The pitting of people who mistakenly conflate justice with legality (Martin/Zimmerman related)

[Stoid]

@Bricker

But, Stoid, you also see that there are plenty of times in which the jury’s verdict is overturned by the appeals court simply because the appeals court said that no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion it did, right? In other words, those juries presumably applied their actual beliefs and opinions, yes? And the verdict was still set aside, for the reason that their actual beliefs and opinions did not find sufficient support in the record.

How does that happen, in your view?

Any number of ways, the two most obvious being not following proper instructions and following improper instructions. It’s been made very clear through this trial and through all the case law we’ve read in the course of this how crucial those instructions are to getting the jury to do their job properly, which we know means following specific rules in relation to consideration of the evidence. I’ve never claimed that jurors are made into gods that can’t be questioned, only that they have been given the task of personally representing the laws idea of “reasonable” people. So, as you pointed out to him, Steophans endless insistence about “reasonable doubt” existing in some space independent of the juror’s minds is not accurate. Just because some people may look at some evidence and it will cause them to doubt, it does not mean that the same evidence must cause all people to doubt and if they fail to they have erred. (Although of course we could all come up with scenarios where this would probably be agreed to be true, scenarios where the accused has been essentially proved to be innocent by DNA, video, confessions of another, etc. - but that’s not the sort of absolute evidence we’re talking about here.)

And on that note, I would LOVE to know the background of that case you brought up where they managed to convict the man of FIRST FUKKIN DEGREE murder when he shot the drug dealer! Huh??? There wasn’t enough in the opinion to figure out how the prosecution pulled it off, since the opinion gave the impression that there was, essentially, no evidence at all. Cute trick.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

I’ve already proven you wrong on this. Read the jury instructions I provided for you earlier, stop spreading misinformation, and adjust your beliefs on how a jury should act based on the actual jury instructions, not random unsourced musings, that cite Mississippi law as though it’s relevant to Florida.

Jury instructions are designed to get laypeople to understand the law sufficiently to do their jobs, and I have cited them. My other cites are to case law opinions explaining the law in more precise terms, for the benefit of lawyers and other legal scholars and professionals and anyone else who wants to have a deeper understanding than the simplifications provided to jurors.

There is no disagreement about how a jury should act. The disagreement is about how the jury should believe. You have an expectation that isn’t reasonable: a juror should have a firm belief in innocence. You can’t make demands of people’s beliefs, only of their behavior. what you want to insist must be a firm belief in innocence is actually a firm understanding that the only thing the jury may consider in determining guilt or innocence is the evidence presented at trial.

[Stoid]

@Martin_Hyde

You’re falling into the common fallacious message board belief that everything contained in a response to a poster is a direct refutation of something said by another poster.

You inaccurately represented my statement and contention, invoking *my name directly *as you did so.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

not random unsourced musings, that cite Mississippi law as though it’s relevant to Florida.

Also, forgive my lack of linkage, but I went to the US Supreme Court case cited by West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (as reprinted in the Free Dictionary legal dictionary) Taylor v. Kentucky - 436 U.S. 478 (1978), which cited state cases in the footnotes. The second cite was from Footnote 12.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

There is no disagreement about how a jury should act. The disagreement is about how the jury should believe. You have an expectation that isn’t reasonable: a juror should have a firm belief in innocence. You can’t make demands of people’s beliefs, only of their behavior. what you want to insist must be a firm belief in innocence is actually a firm understanding that the only thing the jury may consider in determining guilt or innocence is the evidence presented at trial.

The instruction explicitly tells the jury what to believe. I’m well aware you think you know more about the law than the actual legal professionals that created those instructions, but no matter how many times you pretend you do, you in fact do not.

Those instructions do not tell the jury to act as though they presume or believe the defendant innocent. They tell them, without qualification, to believe it

I would expect that the jury would be told what is expected of them before the trial, and any juror incapable of presuming the defendant’s innocence would be considered unfit to serve. Another reason your hypothetical is invalid, you are unfit to be a juror.

Do you actually realise that the law, and indeed the rest of the real world, does not necessarily work the way it does in your wild fantasies? Does the fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty, and that the prosecution were unable to make anything resembling a case for his guilt, not make you pause in your proclamations? Do you really think your wasted time and money in your law library adventures makes you more of an expert that the actual professionals?

(They are, of course, rhetorical questions. I know you do, in fact, believe those things, but it’s to the point to highlight them).

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Also, forgive my lack of linkage, but I went to the US Supreme Court case cited by West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (as reprinted in the Free Dictionary legal dictionary) Taylor v. Kentucky - 436 U.S. 478 (1978), which cited state cases in the footnotes. The second cite was from Footnote 12.

I see. Finding the relevant definition for Florida beyond you then? It must have been hard, seeing as I’ve cited it twice recently in this thread.

[newcomer]

Must say I thought about the thread title… a lot!

Just imagine, for a moment, a world where legality is separate concept from justice.

I wonder, for example, what would Rosa Parks say if someone told her that she is a legality-justice-conflating b*** and should go to the back of the bus. Or, Mandela. Oh, man… if there was ever a man who conflated legality and justice.

And many, many more a*holes who dared to think that legality is somehow related to justice.

This is America, damn it!

[hmarvin]

@Martin_Hyde

I agree, but if the prosecution has no evidence whatsoever about what happened prior to the confrontation or who started the confrontation then the jury really shouldn’t consider it one way or another. It has to presume Zimmerman is innocent, not presume he started the confrontation unless he proves otherwise.

The point would have been relevant if the prosecution had some evidence of which party started the confrontation, but it did not–making it an irrelevance. There’s a reason it wasn’t in the jury instructions and it isn’t because of “bad Florida is bad”, but because it was never something the prosecution seriously demonstrated so the judge had no basis to include that in the jury instructions.

Actually, they did have indirect evidence. Zimmerman claimed he was walking back to his truck when the confrontation begin. Multiple witnesses claim that the confrontation begin west of the T, than moved south. West of the T would be mere seconds from his truck. Rachel claimed that Zimmerman finally caught up to Martin, and the confrontation begin. This would be four minutes with the telephone conversation, in which Zimmerman stopped moving, no wind noise, no heavy breathing, just a casual phone conversation,and an additional two minutes of silence. After six minutes, Martin managed to make it mere seconds from the path leading to the T, to near the T? Not being at the confrontation, you’d have to be a pretty crazy juror to convict.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

Those instructions do not tell the jury to act as though they presume or believe the defendant innocent. They tell them, without qualification, to believe it

or presume it. The effect of which is… see my citations.

Do you actually realise that the law, and indeed the rest of the real world, does not necessarily work the way it does in your wild fantasies?

To what wild fantasies do you refer? I have not asserted anything other than the law itself in regards to the law.

Does the fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty, and that the prosecution were unable to make anything resembling a case for his guilt, not make you pause in your proclamations?

I disagree with your use of the word “unable” as referring to anything other than their competence, vs. the facts and evidence. The prosecution team was pretty universally viewed as varying degrees of incompetent, by both sides and the middle. That has nothing to do with whether a case could have been made from the evidence. I made that case in this very thread, as Bricker confirmed, although I did it working backwards, via the jury.

I’m genuinely curious about what exactly is it you think I’m supposed to be getting from the outcome? The reality of what happened that night has not been altered by the jury’s verdict. Or do you somehow believe that it actually has been? Am I supposed to now believe, as a result of the verdict, that GZ was in fact innocent, vs. being found not guilty under the law (by a clearly befuddled jury)? Was the fact that OJ was found not guilty to be taken as proof that he had nothing to do with the death of his wife and Ron Goldman? Is that what *you *believe?

Do you really think your wasted time and money in your law library adventures makes you more of an expert that the actual professionals?

Of course not, that’s why I quote the professionals.

In our interactions, Steophan, you are the one who simply declares what the law is, what it means, how it should be understood and applied. You are the one who practically stamps his foot demanding that your “expert” declarations be taken as gospel. Youa re the one who is “insulted” by my failure to take your declarations as factual proof of the law, or reality, of truth.

Whereas *** I ***am the one who researches case law, legal opinions and other writings produced by actual legal experts and cites them. NNor have I asserted greater expertise than our in-house professionals. I question them, absolutely. And at least one of them understands it perfectly and doesn’t seem to find it so out of line as you do.

It looks to me as though you are caught up in your own little fantasy world, where your fantasy Stoid is doing all kinds of things the real Stoid is not doing. Just as in trials, you would have to have evidence to prove your accusations. In this case, direct quotes of my posts demonstrating the things you accuse me of. I don’t see any. I never do. Just you ranting.

[Steophan]

I’ve repeatedly pointed out occasions where your own cites prove you wrong, as well as finding cites of my own that do the same.

What you are supposed to take from the trial is that Zimmerman was overwhelmingly shown to be not guilty of any crime in relation to the death of Martin, and you should acknowledge that the case should never have gone to trial. You should do that based on a calm and rational analysis of the evidence.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

I’ve repeatedly pointed out occasions where your own cites prove you wrong, as well as finding cites of my own that do the same.

Is this supposed to be your response to my pointing out that you never quote me actually doing the things you repeatedly accuse me of doing? Sure hope not, since it doesn’t respond to that at all.

The above is just you doing what you always do: declaring that what you think, believe, perceive and understand is ***the one and the only correct and true ***belief, understanding, perception and thought process for everyone(or perhaps it’s just me?) It is you determining something different from plainly written English, then informing me that your understanding is the superior and correct understanding, which I should accept…because…well, evidently just because you say so.
It is you telling me, again, that you are right and I am wrong.

And doing all these things without ever once (that I recall) making the most rudimentary effort to explain why your convictions should be given such weight, why your determinations of what is true, correct, real, right, should be accepted as the superior one.

You just say it. And say it. And insist. And demand. And declare. And assert. And become insulted when I remain unmoved by your insistence.

And frankly, it is kind of fascinating. I’ve never seen anyone behave quite like it.

What you are supposed to take from the trial is that Zimmerman was overwhelmingly shown to be not guilty of any crime in relation to the death of Martin

Why? I don’t think your statement is true at all. “overwhelmingly” :dubious: “shown to be not guilty” <–please translate. As has been hashed quite a bit, a verdict of not guilty does not mean that the accused has been ***proved to have not ***committed any wrong doing, which is the only way I can imagine your use of “overwhelmingly” could have genuine meaning. The not guilty verdict only means the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove guilt of wrongdoing beyond the reasonable doubt of the jurors. ***You understand that these are vastly different things, right? *** The fact that the jury felt it did not have enough evidence to convict does not mean that the evidence didn’t exist, and even if that were true, it wouldn’t mean that GZ had actually shot Martin in self-defense. So the only thing I should take from the trial is that Zimmerman was not convicted of any crime; this doesn’t mean he did not commit any.

and you should acknowledge that the case should never have gone to trial. You should do that based on a calm and rational analysis of the evidence.

In other words, I should say that I agree with you.

But that would be stupid, seeing as how I believe it absolutely should have gone to trial and GZ should have been found guilty of manslaughter. I proved in this thread that there was enough evidence to convict him of manslaughter, and on that basis of course it should have gone to trial! Bricker told you flat out that my scenario would stand up to a challenge of insufficient evidence, so on what basis do you persist in this bizarre insistence that I should agree with your point of view?

And I have always calmly and rationally analyzed the evidence, because I never have had any reason to do otherwise. I don’t believe GZ is a racist, I don’t have any kind of dog in the fight at all. As far as I am concerned this was entirely about two individual human beings, I see no larger story than that, and on that basis I have never had any kind of “preference” for any particular story to be true.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Steophan

and you should acknowledge that the case should never have gone to trial.

No, this isn’t true. The prosecution had enough evidence to charge manslaughter. The jury could have, even fully crediting Zimmerman’s testimony on the historical facts, found that narrative not to describe a situation where he could have reasonably feared death or serious bodily harm, but rather fear only moderate bodily harm (or less), which would entitle him to use no more than proportionate non-deadly force.

The law distinguishes between the use of non-deadly force and deadly force. The latter is only permitted where the assailant threatens death or serious bodily harm. In other words, a mere threat of any bodily harm does not license deadly force, and so there must be an inquiry as to the gravity of the harm threatened. One can’t simply infer from any threat of bodily harm that serious bodily harm was imminent. That component (the severity of the harm) must also be adequately brought into play by the defense’s raising some reasonable doubt on severity.

Here, I don’t think Zimmerman showed that.

The first prong of my analysis is a genus-and-species type argument. In general, street brawls do not visit serious bodily harm on their participants. These sorts of fight usually end with the parties sustaining some contusions and superficial abrasions. Neither of these are serious bodily harm. Absent evidence that this particular street brawl was a distinctly dangerous species of fight, we are entitled to assume that this was just another generic brawl. The combatants were roughly evenly matched: Zimmerman had a bit of a weight advantage, but doesn’t seem to be particularly fit or muscular. Martin was younger and more lithe, but that goes more to speed that is does to his ability to project force. Neither, then, was the sort of formidable bruiser whose participation in the fight would render it significantly more formidable.

Furthermore, there is both the testimony of the medical expert that the injuries sustained were mild (going to the objective reasonableness of the belief) and there is Zimmerman’s refusal of medical attention in the aftermath of the fight. This latter point significantly undermines the credibility of his allegation that he feared death or serious bodily harm. If this was so, then why, only a short time after he’d have us believe he was being beaten within an inch of his life, did he not even want a once-over by a medical professional. (Not only does this undermine the objective reasonableness of his fear, but it raises some question whether he genuinely subjectively feared it. The latter is required to bring it down to manslaughter (imperfect justification); without even a subjective fear of death or SBH, he is guilty of murder).

Under these circumstance, otherwise crediting Zimmerman’s account, he would be entitled to use no more than proportionate non-deadly force. Punch Martin right back or kick him in the nuts? Sure. Shoot to kill? Absolutely not.

The jury certainly wasn’t required to find the way I would have as described above. But the fact that a reasonably jury could have so found means that the prosecution was not remiss in bringing the charges.

[Steophan]

I’m pretty sure that bringing a case with such a slim chance of succeeding is unethical on at least a couple of grounds, not least the waste of taxpayer’s money and the impact on the jurors’ lives, not to mention the impact on the defendant who was almost certain to be found not guilty.

Now, unethical is not necessarily illegal, but as I’m sure you’re aware it’s a lot closer for lawyers than for most other people.

ETA To make it clear, I am not claiming that it was illegal to bring the case to trial, as there appears to have been probable cause. That is not the only standard for determining whether a case should be tried.

[brazil84]

@bump

Fact: Nothing Zimmerman did prior to the shooting was illegal.

Belatedly, I wanted to applaud you for making a good point.

I have discussed the case with a couple people who have both made the following argument:

“But he got out of his car and followed Martin even though the police told him not to!!!”

Even assuming that’s correct, what these people are really arguing is that Zimmerman misconducted himself; that an unarmed minor died as a result; that therefore Zimmerman is morally culpable; and that therefore he should have been convicted.

In other words, these people don’t understand the distinction between what they wish the law were and what the law actually is.

Which is unfortunate, because in other contexts these people would probably understand that if someone misbehaves but their behavior is not illegal, it is wrong for the state to prosecute such a person.

[Stoid]

@brazil84

Belatedly, I wanted to applaud you for making a good point.

I have discussed the case with a couple people who have both made the following argument:

“But he got out of his car and followed Martin even though the police told him not to!!!”

Even assuming that’s correct, what these people are really arguing is that Zimmerman misconducted himself; that an unarmed minor died as a result; that therefore Zimmerman is morally culpable; and that therefore he should have been convicted.

In other words, these people don’t understand the distinction between what they wish the law were and what the law actually is.

Which is unfortunate, because in other contexts these people would probably understand that if someone misbehaves but their behavior is not illegal, it is wrong for the state to prosecute such a person.

Quite a mangling you have going there.

No one has ever argued that Zimmerman’s actions in following Martin were illegal, so harping on that is a total waste of space. They have argued, accurately, that his actions were frightening to Martin. Legality is not part of this equation: if Zimmerman DID behave in an illegal manner, he’s already robbed himself of self defense, so discussing whether his behavior was provocative would be moot.

Just because a person may do something legally doesn’t mean they are exempt from any and all responsibility for the repercussions of their behavior. It is legal to do all sorts of things which could easily and quite understandably create fear in another person, or blind rage, or panic, and people having those sorts of emotional responses can end up behaving in ways that are dangerous or harmful to themselves or others, and the person who behaved in such a way as to cause that reaction can absolutely be held accountable for the behavior they provoked with their legal, but ill-advised behavior.

And that’s exactly what Zimmerman did: legally acted stupidly, thus provoking Martin.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

I’m pretty sure that bringing a case with such a slim chance of succeeding is unethical on at least a couple of grounds, not least the waste of taxpayer’s money and the impact on the jurors’ lives, not to mention the impact on the defendant who was almost certain to be found not guilty.

Now, unethical is not necessarily illegal, but as I’m sure you’re aware it’s a lot closer for lawyers than for most other people.

ETA To make it clear, I am not claiming that it was illegal to bring the case to trial, as there appears to have been probable cause. That is not the only standard for determining whether a case should be tried.

There is probable cause that a man unlawfully ended the life of an innocent 17 year old for absolutely no reason, and you think it was unethical to follow through with a trial?

:eek:

[Terr]

@Stoid

There is probable cause that a man unlawfully ended the life of an innocent 17 year old for absolutely no reason, and you think it was unethical to follow through with a trial?

:eek:

It is unethical for the prosecutor to go ahead with the case he knows he has no chance at all of winning.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Stoid

You inaccurately represented my statement and contention, invoking *my name directly *as you did so.

I made no representations about your statement at all. Your statement was about what can be considered provocation, mine was explaining a scenario in which an individual would be unsuccessful in asserting that they were provoked in starting a fight.

I made no representation about your argument because it was an irrelevancy, I was pointing out that as a matter of fact the actual behavior we know happened would not meet the legal definition of provocation. This is how it gets dangerous to apply an amateur understanding of the law to statute, lawyers have actually cited examples in this thread about what provocation actually is in Florida.

Additionally, you actually misread my original statement that started this exchange. I did not claim that provocation can only be asserted if another party has taken illegal action toward you.

[brazil84]

@Stoid

No one has ever argued that Zimmerman’s actions in following Martin were illegal, so harping on that is a total waste of space. They have argued, accurately, that his actions were frightening to Martin. Legality is not part of this equation:

People on Team Trayvon have not explicitly claimed that Zimmerman’s conduct prior to the shooting was illegal, but they have implied that such conduct waived his right of self-defense or otherwise made his conduct illegal.

But let me ask you straight out:

1. Assuming that Zimmerman engaged in legal conduct which frightened Martin, did such conduct waive Zimmerman’s right to self-defense (or otherwise make Zimmerman criminally culpable)?

2. If so, what legal authority do you base your claim on?

3. If not, then of what legal relevance is it that Zimmerman followed or attempted to follow Martin even assuming that the authorities had told him not to?

And that’s exactly what Zimmerman did: legally acted stupidly, thus provoking Martin.

And of what legal relevance is that? Please either (1) show me legal authority that stupid, legal conduct which provokes a violent response waives ones right to self-defense (or otherwise makes Zimmerman’s conduct illegal); or (2) admit that it is of no legal consequence that Zimmerman followed or attempted to follow Martin without the blessing of the authorities.

[Stoid]

@Terr

It is unethical for the prosecutor to go ahead with the case he knows he has no chance at all of winning.

And he would know that because he’s prescient? The only way he can know that is if he knows he actually doesn’t have the evidence, which was not the case here. (Now confirmed by Kimmy as well as Bricker) That case could have been won with better prosecutors, the facts were there to win it, they just sucked ass.