# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/121 "2013-07-20T22:10:56Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I notice that you very carefully said that the confrontation started with the first person to commit battery upon the other. Why should we accept that definition? How about assault? I found this definition in Wikipedia:Martin may well have felt threatened by Zimmerman’s actions. There may not have been sufficient evidence to prove that (and I’m not sure on whom the burden of proof lies), but I think it’s wrong to say that there’s no evidence. > > I find it odd that in a thread about the law as written, and the jury’s adherence to the letter of the law, we don’t have a cite for how the law defines “initial aggressor”, only **Martin** ’s opinion that it begins with battery. That phrase exists within the “stand your ground” law. If there’s a solid definition for that, let’s hear it. If not, then it should have been up to the jury to decide. There is a definition. An initial aggressor only loses the right of self-defense if he provokes “by force or threat of force.” That definition comes from _Gibbs v. State_, 789 So. 2d 443 (Fl. DCA 2001). What evidence is there that Zimmerman used, or threatened to use, force against Martin? You might imagine a scenario in which he did. But where’s the evidence that takes it out of supposition and says, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no other scenario happened except that one? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/122 "2013-07-20T22:12:26Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > No, there is the call to 911, there’s the locations where his truck was parked, where witnesses saw them, where the body was found, and possibly more. How does any of that show that Zimmerman used force against Martin first? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/123 "2013-07-20T22:16:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does any of that show that Zimmerman used force against Martin first? Or vice versa. There’s lots of “evidence” in the case, but none that tells us who started the fight. None, except the testimony by Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/124 "2013-07-20T22:19:05Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > then no one committed a crime,yet someone ended up dead. And it often happens that someone ends up dead yet no one committed a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/125 "2013-07-20T22:21:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Really? You’re not sure which side has the burden of proof in a US criminal trial? It’s not entirely a silly question. In Illinois, an affirmative defense\* of imperfect justification (i.e., a real subjective fear of serious bodily harm that, in the circumstances, is not objectively reasonable) has to be proven by the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 720 ILCS 5/9-2. - The Criminal Code calls it a “mitigating factor” that downgrades first-degree murder to second-degree murder. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/126 "2013-07-20T22:32:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, > > If a jury can’t reject a point of a defendant’s testimony as a lie on the grounds that it’s absurd, then the justice system falls apart completely. They certainly can, but they don’t have to. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/127 "2013-07-20T22:36:29Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, I’m still puzzled by how there’s any uncertainty that Zimmerman started the fight. The sequence of events, as I understand it: > 1: Zimmerman found Martin suspect, for no discernible legitimate reason, and started following him in his car. > 2: Zimmerman called the non-emergency police number to report the situation, and was advised that the police did not need him following Martin. > 3: Zimmerman continued following him anyway. > 4: Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, armed, to confront Martin. > 5: Martin asked him what his problem was. > 6: Zimmerman failed to give him any reasonable answer. > 7: Martin now sanely and reasonably believed himself to be in danger of gross bodily harm from Zimmerman, and began to defend himself. You forgot step 6a. “Then a miracle happens”. I’m sure you’re familiar with that old joke about the to guy trying to explain his mathematical proof or the derivation of his equation and includes that step. I think you’ve done the equivalent here. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/128 "2013-07-20T22:46:00Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > Found it interesting that the AP is still using the pic of Trayvon at 14 or so in their articles as recently as today. Yes, I saw a the 14 year old picture on the news this morning and rolled my eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/129 "2013-07-20T22:46:06Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Way to miss the point, officer. > > So then what is being pitted here? People who express outrage over Zimmerman aren’t - technically - putting him on trial either. > > Why do you have a problem with that, but want to pretend it’s no biggie when a dead kid and his family are vilified by a different group of people expressing outrage in the same extrajudicial venues? > > I’m not advocating “Somebody must pay!”. This is more about “Something must change!”. Can’t do that without moral outrage. Moral outrage often leads to change. Often not the right change. That comes from critical thinking. No one expects the parents of Martin to not be outraged. But I don’t think they are members here. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/130 "2013-07-20T22:49:55Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > It is the duty of the jury to convict Mr. Zimmerman of either murder or manslaughter. His own lawyer admitted he was guilty of manslaughter (admittedly outside the presence of the jury in all likelihood.) No, he did not. You don’t understand how the legal system works. > [@](#): > > That the jury refused to convict the killer of either is despicable on the part of the jury. There is no question that Zimmerman was the killer and a killer. He was admittedly the killer. The jury didn’t think it was a criminal act. Each juror deserves to be condemned socially for what they did. They would be correct in thinking that killing someone is not a criminal act. Murder, manslaughter, reckless homicide, and others, are crimes. Killing is not. I’ve challenged people before in these discussion to show me a law, anywhere in the world, where the only element of the crime is “killing”. No-one, unsurprisingly, has done. Killing someone, by itself, is neither illegal or wrong. Whilst it is very often accompanied by something that _does_ make it wrong, there is very little evidence in this case that it was/. > [@Chronos](#): > > OK, I’m still puzzled by how there’s any uncertainty that Zimmerman started the fight. The sequence of events, as I understand it: > 1: Zimmerman found Martin suspect, for no discernible legitimate reason, and started following him in his car. > 2: Zimmerman called the non-emergency police number to report the situation, and was advised that the police did not need him following Martin. > 3: Zimmerman continued following him anyway. > 4: Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, armed, to confront Martin. > 5: Martin asked him what his problem was. > 6: Zimmerman failed to give him any reasonable answer. > 7: Martin now sanely and reasonably believed himself to be in danger of gross bodily harm from Zimmerman, and began to defend himself. > > So far as I can tell, the only point that even Zimmerman himself disputed was #4: 3 is demonstrably false, 7 is unsupported by any evidence, and Zimmerman does not need a reason to do any of the things you suggest he did, they are all acceptable things to do. > [@](#): > > If a jury can’t reject a point of a defendant’s testimony as a lie on the grounds that it’s absurd, then the justice system falls apart completely. They may choose to disbelieve anything they like, but they may not infer from that disbelief that the opposite is true. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > No, there is the call to 911, there’s the locations where his truck was parked, where witnesses saw them, where the body was found, and possibly more. He didn’t call 911. He claims he was reaching for his phone to do so when Martin punched him. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/131 "2013-07-20T22:59:39Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You’re an idiot. Lol, your statement is insulting to idiots. **Evil Economist** is worse than an idiot since he uses what intelligence he has to fool himself into believing destructive lies in order to feel and display faux moral superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/132 "2013-07-20T23:13:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If a jury can’t reject a point of a defendant’s testimony as a lie on the grounds that it’s absurd, then the justice system falls apart completely. They can “reject” it by not believing it. Sure. What they can’t do is believe something else did happen. Zimmerman says, “I did not threaten Martin.” Jury can disbelieve him. Jury CANNOT, because of this, find that he _did_ threaten Martin. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/133 "2013-07-20T23:29:41Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Moral outrage often leads to change. Often not the right change. That comes from critical thinking. In an ideal world, sure. But politicians neither encourage nor respond to critical thinking (and arguably, barely practice it). I’m not going to keep quiet because my idea of the right change doesn’t match yours. I suspect a lot of the “outrage over the outrage” is really the concern that sustained protests will lead to changes that don’t serve their interests. > [@Loach](#): > > No one expects the parents of Martin to not be outraged. But I don’t think they are members here. By that standard, the only people who should care about what the Zimmerman critics are saying are his family, and they don’t post here either. Now what? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/134 "2013-07-20T23:30:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, I’m still puzzled by how there’s any uncertainty that Zimmerman started the fight. The sequence of events, as I understand it: We can believe or disbelieve what Zimmerman said. But can we please accurately talk about what he said? Jesus. I’ll give you the correct timeline since you obviously failed to find it yourself. 1. Zimmerman sees Martin, and _says he looks suspicious because he is just walking around, looking at the houses._ 2. Zimmerman calls the non-emergency number. During the call, Zimmerman describes Martin (at the behest of the dispatcher.) Zimmerman reports that Martin is looking at him, he then reports Martin is headed toward his car, checking him out. The dispatcher tells him to “let him know if anything happens.” Zimmerman clarifies the address and notes that it is the clubhouse for the community, not the actual street address where he is currently at. Suddenly Martin runs, Zimmerman says, “shit he’s running.” You hear the sound of a car door open, panting. The dispatcher asks Zimmerman several questions like, “He’s running?” Answer: Yes. “Where is he running?” Answer: “Down towards the other entrance.” “Which entrance?” Answer: “The back entrance.” Finally dispatcher says, “Are you following him?” Answer: Yeah. Dispatcher: “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” Not “don’t do that.” But “we don’t need you to do that.” Several more question/answer are exchanged before Zimmerman says, “I don’t know where this kid is.” It’s obvious thus, that Martin has now lost Zimmerman, and Zimmerman has no idea where he is. End call. 1. Zimmerman claims he is returning to his vehicle, so that he can meet with the police that the dispatcher has told him will be arriving at the clubhouse. After meeting the police at the clubhouse, Zimmerman is to take them to where he lost Martin. 2. Zimmerman claims Martin “comes out of nowhere” and accosts him, demanding to know what his problem is. 3. Zimmerman responds the he “has no problem.” 4. Zimmerman then claims Martin starts hitting him unprovoked, knocks him tot he ground, and has him pinned there punching him. Zimmerman claims he is yelling for help continuously, “like fifty times” during the beating. 5. Zimmerman claims Martin sees the gun in his waistband and goes for it, and says “you’re gonna die tonight.” 6. Zimmerman says they struggle for the gun, Zimmerman gains control of the gun and fires it once. He says Martin seems to “fall off or back from him.” Zimmerman says he is not sure he shot Martin, he gets over to Martin because he is still talking and he isn’t sure Martin is shot. Around this time the first bystander arrives with a flash light. I’ll contrast this with your erroneous reading of the events: > [@](#): > > 1: Zimmerman found Martin suspect, for no discernible legitimate reason, and started following him in his car. “Discernible legitimate reason” is editorializing. Zimmerman says he saw Martin walking around just looking at the houses and he found that suspicious. He tried to follow Martin in his car as he was talking with police dispatch. > [@](#): > > 2: Zimmerman called the non-emergency police number to report the situation, and was advised that the police did not need him following Martin. While Zimmerman is driving, the police officer never instructs him “we don’t need you to do that.” > [@](#): > > 3: Zimmerman continued following him anyway. No, again, the police did not say “we don’t need you to do that” while Zimmerman was in his car. > [@](#): > > 4: Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, armed, to confront Martin. No. Zimmerman exited the vehicle because Martin had ran away on foot. Zimmerman was trying to find out where he had went. During this time, the dispatcher apparently has heard the car door open and Zimmerman running–however he had asked several more questions of Zimmerman after that before finally asking Zimmerman if he was following Martin. Zimmerman says yes, and at that point (after he had already gone a distance from his vehicle) he is told “we don’t need you to do that.” Since by Zimmerman’s telling he had actually already “lost” Martin, and was trying to run to where he last saw him so he could get sight of him again, his story is not that he got out of his vehicle to confront Martin. > [@](#): > > 5: Martin asked him what his problem was. Essentially. But you skip the part where in Zimmerman’s story, he had completely lost sight of Trayvon and Martin came out of “nowhere” or “jumped him” and surprised him. Zimmerman was still startled when Martin asked that question, as he had “come out of nowhere.” > [@](#): > > 6: Zimmerman failed to give him any reasonable answer. Zimmerman said his answer was “no.” And that he immediately got punched. Is that a particularly unreasonable answer? Or one that justifies Martin hitting Zimmerman? > [@](#): > > 7: Martin now sanely and reasonably believed himself to be in danger of gross bodily harm from Zimmerman, and began to defend himself. Because a guy who **he snuck up on** did not answer his question, he was justified in attacking him? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/135 "2013-07-20T23:46:03Z")
It looks like what Chronos is actually doing is taking each step in Zimmerman’s story and deciding what he believes actually happened. The jury can either reject Zimmerman’s story in whole or in part. But they are not allowed to create a scenario of what they “believe” happened unless the prosecution has presented such a scenario and supported it with evidence. Zimmerman’s self defense claim legally can fail two ways: 1. They believe the facts of Zimmerman’s story. However, they find that his use of force was **not justified**. For that to be true, they’d have to believe that Zimmerman **did not** have a reasonable belief that he needed to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given the facts of Zimmerman’s story, if the jury **believed those facts** I do not in fact think a reasonable jury could have found him guilty of any crime. (One of the jurors has said they essentially believed Zimmerman’s story by the way.) 2. They do not believe the facts of Zimmerman’s story. However, if they do not believe the facts of Zimmerman’s story, the prosecution still has to explain and prove the crime that Zimmerman committed. I would assert that even if you do not believe Zimmerman’s story, if you look at the jury instructions for Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter, it is hard to reasonably conclude the prosecution actually built a case beyond reasonable doubt on either charge. So even if the jury 100% disbelieved Zimmerman’s story, it would not have been easy to convict, and may have even be reversible error. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/136 "2013-07-20T23:47:14Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Because a guy who **he snuck up on** did not answer his question, he was justified in attacking him? Yes of course. After all, Zimmerman is a Racist and a Gun Lover. But seriously, if somebody was following you, and you confront them and ask their business, and they don’t answer, it is not morally or legally justifiable to attack them and administer a beating. But even if it were, it does not necessarily follow that the recipient of the beating has no right to defend himself. Of course all of this is lost on **Chronos** since what matters to him is showing tribal membership and demonstrating his faux moral superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/137 "2013-07-20T23:50:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not your grammar. It sounds like you are objecting that people read what you wrote instead of what you wanted to write. Or something. I’m just suggesting that an alternative to: “I can’t believe you read that into my post is” “Oh, I must’ve not communicated what I thought I did.” When I suggested that certain people should be locked in a room with a large pile of Where’s Waldo books, I hadn’t realized that my statement would be carefully parsed to understand who exactly would have to be locked up. I can only think of one reason why this knowledge would be essential, so I’d like to personally thank you for taking this task on, and please permit me to contribute to your book fund. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/138 "2013-07-20T23:51:42Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Because a guy who **he snuck up on** did not answer his question, he was justified in attacking him? No, because a stranger who’d been following him refused to identify himself or explain why he was following him, and then makes a move to into his pocket. Detective Serino explains it in [the interview](https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025) (my emphasis): > [@](#): > > Zimmerman: I didn’t want to confront him, and it wasn’t my job. > > Serino: OK, so by not, were you, your job’s not to really to do anything at all when it comes to that kind of, it wasn’t your job > > Zimmerman: (unintelligible) > > Serino: … to monitor him either, but for future reference, I mean you can usually dismiss a lot of this kind of insanity… I mean, had that been done, and that’s, you know, and from our vantage point, you’ve had 2 opportunities to identify yourself as somebody who was actually not meaning to do him harm. Problem being, is that we’re visiting in his mind’s eye, which I can’t get into because he’s passed, that he perceives you as a threat. OK, he perceives you as a threat, he has every right to go and defend himself, especially when you reach into your pocket to grab a cell phone. If a LEO could reasonably perceive it as a threat that justified a defensive move, why can’t an unarmed teenager? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/139 "2013-07-20T23:54:05Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Lol, your statement is insulting to idiots. **Evil Economist** is worse than an idiot since he uses what intelligence he has to fool himself into believing destructive lies in order to feel and display faux moral superiority. Oh good, Brazil84 heard his name called. If Zimmerman walking free is proof of injustice on a large scale, brazil84 still having posting privileges to the SDMB is proof of injustice on a small scale. Shouldn’t you be off somewhere protesting interracial marriages? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/140 "2013-07-20T23:56:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I believe your claim here is completely true. Based on your contribution to this thread, which is the only impression of you I have, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt it. 😉 > > Seriously, dude, you’ve been spewing nothing but Industrial Grade stupidity here. I’ll defer to the expert on industrial grade stupidity. Serious question; do you think you ended up the way your parents had hoped? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=8)