# 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:** 32
**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 31, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/621 "2013-07-31T14:17:15Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > We’ve actually already had people post about the standards for provocation under Florida laws. Standards are not specifics. You and brazil were both asking me to find cases with the same fact pattern in terms of “following”, which is ridiculous. The kinds of behaviors that might end up being provocative are as varied as people themselves. Everything in context. > [@](#): > > **Stoid** ’s basically arguing for a _de novo_ interpretation of the law and standing on the grounds that “the right judge or jury would agree with my argument” as proof that it’s just as valid an argument as case law settled by a Florida appellate court. **Martin Hyde** is just randomly making shit up and slapping my name on it. > [@brazil84](#): > > No, but what he didn’t claim was that he was being smothered the entire time. > But you exaggerated Zimmerman’s statement to make it seem like Zimmerman was claiming both things happened at the same time. No one exaggerated anything. We know about the screaming, we have it on tape. Zimmerman has described what happened regarding smothering and shooting approximately six times. With the exception of one or two "I don’t know"s following his statements reflecting knowledge that came only after he was pressed to see how ludicrous his claim was, he has described the smothering as occurring just before the shirt-up/gun-reveal/hand-slide. Given the length of time we have of the screaming and the total length of time available for the altercation to have taken place, it’s absurd to pretend that there was some other, much earlier point prior to the 911 call that Zimmerman could have been smothered. > [@brazil84](#): > > (2) you are unable to offer a detailed scenario which is consistent with the evidence and with Zimmerman’s guilt. post # 572. A slightly edited version of the scenario that Bricker blessed as not only being consistent with the evidence, but that it also would stand up to any appeal based on insufficient evidence. And that post addressed you and you responded to it, so it’s odd that you would say I am unable to offer what you had already read. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The people like Stoid refuse to accept that the legal system can validly produce a result that is different from what they feel should have happened. People like **Martin Hyde** continue to make things up and attribute them to me. > [@Steophan](#): > > so you may either find that it was Zimmerman screaming, or that it is impossible to tell. You crack me up. > [@](#): > > The evidence does not support a finding that it was Martin (again, fact, not opinion). Facts are things that can be objectively verified as true or false. > [@](#): > > You clearly admit to stacking inferences - you _infer_ from the nature of the screams that it was unmitigated terror (a valid inference) Not an inference. THAT is an observation. Martin and I are members of the same species, you see, and all of us who belong to this species comprehend basic, primal sounds that we all make, as well as facial expressions. So when we hear shrieks such as those on the 911 call, we don’t need to infer something that is plainly evident. No normal functioning member of our species would think that the feelings behind those screams were delight, or amusement, or anything other than terror. > [@](#): > > then from that you further infer that it was Martin - and you can’t stack inferences like that, ignoring that your second inference isn’t supported by the first. As just noted, there was no “first” inference. And I noted the 4-5 different things which led to concluding it was Martin. > [@Steophan](#): > > **Stoid** claimed that the mother’s testimony was not what she based her decision on. I said the mother’s testimony wasn’t decisive for me, I didn’t need it. But it was nice to have it in the record. > [@Bricker](#): > > I assume instead that she’s saying, “As a result of my review of the evidence, much like a juror would, I accept and credit Treyvon’s mother’s testimony and therefore am convinced it was Treyvon screaming.” > > Yes? As I said, if I were a juror, her testimony would be good to have in the record. My personal certainty about it being Martin was my own conclusion from hearing it and knowing the circumstances. And I did find his mother credible. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/622 "2013-07-31T15:13:28Z")
If I can add some gasoline to the flames ( 🆒 ) on the question of who was screaming: Did not prosecution have experts ready to testify that screamer was probably Martin? Shouldn’t the jury have been presented with this and contrary opinions, and then been allowed to make its own judgment? I grasp that some evidence is of poor quality, but where does one draw the line? A fine distinction by judge can make a big difference in outcome. Surely it’s not like NBA refereeing where after calling a close one against one team, the judge calls the next close one the other way? :dubious: :smack: (This is not to say I think it was Martin’s voice. I’d guess a 75% chance it went down more-or-less as GZ said. What chance would a jury need for acquittal by reasonable doubt, anyway? 2% ?) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/623 "2013-07-31T16:12:06Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Standards are not specifics. You and brazil were both asking me to find cases with the same fact pattern in terms of “following”, which is ridiculous. The kinds of behaviors that might end up being provocative are as varied as people themselves. Everything in context. So… you go with your gut [feeling]? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/624 "2013-07-31T16:55:27Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > As I said, if I were a juror, her testimony would be good to have in the record. My personal certainty about it being Martin was my own conclusion from hearing it and knowing the circumstances. And I did find his mother credible. This is the difference between what an appeals court does and what a juror does. If a juror were required to list why he or she found a particular fact, then **Stoid** ’s reason for concluding it was Martin screaming would not qualify. But regardless of how she got to that belief, the fact remains that the record has evidence that would allow a reasonable juror to decide that it was Martin screaming. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/625 "2013-07-31T17:00:14Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > If I can add some gasoline to the flames ( 🆒 ) on the question of who was screaming: > > Did not prosecution have experts ready to testify that screamer was probably Martin? Shouldn’t the jury have been presented with this and contrary opinions, and then been allowed to make its own judgment? > > I grasp that some evidence is of poor quality, but where does one draw the line? A fine distinction by judge can make a big difference in outcome. Surely it’s not like NBA refereeing where after calling a close one against one team, the judge calls the next close one the other way? :dubious: :smack: The expert who wanted to testify that the screamer was probably Martin used a specific analytical technique, one that was very new. In fact, he had invented it. It had not gained any particularly wide-spread acceptance in the scientific community. The standard for admissibility of a particular scientific test or technique varies in the United States, and in many states, that’s a fatal defect. I wrote a long explanation of the process last year: > [@Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/92): > > The intersection of science and the law is interesting. > > When DNA testing was in its infancy, there was a period when scientists knew they could reliably match biological samples to people to a vanishingly small error rate. And lawyers - defense lawyers, mostly - were arguing that the results should not be heard in court, because they were unreliable. > > There are two different tests used in the United States judicial world to govern the admissibility of new scientific tests, methods, or techniques. In the federal system and many states, the _Daubert_ test reigns. Based on _Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals_, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), it’s a relatively lenient standard that grants the trial judge a fair degree of latitude in admitting evidence. Basically, if “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise…” in other words, the judge can permit an expert to testify about his theory, period. > > There is a more restrictive standard, and Florida uses it: the _Frye_ standard, based on _Frye v. United States_, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). This standard requires: > > [ol] > [li]The trial judge must determine whether the expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact at issue (same as Daubert)[/li][li]The trial judge must decide whether the expert’s testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”[/li] > [li]The trial judge must determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion testimony on the subject at issue [/li][li]The judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and then it is up to the jury to determine the credibility of the expert’s opinion, which it may either accept or reject.[/li][/ol] > > From _Ramirez v. State_, 651 So. 2d 1164 (Fl. 1995). > > So the key difference: Frye requires that the science to have reached a stage of general acceptance in its field — basically, that it not be novel or controversial. Daubert merely requires that an expert can be found and qualified to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/626 "2013-08-01T00:23:05Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Standards are not specifics. You and brazil were both asking me to find cases with the same fact pattern in terms of “following”, which is ridiculous. That’s not true at all. For example, it would have sufficed for you to come up with authority stating that provocation means any conduct which the actor would reasonably expect to instill fear or anger. On the charitable assumption that you want to genuinely answer my question simply misunderstood it by accident, I will ask again: Can you show me legal authority that following someone under such circumstances counts as “provocation”? And to be perfectly clear, I do not need authority addressed specifically addressed to following. It can be addressed to any lawful conduct not specifically intended to elicit a violent response. > [@](#): > > post # 572 No, for example you do not state in that post the positions of Zimmermans’ and Martins’ bodies in the moments leading up to the shooting. Anyway, I take it that you decline to state what the first point was in which you believe Zimmerman had a duty to retreat? > [@](#): > > No one exaggerated anything. We know about the screaming, we have it on tape. Zimmerman has described what happened regarding smothering and shooting approximately six times. Please link and quote Zimmerman where he says that he was smothered just seconds before he opened fire. Also, please answer my questions from before: 1. Do you maintain that Zimmerman’s alleged following of Martin constituted “provocation” under Florida law? 2. Do you agree that, at a minimum, Florida law requires force or threat of force for behavior to be considered “provocation?” 3. If your answer to both of those questions is “yes,” are you arguing that Zimmerman’s alleged following of Martin was a “threat of force” under Florida law? ---
**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:** [August 1, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/627 "2013-08-01T05:59:58Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Can you show me legal authority that following someone under such circumstances counts as “provocation”? > > And to be perfectly clear, I do not need authority addressed specifically addressed to following. It can be addressed to any lawful conduct not specifically intended to elicit a violent response. How about “it can be whatever the law has said, whether brazil likes it or not”? Can it be that? All the FLorida case law I could find, and there was quite a bit quoting back a hundred years, declined to be more specific about what counts, although there was a variety of ways of expressing the main idea that a person can’t create the problem then claim self defense. A popular phrase was “free from fault”, what one must be in order to claim self-defense. This one was interesting as well: > [@](#): > > One who seeks a person who intends to kill him or \*\*\*otherwise brings the danger upon himself \*\*\*cannot avail himself of the plea of self-defense. > [@](#): > > No, for example you do not state in that post the positions of Zimmermans’ and Martins’ bodies in the moments leading up to the shooting. I’m weighing the evidence and coming to conclusions based on the evidence, not presenting evidence. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I take it that you decline to state what the first point was in which you believe Zimmerman had a duty to retreat? You take it wrong. I did state it, and you have chosen to have a silly response that doesn’t merit addressing. > [@](#): > > Please link and quote Zimmerman where he says that he was smothered just seconds before he opened fire. [FIrst interview with Serino, February 27.](https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=999) > [@](#): > > Serino: And he started to beat up on you? > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > Serino: At what point did you draw your weapon? > Zimmerman: **After he hit my** head against the concrete several times… > Serino: OK. > Zimmerman: _ **I yelled out for help and then he tried to smother my mouth and my nose…** _ > Serino: Who yelled for help? > Zimmerman: I did. > Serino: _**OK and at which point he did what? > Zimmerman: He smothered my mouth and my nose.**_ > Serino: OK. > Zimmerman: And when he did that I tried to slide out and squirm… > Serino: Uh huh > Zimmerman: And I realized, um, my, my shirt came up and I felt him slide his hand toward my right side… > Serino: OK. > Zimmerman: And he said, “You’re gonna die, motherfucker”. And then that’s when I grabbed it. I, I don’t know if it was away from him or you know, I just, unholstered… Exactly as I said. From his [written statement:](http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerman-trial-evidentiary-flashback-zimmermans-1st-written-statement-to-police-the-night-of-the-shooting/) > [@](#): > > The suspect got on top of me. I yelled ‘Help’ several times. The suspect told me ‘Shut the fuck up’ as I tried to sit up right, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalks several times. I continued to yell ‘Help’ each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell ‘Help.’" > _ **As I slid the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing.** _ \*\*\*At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm \*\*\*and say ‘Your gonna die tonight Mother Fucker.’ I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said ‘You got me.’ At this point I slid out from underneath him and got ontop of the suspect holding his hands away from his body. An onlooker appeared and asked me if I was ok. I said ‘No’ he said ‘I’m calling 911.’ I said I don’t need you to call 911. Exactly as I said, smothering directly before the sliding shirt and gun. [Video at 11:45, same, with more filler.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC_0cgsmCfQ) [And:](https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025) > [@](#): > > Serino: OK. 9mm inside your pants? He was mounted on you, you were able, he was mounted on your upper chest? Or, I mean, at what point were you able to free your waist side to go ahead and pull out your weapon? > Zimmerman: When he…he was mounted on me but he had pressure on my nose and my mouth, \*\*\*suffocating me. And when he let go of my mouth and started reaching down my side, he said, \*\*\*“You’re gonna die tonight.” I didn’t need my hand any more cause he let go of my mouth. I don’t remember if I was still screaming or not. That’s when I grabbed his hand and I grabbed my, my firearm and fired. So it was one side, he let go, that I realized I didn’t need my hand and he was gonna kill me. > Serino: How long did he suffocate you for? > Zimmerman: (sigh) Felt like… So I’d say if anyone is “exaggerating”, it would be _ **you** _, exaggerating the possibility that he didn’t know. He _ **only** _ claimed he didn’t know _ **after the implausibility of his claim was shoved in his face:** _ > [@](#): > > Serino: You’re that voice in the background? > Zimmerman: No, sir. > Serino: That’s you. Are you hearing yourself? > Zimmerman: Um, it doesn’t sound like me. > Serino: It’s you. > (listening to the 911 call) > Serino: OK, right there. He smothered you, correct? > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > Serino: _**At what point did he smother you? > Zimmerman: After… > Serino: Was it right before you shot him? > Zimmerman: Right…yes, sir.**_ > Serino: OK. Immediately behind the shot? > Zimmerman: (sigh) I don’t remember. > Serino: OK. > (plays 911 call again) > Serino: I need you to give me an approximate time of when he starts to smother you. > Zimmerman: I don’t know when. It’s hard to… > Serino: That’s you, yelling for help. > Zimmerman: (unintelligible) > Serino: Help me, help me. > Serino: That’s when you shot him. (clears his throat) Can you recall (coughs) excuse me…at what point the suffocation happened? Prior to, prior to you shooting him, he was on you, correct? > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > Serino: OK. And you were able to reach into your holster. > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > Serino: OK. You shot him at point blank range. He was on top of you, right? > Zimmerman: Yes, sir. > Serino: OK. And in the middle of all that yelling, nobody came out to help you. And I can’t, I can’t pinpoint where you were smothered. That’s the problem I’m having. And nobody’s saying they saw him smothering you. People are saying they saw you, saw him on top of you, but they didn’t see about the smothering part. So… > Singleton: And when we’re listening to the screaming, doesn’t sound like there’s a hesitation in the screaming. It sounds like it’s continuous, and if someone’s being hurt (imitates scream being muffled) It’s gonna stop. But we don’t hear the, we don’t hear it stop. > [@](#): > > Also, please answer my questions from before: > > 1. Do you maintain that Zimmerman’s alleged following of Martin constituted “provocation” under Florida law? I maintain that Zimmerman staring from the car, then following on foot, then being a pushy asshole face to face was frightening to Martin, and reasonably so, leading to his feeling the need to defend himself against whatever the asshole might have in mind, hate crime, rape, whatever. (Psst: that would be Martin perceiving a threat of force.) 2 > [@](#): > > . Do you agree that, at a minimum, Florida law requires force or threat of force for behavior to be considered “provocation?” Please stop asking the same questions that I answered already, answers that you acknowledged. > [@](#): > > 1. If your answer to both of those questions is “yes,” are you arguing that Zimmerman’s alleged following of Martin was a “threat of force” under Florida law? See #1 ---
**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:** [August 1, 2013, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/628 "2013-08-01T07:16:58Z")
Zimmerman did nothing that could be considered being a “pushy asshole” to martin until at least the point martin returned to confront him. All your arguments about Zimmerman being a threat more properly apply to Martin. It was him who chose to initiate the confrontation, him who spoke first, and him who used violence first, based on the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/629 "2013-08-01T09:56:24Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > How about “it can be whatever the law has said, whether brazil likes it or not”? Can it be that? Sure, of course. I was simply asking for you to back up your claim. > [@](#): > > All the FLorida case law I could find, and there was quite a bit quoting back a hundred years, declined to be more specific about what counts, although there was a variety of ways of expressing the main idea that a person can’t create the problem then claim self defense. > > A popular phrase was “free from fault”, what one must be in order to claim self-defense. > > This one was interesting as well: > > > [@](#): > > > > One who seeks a person who intends to kill him or otherwise brings the danger upon himself cannot avail himself of the plea of self-defense. I am inclined to ask you the following question: Just so we are clear, you maintain that anyone “brings the danger upon himself” is engaged in provocation under Florida law? (For example a black person who shows up at a Ku Klux Klan rally.) I would also ask you if you are really choosing a 1914 squib which does not even mention “provocation” over case from the last 20 years which does mention “provocation” and specifically states that force or threat of force is required. However I know you will evade these questions in any event you are about to end up on my ban list. See below. > [@](#): > > I’m weighing the evidence and coming to conclusions based on the evidence, not presenting evidence. A scenario is not evidence. A scenario is just that – a scenario. You are unable to present a coherent one and when I pointed it out, you first pretended that you had and then when I pointed out that you hadn’t, you pretended that I was asking for evidence on that point instead of asking for the scenario itself. In other words, you first weaseled and then strawmanned. > [@](#): > > You take it wrong. I did state it, and you have chosen to have a silly response that doesn’t merit addressing. That’s not true at all. I asked for the first point when Zimmerman had the duty to retreat and you said “any point before X” That makes no sense at all. Of course the reason you are evading the question is that exposes a big problem with your argument. Obviously Zimmerman had no duty to retreat before he was even aware he was under attack. Once he was under attack, there was no way for him to retreat. So “provocation” drops out of the picture. On the other hand, if Zimmerman was beating on Martin in the moments leading up to the shooting and Martin was screaming for help (and you insinuate that this is what happened without actually saying it), then Zimmerman would not have been in fear for his life and would not have the right to open fire, provocation or not. So either way, the fact that Zimmerman allegedly followed Martin was legally irrelevant. Anyway, I do not engage with people who pretend they said things they didn’t say (weaseling); pretend I said things I didn’t say (strawmanning); and refuse to answer reasonable questions about their position, instead hiding their position behind a cloak of ambiguity. You have done all of these things repeatedly so I am putting you on my ban list. Goodbye, liar. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/630 "2013-08-01T12:41:43Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > On the other hand, if Zimmerman was beating on Martin in the moments leading up to the shooting and Martin was screaming for help (and you insinuate that this is what happened without actually saying it), > > … > > Anyway, I do not engage with people who pretend they said things they didn’t say (weaseling); **pretend I said things I didn’t say (strawmanning)**; and refuse to answer reasonable questions about their position, instead hiding their position behind a cloak of ambiguity. Oh, the irony. Welcom to the club, **Stoid**. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/631 "2013-08-01T13:49:39Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Oh, the irony. > > Welcom to the club, **Stoid**. Indeed. Proud to be a member. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/632 "2013-08-01T14:29:01Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > You have done all of these things repeatedly so I am putting you on my ban list. > > Goodbye, liar. God, you’re a sad little clown. Reliably amusing though, in your inadvertent way. _Note_: **brazil84** does not engage with this poster because **brazil84** is a mouth-breathing poltroon with a severe developmental disorder who doesn’t like anyone else playing with the Doper finger puppets in his turd-strewn sandbox. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/633 "2013-08-01T18:02:41Z")
The fact of the matter is that we will never know what happened and the law requires that the government prove the crime rather than the accused prove their innocence. Sure, I suspect that Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn (try getting a gun out of a holster in the 4 o clock position (I think thats where his holster was) while someone is sitting on top of you never mind bashing your skull into the ground like some people here seem to believe). I think Martin lunged for the gun that this guy who had been following him in a pickup had drawn on him and they struggled over the gun and mwhen Martin started getting the better of him so Zimmerman shot him. Zimmerman did not suffer a beat down. I’ve seen beat downs and a few scratches in the back of his shaved head and a cut on his nose is not a beat down. But the burden was on the prosection and I don’t think they met it (or could have met it). ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/634 "2013-08-02T09:19:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I am not a lawyer. I had a LOT of experience with lawyers, thankfully not criminal lawyers, and in spite of all the hatred of lawyers out there, I found a lot of them pretty ethical. Lawyerly kind of ethics, but still - a consistent system of ethics that they wouldn’t break. So yes, an ethical prosecutor would have to resign. You must be self employed. I had that luxury when I had my own business, and I did resign from a HMO once for ethical reasons (which is why I decided to work for myself in the first place). But it’s not so easy, certainly not the way things are today. I do agree with you about lawyers, though. I used to work with a lot of lawyers as well, and had the same experience as you (except for one memorable exception, who turned out to have a brain tumor that affected his behavior). You’re a tough cookie, **Terr**. But do you really think that **Bricker** ’s proposed scenario would have been unethical? > [@Bricker](#): > > I would make as persuasive an argument as i could to my bosses that the charge of second degree murder was absolutely not winnable, and charging it would reduce our credibility with the jury. I would refile an information charging manslaughter. > > At trial, I would have made the elements of manslaughter without using the Zimmerman tapes. That was a mistake: it let Zimmerman “testify” without being on the stand. I’d force him to get on the stand to articulate how afraid he was, and then I’d have a chance to go after him on cross. I wish we could have seen that. IMO, the only problem with this scenario is the unlikelihood of anyone convincing Angela Corey not to overcharge. She always does what she wants. But in this case, it’s almost like she wanted to lose, isn’t it? She certainly looked happy at the press conference after the acquittal. I wouldn’t bet on it, but I thought that business with the pension money was her payoff to de la Rionda for doing her bidding, and (possibly) agreeing to throw the case. Crazy, but possible. I’ve heard of worse. **Bricker** , do you really think you could have worked under Angela Corey? ---
**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:** [August 2, 2013, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/635 "2013-08-02T10:03:20Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > God, you’re a sad little clown. Reliably amusing though, in your inadvertent way. > > _Note_: **brazil84** does not engage with this poster because **brazil84** is a mouth-breathing poltroon with a severe developmental disorder who doesn’t like anyone else playing with the Doper finger puppets in his turd-strewn sandbox. I wasn’t previously aware of B84’s special list. Now I’m up to speed, even reading his rules for debate. He could have saved himself a lot of typing if he’d just written: “If you engage in any of the debate behaviors I use as a matter of course I will no longer debate with you. In other words, if you try to play with my toys I’m taking them and going home! (I’m also going home if you don’t let me manipulate you so I can look like I’m winning)” I didn’t realize until now that he added me to his list after I proved decisively that he was being disingenuous in his represention of Z’s recollection of “the smothering” - sounds like a horror film… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/636 "2013-08-02T12:13:34Z")
> [@camille](#): > > I wish we could have seen that. IMO, the only problem with this scenario is the unlikelihood of anyone convincing Angela Corey not to overcharge. She always does what she wants. > > But in this case, it’s almost like she wanted to lose, isn’t it? She certainly looked happy at the press conference after the acquittal. I wouldn’t bet on it, but I thought that business with the pension money was her payoff to de la Rionda for doing her bidding, and (possibly) agreeing to throw the case. Crazy, but possible. I’ve heard of worse. > > **Bricker** , do you really think you could have worked under Angela Corey? It’s very difficult to say. A person’s public persona may not match their true colors. Corey has been vilified by a great deal of the reporting surrounding this issue, but at the same time, it’s difficult now for me to come up with any rationale that is both studiously ethical and explains every decision she made. My suspicion is that I would have started looking for other work if she handled every case like this, or refused to acknowledge any input from me during the case. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/637 "2013-08-02T14:19:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The fact of the matter is that we will never know what happened and the law requires that the government prove the crime rather than the accused prove their innocence. > > Sure, I suspect that Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn (try getting a gun out of a holster in the 4 o clock position (I think thats where his holster was) while someone is sitting on top of you never mind bashing your skull into the ground like some people here seem to believe). I think Martin lunged for the gun that this guy who had been following him in a pickup had drawn on him and they struggled over the gun and mwhen Martin started getting the better of him so Zimmerman shot him. > > Zimmerman did not suffer a beat down. I’ve seen beat downs and a few scratches in the back of his shaved head and a cut on his nose is not a beat down. But the burden was on the prosection and I don’t think they met it (or could have met it). Where I’ve ultimately come down on it is I think there are multiple scenarios that “seem” possible to me. That feels like classical reasonable doubt. I don’t actually know what happened, unlike **Stoid** I’m not comfortable making conclusions from the evidence we have and definitively supporting or arguing for them. Zimmerman’s story as he told it (and as was relayed to the jury through text and video transcripts) is basically a “near perfect” self-defense narrative. Maybe that is what happened, but the skeptic in me suspects that human nature being what it is that whatever really did happen someone who is familiar with self defense law (Zimmerman was) is going to make his statement to police one that most synchronizes with “legal self defense.” So while it’s possible, it would be very convenient if a messy situation actually happened so perfectly for Zimmerman’s legal case. I think a lot of the controversy over this case at least on these forums was the “axis of ignorance” consisting of **you with the face** , **monstro** , and **Stoid** who repeatedly refused to accept or believe the law could possibly result in an acquittal for Zimmerman. Because they refused to accept or believe that it was their opinion that only racism existed as a valid reason for not immediately arresting and prosecuting Zimmerman. I will say that **monstro** was/is the most reasonable of the three, and seemed to at least accept she probably didn’t know the law (as I remember it from the other thread.) The other two individuals have now seen how this case actually played out and haven’t conceded even one inch that maybe they interpreted the law incorrectly. I think one person whose decision making was immensely vindicated was Norm Wolfinger–he never said what happened to Trayvon Martin was right or wrong, just that he didn’t think they could win a manslaughter case against him. It appears that maybe being a State’s Attorney for 25-odd years actually means something in terms of being able to analyze and predict whether or not a case is winnable. Part of the reason I abandoned the original thread is it was just a repetitive exercise where people kept insisting they knew the law when they didn’t. Since I knew we’d eventually see for ourselves, I decided further discussion wasn’t warranted. Now that we’ve seen the verdict I feel a lot of that has been cleared up definitively. There are people who now primarily want to discuss the “moral righteousness” of what happened–and that’s very separate from the legal case and much less interesting to me. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/638 "2013-08-02T14:19:34Z")
> [@camille](#): > > You’re a tough cookie, **Terr**. But do you really think that **Bricker** ’s proposed scenario would have been unethical? Yes. Bricker will tell you that the only chance he would have had as a prosecutor is to trip up Zimmerman on the stand. That would only happen if the defense was incompetent and didn’t prepare their witness. And even if he managed to do that, the chance of conviction would be tiny. As I said, ethical prosecutors do not go on with cases they know they will lose. And you don’t go into the case where your only hope of conviction is the opposing counsel being stupid. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/639 "2013-08-02T17:05:33Z")
Yeah, no chance of that, what with Z’s story being so tight and consistent, and all. Uh huh. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/640 "2013-08-02T17:23:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > . I don’t actually know what happened, unlike **Stoid** I’m not comfortable making conclusions from the evidence we have and definitively supporting or arguing for them. This is an example of a true statement about me in regards to my behavior and position on this subject. > [@](#): > > I think a lot of the controversy over this case at least on these forums was the “axis of ignorance” consisting of **you with the face** , **monstro** , and **Stoid** who repeatedly refused to accept or believe the law could possibly result in an acquittal for Zimmerman. This is an example of an \*\*\*untrue \*\*\*statement about my position or behavior on the subject, reflecting assumptions made by the author demonstrating his complete lack of attention to anything I actually said. And of course there’s no reason in the world he should pay the slightest bit of attention to what I actually say, ever…unless he plans to make comments about it. In which case, I really think it’s terribly poor form to speak from ignorance. > [@](#): > > Because they refused to accept or believe that it was their opinion that only racism existed as a valid reason for not immediately arresting and prosecuting Zimmerman. Assuming for the moment that I understand correctly what it is you meant to say here rather than what you did say (which on its face makes no sense) This is another example of a \*\*\*100% untrue \*\*\*statement about my beliefs and my statements on the subject, that is especially galling since I have said the reverse from the beginning, throughout, and right up to the present.Which Bricker, god love him, acknowledged very recently. I have never, ever, for one second bought into the racism angle and I have been very clear about that, repeatedly. So, more ignorant assumptions and commentary. Tsk tsk. > [@](#): > > The other two individuals have now seen how this case actually played out and haven’t conceded even one inch that maybe they interpreted the law incorrectly. Again, the author is making assumptions instead of actually paying attention. I have interpreted the law correctly across the board, starting with the fact that I called Murder 2 before he was arrested, and everyone said I was crazy. Then voila! Murder 2 was the charge. I also understood everything about Zimmerman’s defense, and I always believed he’d be acquitted. Not because I think he was genuinely defending himself, and not because I believed that it was legally impossible to convict him (of manslaughter at aleast, and I’ve demonstrated exactly how that would have been entirely possible) but because I just figured Florida folks must like those laws and would probably be more inclined to see his actions the way he wanted them to. Over time, and through the trial, I believed more than ever he would be acuitted because the prosecution did such a horrific job of making their case. Speaking only legally, it was entirely possible to either convict or acquit him, and I expected the latter. I saw the legal legitimacy of both possibilities. I just didn’t believe, and still don’t, that he was genuinely not guilty of any crime in killing Martin, so that’s the position I argued. On the other hand, I think it’s safe to say that the majority of the most vocal and persistent Zimmerman supporters were, and remain, unwilling to concede that either outcome was legally possible from the evidence. But their unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn’t make it any less true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=33)