Zimmerman

A FUNDAMENTAL POINT OF LAW

“Where were all these individuals and organizations, who are now protesting the Zimmerman verdict, when OJ was found not guilty?” Confused

The answer to your question is very simple. OJ was black. The individuals and organizations protesting the Zimmerman verdict are black. If Zimmerman had been black there would have been no individuals and organizations protesting the Zimmerman verdict. But Zimmerman was not black. He was white. Hence the individuals and organizations protesting the Zimmerman verdict were black. In any event, the two cases are totally different. In the OJ case, there were no grounds for a self-defense plea since, clearly, he had slit his wife’s throat as well as that of an innocent bystander. OJ’s lawyers played the race card with success. The question was turned so that it was not so much whether OJ had in fact done the deed but rather he was the victim of an oppressive white system of justice. Far from protesting, the OJ verdict was a cause of celebration in the black community.

But the present comments on the Zimmerman case have overlooked a fundamental point of law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. There is no burden of proof on the defense. In other words, the defense does not need to prove that Zimmerman was innocent. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Zimmerman was guilty. This is fundamental to our legal system. It is called “the presumption of innocence”. This they failed to do. They failed to do so because the alternatives, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter, were unsustainable in a court of law. That is what “the rule of law” MEANS.

In the case of first-degree murder it must be shown that the defendant planned to murder the victim and proceeded to carry out that plan since that is what first-degree murder MEANS. The question then is, how long must the defendant have planned to murder the victim in order for it to support a first-degree murder charge? Years? Days? Minutes? Did Zimmerman plan to murder Martin by “stalking” him? Prove it. For that matter, prove that Zimmerman “stalked” Martin at all. Prove that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. Go ahead, prove it. Unless one has access to Zimmerman’s mind, which one doesn’t, it can’t be done.

In the case of second-degree murder it must be shown that Zimmerman, acting on a momentary blind fit of rage – for that is what second-degree murder MEANS – shot Martin dead. Was Zimmerman in the possession of such a blind fit of rage? Prove it. Once again, unless one has access to Zimmerman’s mind, which one doesn’t, it can’t be done.

In the same way it is difficult to support the charge of manslaughter. It must be demonstrated that Zimmerman was handling his gun in an inappropriate and reckless manner – perhaps he was shooting at stray dogs in the compound and unintentionally shot Zimmerman by mistake – since that is what manslaughter in the present case MEANS. In other words, the prosecution must show that Zimmerman’s killing of Martin was unintentional. It must be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. That is like proving an negative. Proving the absence of intentionality – to say nothing about proving that Zimmerman was actually shooting at stray dogs in the compound (which he wasn’t) – can’t be done. Once again it requires having access to Zimmerman’s mind, which one doesn’t, and so cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This leaves Zimmerman’s plea of self-defense. Once again, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was lying, that he was not acting in self-defense but rather intending to commit murder. The burden of proof is not on the defense. They do not have to prove that Zimmerman was telling the truth about his plea of self-defense. The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman was lying, that his intent was to murder Martin. But this brings us back to first-degree murder which has already been shown to be unsubstantiated since it also depends upon having access to Zimmerman’s mind, to his unarticulated motives, which we don’t.

Case dismissed!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

A FUNDAMENTAL POINT OF LAW (2)

Some readers have failed to distinguish between: (1) the fundamental point of law I previously pointed out (07/18, 9:27AM) to the effect that in a trial at law the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish guilt, not on the defense to establish innocence and, (2) that indeed this was a trial for murder and not, as some seem to think, simply a venue for the expression of their free-floating, unsupported opinions. In a court of law, unsupported opinions, inferences, ponderings, musings and so on are irrelevant. This means that such expression would be immediately challenged and rightly thrown out by the judge.

For some, however, such unsupported inferences, opinions, musings and so on are indistinguishable from the truth. They think that their assertions are self-validating, that they are true simply by virtue of their having uttered them. Some uncharitable souls would claim that this is the hallmark of stupidity. Indeed, it is a point to which I have continually drawn attention on this site, ie. reasons must be given in support of all truth claims. Otherwise they are to be disregarded as empty vaporings. So to a quick review:

: Reg Le Crisp (07/18, 9:47AM)

“… you can put the parts together and the implications are clear…”

Really? On what grounds do you “put the parts together?” On what grounds are those “implications” based? Can you demonstrate their truth? And what, exactly, are those “implications?”

“Young black man, hoodie, gated community.”

Really? Does this imply that young men in hoodies in a gated community are scoundrels, or is it only your own prejudices which you are asserting? Can you give grounds for those “implications” or is it only your own prejudices you are ventriloquizing into Zimmetrman’s mind?

“… Zimmerman had absolutely no reason to follow Travyon. Zimmerson (sic) thought he looked suspicious because … well we know why.”

Really? No, as a matter of fact, “we” don’t know why. Tell us now. How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? How do you know what he thought? How do you he had no reason? Do you have special access to his mind? And why do you call Zimmerman “Zimmerman” but Treyvon Martin “Treyvon”? Is there favoritism here? Can you justify it? No, I didn’t think so.

: I’ll say it again, he stalked Treyvon, Zimmerman had the gun. Self-defense?”

How do you know Zimmerman “stalked” him? To stalk someone is to follow with extreme malicious intent. How do you know Zimmerman had such malicious intent? Do you have grounds to prove that? Yes, Zimmerman had the gun but was being assaulted. He was being beaten by Martin. So yes, it is possible both to “have the gun” and plead “self-defense”. Can you prove otherwise?

: “… and for Christ (sic) sake who is more likely to be yelling ‘Help! help!’ in an altercation, he guy with the gun or the other guy.”

How do you know, given the conflicting circumstances, who was “more likely” to be yelling “Help! Help”? Simple possession of the gun as in this case does not permit you to assert who was “more likely” to be yelling “Help! Help!” Unless, of course, you have grounds for that assertion which, of course, you don’t.

:”Now I’m not saying Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was black, he certainly stalked him for that reason, he shot him because he was about to get his teeth knocked out.”

What happened to the “young black man, hoodie, gated community.” Aren’t you contradicting yourself? And how do you know, once again, that Zimmerman “stalked” him because he was black? Do you, once again, have privileged access to Zimmerman’s mind? And if the self-defense plea was no good since he had the gun, how was it that Zimmerman shot him “because he was going to get his teeth knocked out?” Why wasn’t it Zimmerman was calling out, “Help! Help?” Any explanation for that? No, I didn’t think so.

: “I admit that I do not know exactly what happened in that altercation but a lot can be inferred in (sic) the fact that one man was on a mission and the other on his way home after going to the store.”

Well if you don’t know exactly what happened in that altercation, on what grounds do you make your “inference” from the “fact” that one man was “on a mission” and the other was just “on his way home after going to the store” just, you know, minding his own business? It sounds to me like you know exactly what happened. Can you give grounds to demonstrate it? No, I didn’t think so.

For you it seems that your unsupported inferences, musings, ponderings and so on are indistinguishable from the truth of the matter in this matter as, no doubt, in so much else, and, as a consequence, deserve the contempt they so richly deserve.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (07/18, 8:08PM)

Well no, Stephen, I’m not saying that “philosophical hooey” is not admissable in court. I know that this is going to be difficult for you but – wait for it – philosophy and law are two different areas distinguished by different criteria of truth.

In law, as I have continued “ad nauseam” to point out Stephen, opinion unsupported by evidence is not admissable. You see Stephen, Reg’s “inference” failed because it was not based upon such evidence. In other words, one can infer something only if there is evidence to support it. It’s a two-stage process, Stephen. It goes like this: (1) Have the evidence and (2) Infer from that evidence to matters of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Reg’s “inference” lacked (1) and so reduced it to the level of unsupported opinion and so was invalid in a court of law.

For philosophy, on the other hand, to seek for such “evidence” is incoherent because – wait for it, Stephen – it does not deal in specific cases as in a court of law but rather with the grounds and principles of knowledge in terms of which such evidence is to be accorded the status of evidence in the first place. In other words, Stephen, philosophy is a “second-order” study, one which includes but is not limited to the first-order study of law itself.

But Stephen, this does not mean that law and philosophy are never related. Indeed, at the highest level of law, that of “jurisprudence” – those principles which undergird the practice of courtroom law – the two come together. Jurisprudence, normally found at the level of opinions given by the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada may be seen to be indistinguishable from philosophy itself. So, Stephen, law and philosophy meet at the highest level of the former but, of course, the latter is not restricted to matters of jurisprudence but extends well beyond it to include those relating to existence itself.

It is true, Stephen, that Bitch is a “court of public opinion” and not a court of law as you point out but do you know why I put the words “court of public opinion” in quotation marks? That’s right Stephen, I put it in quotation marks because a “court of public opinion” is not really a court at all. It is a “court” only in an extended, diminished and metaphorical use of the word. But, Stephen in the present case, that of the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman, was NOT a case in any diminished, extended or metaphorical sense but – wait for it Stephen – it was a case in the real world where a real life hung in the balance.

Of course Stephen. you are indeed entitled to hold any opinion you choose but only in the tavern, not in a court of law.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

{ Multi-Culti Ivan (07/19, 8:55PM)

“The case was decided by its partisans long before it ever reached the court.”

Your “logic” is circular since deciding the case “before it ever reached the court” is what it MEANS to be a “partisan”. That is a very bleak, regressive and deterministic view of society in general and human beings in particular. But is it true? Is everyone simply a “partisan” as you suggest? Is there no escape from the blinkered ideological view?

It seems to me that there are those who are neither “supporters” of Zimmerman, purportedly driven blindly by their political/social and race affiliation who will not, in knee-jerk fashion, demonize Martin as a thug, nor are there those who are “supporters” of Martin, purportedly driven blindly by their political/social and race affiliation who will not, also in knee-jerk fashion, demonize Zimmerman as “the focal point of every injustice inflicted upon Black America for the past three centuries.” Are there those, in other words, who transcend the state of serfdom to our respective blinkered ideologies?

I believe that there are some who are not so condemned. Who are they? They are those who uphold the rule of law as in court cases such as that of Zimmerman. What is that rule of law? It is the presumption of innocence until proven – yes, proven – guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why that case in particular is so important, for the rule of law is the only egress from imprisonment in our blinkered ideologies. The rule of law rises gloriously beyond them. In a word, it is our only hope. It is all we have.

To say, then, that there is no rule of law is to condemn our civilization to perdition, to a Hobbesian state of a war of all against all.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (07/20, 1:18PM)

MM, in this case I believe that this particular ‘stand your ground’ statute was put in place to protect Trayvon, not his attacker.”

Stephen, you seem to be in a state of deep confusion. While a statute is never “put in place” to protect an individual, Trayvon or anybody else, your real blunder is in misconceiving the statute’s actual application. What was that application? George – since you used Martin’s first name I’ll use Zimmerman’s – pleaded self-defense. On what grounds did he plead self-defense? You’ve got it, Stephen. He pleaded self-defense on the grounds of the “stand your ground statute,” i.e., when armed with a weapon, usually a gun, and faced with a mortal threat, one in Florida is legally permitted to use that weapon. To repeat Stephen, that was the basis of George’s self-defense plea. You’ve got to start with the facts of the case, Stephen. There aren’t many, but this is one. The rest of your post is little more than unsubstantiated hearsay – George “stalking” Treyvon and all that – of the sort on which I have previously commented. Have a nice day, Stephen.

I hope Basil found this short enough.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (07/20, 6:02PM)

“No, MM, you’re missing the point. Zimmerman put himself in the situation, specifically against the advice of law enforcement. He was the aggressor.”

Well, Stephen, it seems to me that it is you who is missing the point. You are simply repeating the old “stalker” hypothesis – and that’s all it is, a hypothesis – which has never been – and can never be – proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason it can never be proven in a court of law is that it is simply speculation about someone’s motives which, as I have been at pains to point out in this matter, is no better – in fact it is worse – than hearsay “evidence” since it requires the powers of clairvoyance.

But, for the sake of the argument, let’s look at the hypothesis that Zimmerman did put himself in that situation against the advice of law enforcement and so is the aggressor and so should be found guilty of criminal negligence causing death if not outright murder.. Instead of the “stalker” hypothesis, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Zimmerman felt it his duty to protect the gated community as he was being paid to do. To do this he had, at the very least, to keep an eye on Martin and, if need be, to curtail any unlawful activity on his, Martin’s, part. Why is that not a plausible alternative hypothesis to that of his being a “stalker”? In other words, to show that it is not, the prosecution must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the “stalker” hypothesis was true and the “dutiful guard” hypothesis was false. But, since both would require entering into Zimmerman’s mind they both would require powers of clairvoyance to discover his real intentions and both, of course, are impossible. In either case, whether Zimmerman was the “stalker” or simply the “dutiful guard”, it is all speculation and inadmissible in a court of law.

But let’s go even further for the sake of the argument and say that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin and even confronted him, asking him what he was up to. Does this make him the “aggressor”? Isn’t that Zimmerman’s job as the “dutiful guard”? How does it make sense to call him an “aggressor” in these circumstances? Indeed, isn’t the label “aggressor” itself just further speculation, built squarely upon the previous speculation that Zimmerman was a “stalker”.

But let’s go even further for the sake of the argument and say that Zimmerman was a “stalker” that he was the “aggressor” in this situation. Does that mean that Zimmerman was a murderer? The question then becomes one of determining what happened between Zimmerman’s being the aggressor and the firing of the shot that killed Martin? But the forensic pathologist asserted on oath that Martin’s shirt was hanging down from his chest at the moment the shot was fired. That means that he was on top of Zimmerman and, judging by the cuts and bruises on Zimmerman’s face, beating him severely. Zimmerman fired and pleaded self-defense on the grounds of Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Does that make him a murderer? Surely not and, a fortiori, provides no grounds for supposing that he was even criminally negligent causing death.

The rest of your post is empty rhetoric Stephen and, while amusing, has no place in a court of law.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. Gosh, I hope that this post is not too long for Basil.

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (07/21, 12:15PM)

“I’m conflicted on whether to have strawberry waffles or eggs Benny for brunch. Perhaps this might be a job for philosophy. Any suggestions, MM?”

I suppose I’m a bit late to catch you before your brunch, Stephen, but yes, philosophy has universal application as you might suspect and, of course, does have application in this matter as well. I see two aspects of the question.

(1) There is the issue of preference in respect to the two objects of reflection, strawberry waffles or eggs Benny which might be approached by way of the “philosophy of simple preference”. In other words, on what grounds will you resolve the dilemma? This should involve matters touching upon aesthetics, that category of philosophy dealing with matters of taste, harmony, texture and so on. Such matters are, of course, subjective and must be answered by you on an “ad hoc” basis but, nonetheless, with coherent grounds given for the choice.

(2) Then there is the more vexed matter of choice itself. How is one to approach it? Can choice be conceptualized in the abstract or must it have real-world application to be coherent? If the former, just how might one proceed? On what metaphysical grounds, in other words, will the conceptual analysis of “choice” be undertaken? As I am sure you will see Stephen, this requires further reflection and will by no means be a simple matter. But philosophically speaking it is by far the more challenging and interesting of the two alternatives since, if you maintain that the concept of choice must have real-world application, it seems that this puts us back to (1).

I leave the matter in your hands Stephen, and wish you Godspeed.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THE STALKER OR THE DUTIFUL GUARD?

“But the forensic pathologist asserted on oath that Martin’s shirt was hanging down from his chest at the moment the shot was fired. That means that he was on top of Zimmerman and, judging by the cuts and bruises on Zimmerman’s face, beating him severely.” (Montrealman, 07/21, 8:59AM)

I argued that Zimmerman viewed as the “Dutiful Guard” of the gated community rather than as the “Stalker” of Trevyon Martin was an equally plausible hypothesis to account for the confrontation between the two. Of course, I have no idea if the hypothesis is true any more than those do who support the “Stalker” hypothesis and for the same reason, that neither of us is able to enter Zimmerman’s mind to determine the facts of the matter. But I feel that the account of the forensic pathologist requires greater specification to add weight to the view of Zimmerman as the hapless “Dutiful Guard.”

The pathologist swore under oath that Martin’s shirt was hanging down when the fatal shot was fired thereby indicating that he was on top of Zimmerman at the time, straddling him, and giving him a severe beating such that his death was the probable outcome. But how did the pathologist know that Martin’s shirt was hanging down?

It seems that when a gun is fired into a human body at very close range, from being flush with the body up to two inches away, bits of the victim’s clothing are embedded around the bullet’s entry-hole. Some of the bits of clothing are sometimes even driven into the entry-hole itself. But Martin’s body showed no such bits of embedded material. The entry hole in his chest was clean. This meant that the distance between his chest and his shirt must have been at least four inches and possibly more since Martin had a fruit-juice container in his shirt pocket at the time. The pathologist’s conclusion was inescapable: Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time the fatal shot was fired.

The pathologist added, irrelevantly in the present case, that Martin would not have died instantly – only a head-shot brings instant death – but would have collapsed about fifteen seconds after being shot through the heart.

So whether Zimmerman was the “Stalker” or the “Dutiful Guard” – both unprovable hypotheses – the circumstances surrounding the actual shooting appear unambiguous.

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!