No one is defending them; some people are saying they don’t find the ‘investigation’ to be so void of competency (as others are accusing), that it would have any bearing on the case.
Wait, and isn’t that the teacher that changed her story repeatedly?
No that’s “John” you’re talking about.
Read somewhere of a woman (thought it was a teacher), whom couldn’t get her story straight.
I’m not defending them. I’m analyzing whether a given set of facts is sufficient to sustain probable cause to believe unlawful force was used.
So where did the officer get the idea that Zimmerman was the one who shouted for help?
If he has multiple sources telling him different things, on what basis does he disregard some and and accept others in order to form probable cause?
Even if she changed her story later, it still doesn’t change the evidence, collected only minutes after the shooting, which indicates the cops had probable cause to make an arrest that night.
If the cops have one witness saying Zimmerman was the one yelling, and a second one saying it was Martin, do they have probable cause?
Are we talking about two separate things now?
If witness accounts change, then their credibility is lowered.
It’s not cop’s job to play judge and jury. In any investigation, there’ll be some evidence that favors the defendant and some that implicates him. Probable cause is based on the latter.
Your “if” statement is meaningless to this discussion. Which witnesses, on the night of the shooting, said they heard Zimmerman screaming for help? A few pages ago you were all up in my face, insisting that no witness identified Martin or Zimmerman as the source of the yelling. But now you’re speculating that maybe a witness said it was Zimmerman.
Even if one did, so what? The cops still had reason to believe unlawful use of force had occurred.
The problem is that you don’t know how to follow a chain of discussion.
Again, what does this have to do with the previous argument being made?
I’m talking about the existence of probable cause on the night of the shooting. What are you talking about?
Waiting for someone to explain how our interpretation of Florida law is wrong in regards to probable cause and self defense.
The most ridiculously frustrating thing about this thread is people like you, betenoire, and dimmy derko who, even when they have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, insist that they are right because of the way they think the world should work.
Probable cause in Florida doesn’t work the way you think it should. The evidence in this case isn’t what you think it should be. The investigation didn’t proceed the way you think it should. Tough shit, basically. The thing is, in every case people who know more than you, either because they’re legitimate experts on the subject like Bricker, or because they’ve actually bothered to research the issue, have explained what is actually happening and why.
You, on the other hand, ignore all this in favour of whining that it isn’t fair like a petulant child. You, like the child, may well be right. But, like the child, you will constantly be disappointed, for two reasons. Firstly, because life isn’t fair, and secondly because you are capable of viewing the situation from only one side, ignoring the fact that people on the other side are just as deserving of being treated fairly.
If support for Florida’s self-defence laws was unanimous even in Florida, you’d have a far better case for your own whining.
I can accept that there might not be enough of a case against Z - albeit directly as a result of Florida’s laws - but it doesn’t seem that any of Z’s defenders have much beef with the fucked-up state of affairs that has led to this fiasco, and which encouraged Z to fight fists with gunfire in the first place.
Yes, that’s Mary Cucher. The one that called the police after she heard the gunshot and told them that the black man was standing over another man.
Lol. You’re referring to the chain of discussion you would prefer to address. If things happened differently, things would have happend differently.
What applies to this particular case is FLA legislation, FLA law, FLA courts, FLA police, FLA SYG, FLA self-defense, and FLA jurisdiction.
Sanford police didn’t have probable cause to arrest GZ at the scene. GZ had a home, family, standing in his community, and a job (until the racist Sharptons, Spike Lees, Black Panthers, lynch-mobs, and lynch-mob media-types began threatening his family, co-workers, and fellow students). GZ made no effort to leave the scene. GZ made no effort to flee jurisdiction. GZ has cooperated with several police dept investigations. No less an authority than the State of Florida permitted GZ to carry a firearm in Florida. The Twin Lakes “Neighborhood Watch” organization did not belong to the official “Neighborhood Watch” organization so their rules did not apply to Twin Lakes.
If this had occured in someother country, such as England for-instance, Mrs Zimmerman would also have been arrested and not released until the Crown had decided she had been punished enough just for being married to GZ. Foreign law doesn’t apply to this particular case.
This particular case still boils down to - Does the SA have enough evidence to convict GZ of 2nd degree murder? Not manslaughter, not 1st degree murder but 2nd degree murder.
ShelLIE Zimmerman should have been arrested for assisting a murderer, for her part in removing Z’s truck from the scene, and if the cops tasked with dealing with the incident hadn’t chalked this down as a slam dunk self-defence from the outset, and had investigated it properly, she would have been.
Mary Cutcher is also the “witness(?)” who admits that she didn’t actually see anything but she’s sure that GZ is guilty. Why? Who knows? She made the rounds with the TM family to make sure everyone knew she hadn’t see anything and seem to be amazed that the PD didn’t spend more time interviewing her. How often can you tell the police that you didn’t see anything??? Thank you for your cooperation, madame. We’ll be in touch. :smack:
Are you another one who thinks 10 minutes of interviews on the night to investigate the death of a young man is perfectly adequate?
It was dark as hell outside; identifying anyone’s race would have been difficult under those conditions. Her misidentifying Zimmerman as a black guy is a meaningless blunder, unless you’re crazy enough to think Martin actually was standing over Zimmerman after he was shot in the chest.
As opposed to John, whose"the kid was throwing MMA-style punches…oops, my bad, maybe he wasn’t after all" recantation makes him pretty useless as a witness, Mary has maintained her position that the voice she was heard from a teenager.
Lol. Lol. Only according to your view of how foreign law should be administered in FLA. You still have the option of running for Mayor of Sanford or Govenor of Florida in order to force your royal decrees on the citizens but I doubt you would get many votes. Especially with your attitude. just sayin’