Yellowjacket,

Draug is correct, and so am I. I was being very precise, and did not conflate anything.

(1) is a statement about knowledge by the jury/judge and so is about a burden in the legal system.

(2) on the other hand is about actual innocence or guilt. In other words, it is a statement about what would be true if all facts were known 100%. That is to say, it is the case that if all facts were known, and the honest truth is that you killed somebody out of reasonable self defense, then you are INNOCENT of any crime (which is not to be confused with just being found not guilty).

But point (1) does indeed tie (2) and (3). The relevant phrase is "reasonable doubt of your having done it." The key phrase here is "having done it," which refers, not to burdens, but to actual events and guilt/innocene. In other words, this could be equivalently written as, "reasonable possibility that you may be actually innocent of it."

So the situation is, by (3), there is a reasonable possibility that, via (2), Zimmerman is factually innocent which, by (1), entitles him to an acquittal.

How could you doubt me like this. =)

*shrug* my bad, but now I'm a bit disappointed. If you want to throw in irrelevant details about "what is the case if all facts are known" when addressing a legal question about guilt/not guilt, that is your business.

The use of the word "innocent" adds precisely nothing to your argument that the words "not guilty" wouldn't also add, but does serve to cause confusion to your readers, because now you are no longer making a purely legal argument when you are addressing a purely legal question. You've instead taken an unnecessary detour into fancy-land where all facts are magically known.

I'll make sure I don't give you credit that you would have realized that in the future ;)

You're wrong on every point, Yellowjacket, and have fundamentally misunderstood what is going on in questions of guilt or innocence. I'd explain why, but frankly, you seem more interested in insults today than dialog. I'll leave it there.

Oh come on, semck, I'm just poking you with a stick a bit because you've been outmaneuvered unusually easily this time. Maybe you didn't get enough sleep last night?

It's ironic that you think I'm being rude/insulting, because I would have never mentioned the likelihood of conflation if I didn't have such a respect for the way your mind works anyways. I truly believed you incapable of making such a piss-poor train of thought that conflation was the LESS insulting option.

Fact is, it's clear to anybody who reads it that your argument is clearer and more concise the way I framed it, and you are pissed because now you have to admit either you conflated the two terms, or that you made a poor argument.

Neither of these options is appealing to you, so off you run I guess.

You know semck83 is a lawyer, right?

Yellowjacket,

I'm not annoyed at having to admit that I conflated two terms or made a bad argument, because I did neither. If I adopted your suggested correction, my argument would fall apart.

Rather, I'm annoyed at your disingenuousness at claiming that you respect somebody's intelligence, yet quickly writing off their analysis and declaring that they had made a mistake, in their own field of study, of which you clearly know nothing. If you actually respected my intelligence, you would probably ask for clarification or spend more than 10 minutes thinking, rather than asserting my mistake. Given your overeager attempt to paint me with fallacy without spending a minute considering what I have said, I can only conclude you are looking for a fight, not for understanding.

Lawyer in training. :P

Anyways, that's why he's even more annoyed, nobody likes being slapped on their home turf.

My mom is an English Prof. She rages if you correct her grammar.

I'm a physicist. I get pissed when laymen point out a flaw in my diagram.

*shrug*

No, I'm a lawyer, YJ.

Haha, actually, I considered it pretty hard. I've learned to do that when I dare to contradict you. Failure to do so results in butthurt. I do not like being butthurt.

I mean, my God, all I did was point out that the term "not guilty" is more robust in this argument, and I feel I've done a good job demonstrating why (that the simplest argument is the most elegant). Everything that's happened since then has been because your ego feels bruised.

You've so far not chosen to say why I'm wrong, merely asserted that I am, with an unusually large amount of ire. That isn't like you, so what else am I to conclude, other than you've got a case of the butthurt?

OK, Yellowjacket, I'll explain again.

There are two completely distinct concepts in criminal law operating here. There is the verdict of a jury -- a finding of fact -- which is guilty or not guilty. And then there is the actual fact of guilt or innocence.

Suppose, for example, that you murder your professor in cold blood and with malice aforethought. Suppose also that you are never discovered. Then you are never convicted ("found guilty") of murder, but you ARE guilty of murder. (This would remain true if you were tried and acquitted).

On the other hand, suppose you do NOT rob your student's house, but you are accused of it and convicted. Then you are innocent of robbery, yet you are convicted ("found guilty") of it. Without this distinction, criminal law would not make any sense. For example, it would make no sense to say a jury made a mistake in convicting somebody if there were no actual "matter of fact" that they were supposed to be finding. We can talk of mistake precisely because there is an underlying truth -- somebody is guilty or innocent. On the other hand, a mistake in acquitting somebody is more subtle; it may be the *right* verdict to acquit somebody (find them "not guilty") somebody who is actually guilty, because the evidence was insufficient.

Notice, therefore, that I'm using "innocent" and "not guilty" to refer to different things. Innocence is a question of actual fact -- you really did or did not commit the crime. "Not guilty" is the finding of a jury as to whether there is sufficient evidence to convict you of the crime (evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

So when I said above you were *innocent* of robbing your student's house, innocent was precisely the right word to use. Also, contra your assertion, it IS a legal term. This, like the verdict of a jury, is a LEGAL concept. Somebody is innocent of a crime precisely if they have not committed the crime, and the crime is legally defined, with elements that must be met for it to have occurred. This is completely distinct from any question of a court, trial, or jury. You can be guilty of many crimes without anybody else ever suspecting or even thinking of charging you. If you drive at 90 mph with nobody around, you are still not innocent of speeding, though you will likely never be charged.

When talking about a trial, what the jury is doing is starting with a presumption that the person is innocent, and then considering whether there is sufficient proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) of each element of the crime that that presumption is overturned and they can decide they are guilty. Again, if they acquit, this is distinct from saying there is evidence that they are innocent.

As with the experimentalist who measures the position of a macroscopic particle, there is an actual position (guilt/innocence), and a measured position (guilty/not guilty). We want the two to be the same, but they are certainly distinct concepts, and it is not useful to conflate them by using the same terms. It is unfortunate in some sense that "guilty" is one side of both dijunctions. It is useful to distinguish guilt from conviction, therefore.

My first point then, can be rephrased: if there is a reasonable doubt that the person is (actually) guilty, i.e., a reasonable possibility that he is (actually) innocent, THEN an acquital, i.e., a verdict of not guilty, is required.

If one conflates the concepts of acquittal and innocence here, the whole thing becomes meaningless. Until the jury returns "guilty" or "not guilty," there IS no verdict; but there ARE facts (actual guilt/innocence) to consider and attempt to discern, and it is on these that the jury returns its verdict.

My argument was therefore exactly correct, and phrased as precisely as possible. If somebody kills in self-defense, he is ACTUALLY innocent. This is a legal concept, albeit not a verdict.

Therefore, if there is a reasonable possibility that somebody killed in self defense, then there is a reasonable possibility that he is actually innocent, and therefore, the jury is required to FIND him "Not Guilty." This is a straightforward classical syllogism. I can't make it any clearer.

The above analysis would only be muddied if "not guilty" were substituted for "innocent," since actual innocence and a verdict are completely distinct legal concepts, and a jury is supposed to consider one while creating the other. (It would create the risk of a tautology to say that somebody is not guilty if there is a possibility that he is not guilty).

I have answered at some length in the hopes that you may understand, since short and straightforward explanations were apparently evading you.

One last note worth making: there's a good reason for insisting on a distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty" (in the verdict sense) even though "guilty" is the same word for both the verdict and the legal state. This is because, if a jury finds you guilty, it actually is saying that the facts are not open to any other reasonable interpretation than that you ARE guilty.

But if a jury finds you "Not guilty," it is not saying that the facts are incompatible with any reasonable interpretation other than your innocence. It is not even saying you are probably innocent. It is just saying there is a reasonable interpretation of the facts upon which you are NOT guilty.

So "not guilty" and "innocent" are far more distinct than the two different senses of "guilty." And I was referring to actual innocence.

Well that wasn't so hard, now was it?

Really, though, thanks for the clarification. I now understand why it was necessary to word (2) as you did. Apologies for being dense. FWIW, I forgot you were a lawyer, so I probably would have been a bit more humble in my approach had I remembered.

I'd say lesson learned, but it probably isn't.

I think we need to lighten up the mood here, so here is the greatest kiss cam moment ever.

http://sulia.com/mlbmemes/f/13941f63-8dbb-4f76-a27b-0a813b3e948f/

All right Yellowjacket, fair enough. Sorry for losing my temper there. I admit I was pretty irked by your summary dismissal of my point after I had explained it. I actually started (barely) writing the above response in the first place, then had a vision of having to go back and forth on this for the next few hours while you continued to insult me for making correct points. I guess I was a little unfair, too. ; )

That's a pathetic Mortal Kombat finishing move.

So where do I collect my ten dollars

Please don't insult semck for not understanding law, there are so many better reasons :-)