# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/41 "2013-07-20T16:33:37Z")
> [@bump](#): > > **The pitting of people who mistakenly conflate justice with legality (Martin/Zimmerman related)** > > So we’ve recently had the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the 2nd degree murder of Trayvon Martin. And a lot of people are outraged that he wasn’t convicted because Zimmerman did a lot of actions of questionable merit prior to the actual shooting. > > What’s pissing me off is that the majority of the people wailing and gnashing their teeth apparently have NO clue how the legal system works and think that Zimmerman should have been convicted not because he broke Florida law, but because they didn’t like what he did. Not Zimmerman trial-related, but here’s a guy that conflates his sense of justice with legality; it’s from from a case with racial aspects a few years ago some may remember: > [@](#): > > One NCCU student, Chan Hall, as quoted by Newsweek, [3] stated, “It’s the same old story. Duke up, Central down.” He continued that he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted “whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past.”[44] [Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_the_2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case#North_Carolina_Central_University_forum) Not to rehash that case, and it didn’t involve a death, but that’s a guy who couldn’t care less about the facts of a case. ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/42 "2013-07-20T16:35:00Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > 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? Are you in reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily injury? Sure you can. Yelling stupid stuff is not an aggressive or violent act and not illegal. They have no legal right to react to you violently and you have the right to defend yourself. And the right to a Darwin Award. Maybe stupidity should be illegal but it would clog up our prisons. How about if you are stuck in a bad movie cliche and knock down their bikes accidentally. Do you think you have the right to defend yourself if they attack you and you fear for your life? ---
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/43 "2013-07-20T16:38:26Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > 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? Do you mean in Florida or in general? In most States if you _provoke_ a fight, then it can have two important legal impacts. It can _mitigate_ the punishment for the person who actually throws the first blow, for example if he kills or seriously injures you then if he can demonstrate that he provoked the fight it can typically mitigate the seriousness of his crime. In some States with felony “class” systems it can “downgrade” the class of the felony which makes it a lesser punishment. Secondly, it can decrease the ability to which you can use a self defense assertion if you injure/kill the person you provoked to stop the assault. Self defense law appears to be (like many areas of law) one that substantially varies from State to State but with a lot of similar concepts found throughout. For example in some States provocation would mean that you do not totally lose your ability to raise a self-defense claim, but that it might make you guilty of a “lesser crime” whereas if you can demonstrate you were attacked for no reason and couldn’t escape self-defense is a “complete” justification for your actions and would result in an acquittal. In your scenario several things would have to be in play in Florida: 1. You do not have the right to mow down bystanders, so if anyone who was “mowed down” actually was just a bystander you’d be in serious trouble. 2. The Statute I posted actually says if you are the initial aggressor then you can only use lethal force if the force _being used on you_ is so great you fear bodily harm or death. So it’s questionable if you could provoke a confrontation and then shoot people to death just because they start walking to you, I would guess even in Florida you could not do that. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/44 "2013-07-20T16:41:48Z")
> [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](#): > > Possibly we just think it’s a bit messed up that you can, with impunity, get out of your car and follow an unarmed child, harassing and assaulting him, but if he fights back, you can kill him. Your description of the way events unfolded that night is highly misleading, it’s no wonder you angry. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/45 "2013-07-20T16:46:29Z")
This was a big problem back when the original massive thread on this started. People just refused to believe the law as it was, and got mad at the people trying to explain it. It included people like **Bricker** and other lawyers, and people like **Loach** who are in law enforcement and random internet personalities like myself and we were all pretty vilified just for explaining the legal reality the best we could present it. That’s why I hadn’t commented on the Zimmerman case on these boards in months until recently when the verdict came down. What I find upsetting is despite the verdict legally vindicating the concept that what Zimmerman did either was not a crime or could not be _proven_ as a crime, some people still feel that the law actually says something else. They present a bunch of nonsense scenarios and try to imprint it on the Zimmerman case. They also keep repeating a bunch of things that they cannot know. A jury cannot make decisions based on bias or just random thoughts that come to them based on whether they like the defendant or not. I actually read through the jury instructions early (it’s up on Scribd) and it specifically says that you are not to make your decision based on feeling sorry for an individual or because you dislike the individual. You can’t make you decision based on how you feel about the lawyers or anything like that. It has to be based on your best judgment about what was argued and presented in court. Let’s just establish for the purposes of this thread: **1. No evidence exists whatsoever as to who started the physical confrontation. Period. End of story.** **2. No evidence exists whatsoever about the specifics of what happened during the physical confrontation, with the exception that we know Trayvon Martin was shot and killed at close range from an angle suggesting he was above Zimmerman and that Zimmerman had a broke nose, bruises and abrasions on his face and back of his head.** **3. No evidence exists that when Zimmerman got out of his car and first started to follow Martin, that he continued to follow Martin until the confrontation began. Zimmerman’s claim is he lost sight of Martin and had returned to his car when Martin confronted him “by surprise” and immediately struck him after a brief exchange during which Zimmerman had no time to react or flee.** Anyone that asserts as fact, anything relating to those three points, is just arguing an opinion. An opinion unsupported by evidence or witness testimony. While Zimmerman gave his side of the story, I admit that is not “proof” of anything. But you also need to admit that when there is no proof either way, the presumption of innocence always lies with the defendant, and the burden of proof to show any element of a crime always lies with the prosecution. If you can’t admit that, you honestly should not discuss this case because you just lower the discourse. ---
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/46 "2013-07-20T17:05:55Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Do you mean in Florida or in general? In most States if you _provoke_ a fight, then it can have two important legal impacts. It can _mitigate_ the punishment for the person who actually throws the first blow, for example if he kills or seriously injures you then if he can demonstrate that he provoked the fight it can typically mitigate the seriousness of his crime. In some States with felony “class” systems it can “downgrade” the class of the felony which makes it a lesser punishment. Secondly, it can decrease the ability to which you can use a self defense assertion if you injure/kill the person you provoked to stop the assault. > > Self defense law appears to be (like many areas of law) one that substantially varies from State to State but with a lot of similar concepts found throughout. For example in some States provocation would mean that you do not totally lose your ability to raise a self-defense claim, but that it might make you guilty of a “lesser crime” whereas if you can demonstrate you were attacked for no reason and couldn’t escape self-defense is a “complete” justification for your actions and would result in an acquittal. > > In your scenario several things would have to be in play in Florida: > > 1. You do not have the right to mow down bystanders, so if anyone who was “mowed down” actually was just a bystander you’d be in serious trouble. > > 2. The Statute I posted actually says if you are the initial aggressor then you can only use lethal force if the force _being used on you_ is so great you fear bodily harm or death. So it’s questionable if you could provoke a confrontation and then shoot people to death just because they start walking to you, I would guess even in Florida you could not do that. How you define provoke is the big issue. Just saying “stupid things” is not enough to illicit a violent response in a reasonable person. Just because you yell “Harley Davidson sucks” doesn’t mean that they can beat you up. So provocation will not fly. If you verbally threaten someone that is different. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/47 "2013-07-20T17:13:45Z")
You know what would have helped? Video cameras! Everywhere! ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/48 "2013-07-20T17:14:12Z")
I agree with your initial reasoning. However: > [@bump](#): > > Fact: Nothing Zimmerman did prior to the shooting was illegal. Even if he decided that Martin was sketchy because he was black, and ambushed him to confront him, none of that’s illegal. Sketchy? Yes. In poor judgement? Yes. Illegal? No. That is not a fact. Zimmerman could have decided he was going to kill Martin before the shooting, and his pursuit of him would have been a crime. > [@](#): > > Fact: The case entirely hinged upon the notion that the possibility that Zimmerman feared for his life, and that this fear cast reasonable doubt upon the charge that Zimmerman murdered Martin in a non-premeditated way (2nd degree). That is not a fact. The case did not hinge upon anything. The jury decided to acquit, we don’t know why. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/49 "2013-07-20T17:25:02Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > 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? If your fear is reasonable, and you can show that for each biker you “mow down” you had a specific fear of serious bodily injury or death _from him_, and the jury believes you, and your initial contact did not include a physical component so as to make you an aggressor - yes. I believe you’d have some serious problems of proof, myself. Starting with how you mow them all down - how would you possibly show that each and every biker killed was threatening you? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/50 "2013-07-20T17:27:38Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The only hard evidence we have is a shaky sequence of pre-confrontation events based on cell phone conversations and physical evidence that Zimmerman got his ass beat. > > What that means is the only evidence that exists really at all about how the confrontation actually began and how it ended is the police interview Zimmerman gave. Is that proof that Martin began an unprovoked attack? Absolutely not. > > But is it, taken with the physical evidence, enough that Zimmerman’s self defense claim is one reasonable possible reality? Absolutely. What that means is there is a reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman was guilty of any crime, and the jury correctly saw that reasonable doubt. The juror that gave the interview said she (and her fellow jurors) ultimately believed Zimmerman’s story. > > That’s the job of a jury, to hear a story sometimes where you just have to make a gut level judgment call. But they have to be informed by law, and key to that is Zimmerman’s story was consistent enough with the only real evidence we had that you couldn’t say for sure that Zimmerman’s story wasn’t true. Which means you can’t say for sure that the prosecution’s story, beyond reasonable doubt, was true. In that scenario acquittal is the absolute only proper legal outcome. Exactly! You said it better than I did, but I agree 100%. Regardless of what happened, the court case was by the numbers, and outrage over that is basically idiotic. People should be outraged about the prosecution’s ineptitude, or the state’s bizarre laws, but the jury came to exactly the right decision based on the information in the case. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/51 "2013-07-20T17:35:58Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I agree with your initial reasoning. However: > > That is not a fact. Zimmerman could have decided he was going to kill Martin before the shooting, and his pursuit of him would have been a crime. I should have said “as far as we know”… there’s no clear evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill him ahead of time. > [@TriPolar](#): > > That is not a fact. The case did not hinge upon anything. The jury decided to acquit, we don’t know why. Yes we do- because for whatever reason, there was reasonable doubt in the jury members’ minds that Zimmerman feared for his life and fired in self defense. The other choice would have been that Zimmerman did not fear for his life and shot him in cold blood, and we’d have had a different verdict. It’s all about reasonable doubt, and the self-defense angle raises a lot of possible doubt. Here’s what FindLaw says about 2nd Degree murder in Florida: > [@](#): > > To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a “depraved mind” without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant’s intent to kill. - See more at: [http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html#sthash.P4dU6UGo.dpuf](http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html#sthash.P4dU6UGo.dpuf) Here’s a little bit more: > [@](#): > > **Defenses to Second Degree Murder Charges** > Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property > Excusable homicide committed by accident > Spontaneous or negligent killing that might qualify as manslaughter instead of murder > > - See more at: [http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html#sthash.P4dU6UGo.dpuf](http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html#sthash.P4dU6UGo.dpuf) ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/52 "2013-07-20T17:57:19Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > That is not a fact. The case did not hinge upon anything. The jury decided to acquit, we don’t know why. Sure we do. They decided that the prosecution failed to prove at least one element of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. But you’re right: ultimately, we don’t know with any specificity what course of reasoning the jury followed. We could make some educated guesses – probably the jury did not acquit because they believed there was doubt the crime took place in Seminole County, for example. So in the context of making some educated assumptions about what the jury decided, some progress can be made. But the leap from “the jury probably” to “the jury DID” is not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/53 "2013-07-20T18:00:54Z")
> [@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 It is not. In fact the article you’re quoting says that it’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/54 "2013-07-20T18:04:16Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > How you define provoke is the big issue. Just saying “stupid things” is not enough to illicit a violent response in a reasonable person. Just because you yell “Harley Davidson sucks” doesn’t mean that they can beat you up. So provocation will not fly. If you verbally threaten someone that is different. One possible reason for the outrage: On the one hand, we are told it was not reasonable for Martin, a minor, to lash out physically, even if he had felt an imminent threat from being followed, in the dark, by a strange adult man who refused to identify himself. And yet it is considered as reasonable for two adult police officers to lash out physically because they felt threatened by the [“dehumanizing stares”](http://gawker.com/florida-cops-choke-black-teen-holding-puppy-over-dehum-510491930) of a 14 year old boy: > [@](#): > > Tremaine McMillian was roughhousing with another teen in the water when he was approached by Miami-Dade Police officers and ordered to stop fighting. > > Despite quickly realizing that no actual fighting was taking place, the officers still asked McMillian to point out his mother to them. > > Tremaine says he complied, but Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta claims the boy refused to cooperate and tried to walk away. > > “When he started to leave the beach area, officers had to get off their ATVs to detain him. He had closed arms, clenched fists and pulled his arm away,” Zabaleta told CBS Miami. > > Sensing an imminent “threat” from Tremaine’s body language and “dehumanizing stares,” the officers placed the teen in a chokehold. > > “He started choking me, and as he was choking me, I urinated on myself because I couldn’t breathe,” Tremaine later told a juvenile court judge. > > According to Tremaine, it would have been impossible for him to be clenching his fists because he was holding his six-week-old pit bull mix puppy Polo at the time and feeding him with a bottle. Why is a child held to a higher standard of behavior than an adult? What Zimmerman did may have been legal - I accept that, and would not have convicted with the case and evidence that was presented - but the moral outrage is entirely justified, and serves a practical purpose if it creates the will to make changes going forward. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/55 "2013-07-20T18:08:49Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Fact: The case entirely hinged upon the notion that the possibility that Zimmerman feared for his life, and that this fear cast reasonable doubt upon the charge that Zimmerman murdered Martin in a non-premeditated way (2nd degree). > [@bump](#): > > Yes we do- because for whatever reason, there was reasonable doubt in the jury members’ minds that Zimmerman feared for his life and fired in self defense. The other choice would have been that Zimmerman did not fear for his life and shot him in cold blood, and we’d have had a different verdict. We do not know if Zimmerman’s claim that he feared for his life had anything to do with the verdict. The jury may have decided to acquit simply because the prosecution did not prove their case. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/56 "2013-07-20T18:13:27Z")
What’s all this people are saying about “no evidence”? Is the defendant’s own statement now somehow considered not acceptable evidence for the prosecution? We know from the defendant’s own statements that he followed Martin against the recommendation of the police, that he got out of his car armed in Martin’s presence and confronted him, and that he did not offer any reason for his behavior even when asked by Martin. Did he intend from the outset to kill Martin? I don’t know. Probably not; his fantasy probably involved Martin submitting to his “authority” right from the outset, instead of engaging in lawful self-defense. So that’s an argument for bumping it down to second-degree murder instead of first. Did he act the way he did because of racism? Again, I don’t know. But that’s also not actually relevant: Regardless of the reason for his actions, we know what his actions were. Oh, and if we insist on using the reasoning that led to Zimmerman’s acquittal, then it becomes impossible to ever prosecute any murder case, since any defendant can use the same argument that Zimmerman did. Surely, any interpretation of the law that leads to the impossibility of ever finding a murderer guilty must be a faulty interpretation. ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/57 "2013-07-20T18:14:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You know what would have helped? Video cameras! Everywhere! I wear a Go Pro on a hard hat wherever I go. > [@camille](#): > > One possible reason for the outrage: > > On the one hand, we are told it was not reasonable for Martin, a minor, to lash out physically, even if he had felt an imminent threat from being followed, in the dark, by a strange adult man who refused to identify himself. > > And yet it is considered as reasonable for two adult police officers to lash out physically because they felt threatened by the [“dehumanizing stares”](http://gawker.com/florida-cops-choke-black-teen-holding-puppy-over-dehum-510491930) of a 14 year old boy: > Why is a child held to a higher standard of behavior than an adult? > > What Zimmerman did may have been legal - I accept that, and would not have convicted with the case and evidence that was presented - but the moral outrage is entirely justified, and serves a practical purpose if it creates the will to make changes going forward. There was no higher standard. Martin was not on trial. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/58 "2013-07-20T18:16:38Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > We do not know if Zimmerman’s claim that he feared for his life had anything to do with the verdict. The jury may have decided to acquit simply because the prosecution did not prove their case. You’re assuming that jurors, all six of them, are idiots. They are not. Florida defines manslaughter as: committing an intentional act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person. Since Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin (fact not in dispute by either defense or prosecution) and Martin died (fact not in dispute by either defense or prosecution) then manslaughter case was indisputably proved. UNLESS what Zimmerman did was either excusable or justified. Defense didn’t claim excusable. They claimed justified. QED. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/59 "2013-07-20T18:17:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What’s all this people are saying about “no evidence”? Is the defendant’s own statement now somehow considered not acceptable evidence for the prosecution? We know from the defendant’s own statements that he followed Martin against the recommendation of the police, that he got out of his car armed in Martin’s presence and confronted him, and that he did not offer any reason for his behavior even when asked by Martin. > > Did he intend from the outset to kill Martin? I don’t know. Probably not; his fantasy probably involved Martin submitting to his “authority” right from the outset, instead of engaging in lawful self-defense. So that’s an argument for bumping it down to second-degree murder instead of first. > > Did he act the way he did because of racism? Again, I don’t know. But that’s also not actually relevant: Regardless of the reason for his actions, we know what his actions were. > > Oh, and if we insist on using the reasoning that led to Zimmerman’s acquittal, then it becomes impossible to ever prosecute any murder case, since any defendant can use the same argument that Zimmerman did. Surely, any interpretation of the law that leads to the impossibility of ever finding a murderer guilty must be a faulty interpretation. He did get out of the car. Nothing else was proven as fact by anyone. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/60 "2013-07-20T18:19:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 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. Found it interesting that the AP is still using the pic of Trayvon at 14 or so in their articles as recently as today. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=4)