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

The BBQ Pit
621

Standards are not specifics. You and brazil were both asking me to find cases with the same fact pattern in terms of “following”, which is ridiculous. The kinds of behaviors that might end up being provocative are as varied as people themselves. Everything in context.

Martin Hyde is just randomly making shit up and slapping my name on it.

No one exaggerated anything. We know about the screaming, we have it on tape. Zimmerman has described what happened regarding smothering and shooting approximately six times. With the exception of one or two "I don’t know"s following his statements reflecting knowledge that came only after he was pressed to see how ludicrous his claim was, he has described the smothering as occurring just before the shirt-up/gun-reveal/hand-slide. Given the length of time we have of the screaming and the total length of time available for the altercation to have taken place, it’s absurd to pretend that there was some other, much earlier point prior to the 911 call that Zimmerman could have been smothered.

post # 572. A slightly edited version of the scenario that Bricker blessed as not only being consistent with the evidence, but that it also would stand up to any appeal based on insufficient evidence. And that post addressed you and you responded to it, so it’s odd that you would say I am unable to offer what you had already read.

People like Martin Hyde continue to make things up and attribute them to me.

You crack me up.

Facts are things that can be objectively verified as true or false.

Not an inference. THAT is an observation. Martin and I are members of the same species, you see, and all of us who belong to this species comprehend basic, primal sounds that we all make, as well as facial expressions. So when we hear shrieks such as those on the 911 call, we don’t need to infer something that is plainly evident. No normal functioning member of our species would think that the feelings behind those screams were delight, or amusement, or anything other than terror.

As just noted, there was no “first” inference. And I noted the 4-5 different things which led to concluding it was Martin.

I said the mother’s testimony wasn’t decisive for me, I didn’t need it. But it was nice to have it in the record.

As I said, if I were a juror, her testimony would be good to have in the record. My personal certainty about it being Martin was my own conclusion from hearing it and knowing the circumstances. And I did find his mother credible.

622

If I can add some gasoline to the flames ( :cool: ) on the question of who was screaming:

Did not prosecution have experts ready to testify that screamer was probably Martin? Shouldn’t the jury have been presented with this and contrary opinions, and then been allowed to make its own judgment?

I grasp that some evidence is of poor quality, but where does one draw the line? A fine distinction by judge can make a big difference in outcome. Surely it’s not like NBA refereeing where after calling a close one against one team, the judge calls the next close one the other way? :dubious: :smack:

(This is not to say I think it was Martin’s voice. I’d guess a 75% chance it went down more-or-less as GZ said. What chance would a jury need for acquittal by reasonable doubt, anyway? 2% ?)

623

So… you go with your gut [feeling]?

624

This is the difference between what an appeals court does and what a juror does. If a juror were required to list why he or she found a particular fact, then Stoid’s reason for concluding it was Martin screaming would not qualify.

But regardless of how she got to that belief, the fact remains that the record has evidence that would allow a reasonable juror to decide that it was Martin screaming.

625

The expert who wanted to testify that the screamer was probably Martin used a specific analytical technique, one that was very new. In fact, he had invented it. It had not gained any particularly wide-spread acceptance in the scientific community.

The standard for admissibility of a particular scientific test or technique varies in the United States, and in many states, that’s a fatal defect. I wrote a long explanation of the process last year:

626

That’s not true at all. For example, it would have sufficed for you to come up with authority stating that provocation means any conduct which the actor would reasonably expect to instill fear or anger.

On the charitable assumption that you want to genuinely answer my question simply misunderstood it by accident, I will ask again:

Can you show me legal authority that following someone under such circumstances counts as “provocation”?

And to be perfectly clear, I do not need authority addressed specifically addressed to following. It can be addressed to any lawful conduct not specifically intended to elicit a violent response.

No, for example you do not state in that post the positions of Zimmermans’ and Martins’ bodies in the moments leading up to the shooting.

Anyway, I take it that you decline to state what the first point was in which you believe Zimmerman had a duty to retreat?

Please link and quote Zimmerman where he says that he was smothered just seconds before he opened fire.

Also, please answer my questions from before:

  1. Do you maintain that Zimmerman’s alleged following of Martin constituted “provocation” under Florida law?

  2. Do you agree that, at a minimum, Florida law requires force or threat of force for behavior to be considered “provocation?”

  3. If your answer to both of those questions is “yes,” are you arguing that Zimmerman’s alleged following of Martin was a “threat of force” under Florida law?

627

How about “it can be whatever the law has said, whether brazil likes it or not”? Can it be that?

All the FLorida case law I could find, and there was quite a bit quoting back a hundred years, declined to be more specific about what counts, although there was a variety of ways of expressing the main idea that a person can’t create the problem then claim self defense. A popular phrase was “free from fault”, what one must be in order to claim self-defense. This one was interesting as well:

I’m weighing the evidence and coming to conclusions based on the evidence, not presenting evidence.

You take it wrong. I did state it, and you have chosen to have a silly response that doesn’t merit addressing.

FIrst interview with Serino, February 27.

Exactly as I said.

From his written statement:

Exactly as I said, smothering directly before the sliding shirt and gun.

Video at 11:45, same, with more filler.

And:

So I’d say if anyone is “exaggerating”, it would be you, exaggerating the possibility that he didn’t know. He only claimed he didn’t know after the implausibility of his claim was shoved in his face:

I maintain that Zimmerman staring from the car, then following on foot, then being a pushy asshole face to face was frightening to Martin, and reasonably so, leading to his feeling the need to defend himself against whatever the asshole might have in mind, hate crime, rape, whatever. (Psst: that would be Martin perceiving a threat of force.)

2

Please stop asking the same questions that I answered already, answers that you acknowledged.

See #1

628

Zimmerman did nothing that could be considered being a “pushy asshole” to martin until at least the point martin returned to confront him. All your arguments about Zimmerman being a threat more properly apply to Martin. It was him who chose to initiate the confrontation, him who spoke first, and him who used violence first, based on the evidence.

629

Sure, of course. I was simply asking for you to back up your claim.

I am inclined to ask you the following question:

Just so we are clear, you maintain that anyone “brings the danger upon himself” is engaged in provocation under Florida law? (For example a black person who shows up at a Ku Klux Klan rally.)

I would also ask you if you are really choosing a 1914 squib which does not even mention “provocation” over case from the last 20 years which does mention “provocation” and specifically states that force or threat of force is required.

However I know you will evade these questions in any event you are about to end up on my ban list. See below.

A scenario is not evidence. A scenario is just that – a scenario. You are unable to present a coherent one and when I pointed it out, you first pretended that you had and then when I pointed out that you hadn’t, you pretended that I was asking for evidence on that point instead of asking for the scenario itself.

In other words, you first weaseled and then strawmanned.

That’s not true at all. I asked for the first point when Zimmerman had the duty to retreat and you said “any point before X” That makes no sense at all.

Of course the reason you are evading the question is that exposes a big problem with your argument. Obviously Zimmerman had no duty to retreat before he was even aware he was under attack. Once he was under attack, there was no way for him to retreat. So “provocation” drops out of the picture.

On the other hand, if Zimmerman was beating on Martin in the moments leading up to the shooting and Martin was screaming for help (and you insinuate that this is what happened without actually saying it), then Zimmerman would not have been in fear for his life and would not have the right to open fire, provocation or not.

So either way, the fact that Zimmerman allegedly followed Martin was legally irrelevant.

Anyway, I do not engage with people who pretend they said things they didn’t say (weaseling); pretend I said things I didn’t say (strawmanning); and refuse to answer reasonable questions about their position, instead hiding their position behind a cloak of ambiguity.

You have done all of these things repeatedly so I am putting you on my ban list.

Goodbye, liar.

630

Oh, the irony.

Welcom to the club, Stoid.

631

Indeed. Proud to be a member. :smiley:

632

God, you’re a sad little clown. Reliably amusing though, in your inadvertent way.

Note: brazil84 does not engage with this poster because brazil84 is a mouth-breathing poltroon with a severe developmental disorder who doesn’t like anyone else playing with the Doper finger puppets in his turd-strewn sandbox.

633

The fact of the matter is that we will never know what happened and the law requires that the government prove the crime rather than the accused prove their innocence.

Sure, I suspect that Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn (try getting a gun out of a holster in the 4 o clock position (I think thats where his holster was) while someone is sitting on top of you never mind bashing your skull into the ground like some people here seem to believe). I think Martin lunged for the gun that this guy who had been following him in a pickup had drawn on him and they struggled over the gun and mwhen Martin started getting the better of him so Zimmerman shot him.

Zimmerman did not suffer a beat down. I’ve seen beat downs and a few scratches in the back of his shaved head and a cut on his nose is not a beat down. But the burden was on the prosection and I don’t think they met it (or could have met it).

634

You must be self employed. I had that luxury when I had my own business, and I did resign from a HMO once for ethical reasons (which is why I decided to work for myself in the first place). But it’s not so easy, certainly not the way things are today. I do agree with you about lawyers, though. I used to work with a lot of lawyers as well, and had the same experience as you (except for one memorable exception, who turned out to have a brain tumor that affected his behavior).

You’re a tough cookie, Terr. But do you really think that Bricker’s proposed scenario would have been unethical?

I wish we could have seen that. IMO, the only problem with this scenario is the unlikelihood of anyone convincing Angela Corey not to overcharge. She always does what she wants.

But in this case, it’s almost like she wanted to lose, isn’t it? She certainly looked happy at the press conference after the acquittal. I wouldn’t bet on it, but I thought that business with the pension money was her payoff to de la Rionda for doing her bidding, and (possibly) agreeing to throw the case. Crazy, but possible. I’ve heard of worse.

Bricker, do you really think you could have worked under Angela Corey?

635

I wasn’t previously aware of B84’s special list. Now I’m up to speed, even reading his rules for debate. He could have saved himself a lot of typing if he’d just written: “If you engage in any of the debate behaviors I use as a matter of course I will no longer debate with you. In other words, if you try to play with my toys I’m taking them and going home! (I’m also going home if you don’t let me manipulate you so I can look like I’m winning)”

I didn’t realize until now that he added me to his list after I proved decisively that he was being disingenuous in his represention of Z’s recollection of “the smothering” - sounds like a horror film…

636

It’s very difficult to say. A person’s public persona may not match their true colors. Corey has been vilified by a great deal of the reporting surrounding this issue, but at the same time, it’s difficult now for me to come up with any rationale that is both studiously ethical and explains every decision she made.

My suspicion is that I would have started looking for other work if she handled every case like this, or refused to acknowledge any input from me during the case.

637

Where I’ve ultimately come down on it is I think there are multiple scenarios that “seem” possible to me. That feels like classical reasonable doubt. I don’t actually know what happened, unlike Stoid I’m not comfortable making conclusions from the evidence we have and definitively supporting or arguing for them.

Zimmerman’s story as he told it (and as was relayed to the jury through text and video transcripts) is basically a “near perfect” self-defense narrative. Maybe that is what happened, but the skeptic in me suspects that human nature being what it is that whatever really did happen someone who is familiar with self defense law (Zimmerman was) is going to make his statement to police one that most synchronizes with “legal self defense.” So while it’s possible, it would be very convenient if a messy situation actually happened so perfectly for Zimmerman’s legal case.

I think a lot of the controversy over this case at least on these forums was the “axis of ignorance” consisting of you with the face, monstro, and Stoid who repeatedly refused to accept or believe the law could possibly result in an acquittal for Zimmerman. Because they refused to accept or believe that it was their opinion that only racism existed as a valid reason for not immediately arresting and prosecuting Zimmerman. I will say that monstro was/is the most reasonable of the three, and seemed to at least accept she probably didn’t know the law (as I remember it from the other thread.) The other two individuals have now seen how this case actually played out and haven’t conceded even one inch that maybe they interpreted the law incorrectly. I think one person whose decision making was immensely vindicated was Norm Wolfinger–he never said what happened to Trayvon Martin was right or wrong, just that he didn’t think they could win a manslaughter case against him. It appears that maybe being a State’s Attorney for 25-odd years actually means something in terms of being able to analyze and predict whether or not a case is winnable.

Part of the reason I abandoned the original thread is it was just a repetitive exercise where people kept insisting they knew the law when they didn’t. Since I knew we’d eventually see for ourselves, I decided further discussion wasn’t warranted. Now that we’ve seen the verdict I feel a lot of that has been cleared up definitively.

There are people who now primarily want to discuss the “moral righteousness” of what happened–and that’s very separate from the legal case and much less interesting to me.

638

Yes. Bricker will tell you that the only chance he would have had as a prosecutor is to trip up Zimmerman on the stand. That would only happen if the defense was incompetent and didn’t prepare their witness. And even if he managed to do that, the chance of conviction would be tiny. As I said, ethical prosecutors do not go on with cases they know they will lose. And you don’t go into the case where your only hope of conviction is the opposing counsel being stupid.

639

Yeah, no chance of that, what with Z’s story being so tight and consistent, and all. Uh huh.

640

This is an example of a true statement about me in regards to my behavior and position on this subject.

This is an example of an ***untrue ***statement about my position or behavior on the subject, reflecting assumptions made by the author demonstrating his complete lack of attention to anything I actually said. And of course there’s no reason in the world he should pay the slightest bit of attention to what I actually say, ever…unless he plans to make comments about it. In which case, I really think it’s terribly poor form to speak from ignorance.

Assuming for the moment that I understand correctly what it is you meant to say here rather than what you did say (which on its face makes no sense) This is another example of a ***100% untrue ***statement about my beliefs and my statements on the subject, that is especially galling since I have said the reverse from the beginning, throughout, and right up to the present.Which Bricker, god love him, acknowledged very recently. I have never, ever, for one second bought into the racism angle and I have been very clear about that, repeatedly. So, more ignorant assumptions and commentary. Tsk tsk.

Again, the author is making assumptions instead of actually paying attention. I have interpreted the law correctly across the board, starting with the fact that I called Murder 2 before he was arrested, and everyone said I was crazy. Then voila! Murder 2 was the charge. I also understood everything about Zimmerman’s defense, and I always believed he’d be acquitted. Not because I think he was genuinely defending himself, and not because I believed that it was legally impossible to convict him (of manslaughter at aleast, and I’ve demonstrated exactly how that would have been entirely possible) but because I just figured Florida folks must like those laws and would probably be more inclined to see his actions the way he wanted them to. Over time, and through the trial, I believed more than ever he would be acuitted because the prosecution did such a horrific job of making their case.

Speaking only legally, it was entirely possible to either convict or acquit him, and I expected the latter. I saw the legal legitimacy of both possibilities. I just didn’t believe, and still don’t, that he was genuinely not guilty of any crime in killing Martin, so that’s the position I argued.

On the other hand, I think it’s safe to say that the majority of the most vocal and persistent Zimmerman supporters were, and remain, unwilling to concede that either outcome was legally possible from the evidence. But their unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn’t make it any less true.