# 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:** 25
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/481 "2013-07-26T21:38:39Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > SYG wasn’t a factor in the trial. The immunity provisions of Florida self-defense law, which for a time were being classified (erroneously) under the rubric of SYG, were responsible for the initial decision not to arrest. Thanks. That was my impression, which I was beginning to question given the avalanche of commentary about how SYG is now timely for repeal (or at least discussion) specifically because of this verdict. And I’m taking about the Justice Department, mainstream and respected newspapers in reporting (not editorials), etc.–a notion that seemed to be unquestioned. This board is loaded with such people, certain that SYG is an evil that gave the racist Zimmerman a free pass. > [@](#): > > I’ll also add that Zimmerman was knowledgeable about murder and self-defense law and seems to have inferred from his understanding of it a belief that Florida law did not discourage confrontation (an inference no doubt helped by giving Hollywood-esque nicknames to different legal rules). So SYG is bad not only in terms of its intended outcome (elevating saving face over life preservation) and in terms of making it easier to concoct bogus self-defense claims, but also in communicating social values (as one function of the law is to do) that encourages shoot-first-ask-questions-later thinking. I won’t speculate that SYG is what pushed Zimmerman’s actions, despite it not being a factor in the case. There’s already enough speculation about what Zimmerman’s true intentions were. Maybe it promotes “cowboy-ism,” I don’t know. I know that in this case it is referenced routinely as having gotten him off the hook, when in fact it was an irrelevancy as far as the verdict goes. My thanks again for responding. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/482 "2013-07-26T21:47:44Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This is a point I’m confused on, I thought that it was standard self-defense law that a defendant who demonstrates a self defense claim to the preponderance of the evidence basically gets acquitted unless the prosecution can somehow essentially disprove the self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt (basically unraveling the self defense claim as it was made.) But after reading some posts in this thread and looking up some statutes, it would appear some are saying that the whole preponderance of the evidence thing _isn’t_ part of your typical self defense law and that instead a “scintilla of evidence” of self defense must be disproven by the prosecution. > > This doesn’t really jibe with what I read, for example in the Ohio self defense law it specifically mentions preponderance of the evidence. This is correct. As I’ve elsewhere noted, the majority of jurisdictions only impose a burden of production but not persuasion on the self defense claimant. That is, one claiming self defense only needs to adduce as much evidence as to raise a reasonable possibilty that he was licensed to use deadly force in self defense. Some particular jurisdictions holding this way are Connecticut, Illinois, and Florida. In _Martin v. Ohio_, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), the Supreme Court held that Ohio’s requirement the defendant to prove self defense by a preponderance was not a violation of the Due Process Clause, which otherwise affords the consitutional right of a criminal defendant to be acquitted unless the prosecution proves the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Elements must be so proven, affirmative defenses (the absence of which are _not_ an element of the crime) need not be. But, although a state is free to impose this heightened burden, it is not required. And in the case of self defense, the majority rule (the rule as adopted by a majority of jurisdictions) is that affirmative defenses must be disproven beyond reasonable doubt. For instance, Illinois, which places the burden of persuasion (in this case, proof by preponderance) on the defendant for imperfect self defense, explicitly does not, in the same statute, 720 ILCS 5/9-2, for regular self defense. “The burden of proof, however, remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of first degree murder and, when appropriately raised, the absence of circumstances at the time of the killing that would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code.” ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/483 "2013-07-26T21:51:24Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This is a point I’m confused on, I thought that it was standard self-defense law that a defendant who demonstrates a self defense claim to the preponderance of the evidence basically gets acquitted unless the prosecution can somehow essentially disprove the self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt (basically unraveling the self defense claim as it was made.) But after reading some posts in this thread and looking up some statutes, it would appear some are saying that the whole preponderance of the evidence thing _isn’t_ part of your typical self defense law and that instead a “scintilla of evidence” of self defense must be disproven by the prosecution. > > This doesn’t really jibe with what I read, for example in the Ohio self defense law it specifically mentions preponderance of the evidence: > > So what is the actual common law “norm” for self defense? I’ve stated that it’s the law that a scintilla of evidence is needed, and if I haven’t explicitly stated that I was referring to Florida law, I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that context made clear that it was. It is my understanding that in the majority of US states a preponderance of evidence is required to bring a self defence claim. ETA although **Kimmy** ’s post suggests otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/484 "2013-07-26T22:04:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’ve stated that it’s the law that a scintilla of evidence is needed, and if I haven’t explicitly stated that I was referring to Florida law, I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that context made clear that it was. > > It is my understanding that in the majority of US states a preponderance of evidence is required to bring a self defence claim. > ETA although **Kimmy** ’s post suggests otherwise. **A.** According to the (LOL) syllabus in _Martin_, all but two states (Ohio and South Carolina, at least as of 1987) have abandoned the common-law rule requiring proof of affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence. **B.** As a practice pointer, I would avoid using “scintilla of evidence” and instead use “enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt.” (1) Most importantly, this makes explicit that one is defeating the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt. (2a) “Scintilla” is typically used (IIRC) in an entirely different context, namely, administrative adjudications, and (2b) second most importantly, “scintilla” is used to describe a side that _has not met_ its burden, which, when you are contending you _have met_ your burden, you don’t want nomenclature possibly to confuse your audience. In general, “scintilla of evidence” is usually prefixed with “a mere” and postfixed with “is not enough.” So best, as a criminal defense attorney, not to say “scintilla” when you are describing how much evidence you’ve adduced to support your case. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/485 "2013-07-26T22:22:40Z")
Thank you. This clarifies it greatly, and I now fully understand what **Bricker** meant with his point that, in this particular instance, a mere scintilla _is_ enough. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/486 "2013-07-26T22:42:20Z")
> [@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. > [@Shodan](#): > > 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? Yes. But you asked about someone who attacks you, and I wrote about someone in your home. The distinction is important. You need to show that you felt fear because of an attack. But if someone is, uninvited, in your home, we can assume a malevolent intent. > [@](#): > > Am I missing your point? And, if you don’t mind my asking, is this legal philosophy, or Roman Catholic philosophy? These are legal principles, but certainly not inconsistent with Catholic philosophy. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/487 "2013-07-26T23:01:54Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > SYG wasn’t a factor in the trial. The immunity provisions of Florida self-defense law, which for a time were being classified (erroneously) under the rubric of SYG, were responsible for the initial decision not to arrest. > > I’ll also add that Zimmerman was knowledgeable about murder and self-defense law and seems to have inferred from his understanding of it a belief that Florida law did not discourage confrontation (an inference no doubt helped by giving Hollywood-esque nicknames to different legal rules). So SYG is bad not only in terms of its intended outcome (elevating saving face over life preservation) and in terms of making it easier to concoct bogus self-defense claims, but also in communicating social values (as one function of the law is to do) that encourages shoot-first-ask-questions-later thinking. If SYG wasn’t a factor in the trial, why did the jury think it was? [From the CNN interview with juror B37](http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/16/cnr.03.html) (my emphasis): > [@](#): > > JUROR B37: It became very confusing. We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge then we had self-defense, stand your ground. And I think there was one other one. But the manslaughter case we actually had gotten it down to manslaughter because the second degree. It wasn’t at second degree any more. Later in the same interview: > [@](#): > > COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge, because they were very complex? I mean, reading them, they were tough to follow. > > JUROR B37: Right. That was our problem. I mean, it was just so confusing with what and what we could apply to what because I mean, there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading did over and over and over again, we decided there’s just no way – no other place to go. > > COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt either applied? > > JUROR B37: Right, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right. > > COOPER: So even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that didn’t matter in the deliberations. What mattered was those final seconds, minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger? > > JUROR B37: That’s how we read the law. That’s how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty. The phrase “He had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground…” was mentioned in the jury instructions:[PDF page 12](http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf). Would something else have been added to that paragraph if it had technically been a SYG trial? I was under the impression that the SYG laws changed the jury instructions for these types of cases whether it was invoked or not, but I’m seeing conflicting information about it both here and in the media in general. ---
**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, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/488 "2013-07-26T23:17:42Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > 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. At least we can agree that there is no reason for me to thank you for anything. We’ll always have that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/489 "2013-07-26T23:26:19Z")
And Paris. You’ll always have Paris. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/490 "2013-07-26T23:31:17Z")
> [@camille](#): > > At least we can agree that there is no reason for me to thank you for anything. We’ll always have that. Stay classy, sis! LOL ---
**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 27, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/491 "2013-07-27T01:15:15Z")
The jurors are taught how to make decisions following the law, that doesn’t mean they are experts of the law, **camille**. They may have believed what they were being told was because of SYG, but that doesn’t mean that it was. After reading some of the posts in the last few pages of this thread I’ve done even more careful reading of the Florida statutes, specifically the dating of them. Basically in Florida SYG would have a material impact if a) the defendant had requested a SYG hearing or b) the State had asserted that Zimmerman had an opportunity to flee the confrontation. Since Zimmerman’s essentially unrefutable narrative laid out a scenario in which he had no opportunity to flee duty to flee would not have impacted this case regardless of whether SYG was on the books or not. Instead, Florida has/has had very liberal (to defendants) self defense law, they predate SYG. Combined with SYG it leads to a situation very favorable to people who want to assert self defense in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/492 "2013-07-27T01:24:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > … Since Zimmerman’s essentially unrefutable narrative… Is this some artful phrasing? Do you mean it shines as a beacon of truth, or only that, under the circumstances, we cannot conclusively prove otherwise? And if they erred because they mistakenly believed that SYG was relevant, would they have made the same mistake if that appalling legislation did not exist? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/493 "2013-07-27T01:44:43Z")
**Martin** , are you saying you believe the “had the right to stand his ground” wording was used in FLA jury instructions prior to the SYG laws? I can accept the possibility of a juror being confused, but it is specified in the instructions… ---
**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 27, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/494 "2013-07-27T02:06:36Z")
How are people thinking they mistakenly misapplied SYG in this case (rather than just mistakenly mentioning an irrelevancy)? Meaning, specifically how? Even if just speculation, can anyone suggest how might they have come up with an acquittal, with the evidence in this case, based on a mistaken application of SYG (a concept not introduced into evidence)? No one suggested Zimmerman had the opportunity to flee. No one, and that includes the prosecution. The defense’s story is just the opposite. Lots of people disbelieve that story line, but “lots” didn’t include the jury. I know the defense needn’t prove anything, etc., etc., but this case seemed to rest on a simple foundation: was it self defense or not. Did they believe everything about the defense’s narrative except the fact that Zimmerman could not have fled? The whole narrative is dependent upon that. SYG is a non sequitur in this case, ISTM. If it’s a shitty law, it’s not because of this verdict. This case was not an SYG case as a practical matter because SYG was not invoked and the defense narrative specifically contradicted the very need to consider it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/495 "2013-07-27T02:35:05Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > …If it’s a shitty law, it’s not because of this verdict… Kinda backwards? The premise is that the verdict was rendered because of the shitty law, yes? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/496 "2013-07-27T04:16:17Z")
[**How the SYG law WAS a factor in the Zimmerman case:**](http://www.dangelber.com/blog/view_blog.php?ID=268) > [@](#): > > In 2005 the Florida Legislature fundamentally changed the analysis used by juries to assign blame in these cases. When the legislature passed the Stand Your Ground law it changed the rules of engagement. It eliminated the duty to avoid the danger and it eliminated any duty to retreat. > > If the Trayvon Martin killing was tried prior to the Stand Your Ground law being passed, the jury would have been told that self-defense was not available to Zimmerman unless he had used every reasonable means to avoid the danger. The jury would have been told that even if they believed Zimmerman had been attacked wrongfully by Trayvon, he could not use deadly force if he could have safely retreated or run away. > > Here is the actual jury instruction read to Florida juries prior to the legislature’s enactment of Stand Your Ground: > \*“The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. > > The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force. “\* > In this case, did Zimmerman use “every reasonable means within his power…to avoid the danger” or did he follow Trayvon despite admonitions that he did not need to? Notwithstanding the forensics that Zimmerman suffered injury, could he have safely run away, or retreated from an unarmed teenager? > > The jury did not get to analyze the case in these terms because the law of Florida after Stand Your Ground eliminated the duty to avoid the danger and the duty to retreat. > Here is the actual instruction that was read to the Zimmerman Jury: > _“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an 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 another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”_ It was not just a question of eliminating the “duty to retreat”, which has been trotted out as the reason SYG was irrelevant (i.e., “Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat anyway”). The elimination of the “duty to avoid danger” is what made the big difference in how the jury could have deliberated this case. The juror statements about “stand your ground” and how “there was no other way” make more sense in light of this, don’t you think? They most likely would have convicted him if the instructions contained the pre-SYG language. ---
**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 27, 2013, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/497 "2013-07-27T05:50:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 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. It is bizarre for you to refer to “your own reasonable doubt”, when no such thing exists. I have no doubts. None. Reasonable or unreasonable. Zero. No one else on my jury has any doubts. And those are the only persons whose doubts matter, so it’s hard to imagine what you _believe_ you are saying. From the jury instructions for the Zimmerman trial (tiny just cuz I don’t think anyone’s going to bother reading anyway): > [@](#): > > PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF > > Whenever the words “reasonable doubt” are used you must consider the following: > A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction,it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. > > It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence,conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty. > > WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE > > It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence. > > You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness. > > JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE > An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. > > “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. > > A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace 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 another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. > > However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. My jury followed the instructions to the letter. Their findings were based entirely on the evidence and they drew reasonable inferences from that evidence.They weighed evidence and testimony of witnesses, came to conclusions about what happened, \*\*\*had no meaningful doubts about any of that, and therefore convicted. \*\*\* (FTR, as I’ve previously noted, I know many people who would have found exactly as my fantasy jury found. Especially if the prosecution had been less incompetent at presenting the case. But all the necessary parts leading to the conviction existed independent of the prosecution’s ineptitude.) So your continued references to reasonable doubt as though it is something that exists _apart from the minds of the jurors themselves_ is extremely strange. > [@Terr](#): > > EXCEPT - self-defense. The pesky thing you keep forgetting. I guess you just assumed, instead of actually reading it: > [@](#): > > Since these are our findings of fact, our reasonable inferences from the evidence, we find that Zimmerman hunted Martin down and tried to detain him, thereby provoking him to a violent response, and that Zimmerman produced the gun well in advance of the point he stated, making it impossible, in our fact-finding eyes, for there to have, at any point, been a sincere need to actually shoot Martin at all, _ **making the self-defense claim false** _ and the killing unlawful. Now, I’ve been meaning to discuss with you, Counselor: > [@Bricker](#): > > Insufficient as a matter of law. The ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent cannot typically be found from such generalized circumstances. It generally refers to a emotion arising from some personal acquaintance or knowledge: > > > [@](#): > > > > Although exceptions exist, the crime of second-degree murder is normally committed by a person who knows the victim and has had time to develop a level of enmity toward the victim. … Hatred, spite, evil intent, or ill will usually require more than an instant to develop. See Hooker v. State, 497 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that second-degree murder established where defendant shot into occupied trailer killing stranger because of preexisting racial ill will). It was my fault that I wasn’t a little bit clearer…although it’s certainly still a matter of debate as to whether it could fly: my jury thinks that his “punks/assholes” remarks, combined with his intention to find and detain Martin, demonstrate a pre-existing anger and resentment towards the assholes who always get away, and he considered Martin representative of that group that he was angry at for being criminal and getting away with it. He was fueled with resentment towards “these assholes”, and that had everything to do with nearly every choice and action he took that night. So, like your case example where it was found that “pre-existing racial ill will” could be sufficient for 2nd degree, my argument was/is (though I’m not particularly attached to it, just sayin’) that GZ definitely had pre-existing ill-will towards this perceived group of people he believed were committing crimes against people in his neighborhood and getting away with it. Which, if you think about it, is really more legitimately personal ill-will than generalized racism is; at least it’s directed at a group of individuals, albeit unknown, who have actually \*done something \*to inspire enmity in GZ, and it is something which he, as Neighborhood Watch Guy, takes very personally: gotten away with burglary and theft in His Watched Neighborhood. So how about that? > [@Bricker](#): > > Item #6 is not supported by the rationale you give. You have to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt; you can’t say that you just decide it was Zimmerman pursuing Martin just because there was testimony that someone was pursuing someone. Your evidence has to exclude all reasonable scenarios except that of guilt. > > But you don’t need #6 to make your case. Another incomplete on my part: the inference that it was Zimmerman pursuing Martin was not a groundless assumption, it was directly because he was pursuing Martin to begin with, something we the jury had already found. So when they encountered each other, we believed it was reasonable and it followed that any pursuit was Zimmerman pursuing Martin. But, as you say, not necessary for the conviction, so if that’s still unacceptable, no loss. And thank you very much for this: > [@Bricker](#): > > And let me say this, to the assembled audience. **Stoid** takes a lot of shit here. > > She earns some of it, to be sure. But pretty much alone amongst the Martin defenders, she has tried to examine the law, the elements of the crimes charged, and the evidence supporting those charges. **Stoid** ’s issue is that she is a skeptic, in the sense that until she knows it, it ain’t so, and it takes a huge effort to dislodge her from her convictions. But isn’t that a prize trait, in a way? She’s saying, in effect, PROVE IT TO ME. > > It would be gratifying to me if she simply said, **Bricker** I know you’re a law-talking guy, and so I’ll take your word for it. > > But that’s not a reasonable request. > > Yes, she locks in on ideas and it takes a mighty wind to budge her – but really, shouldn’t these propositions HAVE mighty winds in their support? > > Anyway, it’s not like Stoid and I are going to be sailing off into the sunset or anything. But credit where credit is due. She’s got her view of the world, and it’s not a view that can be lightly tossed aside. Nor is she tossing alternative views lightly aside. Who else, on the hard-core Martin side, is doing that? Extremely kind of you to take the time to say it, very much appreciated. And nicely put, to boot. > [@Steophan](#): > > The problem with **Stoid** is not her opinions\*, it’s that she thinks she has access to some alternative _facts_ that are both different and equally valid to those the rest of us perceive. The problem is actually that you think your opinions about what the evidence shows are the facts, as we’ve gone over multiple times. So when I don’t accept your assessment of the facts, it’s actually been my rejection of your opinions. Unless you’d care to back this up with some cites to posts showing me rejecting actual facts of the case, actual evidence? Yeah, I didn’t think so. > [@](#): > > Many things have been proven to her, again and again, and that proof rolls off her conviction like the nourishing rain of truth off the windshield of fundamentalism. More of the same: you think you have proved something by your assertion that it is so. Well, no. And again: got some posts showing me rejecting things that have been proven? No, because I don’t reject things that have been proven, that’s kinda the point. I reject things that are simply asserted to be fact based on someone else’s opinion or belief that it has been proven\* to them\*, yes. I look forward to you showing me proof that what you say about me here is true. (Even though I know that genuine proof, in the form of _quotes_ of _my actual posts_, vs. your descriptions of what you think I’ve said, does not exist.) > [@Hbns](#): > > So Stoid, I don’t think you are entirely wrong, I just don’t think your line of reasoning stands a snowballs chance in hell under current Florida law. Thanks. It’s the pain of the jury system. And again, really bad prosecution. I’m halfway to believing what someone had said along the way about the prosecution _wanting_ to lose. Especially in light of what we’re hearing from them. It’s REALLY?!? With Seth and Amy time…Sigh… ---
**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 27, 2013, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/498 "2013-07-27T06:02:49Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > 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. 😕:dubious: Are you saying that if a juror thinks that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth because it serves his purpose to do so, but they don’t have a specific alternative to his lie they are required by law to experience doubt they are not actually experiencing? Granted, they cannot convict exclusively on the basis of not believing him, but they hardly require every lie to be specifically refuted. Especially this one: how does the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicions mean anything in relation to reasonable doubt about his actions in killing Martin? He either killed him in self-defense or he killed him unlawfully as murder or manslaughter - what part do the reasons for his suspicions about Martin being in the neighborhood play in creating reasonable doubt around that question? I’m not saying it doesn’t, just saying I don’t see it and I’d welcome your enlightening me. ---
**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 27, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/499 "2013-07-27T06:13:09Z")
> [@camille](#): > > [**How the SYG law WAS a factor in the Zimmerman case:**](http://www.dangelber.com/blog/view_blog.php?ID=268) > It was not just a question of eliminating the “duty to retreat”, which has been trotted out as the reason SYG was irrelevant (i.e., “Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat anyway”). > > The elimination of the “duty to avoid danger” is what made the big difference in how the jury could have deliberated this case. > > The juror statements about “stand your ground” and how “there was no other way” make more sense in light of this, don’t you think? They most likely would have convicted him if the instructions contained the pre-SYG language. Wasn’t it somewhere in these threads that I read that Judge Nelson had been persuaded to not include the language about provocation in her instructions? Because I think that would have changed things completely, since you still have to try and retreat and find other means if you instigated the danger you are defending against. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/500 "2013-07-27T07:34:54Z")
> [@camille](#): > > [**How the SYG law WAS a factor in the Zimmerman case:**](http://www.dangelber.com/blog/view_blog.php?ID=268) > It was not just a question of eliminating the “duty to retreat”, which has been trotted out as the reason SYG was irrelevant (i.e., “Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat anyway”). > > The elimination of the “duty to avoid danger” is what made the big difference in how the jury could have deliberated this case. > > The juror statements about “stand your ground” and how “there was no other way” make more sense in light of this, don’t you think? They most likely would have convicted him if the instructions contained the pre-SYG language. It is true that if Florida had not eliminated the duty to retreat unless one is at home (or other locations to which the Castle Doctrine applies), a different outcome may have occurred. But saying “If this jurisdiction had different laws, you’d need to decide differently” isn’t the same thing as “was an issue at trial.” Something is at issue at trial if either (i) there is a genuine factual dispute as to a material fact, (ii) there is a bona fide controversy as to the existing law’s application to those facts, or (iii) both. Here, there was no factual dispute that Zimmerman was in a place he was lawfully permitted to be nor any controversy regarding the application of that law to those facts, i.e., he had no duty to retreat . As to “avoiding the danger” in the Florida Pattern Jury Instructions (note also that you misquoted this in your analysis, it is "duty to avoid _ **the** _ danger, not “duty to avoid danger”), the danger to be avoided is the immediate avoidance of the assailant’s specific imminent infliction of death or bodily harm (one must avoid the danger of being on the recieving end of that force. It does not mean “avoid getting yourself entangled in heated situations.” In particular, Zimmerman’s continued following of Martin contrary to the dispatcher’s statement that “we don’t need you to do that,” would not represent his failing to “avoid the danger,” as that term refers to the specific danger of the assailant’s threat or use of deadly force and not some generalized concept of danger. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=26)