Kid was unarmed and only carrying tea and candy. The kid was physically outclassed by the shooter as well. Injuries to the shooter are minimal enough to require only minimal EMT care at the scene. This is evidence of unjustified use of force.
Neighbors reported hearing a boy scream for help prior to the gunshot. This is evidence that the kid was being assaulted prior to his killing.
The circumstances suggest the shooter got out of his truck and actively engaged the pedestrian. The shooter also admits to following this pedestrian at some point before the shooting occurred. This is evidence that the shooter provoked an attack against someone that ended in lethal use of force. Not a crime by itself, but since the kid was unarmed and physically outclassed by the shooter, and the kid had no other injuries to his person suggestive of an non-lethal defensive struggle, then this supports the idea that the force applied against the kid was unlawful.
There was plenty of probable cause that would have made arresting Zimmerman that night perfectly justified.
This is also false. They report hearing someone scream. The person with significant injuries (not to the lungs) is the more likely person to have been screaming.
They are not evidence of any such thing. Following and conversing with someone is not provocation for violence.
The injuries to Zimmerman and lack of injuries to Martin suggest the exact opposite, they are evidence that the self defence was legitimate.
There really isn’t, but quite apart from that, there was no need to arrest him at that point. There was serious doubt that any crime had been committed, and the police department would have been liable if they had arrested him, and he subsequently was found to have immunity. Also, arresting him then would reduce the time before they had to charge him. That may have turned out not to matter, as the unsupported murder charge has still happened, but that doesn’t change the point.
The short version - when you see someone with significant injuries, who admits to shooting someone with no other injuries, the obvious conclusion is self defence.
I simply don’t understand the mindset of someone who claims someone should be punished for shooting someone who attacks them. Hopefully this conviction will be successfully appealed
Objective evidence doesn’t lie. Zimmerman and Martin were in totally different weight classes, and it would have been criminal to put them in the same ring together because this of disparity. Martin was at a disadvantage no matter how you slice it.
They didn’t even bandage his head. That’s plenty of evidence.
Doesn’t matter. You have evidence that the shooter got of their truck and unnecessarily placed themselves near a pedestrian for no apparent reason. And not only that, this is evidence that the shooter went out of his way to engage the person he ended up shooting, after a period of pursuit admitted to by the shooter.
The two things that really get me are that the Dooley is not only seventy-one years old…but James grabbed at his gun after he turned to leave.
It’s unlikely he would have taken it and shot the old man, but hell if your brain isn’t telling you it’s possible in that moment.
I agree that subsequent investigation revealed information that supports probable cause; I don’t agree that probable cause existed right then.
In my opinion, you don’t know enough about the establishment of probable cause, as a legal standard, to credibly advance this opinion.
No. Probable cause is not measured by tallying either injuries or weight class. Deadly force can be used legally even if the person using it doesn’t suffer a single scratch.
Not one neighbor reported screams that came from “a boy” as opposed to simply screams. That’s not true. None of the neighbor’s reports excluded Zimmerman as the source of the screams, and Zimmerman himself reported that he was the one screaming.
The police at the scene would have only a very minimal idea of what injuries Martin’s body had. You’re adding in evidence that was obtained after the fact.
Since the victim was taller than the shooter, the “physical outclass” business is also problematic.
Subsequent investigation definitely revealed sufficient probable cause for an arrest. But at the scene, and remembering that we’re not talking generally about probable cause to believe some crime was committed, but probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful – no.
you with the face, how much time and study do you believe it would take you to become a criminal attorney? How about a police officer? Do you believe you could learn those skills with self-study?
How about specific legal determinations? How long do you think it would take you to develop an understanding of the law surrounding probable cause? Could you do that on your own? Have you, do you think?
DON’T PROVOKE PEOPLE AND USE A GUN TO BAIL YOURSELF OUT WHEN THEY RESPOND.
That was public property. What the fuck was Dooley’s business? What was his problem? Then on top of it want to curse and make threatening gestures…please.
It’s not about my “mindset”–it’s about manslaughter. Again, don’t start shit and when the going gets rough pull out a gun.
And I don’t understand the “mindset” of people who want to support sociopaths who do shit like that.
Again, DON’T PROVOKE PEOPLE AND USE A GUN TO BAIL YOURSELF OUT WHEN THEY RESPOND.
That is provably false, proven by the fact he beat the crap out of Zimmerman.
Nope.
Only when asked a leading question about whether they heard a “boy” scream. Their original reports, as Bricker has already told you, were simply of screams.
What you fail to grasp, still, is that there’s nothing wrong with doing any of that, and it’s not evidence of any other wrongdoing. That’s ignoring the evidence that Zimmerman did not, in fact, go out of his way to engage Martin, but in fact stopped following and was assaulted by him.
And utterly relevant to the question of whether or not his ass will be sent to prison.
Again, if you think a jury won’t be looking at this, you’re insane.
The Dooley case is instructive for another reason: the jury talked about the man dying “over nothing”…so yes, they looked at why Dooley put himself in that position.
The same way Zimmerman’s actions and contributions to the killing will be looked at.
Bullshit. There’s no acceptable reason to attack someone who’s said something to you, no matter what it is*. If someone does so, no matter how much you “provoked” them, you’re fully morally entitled to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary.
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET SHOT, DON’T ATTACK PEOPLE. It’s that simple. In both these cases, if some idiot hadn’t attacked someone with a gun, everyone would be home safe and sound. I’d rather not live in a world where 71 year old men can be attacked as they walk away from a fucking fight they didn’t start, and get jailed for defending themselves. The only sociopaths here are those who attack people because they don’t like what they say, and those that thing said attackers should win the fight because they’re younger and stronger. You’re sickening.
*One may, of course, use force to respond to a verbal threat if that threat puts one in fear of imminent harm. That’s not an attack
You have a small group of sociopaths who want to exert their control over other people…when those people resist, you have shit like this happening. So you want to call Martin and James idiots because they didn’t kowtow to the demands of those psychos?
They were shot because they challenged those people.
Martin challenged Zimmerman and hence was killed. James challenged Dooley and hence was killed.
If you want to call these people “idiots”, then so be it.
And there can be probable cause of unjustified use of force even if the shooter’s nose was broken. OMG, look at that!
All probable cause requires is having sufficient reason to believe a crime was committed. You lectured to me lengthly about that eons ago. If a cop can’t draw the conclusion that a crime might have occurred because little about the victim suggests he/she posed a serious threat to a known shooter, then that would make our society too stupid to exist and it’s time to nuke us into orbit.
It means people would be able to claim self-defense after killing 20-lbs toddlers. It means 300-lbs men would routinely go unarrested after shooting 100-lb women in retaliation slaps on the arm. All too often your arguments, when taken to their logical conclusion, lead us to absurdity.
Uh, hello? That’s one of the things that was actually established the night of the shooting. Multiple witness claimed they heard a “despondent boy” yelling before the gun went off. It’s frustrating to see you and other posters in thread arguing like you’re experts in this case, when very basic evidence seems to elude you.
Question: Does this change your analysis of probable cause? (I won’t be surprised if you say no).
We’re ~160 pages into thread and IIRC no one has provided a reputable cite to support the claim that height imparts a net fight advantage when weight is held constant. Perhaps I’d be inclined to treat this notion seriously if cites were forthcoming, but right now I can ony laugh at this notion. MMA fighters, wrestlers, and boxers aren’t sorted into classes by height. Only by weight. Kinda sorta then figures that height don’t mean crap when you have a differential of almost 50 lbs to contend with.