# 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:** 39
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/761 "2013-09-05T01:30:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yep, that failed at step one. You claim you are entitled to reject any of Zimmerman’s claims that aren’t supported by evidence as false. You (as a pretend juror) are not. > > You would need specific evidence that his claims are false to find them so, and such evidence does not exist. That’s why he wasn’t convicted, and why no reasonable person can consider him guilty. No, here I must step in and correct you. The pretend juror is entitled to believe or disbelieve any evidence he wishes. There is no mandate to believe Zimmerman’s claims. You might think it amounts to the same thing, though, when I say that the juror must have evidence in front of him to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that includes the necessity to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. But it’s not the same. For one thing, self-defense can come into pay from any source. It’s not that it’s specifically Zimmerman, but ANY evidence can trigger the need to disprove self-defense. So you start with the proposition that Zimmerman is innocent. That doesn’t mean you must believe even one word he says. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/762 "2013-09-05T01:58:32Z")
I’m not saying they have to believe anything he says. Without supporting evidence, they may either believe that what he says is true, or that they do not know the truth of the matter. They may not determine solely from his untrustworthiness that the opposite of his claims are true - and that is what **Stoid** was doing, and she was, and is, wrong to do so. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/763 "2013-09-05T02:02:41Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And Trayvon Martin was unlawfully killed. (What’s the verb for manslaughter???) That will remain false no matter how many times you claim it. It was obvious to the investigators at the scene, who did not arrest him and recommended he not be charged. It’s been obvious ever since to anyone who actually bothers to investigate the evidence. Your opinion of Zimmerman’s credibility is irrelevant. That you don’t believe him is irrelevant. You may not assume, simply because you find him untrustworthy, that his statements are false, you need actual evidence. Evidence you have not produced, and still refuse to produce. All you have are your biases and your belief that he’s untrustworthy. That proves nothing. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/764 "2013-09-05T02:06:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Appellate courts cannot substitute their own judgment for the finders of fact except in very rare and unusual cases. Look it up. (Something I highly recommend you do more often generally) Those rare cases would be those where the finder of fact erroneously infers something that cannot be inferred from the evidence. Such as inferring guilt solely from a lack of credibility. In that instance, the judge should direct a not guilty verdict, and overrule a guilty verdict if it occurs. If not, the appeal court must. The jury are supposed to _find_ fact, not _invent_ it. A distinction that still eludes you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/765 "2013-09-05T02:57:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m not saying they have to believe anything he says. Without supporting evidence, they may either believe that what he says is true, or that they do not know the truth of the matter. They may not determine solely from his untrustworthiness that the opposite of his claims are true - and that is what **Stoid** was doing, and she was, and is, wrong to do so. But they don’t need to do that. From Jeantel’s testimony, they can find that Martin said to Zimmerman, “Get off!” That alone is enough to infer that Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin before Martin touched Zimmerman. Agreed? They don’t HAVE to find this; it’s likely that they actually found Jeantel unreliable. But they COULD. Right? ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/766 "2013-09-05T03:26:08Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They may not determine solely from his untrustworthiness that the opposite of his claims are true - and that is what **Stoid** was doing, and she was, and is, wrong to do so. Thou speakest false, sir, methinks in a desperate attempt to not be as thoroughly, completely, unrelentingly wrong as you absolutely are. Never, ever, anywhere ever, on any occasion, in relation to any subject of any kind, have I suggested, implied, thought or believed that if someone speaks falsely about a thing, that false statement in itself is the proof that an opposite thing is true, ( outside of the (extremely rare) situations where the thing being spoken of is binary by nature - if it is not a zero, then it must be a 1. This is vanishingly rare in human interaction and activities.) My words specifically: > [@](#): > > 1. We all have found Zimmerman to be entirely lacking in credibility, and find that his inconsistencies and implausibilities are centered around the areas which make his actions legally unacceptable. Therefore, any detail of his claims which lacks clear corroboration we are free to reject as false, and we generally do. > > 2. Having found item one to be true, we consider his falsehoods to be evidence that he has knowledge that he is guilty of unlawful killing, and therefore evidence that he is guilty of unlawful killing. (consciousness of guilt). As all can readily see, there is no leap from “Z lies, so the opposite of what he says is true.” And there has never been. You are just…inventing. Again. > [@Steophan](#): > > Those rare cases would be those where the finder of fact erroneously infers something that cannot be inferred from the evidence. Such as inferring guilt solely from a lack of credibility. Of course. Deciding that someone is guilty merely and exclusively because they lie would be very wrong. And no one has suggested that. (Feel free to re-read item 2 if you are confused about this…and recall that I provided quite a bit of material explaining how consciousness of guilt works - bottom line: item 2. Evidence to add to other evidence. Not the only evidence.) ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/767 "2013-09-05T10:04:11Z")
**Stoid** , you say that, because you find Zimmerman lacking in credibility, you may reject his claims as false. That is wrong. You may not do that. That makes your point 2 false as, because you have not shown his statements to be false, you have no evidence of a guilty mind. **Bricker** - they may be able to infer that he _touched_ Martin. Where is the evidence for assault? ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/768 "2013-09-05T12:01:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **Stoid** , you say that, because you find Zimmerman lacking in credibility, you may reject his claims as false. That is wrong. You may not do that. That makes your point 2 false as, because you have not shown his statements to be false, you have no evidence of a guilty mind. :smack: Der…What exactly do you think a finding of not credible _means_? The jury finds him generally full of shit but they have to believe him anyway? Please clarify your understanding of this, because it isn’t making any sense so far. > [@](#): > > **Bricker** - they may be able to infer that he _touched_ Martin. Where is the evidence for assault? Seriously? Right here: > [@](#): > > From Jeantel’s testimony, they can find that \*\*Martin said to Zimmerman, “Get off!” That alone is enough to infer that Zimmerman physically assaulted \*\*Martin before Martin touched Zimmerman. Acquaint yourself with the meaning of “assault” > [@](#): > > Elements > > Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim. > > The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim’s head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant. > > In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault. > > There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not. > > Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm. And: > [@](#): > > 1. Assaults are either simple or aggravated. 1. A simple assault is one Where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment. 2. An aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like, are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults. General references, 1 East, P. C. 406; Bull. N. P. 15; Hawk. P. B. b. 1, c. 62, s. 12; 1 Russ. Cr. 604; 2 Camp. Rep. 650 1 Wheeler’s Cr. C. 364; 6 Rogers’ Rec. 9; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 347 Bac. Ab. h.t.; Roscoe. Cr. Ev. 210. Probably ought to learn about battery at the same time: > [@](#): > > Battery > At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the “person” of another. > > Battery is concerned with the right to have one’s body left alone by others. > > Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law. The main distinction between the two categories lies in the penalty imposed. A defendant sued for a tort is civilly liable to the plaintiff for damages. The punishment for criminal battery is a fine, imprisonment, or both. Usually battery is prosecuted as a crime only in cases involving serious harm to the victim. > > Elements > > The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff. > > The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone’s face or offensively touching someone against his or her will. > > Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person’s hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone’s head or knocking a glass out of some-one’s hand. > > Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care to avoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant’s conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount to criminal negligence. > > Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. Consent may also be assumed if the parties had a prior relationship unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning. > > There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is no defense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time. > > Harmful or Offensive Conduct It is not necessary for the defendant’s wrongful act to result in direct contact with the victim. It is sufficient if the act sets in motion a force that results in the contact. A defendant who whipped a horse on which a plaintiff was riding, causing the plaintiff to fall and be injured, was found guilty of battery. Provided all other elements of the offense are present, the offense may also be committed by causing the victim to harm himself. A defendant who fails to act when he or she has a duty to do so is guilty—as where a nurse fails to warn a blind patient that he is headed toward an open window, causing him to fall and injure himself. It’s pretty clear that just about _ **anything imaginable** _ that would prompt Martin to say “Get off!” would rate as assault, as battery, or both. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/769 "2013-09-05T12:16:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **Stoid** , you say that, because you find Zimmerman lacking in credibility, you may reject his claims as false. That is wrong. You may not do that. That makes your point 2 false as, because you have not shown his statements to be false, you have no evidence of a guilty mind. Also, you are having more comprehension problems. It does not say “because he lacks credibility we find he has a guilty mind.” :rolleyes: (Jesus, you will say just about anything rather than “ooops”, won’t you?) > [@](#): > > We all have found Zimmerman to be entirely lacking in credibility, \*\*and find that his inconsistencies and implausibilities are centered around the areas which make his actions legally unacceptable. \*\*Therefore, any detail of his claims which lacks clear corroboration we are free to reject as false, and we generally do. > > 1. **Having found item one to be true,** we consider **his falsehoods to be evidence that he has knowledge that he is guilty of unlawful killing,** and therefore evidence that he is guilty of unlawful killing. (consciousness of guilt). Really straightforward: [ul] [li]We find he’s full of shit. [/li][li]What’s he full of shit _about_? [/li][li]The exact things that make a difference in determining whether he killed Martin wrongfully. [/li][li]Therefore: he’s full of shit _deliberately_, he’s shoveling the shit to cover up his wrongful actions, indicating he knows exactly what he did wrong.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/770 "2013-09-05T12:20:15Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Never, ever, anywhere ever, on any occasion, in relation to any subject of any kind, have I suggested, implied, thought or believed that if someone speaks falsely about a thing, that false statement in itself is the proof that an opposite thing is true, You’re lying again. You have done this several times. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/771 "2013-09-05T13:48:18Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **Bricker** - they may be able to infer that he _touched_ Martin. Where is the evidence for assault? They can infer he touched Martin, and that the touch was unwanted. Yes? That’s a violation of Fla. Stat. 784.03(1)(a)(1) (criminalizing the act of any person who “Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other…”) And they can certainly infer that Martin, who was not blind, saw the battery coming before it happened, which would mean assault, under 784.011(1). (Note that a person would only be charged under one of those two sections). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/772 "2013-09-05T13:52:46Z")
Stoid: a general suggestion. When discussing a Florida case, it’s probably simpler to refer to and quote Florida statutes and caselaw. You have correctly supplied a discussion of common-law battery, and it’s certainly accurate, but for all you know, Florida’s statutes may have modified or eliminated the common-law offense. Safer to go to the source: Statutes and the caselaw that construes them. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/773 "2013-09-05T13:58:31Z")
**Stoid** - that you find that he’s full of shit does not mean you can find any particular statement of his false. You are entitled to not believe him - that is, to consider that no statement he makes is true. That doesn’t mean you may consider them false without evidence. It remains undetermined whether or not they’re true. Until you grasp this your entire argument is worthless. You simply may not go from disbelieving his claim of innocence to considering him guilty. That disbelief is in no way evidence of guilt, or evidence of anything. It simply means you have no evidence at all. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/774 "2013-09-05T14:02:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Also, you are having more comprehension problems. It does not say “because he lacks credibility we find he has a guilty mind.” :rolleyes: (Jesus, you will say just about anything rather than “ooops”, won’t you?) You’ve just done it again, below. Of course, it’s still wrong, as your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You are, as usual, assuming facts not in evidence - specifically, why he’s lying. > [@](#): > > Really straightforward: > [ul] > [li]We find he’s full of shit. [/li][li]What’s he full of shit _about_? [/li][li]The exact things that make a difference in determining whether he killed Martin wrongfully. [/li][li]Therefore: he’s full of shit _deliberately_, he’s shoveling the shit to cover up his wrongful actions, indicating he knows exactly what he did wrong.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/775 "2013-09-05T14:33:40Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Really straightforward: > [ul] > [li]We find he’s full of shit. [/li][li]What’s he full of shit _about_? [/li][li]The exact things that make a difference in determining whether he killed Martin wrongfully. [/li][li]Therefore: he’s full of shit _deliberately_, he’s shoveling the shit to cover up his wrongful actions, indicating he knows exactly what he did wrong.[/li][/ul] In other words: You: Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, maybe murder, but at least manslaughter. Someone Sane: What evidence do you base that on? The jury heard a lot of evidence and came to an opposite conclusion. You: Yes, but they assumed that there was a possibility that Zimmerman was innocent, and judged the evidence accordingly. If you assume he was guilty (which he of course is!!!) then you would know to discount any evidence that might point to his non-guilt and know that all the evidence, scant as it was, that suggested his guilt had a truthiness factor of 10 billion. Plus 1. Someone Sane: So you really don’t have much real evidence to point to Zimmerman being guilty? You: Sure I do. Just imagine a set of circumstances in which Zimmerman was guilty, imagine all that went down before he murdered Travy…THAT is my evidence! Now let’s see you try to argue against THAT!!! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/776 "2013-09-05T14:40:20Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **Stoid** - that you find that he’s full of shit does not mean you can find any particular statement of his false. You are entitled to not believe him - that is, to consider that no statement he makes is true. That doesn’t mean you may consider them false without evidence. It remains undetermined whether or not they’re true. > > Until you grasp this your entire argument is worthless. You simply may not go from disbelieving his claim of innocence to considering him guilty. That disbelief is in no way evidence of guilt, or evidence of anything. It simply means you have no evidence at all. But Stoid didn’t simply consider them false. I know she’s now sort of floating back and forth in her explanation, but the fact remains that she laid out a series of inferences which the jury would be permitted to make that allowed a finding of guilt for manslaughter. None of them (except the ones I struck at the time) were flawed. This “consciousness of guilt” business is a red herring; consciousness of guilt does not support any element of the crime. It’s true that the jury is permitted to consider a lie as consciousness of guilt but that doesn’t address any particular element, and so it doesn’t enter into our analysis. In Florida, manslaughter can be shown three ways: by act, by procurement, or by culpable negligence. By act, the language simply means that " … where one commits an act that results in death, and such an act is not lawfully justified or excusable, it is manslaughter." (State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fl. 2010). You agree the state can prove that Zimmerman committed an act, and that act resulted in a death, correct? So the only thing the state must prove, I assume, for which you question the presence of legally sufficient evidence, is where the state must prove that the act was not lawfully justified or excusable – right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/777 "2013-09-05T14:50:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In other words: > > You: Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, maybe murder, but at least manslaughter. > > Someone Sane: What evidence do you base that on? The jury heard a lot of evidence and came to an opposite conclusion. What i think Stoid is saying (or what she SHOULD be saying, anyway) is that there was evidence introduced that would have allowed the jury to find guilt. How strong that evidence is, and whether a particular jury DID believe it, is a different issue. Let me give you an example: a man is accused of robbery. The clerk testifies that he’s sure the defendant is the man that stuck a gun in his face and demanded the contents of the cash register. But the clerk admits that he’s suffered from delusions and hallucinations in the past – but not that day, he insists. A Catholic archbishop, the Speaker of the House, Matt Lauer, and the chief of police all testify that the man was a hundred and fifty miles away at that exact moment, attending a meeting that they also attended. I think it’s fair to say that virtually every jury in the known universe would acquit. But from a legal standpoint, the jury is entitled to reject the testimony of the Catholic archbishop, the Speaker of the House, Matt Lauer, and the chief of police as not credible, and accept the clerk’s testimony. It seems to me that you, **magellen** , are arguing about _weight_ of the evidence; **Stoid** is (or should be) talking about _sufficiency_ of the evidence. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/778 "2013-09-05T15:28:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You agree the state can prove that Zimmerman committed an act, and that act resulted in a death, correct? > > So the only thing the state must prove, I assume, for which you question the presence of legally sufficient evidence, is where the state must prove that the act was not lawfully justified or excusable – right? Yes, the state can prove that. However, I know of no law, anywhere, that criminalises committing an act that kills someone. Killing someone is fine unless it happens in conjunction with other things that make it illegal. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Zimmerman killed either intentionally or negligently, so no crime. Add to that self defence. That adds yet another layer - even if it would otherwise have been unlawful, if he was defending himself from a sufficiently serious attack, there was no crime. The evidence makes it clear that this killing was both unintentional and in self defence, so there was no crime. Martin was lawfully killed. To claim otherwise means relying on extremely dubious evidence whilst rejecting the plausible. Which is not reasonable. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/779 "2013-09-05T15:31:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Stoid: a general suggestion. > > When discussing a Florida case, it’s probably simpler to refer to and quote Florida statutes and caselaw. You have correctly supplied a discussion of common-law battery, and it’s certainly accurate, but for all you know, Florida’s statutes may have modified or eliminated the common-law offense. Safer to go to the source: Statutes and the caselaw that construes them. Also way more time consuming. At least I provide authoritative sources for my assertions. Steophan, on the other hand, provides…his opinion. Stridently expressed with astonishing certitude, so that some might mistake it for something more than that. But that’s all it is. Stuff he just thunk up in his own head and decided was true. So where’s your suggestion to Steophan that he provide, oh, _something_? You take the time and energy to suggest that my cites really oughta be pristine and specifically targeted (pointlessly, as we both know) while his strident posts full of his personal assessment of truth are cites that you see no need to suggest any improvement for? Hello?😕 Hell, Bricker, 80% of the time he doesn’t even _explain_ his assertions, he just asserts! “It is so!” C’mon…:dubious: > [@Steophan](#): > > You’ve just done it again, below. Of course, it’s still wrong, as your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You are, as usual, assuming facts not in evidence - specifically, why he’s lying. Trying the ol’ BEWB routine again? (baffle 'em with bullshit) Just a few handwaves and some blather? Are you having that “everything before today was erased from my head” problem again? > [@magellan01](#): > > In other words: > > You: Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, maybe murder, but at least manslaughter. > > Someone Sane: What evidence do you base that on? The jury heard a lot of evidence and came to an opposite conclusion. > > You: Yes, but they assumed that there was a possibility that Zimmerman was innocent, and judged the evidence accordingly. If you assume he was guilty (which he of course is!!!) then you would know to discount any evidence that might point to his non-guilt and know that all the evidence, scant as it was, that suggested his guilt had a truthiness factor of 10 billion. Plus 1. > > Someone Sane: So you really don’t have much real evidence to point to Zimmerman being guilty? > > You: Sure I do. Just imagine a set of circumstances in which Zimmerman was guilty, imagine all that went down before he murdered Travy…THAT is my evidence! Now let’s see you try to argue against THAT!!! And this makes Stephan look like he’s making sense. You’ve made it clear by your questions that you’re pretty new to these debates, so I suggest you go back a ways. Not too far, really, but, as our Counselor points out, I have made the case with the evidence. The evidence introduced at trial. So there’s that. > [@Bricker](#): > > What i think Stoid is saying (or what she SHOULD be saying, anyway) is that there was evidence introduced that would have allowed the jury to find guilt. You know perfectly well that’s what I’ve been saying, Bricker, that’s exactly what you confirmed: > [@Bricker](#): > > But Stoid didn’t simply consider them false. I know she’s now sort of floating back and forth in her explanation, but the fact remains that she laid out a series of inferences which the jury would be permitted to make that allowed a finding of guilt for manslaughter. > > None of them (except the ones I struck at the time) were flawed. See? > [@](#): > > This “consciousness of guilt” business is a red herring; consciousness of guilt does not support any element of the crime. It’s true that the jury is permitted to consider a lie as consciousness of guilt but that doesn’t address any particular element, and so it doesn’t enter into our analysis. For some reason it seems to drive Steophan nuts that I and so many others find Zimmerman’s story brimming with bullshit. _He_ doesn’t view it that way, as he’s entitled, but he appears to conclude from that that it is therefore irrational, impossible, illegal, immoral…_something_ that makes it unacceptable for others to view it that way. So he obsesses about it. Plus, as you’ve seen, it disturbs him _so_ much that he ignores pretty much everything else I say and have said, and returns like a boomerang to some version of: “You just think he’s guilty because you think he’s lying and you can’t because he’s not so you’re wrong!” He’s pretty attached to that song. (And hey, consciousness of guilt adds _weight_!) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/780 "2013-09-05T15:35:26Z")
> [@](#): > > …his killing was both unintentional and in self defence… Unintentional? You mean like the gun that was inadvertently holstered on his person accidentally ended up in his hands, when he reflexively pulled the trigger, which caused a bullet to coincidentally kill Martin. While he was unknowingly and unwittingly engaged in self-defense. OK. Got it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=40)