Sounds pretty close to an assault to me. Martin was doing nothing illegal or improper, and didn’t run off anywhere. Zimmerman ran after him carrying a gun. His intention is undetermined, but he had no legal basis for accosting Martin. Someone will have to decide if his intentions were innocent and did not result in a committing a battery against Martin. There is a lot of evidence to come forth, the forensics, any statements by Zimmerman, any credible witness accounts, the observations of the police, and medical records Zimmerman can supply. When we see that we’ll know whether there’s sufficient evidence to make a determination or not.
When he stepped aside he stated that he wanted to avoid “even the appearance of a conflict of interest.” I’ve never understood the nature of that possible conflict.
No. Under this particular circumstance, the police could effect a warrantless arrest if they believed they had probable cause.
So it was, in a sense, up to him. I agree that once he asked if he had probable cause and the state’s attorney said he did not, he would have been exposed to potential legal liability if he arrested Zimmerman and Zimmerman could later prove probable cause did not exist. He could hardly claim a good-faith mistake if he was told by the prosecutor there was no PC and he arrested anyway. But if he never asked, he could have arrested and had a strong claim of a good-faith mistake, covered by the qualified immunity police are entitled to in civil cases.
Which act, specifically, sounds like an assault, or pretty close to one, to you?
Zimmerman accosting Martin with a loaded gun, with the intention of committing a battery or holding him against his will.
I agree that Magiver did not substantiate his claim that the officer is not a lawyer. However, I have checked my Martingale’s, and there does not appear to be a Florida lawyer named Chris Serino.
The claim that Serino needed a legal opinion is a bit vague. If Magiver is saying Serino needed legal advice in order to legally arrest, that claim is incorrect. If the claim is Serino needed legal advice because he was unsure, I know of no way to prove or disprove that claim.
The final claim is correct: if Serino arrested anyone after a prosecutor informed him he did not have probable cause, he defeats his own qualified immunity, so that claim is absolutely correct.
what I said was: …“he wasn’t overruled. It wasn’t up to him to rule on it in the first place.”
I parsed my words correctly. For an officer to make the claim that he was overruled he would have to seek a ruling. It may seem like a minor point but when legal counsel is sought then it falls onto that counsel to determine what should be done.
No.
You said, “It wasn’t up to him to rule on it in the first place.” That’s not true. It was up to him, until he chose to pass on that responsibility by seeking the advice of the prosecutor. No rule or regulation compelled him to do that. He could have arrested Zimmerman on his own. It WAS up to him.
I had to look that last one up. You do realize those people will murder others and kill themselves at the drop of a hat don’t you?
There is no direct evidence supporting this account.
“Accosting” means “to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way.”
But assault includes (in Florida) an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another.
So I guess I’m asking you how you get from accosting to assault? The loaded gun? Are you picturing that simply having a holstered weapon and speaking to someone in a challenging or aggressive way completes the crime of assault?
I mean, we can certainly imagine how things might have gone in ways that include assault. If we imagine that Zimmerman drew his gun and said, “Move and I’ll kill you,” that is most definitely assault.
But when I asked you to say specifically what you imagine happened, you used words that don’t specifically make the crime of assault clear.
Now, wait. Intent may be inferred by actions. Zimmerman’s comment about how they always get away, combined with his actions in following Martin, could allow a fact-finder to infer that Zimmerman intended to do something like this.
It’s just the word “accost” I’m having trouble with. I agree that the evidence allows a jury to infer that Zimmerman accosted Martin – “to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way.”
I don’t agree that this describes an assault.
If you have to infer something, you are doing so because there is no direct evidence.
If direct evidence was essential to prove a crime occurred, we’d have a lot fewer people locked up. Circumstantial evidence matters a lot.
Of course.
The problem is when inferences become too attenuated from their predicate facts, they are no longer permissible for fact-finders to reach.
The general rule is that a jury may assume that the accused intended the ordinary and foreseeable consequences of his actions, for example.
But a jury cannot pile inference upon inference. The jury can draw a reasonable inference from proven facts but cannot then draw another inference based upon their first inference.
Of course. The classic illustration is hearing a gunshot and rushing into the next room to find a husband standing over the body of his wife, whom medical reports would show had been killed moments before by the bullet from the gun the husband was holding. The husband’s hands are positive for gunshot residue and the room is locked, with no exits other than the one through which rushed the many witnesses.
No direct evidence. Each of those facts are circumstances which, taken together, allow the fact-finder to infer that the husband shot his wife.
But again: inferences cannot generally rest on other inferences.
In so far as that is true, it is irresponsibly provocative to announce that you will be staging a bonfire of their revered books (and encouraging people worldwide to follow suit) to protest the construction of a church. This would be an asshole move if the target was Mennonites, but when you have an reasonable expectation of whackos on the lunatic fringe reacting with violence, that’s an order of magnitude worse.
Not someone I would be in a hurry to have “supporting” me in a potentially volatile situation; unless gasoline on fire is more attractive than oil on waters.
Since the question has been asked, it was the combatants which “wrecked a lively and interesting thread,” not my action. Repeated calls for rules-following were ignored.
Thank you, Stoid, for opening a new thread with a specific topic for discussion. Since this follows current events, of course the topic can evolve. I try to be a fairly hands-off moderator so please, argue at will. Just follow the rules. 
Ellen
I quoted myself exactly. Lawyers rule on legal matters, not officers.
Again, I parsed my words carefully. An officer can decide on his own if he feels he has sufficient grounds but he cannot rule on it as a legal matter. In this instance he sought guidance on the matter. Once that happens it’s out of his hands unless he wants to risk the consequences.
Now if the department’s legal counsel sought out the officer and intervened without asking, THAT would be overruling the officer.
Yes, I agree that once he sought guidance on the matter, it was effectively out of his hands.
Do YOU agree that before he sought guidance, it was in his hands?