# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/161 "2013-07-21T04:20:19Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Are you certain of this? Are you basing your answer on case law or a legal cite? **Bricker** stated above that according to FL law, the “provocation” sufficient to be an “aggressor” has to come from “force or threat of force”. The “force or threat of force”. There is no question of perception, it’s a question of fact. Whereas in the self-defense statutes, it talks about “reasonable fear”, which is definitely a matter of perception. Actual threat is not required if reasonable fear is found to be valid. Even so, I don’t think mere reaching into your pocket would usually be accepted by the jury as a cause for “reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury” unless it was accompanied by some other indications, like a verbal threat. ---
**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 21, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/162 "2013-07-21T04:34:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > **Bricker** stated above that according to FL law, the “provocation” sufficient to be an “aggressor” has to come from “force or threat of force”. The “force or threat of force”. There is no question of perception, it’s a question of fact. Whereas in the self-defense statutes, it talks about “reasonable fear”, which is definitely a matter of perception. Actual threat is not required if reasonable fear is found to be valid. > > Even so, I don’t think mere reaching into your pocket would usually be accepted by the jury as a cause for “reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury” unless it was accompanied by some other indications, like a verbal threat. The threat of (deadly) force is the perception (as a reasonable person would perceive in like circumstances) of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, made by another who is capable of imminently carrying it out, accompanied by behavior supporting the belief that the aggressor means to carry it out. But, I think all this “Maybe it was Trayvon Martin standing his ground!” is pretty misbegotten. The prosecution would have to prove up that Martin was threatened with death/serious bodily harm by Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had not adequately renounced the aggression, and all of this proven beyond reasonable doubt. There’s nowhere near enough evidence to do that. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/163 "2013-07-21T04:37:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > **Bricker** stated above that according to FL law, the “provocation” sufficient to be an “aggressor” has to come from “force or threat of force”. The “force or threat of force”. There is no question of perception, it’s a question of fact. Whereas in the self-defense statutes, it talks about “reasonable fear”, which is definitely a matter of perception. Actual threat is not required if reasonable fear is found to be valid. That explanation makes more sense. Thanks. > [@](#): > > Even so, I don’t think mere reaching into your pocket would usually be accepted by the jury as a cause for “reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury” unless it was accompanied by some other indications, like a verbal threat. It was accepted in a few cases I can think of involving the NYPD shooting unarmed suspects who made no other threats (accepted by jurors; not necessarily the public). Is there a different standard for LEO justifiable use of force? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/164 "2013-07-21T04:40:58Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > The threat of (deadly) force is the perception (as a reasonable person would perceive in like circumstances) of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, made by another who is capable of imminently carrying it out, accompanied by behavior supporting the belief that the aggressor means to carry it out. Which is a lot more than “reaching into his pocket”. And don’t agree that it hinges on a “perception” like the “reasonable fear” does. ---
**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 21, 2013, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/165 "2013-07-21T04:48:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Which is a lot more than “reaching into his pocket”. And don’t agree that it hinges on a “perception” like the “reasonable fear” does. How do people form reasonable fears of an imminent danger of the infliction of death or serious bodily harm absent perceiving such a threat? If a person says, “I didn’t percieve nothin’, I just had this reasonable fear of imminent infliction of death or serious bodily harm, straight outta the clear blue sky,” do you think their defense succeeds or fails? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/166 "2013-07-21T04:49:59Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Is there a different standard for LEO justifiable use of force? > **[Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2FSections%2F0776.05.html)** > **[Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2FSections%2F0776.051.html)** These are fully separate sections applicable to LEOs. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/167 "2013-07-21T04:51:20Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > How do people form reasonable fears of an imminent danger of the infliction of death or serious bodily harm absent perceiving such a threat? “Reasonable fear” is definitely a matter of perception - of a reasonable person. “Force or threat of force” formulation does not have any mention of “reasonable” or “fear” in it. ---
**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 21, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/168 "2013-07-21T04:58:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Reasonable fear” is definitely a matter of perception - of a reasonable person. “Force or threat of force” formulation does not have any mention of “reasonable” or “fear” in it. > [@](#): > > [Fla. Stat. 776.012](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html) > Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person **reasonably believes** that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: > (1) He or she **reasonably believes** that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or > (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. [Pertaining to home invasions, not pertinent here] Care to revise your remarks? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/169 "2013-07-21T04:59:07Z")
> [@camille](#): > > What I keep asking, and never receive a reply to, is why Zimmerman’s own admission that he reached into his pocket just prior to receiving the punch by Martin, could not reasonably be considered as evidence of the “threat of force” (i.e., I thought he was reaching for a weapon). Serino makes this claim during the [interview](https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025) (my underline): > > There are numerous cases where unarmed people have been shot for making a similar move (most famously perhaps was Amadou Diallo, who was reaching for a wallet). Why was it considered an imminent threat in those cases but not in this one? ISTM the fact that he was actually armed makes it even more compelling. [/quote] Diallo – and others similarly situated, I suspect – were shot after reaching into their pockets, yes. But the evidence showed that prior to that pocket reach, police officers yelled, “Police,” and “Show your hands!” If you know of any police officer who escaped punishment after shooting an unarmed person, who did NOT warn the person in advance, let me know. But reaching into a pocket, _by itself_, does not communicate a threat of physical force. Reaching into a pocket after police have told you to show your hands does. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/170 "2013-07-21T05:01:40Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Care to revise your remarks? You just posted proof of what I said. “Reasonable fear” (or “reasonable belief”) is, in fact, a matter of perception. Perception of a reasonable person is what self-defense is based on. That is what I said from the beginning. You seem to be confused about what the argument is. **camille** was not asking about what self-defense is based on. She was asking about what the determination of an “aggressor” was based on. ---
**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 21, 2013, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/171 "2013-07-21T05:12:26Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You just posted proof of what I said. “Reasonable fear” (or “reasonable belief”) is, in fact, a matter of perception. Perception of a reasonable person is what self-defense is based on. That is what I said from the beginning. You seem to be confused about what the argument is. **camille** was not asking about what self-defense is based on. She was asking about what the determination of an “aggressor” was based on. OK, that’s fine. I just wanted to point out that what a person could “reasonably believe” turns on perception, at least in the sense of “What would a video camera have recorded if it were in the same place as the person contending self-defense; and would a reasonable person, who saw, as one in the self-defender’s place, what was recorded have formed a reasonable belief that death/serious bodily harm was imminent.” That is, “perception” in the strict sense of “perceived by the five senses.” The person contending self-defense has to be able to point to some perceptible actions by the aggressor that gave rise to the reasonable belief. (You couldn’t say, “Well, I just had a bad feeling about this dude.”) If you took perception as “one’s personal interpretation of some events,” then you are right, perception in this subjective sense is not the test: That interpretation must also be objectively reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/172 "2013-07-21T05:12:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Diallo – and others similarly situated, I suspect – were shot after reaching into their pockets, yes. But the evidence showed that prior to that pocket reach, police officers yelled, “Police,” and “Show your hands!” > > If you know of any police officer who escaped punishment after shooting an unarmed person, who did NOT warn the person in advance, let me know. But reaching into a pocket, _by itself_, does not communicate a threat of physical force. Reaching into a pocket after police have told you to show your hands does. Okay, thanks. But what about non-LEO altercations. Do you agree with Terr’s explanation? Could Martin have used that pocket reach as a valid self defense claim? Has anyone tried to argue it in a non-LEO case as a threat of force? If it is not a sufficient threat on its own, then is the law saying you must wait until a weapon is fully drawn before initiating a defense? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/173 "2013-07-21T05:22:47Z")
Let me admit right from the start that I haven’t read the thread. Too many Zimmerman threads going on and most of them are just shouting the same things over and over. But I read the OP and I wanted to respond to that. > [@bump](#): > > So we’ve recently had the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the 2nd degree murder of Trayvon Martin. And a lot of people are outraged that he wasn’t convicted because Zimmerman did a lot of actions of questionable merit prior to the actual shooting. > > What’s pissing me off is that the majority of the people wailing and gnashing their teeth apparently have NO clue how the legal system works and think that Zimmerman should have been convicted not because he broke Florida law, but because they didn’t like what he did. > > Fact: Nothing Zimmerman did prior to the shooting was illegal. Even if he decided that Martin was sketchy because he was black, and ambushed him to confront him, none of that’s illegal. Sketchy? Yes. In poor judgement? Yes. Illegal? No. > > Fact: The case entirely hinged upon the notion that the possibility that Zimmerman feared for his life, and that this fear cast reasonable doubt upon the charge that Zimmerman murdered Martin in a non-premeditated way (2nd degree). > > So apparently as best I can tell, the whole court case hinged upon whether or not Zimmerman feared for his life during the fight prior to the shooting. We’ll never actually know what happened, but the evidence and testimony apparently put enough questions in the jury’s minds that Zimmerman didn’t just hunt down Martin and shoot him, and that possibly (reasonable doubt) he felt that he was defending himself. > > So if people understand that, how the fuck can they be so pissed off about the verdict? They should be pissed at the knuckleheaded prosecutors who overreached with the charges- they would have probably had manslaughter tied up with a nice, neat little bow. They should be pissed at the State of Florida for having idiotically written laws. > > But going on and on about what happened prior to the actual shooting is retarded- it has NO bearing on the actual case whether or not Martin stole shit from a house near his school. It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was a petty knucklehead who called 911 40-some-odd times before that night. It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was a racist, or if Martin was a violent thug. > > What mattered was basically that they got into a fight, Zimmerman shot Martin, and whether or not Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. It also had no bearing on the case what colors their skin were- again, it was the fight, its outcome and whether or not Zimmerman feared for his life combined with a stupid charge on the part of the prosecution. I agree that there is a difference between justice and legality. But part of what society is supposed to do is work on reducing that difference. We should never accept the argument that something was legal as an excuse for injustice. If the law creates unjust results, we should change the law so that it does not produce those unjust results in the future. The problem I see with Florida’s current laws is they encourage confrontation. George Zimmerman felt threatened by Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin felt threatened by George Zimmerman. And the law told both of these men that they didn’t have to back down from a threat. They were given legal permission to defend themselves in a threatening situation. And the result is one of them killed the other. In different circumstances it could have been Martin who was in court explaining why he killed Zimmerman. But that would have been just as much a tragedy as what happened. Neither man wanted to commit a crime that morning. Certainly neither of them wanted to kill the other one. The law shouldn’t have any problems preventing situations that nobody wants to happen. The law should have essentially told these guys to back off before one of them ended up dead. The law should now be changed. Not only to protect people from ending up like Trayvon Martin but also to protect people from ending up like George Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/174 "2013-07-21T05:26:51Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Okay, thanks. But what about non-LEO altercations. Do you agree with Terr’s explanation? Could Martin have used that pocket reach as a valid self defense claim? I’d like to point out that I said he could have used it as a **claim** but I very much doubt it would have been bought by a jury as “reasonable fear” unless there was a lot more to it than just a reach into the pocket. ---
**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 21, 2013, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/175 "2013-07-21T05:30:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I’d like to point out that I said he could have used it as a **claim** but I very much doubt it would have been bought by a jury as “reasonable fear” unless there was a lot more to it than just a reach into the pocket. I think this is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/176 "2013-07-21T05:30:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The problem I see with Florida’s current laws is they encourage confrontation. George Zimmerman felt threatened by Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin felt threatened by George Zimmerman. And the law told both of these men that they didn’t have to back down from a threat. They were given legal permission to defend themselves in a threatening situation. The problem with your argument is that it is based on the two men having studied the laws, extensively, having fully internalized all the implications of the laws, and being able to recall, in seconds, all the pros and cons of their subsequent behavior based on the law. > [@](#): > > The law shouldn’t have any problems preventing situations that nobody wants to happen. The law should have essentially told these guys to back off before one of them ended up dead. Unless there was a big poster right near where they met saying, in big fluorescent (it was dark) letters: “The law says you have to back off”, I don’t see how the law could have “told these guys” anything. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/177 "2013-07-21T05:32:59Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Okay, thanks. But what about non-LEO altercations. Do you agree with Terr’s explanation? Could Martin have used that pocket reach as a valid self defense claim? Has anyone tried to argue it in a non-LEO case as a threat of force? If it is not a sufficient threat on its own, then is the law saying you must wait until a weapon is fully drawn before initiating a defense? It’s a question of fact for the jury. (Or for the judge at a bench trial). In other words, if you wish, you can say to the jury, “he reached into his pocket, and that alone gave me a fear of serious bodily injury.” The jury’s acquittal can’t be appealed. But I would be very surprised to see such a claim work. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/178 "2013-07-21T06:06:07Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The problem with your argument is that it is based on the two men having studied the laws, extensively, having fully internalized all the implications of the laws, and being able to recall, in seconds, all the pros and cons of their subsequent behavior based on the law. > > Unless there was a big poster right near where they met saying, in big fluorescent (it was dark) letters: “The law says you have to back off”, I don’t see how the law could have “told these guys” anything. I think most people have a general awareness are of what the law is where they live. People talk about crimes in their area and a general knowledge of what’s legal or illegal emerges from that. For example, I think most people are going to know whether their state follows a “stand your ground” or a “duty to retreat” doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/179 "2013-07-21T06:21:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a question of fact for the jury. (Or for the judge at a bench trial). > > In other words, if you wish, you can say to the jury, “he reached into his pocket, and that alone gave me a fear of serious bodily injury.” The jury’s acquittal can’t be appealed. > > But I would be very surprised to see such a claim work. But it wouldn’t have been that alone. What about the circumstances leading up to the reach (following, refusing to identify or explain)? What would be a reasonable alternative (non-threatening) perception, other than that it was an imminent threat (reaching for a weapon) under those precise circumstances? And remember, we’re talking about a minor, being followed by a strange man. Wouldn’t that also be a factor in what is a reasonable perception? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028/180 "2013-07-21T07:20:03Z")
> [@camille](#): > > But it wouldn’t have been that alone. What about the circumstances leading up to the reach (following, refusing to identify or explain)? What would be a reasonable alternative (non-threatening) perception, other than that it was an imminent threat (reaching for a weapon) under those precise circumstances? And remember, we’re talking about a minor, being followed by a strange man. Wouldn’t that also be a factor in what is a reasonable perception? I don’t really understand how whether Martin had a valid or semi-valid self-defense claim is relevant to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. Martin’s self-defense claim does not make Zimmerman an “aggressor” - the criteria are different. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pitting-of-people-who-mistakenly-conflate-justice-with-legality-martin-zimmerman-related/664028.md?page=10)