I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman.

[anomiep]

147. I know

The tale *I* told was true. I also know that for the point I was making, it doesn't matter whether or not the tale *I* told was true - what matters is whether or not people who are at a height and weight disadvantage can prevail. Claiming that I was lying is both factually incorrect (although I do recognize he has no way of knowing that) and nothing more than an ad-hominem fallacy (and honestly, I've been considering posting a photo of myself from back then to at least establish that I am not lying about being 6'2" and 150lbs back then - but on the other hand, why should I be inclined to bother with trying to prove anything to someone whose first interaction with me is to basically claim I'm a liar?)

You are wrong about reasonable doubt. There are certain circumstances in which all presented evidence has to be treated in favor of the prosecution, but those are generally the domain of particular types of motions.

Once it's to a jury - reasonable doubt is all on the jury. They get to decide what 'fact' is when there is a dispute. There are sometimes witness accounts that conflict, there's sometimes data that conflicts, it is not reasonable to have a standard where everything the prosecution presents as fact has to be assumed to be fact. Seriously, think about how hard it would be to be acquitted *even if you were innocent* if 'reasonable doubt' had to assume that anything the prosecution presented as fact was fact. All the prosecution would *ever* have to do is present as 'fact' that any defendant was a liar, or present as 'fact' that the only possible interpretation was theirs, and, thank you, but I think we have too many innocent people in jail already.

I am not claiming anything in particular about Martin or Zimmerman. I am claiming that to treat a height and/or weight disadvantage as though it were somehow an absolute guarantee is not logically valid - because it isn't.