decided to shoot him before he covered the distance between us and stabbed me with the letter opener. There might a case where the chances of surviving a retreat were a bit more than 5%. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/456 "2013-07-26T17:40:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d like to know where these 95% and 5% figures came from. I thought that 67.8% of the population understood that 78.9% of all statistics are just made up. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/457 "2013-07-26T17:41:43Z")
I must be in the other 32.2%. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/458 "2013-07-26T17:53:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I must be in the other 32.2%. Don’t worry. I actually made that up. See how easy it is? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/459 "2013-07-26T17:53:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So: a permissible inference is that a person in my home intends to do me harm, or has a risk so high of doing me harm to avoid his own capture that the risk cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the concept of retreating when the safe retreat of the home has already been breached is secondary to the risk posed by the intruder. Thanks for your response, but I don’t understand it. Would one not infer that someone who attacks you intends to do you harm no matter where the attack occurs? IOW, someone attacks me in the street, and thereby (let’s assume) puts me in reasonable fear of my life. It is my duty to retreat, so I do, and this eliminates the risk to my life. Now I am attacked in my living room. I am in the same fear of my life, but I could, in theory, retreat. Under your “non-castle doctrine” law, I have the same duty to retreat, and thereby eliminate the risk. I don’t see how reaching the standard of “being in reasonable fear of your life” by being attacked in the street differs from “being in reasonable fear of your life” by being attacked in your living room. Am I missing your point? And, if you don’t mind my asking, is this legal philosophy, or Roman Catholic philosophy? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/460 "2013-07-26T17:57:33Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > …So? Her interpretation of exactly what Martin meant when he said he was by his father’s house has no weight, no meaning, no value, in terms of saying whether he was 2 feet or 300 feet. She had no way of knowing. Unless she said “Martin and I agreed long ago that when he says he’s “right by” someplace, it means he’s 4 steps away”, there’s no reason to think her interpretation is better than anyone else’s. There may be no reason for you to think her interpretation is better than anyone else. Jeantel knew TM and Jeantel was on the phone with TM during the time leading up to the 2nd and final confrontation. Jeantel thought TM was safe because he had indicated that he had lost the nigga/creepy azz cracker and TM indicated to her that he was by his daddy fiance house. Jeantel’s testimony did have weight, meaning, value to the jury if the jury decided to give it weight, meaning, value. Unlike you, the jury was expected to pay attention to and weigh the evidence and testimony presented in court. Those selected for the jury were supposed to presume that the defendant was innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=24)