# 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:** 33
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/641 "2013-08-02T17:49:27Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > 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… You gotta admit though, you do have a habit of avoiding direct answers to questions. 😉 ---
**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, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/642 "2013-08-02T18:05:14Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > You gotta admit though, you do have a habit of avoiding direct answers to questions. 😉 The only time I do that is when the question is framed in such a way as to back me into a position I don’t hold, or is otherwise not genuinely representative of what my view is. Cuz c’mon, for all the things that people have come up with to be annoyed with me about, not being forthcoming with my opinion is hardly one of them! (Although, upon reflection, there have been a few times when I either specifically stated I did not intend to share my personal thoughts on a thing or when I genuinely did not have a specific and clear opinion about a thing and people were pressing me as though I had one and would not accept that I didn’t). Brazil84 thinks he’s being clever with his questioning, but he’s actually being very obvious in his attempts to back one into a specially-prepared corner where he will then spring out with a very Snidley sort of “AHA!”. When all he’s actually done is…well, seriously, everything he says on his “Rules for Debate” that no one else is to do. It’s kind of freaky, except that people do have a strong tendency to see the world as a mirror, especially when they aren’t self-aware. And B84’s behavior suggests to me that he is not at all self-aware. At least I hope not, because if he were and behaved this way anyway it would reflect extremely poorly on him. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/643 "2013-08-02T19:19:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. The standard for trial is probable cause, and a good-faith belief in the factual guilt of the accused. There is absolutely nothing unethical in trying a case even if you believe you have only a small chance at conviction. ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/644 "2013-08-02T19:32:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The standard for trial is probable cause, and a good-faith belief in the factual guilt of the accused. No. The criteria is not “good faith belief”. It is “moral certainty”. [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=ulj](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=ulj) Anyone who thinks that the prosecutors in this case, and Angela Corey, had such certainty, is a gullible fool. ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/645 "2013-08-02T19:56:42Z")
To not answer is to buy into your dishonesty. > [@brazil84](#): > > Sure, of course. I was simply asking for you to back up your claim. Actually, you were asking me to back up your interpretation of the conclusion I drew. > [@](#): > > 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.) Not in the example you give, but others, yes. > [@](#): > > 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. The age of the cite doesn’t matter as long as it is consistent with the law, and it is as far as we can see, since it doesn’t conflict with the force requirements. > [@](#): > > However I know you will evade these questions in any event you are about to end up on my ban list. Looks like you don’t know what you think or say you know. fancy that. > [@](#): > > 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. I presented a coherent scenario directly from the evidence, which Bricker confirmed as being sufficient to stand up to a challenge of insufficient evidence. You have a right to have a different opinion, but not a right to assert that it is correct. > [@](#): > > In other words, you first weaseled and then strawmanned . Strawman is a noun, not a verb. > [@](#): > > 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 it does, and you know ex Tly what I meant, you’re just playing a stupid game. > [@](#): > > 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. You don’t know that there was no way for him to retreat. Even if you buy his bullshit he could have made an attempt to do any number of things before killing Martin.he didn’t try, didn’t claim to try. > [@](#): > > 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), If I believe something, I don’t insinuate: I say it. If I believed that Zimmerman was beating up on Martin, I would say so. I would have no reason not to. I don’t believe Zimmerman was beating up on Martin. I believe the Zimmerman pulled out his gun much earlier than he admits, threatening Martin and leading to Martin trying to prevent him from using it. And if that is true, no, provocation wouldn’t matter legally, but it would still be true and still matter morally. > [@](#): > > 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 False. You do not engage people who see your manipulative crap and sidestep it, taking away your fun. And you’re entitled. ---
**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, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/646 "2013-08-02T21:34:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No. The criteria is not “good faith belief”. It is “moral certainty”. > > [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=ulj](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=ulj) > > Anyone who thinks that the prosecutors in this case, and Angela Corey, had such certainty, is a gullible fool. That essay is a _proposal_ of a standard, not _the_ standard. From the Abstract: > [@](#): > > The prosecutor’s decision to institute criminal charges is the broadest and least regulated power in American criminal law. The judicial deference shown to prosecutors generally is most noticeable with respect to the charging function. > > This Essay discusses three hypothetical cases that present both realistic and recurring challenges to the prosecutor’s charging power. The first case depends on a factual determination of a witness’s reliability. The second case depends on a factual determination of the witness’s truthfulness. The third case revolves around a legal determination regarding the applicability of a defense. > > Together, these cases provide a setting in which a moral standard is proposed to guide the prosecutor’s discretion. No one was suggesting that Corey’s office had a moral certainty for their charge, so I’m not sure why you are going there. I was referring to **Bricker** ’s hypothetical. Regarding Zimmerman being prepped by his attorneys for cross: While I believe the prosecution was out-lawyered by O’Mara and West, I still recall Zimmerman’s blunders during the Hannity interview (with O’Mara sitting right there). If O’Mara couldn’t control Zimmerman during a puff interview like that, how could you be so certain they could prevent him from screwing up during a stressful cross? ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/647 "2013-08-02T21:36:55Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Regarding Zimmerman being prepped by his attorneys for cross: While I believe the prosecution was out-lawyered by O’Mara and West, I still recall Zimmerman’s blunders during the Hannity interview (with O’Mara sitting right there). If O’Mara couldn’t control Zimmerman during a puff interview like that, how could you be so certain they could prevent him from screwing up during a stressful cross? Hannity’s is much more open-ended than a cross. It is hard to prepare for an open-ended interview. A lot easier to prepare for a cross where you know what can be asked and what can’t be. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/648 "2013-08-02T21:45:37Z")
[From _The Nation:_ “The Monsterization of Trayvon Martin.”](http://www.thenation.com/article/175547/monsterization-trayvon-martin#axzz2aqQZzQJC) > [@](#): > > Much of it comes down to an all-too-familiar double standard. Sociologist Troy Duster recently summarized the difficulty confronted by prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda when he asked the jury to reverse the circumstances and imagine that an armed 28-year-old black man followed an unarmed 17-year-old white teenager, shot him dead and then pleaded self-defense: “The problem with this invitation to speculate,” he said, “is that it asks that we break frame with ‘common sense.’” For all the legal language of the courtroom, racialized narratives will emerge and form along the very same lines that Gordon Allport and Leo Postman identified in their research more than sixty years ago: in the “retelling,” a razor will leap “from the white man’s hand to… a colored man’s hand.”\* > > And so, by the end of the trial, the 200-pound Zimmerman, despite martial arts training and a history of assaulting others, was transformed into a “soft,” retiring marshmallow of a weakling. The 158-pound Martin had been reimagined as an immense, athletically endowed, drug-addled “thug.” > > Consider, by way of inverted contrast, the 2007 conviction of John White, a black man who shot an unarmed white teenager in New York in 2006. According to The New York Times, the victim, Daniel Cicciaro, “showed up at Mr. White’s house just after 11:00 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight.” Waking up to “threats, profanities and racial epithets,” Mr. White “grabbed a loaded Beretta he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.” At the trial, which the Times described as “racially charged,” the prosecution successfully argued that the case “did not hinge on race but the rash actions of a quick-tempered man who kept an arsenal in his house in preparation for such a situation.” White, unlike Zimmerman, was convicted of manslaughter. > > The same double standard permeates Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” law, controversial long before the Zimmerman trial for its leniency in the face of acts that might otherwise be charged as outright murder. Seventy percent of those asserting a “stand your ground” defense in a homicide are never charged at all. But a seven-year case review of “stand your ground” claims by the Tampa Bay Times showed that prosecution depends less on the merits of the case than the perpetrator’s color, the color of the victim and where the shooting happened. If the victim is black, the killer is much more likely to go free. If the shooter is black, the chances of conviction are much higher. > > Women fare badly as well: two months after Trayvon Martin was killed, a 31-year-old black woman named Marissa Alexander was sentenced in Florida to twenty years in prison for firing a “warning shot” into a wall during a fight with her estranged husband, a man who had a history of physical abuse. Charged with aggravated assault in which a weapon was discharged—by the very same prosecutor’s office that charged Zimmerman—her “stand your ground” defense was dismissed by a judge, and a jury convicted her after just fifteen minutes of deliberation. > > \ > > There are many tellings of Aesop’s fable about the hungry wolf who encounters a new spring lamb drinking from a river. “How dare you muddy my water?” he demands of the lamb. ”I have not muddied it,” replies the lamb, “for I am downstream of you.” “Well then,” said the wolf, edging nearer, “you spread evil rumors about me last year.” “It was not I,” replied the lamb, “for I was not yet born.” “Well, if it wasn’t you, it must have been your father,” said the wolf, and with that, he pounced upon the lamb and devoured him. > > I thought of that story when listening to the trial, to the repeated insistence that Trayvon Martin must have been guilty of something, to Don West speaking sneeringly to Rachel Jeantel. > > _It was he who fouled the water with racism, did he not? And if it wasn’t he, it must have been one like him, isn’t that correct?_ > > Rachel Jeantel had no answer to that or any other question. There remains that cold, sad silence at the center of it all. - I read about that once – a psychological study done in the 1960s: A group of (white) test subjects were shown – for just a moment on the screen – a photo of a white man and a black man fighting, the white man wielding a straight razor. Asked to describe the scene afterwards, most of them said the razor was in the black man’s hand. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/649 "2013-08-02T21:53:56Z")
You don’t think the questions were vetted in advance by O’Mara for the Hannity interview? You know who was a great witness during cross? Your “Black Zimmerman” example, Roderick Scott. His testimony on the stand (and retaining the best attorney in the county), was a key factor in his acquittal. Zimmerman was sweating like a glass of iced tea in August when the judge was asking him simple questions. If you recall, he had to confer with West before answering (and West had to jump in). His cross testimony would have been much more stressful. I don’t share your certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/650 "2013-08-02T23:43:30Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The only time I do that is when the question is framed in such a way as to back me into a position I don’t hold, or is otherwise not genuinely representative of what my view is. > > Cuz c’mon, for all the things that people have come up with to be annoyed with me about, not being forthcoming with my opinion is hardly one of them! (Although, upon reflection, there have been a few times when I either specifically stated I did not intend to share my personal thoughts on a thing or when I genuinely did not have a specific and clear opinion about a thing and people were pressing me as though I had one and would not accept that I didn’t). > > Brazil84 thinks he’s being clever with his questioning, but he’s actually being very obvious in his attempts to back one into a specially-prepared corner where he will then spring out with a very Snidley sort of “AHA!”. When all he’s actually done is…well, seriously, everything he says on his “Rules for Debate” that no one else is to do. It’s kind of freaky, except that people do have a strong tendency to see the world as a mirror, especially when they aren’t self-aware. And B84’s behavior suggests to me that he is not at all self-aware. At least I hope not, because if he were and behaved this way anyway it would reflect extremely poorly on him. This would be an example of not being direct. You hedge and you elaborate and expose various alternatives ensuring it is very difficult to say precisely what your point is. It is weasling taken to the level of art form. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you are a weasel. And I am not saying you do it with an intent to deceive. I doubt you are even conscious of this tendency. Simple question: Given the trouble people here seem to be having following your reasoning here, do you think it likely 5 other typical jurors would concur with your finding? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/651 "2013-08-03T00:57:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [From _The Nation:_ “The Monsterization of Trayvon Martin.”](http://www.thenation.com/article/175547/monsterization-trayvon-martin#axzz2aqQZzQJC) > > - I read about that once – a psychological study done in the 1960s: A group of (white) test subjects were shown – for just a moment on the screen – a photo of a white man and a black man fighting, the white man wielding a straight razor. Asked to describe the scene afterwards, most of them said the razor was in the black man’s hand. The author depends on the Marissa Alexander case to make his point, but either lies or deliberately deceives the reader about the facts of that case. As has been demonstrated here on this message board, the case against Alexander was quite strong. Three eyewitnesses testified that it was no warning shot: she was aiming at Rico. And to get the gun, she left the kitchen, went into the garage, got the gun, _and then returned_, saying, “I have something for you,” and then firing at Rico. Did you know that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/652 "2013-08-03T01:03:17Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No. The criteria is not “good faith belief”. It is “moral certainty”. > > [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=ulj](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=ulj) > > Anyone who thinks that the prosecutors in this case, and Angela Corey, had such certainty, is a gullible fool. Terr, if Stoid did what you just did, you’d be all over her, howling like a demon. That’s a law review article in which the author proposes a standard. The author does not claim his proposed standard is actually in use anywhere. Your attempt to use it as a cite for your claim is misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/653 "2013-08-03T01:59:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The author depends on the Marissa Alexander case to make his point, but either lies or deliberately deceives the reader about the facts of that case. As has been demonstrated here on this message board, the case against Alexander was quite strong. Three eyewitnesses testified that it was no warning shot: she was aiming at Rico. And to get the gun, she left the kitchen, went into the garage, got the gun, _and then returned_, saying, “I have something for you,” and then firing at Rico. > > Did you know that? I’m always amazed that authors, pundits, media newsreader, bloggers, etc use Marissa Alexander as an example of anything other than an incrediably stupid person. Marissa Alexander was NOT facing “imminent danger”. Marissa Alexander WAS the “imminent danger”. ---
**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 3, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/654 "2013-08-03T04:52:16Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > This would be an example of not being direct. You hedge and you elaborate and expose various alternatives ensuring it is very difficult to say precisely what your point is. It is weasling taken to the level of art form. > > Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you are a weasel. And I am not saying you do it with an intent to deceive. I doubt you are even conscious of this tendency. This is very strange to me in so many ways. First, I am very self-aware. I know what I do and why I do it. What I don’t always know is how others perceive it. That you, or anyone, would perceive it as any kind of weaseling or avoidance of being direct is truly shocking to me. I assume you were specifically referring to this: > [@](#): > > The only time I do that is when the question is framed in such a way as to back me into a position I don’t hold, or is otherwise not genuinely representative of what my view is. > > …snip… (Although, upon reflection, there have been a few times when I either specifically stated I did not intend to share my personal thoughts on a thing or when I genuinely did not have a specific and clear opinion about a thing and people were pressing me as though I had one and would not accept that I didn’t). When you said this: > [@](#): > > This would be an example of not being direct. You hedge and you elaborate and expose various alternatives ensuring it is very difficult to say precisely what your point is. It is weasling taken to the level of art form. How can I be direct if the facts are not “direct”? I assume by direct you mean simple, black and white, yes or no? If it’s something else, please help me understand. All I am doing is my best to be as scrupulously honest, thorough and fair as I can be. This will usually lead to exceptions, alternatives, etc. I am not comfortable with saying “Yes, that’s true” if it’s only true sometimes, or under certain circumstances, or partially true. If I’m wandering off into some desert of misunderstanding, please lead me back. > [@](#): > > Simple question: > Given the trouble people here seem to be having following your reasoning here, do you think it likely 5 other typical jurors would concur with your finding? I’ll bet this is the sort of thing where you think I should be able to just say yes or no, and you signaled that by saying it was a simple question. But a question may be itself simple and the answer to it not. Is this a test to see if I can give you the yes or no you think is fair to ask of me? Because I can’t, I have to fill in what’s missing and clarify my answer. (Starting with the fact that I don’t agree that people are having trouble following my reasoning. They mostly seem to follow it, they just reject it.) Honestly not trying to be pain, honestly trying to understand, and appreciate that you are not trying to be attacking. To the extent you are willing to continue helping me understand your point of view, I welcome it. (I just asked my roommate about this; I read him the exchange. He said that if he had to come up with a list of faults about me, “not being direct” wouldn’t even cross his mind, and that no one who knows me would ever say that about me. Shows ta go ya.) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/655 "2013-08-03T09:45:57Z")
As far as I know, a prosecutor does need to be satisfied that the defendant is guilty. The trouble is that it’s pretty easy for most people to fool themselves into believing things if it’s in their interests to do so. Even to the point where they are absolutely sure of their position and that no reasonable person could see otherwise. So I believe that Corey believes that Zimmerman is a murderer. Although deep down, she probably knows he is not. If it emerged that there was a surveillance tape of the entire exchange and before watching the tape she had to bet her life one way or another, I’m pretty confident she would choose “not guilty.” ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/656 "2013-08-03T10:55:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The author depends on the Marissa Alexander case to make his point … No, SHE really doesn’t. If you actually read it you might have noticed. Just for the record, > [@](#): > > Patricia J. Williams, a professor of law at Columbia University, was born in Boston in 1951 and holds a BA from Wellesley College and a JD from Harvard Law School. > > She was a fellow in the School of Criticism and Theory at Dartmouth College and has been an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin School Law School and its department of women’s studies. …[RIGHT][CITE](http://www.thenation.com/authors/patricia-j-williams#axzz2atsujvg0)[/RIGHT] CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/657 "2013-08-03T11:39:29Z")
Correction noted as to the author’s gender. But her recitation of the facts in the Marissa Alexander case is deceptive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/658 "2013-08-03T12:07:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correction noted as to the author’s gender. > > But her recitation of the facts in the Marissa Alexander case is deceptive. Nor is that the only deceptive element in her narrative. Judges in Florida are elected, and Judge Nelson was elected to her post. It’s true that she was appointed to fill a judicial vacancy earlier by then-Governor Jeb Bush, but Williams calls Nelson a Republican-appointed judge without disclosing the intervening election, suggesting she sat on the bench at Martin’s trial because a Republican chose her, rather than her having to face the electorate. (Her election was unopposed, interestingly). She continues: > [@](#): > > Consider, by way of inverted contrast, the 2007 conviction of John White, a black man who shot an unarmed white teenager in New York in 2006. According to The New York Times, the victim, Daniel Cicciaro, “showed up at Mr. White’s house just after 11:00 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight.” Waking up to “threats, profanities and racial epithets,” Mr. White “grabbed a loaded Beretta he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.” At the trial, which the Times described as “racially charged,” the prosecution successfully argued that the case “did not hinge on race but the rash actions of a quick-tempered man who kept an arsenal in his house in preparation for such a situation.” White, unlike Zimmerman, was convicted of manslaughter. Although she teaches law, she never draws the lay reader’s attention to the single most salient fact in this attempt to show a racial double standard in the operation of law: New York and Florida have dramatically different laws, both as regards firearms and as regards manslaughter. About photos, she writes: > [@](#): > > Anonymous meme-creators Photoshopped pictures of Martin and Martin look-alikes in alarming poses—bare-chested! Giving the finger! Breaking into a house while flashing gold teeth! Anything and everything more consistent with Zimmerman’s imagined thug-fashionable young “fucking punk.” It was a veritable blizzard of projected stereotypes, a rush to envision the ones who, as Zimmerman complained to police responders, “always get away.” It’s true that false pictures were circulated purporting to show Martin. But the photos of Martin bare-chested, and giving the finger, were not Photoshopped; they were extracted from his phone. ---
**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:** [August 30, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/659 "2013-08-30T19:48:27Z")
I guess attorneys for the defense will object that this is irrelevant, immaterial, without a proper whatever but [it is interesting that GZ had a severe domestic quarrel the night before he killed TM.](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/30/george-zimmermans-wife-reveals-shed-left-him-the-night-before-he-killed-trayvon-martin/) > [@](#): > > Shellie Zimmerman said that she will have to think carefully about whether she plans to stay married to George Zimmerman, and that she had walked out on him after a particularly nasty argument on the night before he shot Martin. > “I was staying at my father’s house,” Zimmerman said. “We had gotten into an argument the night before and I left.” > > …She declined to say whether or not her husband has a violent temper when O’Connor asked about the argument that caused her to walk out on him in 2012. > “Does George have a temper? How volatile did it get the evening before?” the reporter asked. > > “Not going to answer that,” Zimmerman replied. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/660 "2013-08-30T19:59:37Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I guess attorneys for the defense will object that this is irrelevant, immaterial, without a proper whatever but [it is interesting that GZ had a severe domestic quarrel the night before he killed TM.](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/30/george-zimmermans-wife-reveals-shed-left-him-the-night-before-he-killed-trayvon-martin/) It is interesting. It is as interesting as Martin’s sending those violent texts. Do you find them interesting? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=34)