Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

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.

It is not. What’s your authority for that statement?

Probable cause must be based on the totality of circumstances, not just on evidence that implicates the accused.

Your statement is utterly wrong. Cites: Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Dept., 505 So. 2d 621 (Fl. DCA 1987); see also Doctor v. State 596 So. 2d 442 (Fl. 1992). Probable cause is determined by ALL the circumstances, not just the ones that disfavor the accused.

Please respond directly to this point. Don’t dodge it or ignore it.

This is why we’re having a problem. You seem to think you understand how to determine probable cause. But you also think " In any investigation, there’ll be some evidence that favors the defendant and some that implicates him. Probable cause is based on the latter."

That statement is wrong, as a matter of law.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, what citation to authority do you have?

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.

Because the cop said to the witness – corrected the witness, in fact – by saying that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who was screaming.

But you’re right: that’s an assumption on my part. Did the cop just decide that on his own, or did a witness tell him?

i don’t know. So I use the word IF to denote that I’m going to give an answer based on each option:

1. Another witness told the cop it was Zimmerman screaming, -or-
2. The cop corrected the witness who said it was a child without another witness first telling him.

If (1) happened, then I don’t agree probable cause exists.
if (2) happened, then I absolutely agree probable cause existed, as well as blatant police error.

Even if one did, so what? The cops still had reason to believe unlawful use of force had occurred.

“Reason” is not “probable cause.” Probable cause is a standard of law.

[dimmy_derko]

@Steophan

Well, if he’s just had his head repeatedly bashed against the ground I could forgive him a few memory problems… But no, where he parked is irrelevant, really.

Except that we know that this wasn’t a targeted killing. Zimmerman, as you know, called the police, and shortly after that, was attacked by the guy he thought he’d lost. These two things make it utterly absurd to suggest the killing was in any way planned.

Can you cite, by the way, where the police have said there was anything wrong with moving the vehicle? It is, after all, their investigation, not yours, and they are the ones who know how to investigate, not you.

Three things wrong with this.

Firstly, and most importantly, whatever he did, no-one has the right to go after his family, and that it was done by professional race-baiters like Sharpton makes it all the worse.

Secondly, there was no chasing, and, as you well know, if Martin had actually been heading home he’d have got there before encountering Zimmerman - even if Zimmerman had been chasing him.

Thirdly, sow. A minor detail, but illiteracy won’t help you build your case. And yes, I’ve just had to delete more typos from this post than probably any other I’ve ever made :smack:

Wow! Criticising me for a typo. You must be getting desperate. I usually catch all my spelling mistakes, but you got me there, you genius, you.

[Terr]

@you_with_the_face

If you believed this, then you wouldn’t be defending Zimmerman.

I am not “defending Zimmerman” except by pointing out that there is not enough evidence to convict him of the crime he was indicted for. In fact, there is not enough evidence even to indict him on that charge. It is an egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

[doorhinge]

@betenoire39

lynch mob?

Why do these people keep using this imagery–for someone who stalked and killed someone?

Spike Lee published Zimmerman’s address in the hopes that “someone” would harm Zimmerman. Unfortunately, the racist Lee gave out the wrong address. I guess he didn’t care who was killed or injured as long as someone was killed or injured. It’s reported that Lee settled with the elderly couple who lived at the address he published and he has appologized for his stupidity. I don’t know if the elderly couple has been able to move back into their home yet.

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

lynch mob?

Why do these people keep using this imagery–for someone who stalked and killed someone?

Because a lynch mob was a group of people who acted to punish someone for their behaviour based solely on the fact that they disliked it, and them, rather than the law or the evidence in the case. Just like several people in this thread, and several prominent people outside it, are doing.

Also, for the god-knows-how-manyth time, stop saying he stalked him. This was the first time they had encountered each other, it is literally impossible that Zimmerman was stalking Martin. Why do you keep saying so? Do you genuinely believe that Zimmerman had been looking at him for weeks trying to find an opportunity to kill him? It is not a synonym for “follow”…

[Bricker]

@dimmy_derko

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.

There’s no crime in Florida called “assisting a murderer.”

Are you saying she should have been arrested for a non-existent crime? Don’t you think that gives the police a tad too much power?

[Steophan]

@dimmy_derko

Wow! Criticising me for a typo. You must be getting desperate. I usually catch all my spelling mistakes, but you got me there, you genius, you.

No answer to the other two points, then? Ignoring them in the hope I won’t notice because you’ve commented on one minor detail makes you look desperate, not me.

[Steophan]

@Bricker

There’s no crime in Florida called “assisting a murderer.”

Are you saying she should have been arrested for a non-existent crime? Don’t you think that gives the police a tad too much power?

There are plenty of people in this thread saying people should be arrested for non-existent crimes. I don’t know why you would expect any better of this guy.

[Jack_Batty]

I love the logic.

Zimmerman, who exited his vehicle to look for one of those assholes who always gets away - and ended up shooting him - categorically did not stalk Martin so stop saying it!

By the way, those little scratches on the back of his head notwithstanding, did you know that Zimmerman repeatedly had his head *slammed *onto concrete so much that he probably lost his memory?

[you_with_the_face]

@Terr

I am not “defending Zimmerman” …

Who are you trying to fool? Peddle this nonsense somewhere else.

[Bricker]

@Terr

I am not “defending Zimmerman” except by pointing out that there is not enough evidence to convict him of the crime he was indicted for. In fact, there is not enough evidence even to indict him on that charge. It is an egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

ARGH!!!

Will all you people PLEASE stop making these sweeping statements of the law that are utterly wrong?

To indict him, we simply need probable cause NOW to believe that he’s guilty of the crime.

Now, this is especially difficult because I just got finished telling you with the face how she didn’t understand probable cause, and was reading too little into the standard; now I have to tell you that you are reading too much.

So far as I can tell, 776.032 does not have any application to grand juries. And even if it did, the question facing you with the face was “Was there probable cause, at the scene of the shooting that night, to believe Zimmerman’s use of force was excessive?” Answer: no.

Your question: “Is there probable cause right now to believe Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder?” Answer: yes.

[dimmy_derko]

@Bricker

There’s no crime in Florida called “assisting a murderer.”

Maybe not, but don’t try and tell me they don’t have an equivalent law for charging people who help cover up a crime which might well have been murder.

@Bricker

Are you saying she should have been arrested for a non-existent crime? Don’t you think that gives the police a tad too much power?

No, I’m saying if it could be proved she had moved Z’s vehicle away from somewhere he never said it was, she knows he has lied and she has helped him hide it, hence she should be culpable.

[Steophan]

@Jack_Batty

I love the logic.

Zimmerman, who exited his vehicle to look for one of those assholes who always gets away - and ended up shooting him - categorically did not stalk Martin so stop saying it!

So, where’s your evidence that they’d ever encountered each other before?

By the way, those little scratches on the back of his head notwithstanding, did you know that Zimmerman repeatedly had his head *slammed *onto concrete so much that he probably lost his memory?

Those “little scratches” that covered half his head with blood, yes. Of course, if you’d actually paid attention, you’d know that external injuries are not a reliable indicator of head trauma.

So yes, you should love the logic. Or, failing that, show where it’s flawed, rather than simply restating what I said in a sarcastic tone. That might work in the playground with a particularly stupid 11 year old (or on a topical debate show on one of your “news” channels), but you’ll have to try harder here.

[dimmy_derko]

@Steophan

So, where’s your evidence that they’d ever encountered each other before?

Let’s not get overly pedantic on the definition of stalk. Z, by his own admission, admits to seeing Trayvon when he’d barely stepped onto the estate, and following him to keep an eye on him. He could have continued to do that in his vehicle, as he had effectively done for 2/3’s of Trayvon’s planned journey across the estate, but no, he had to get his eyes a little bit closer to his target.

@Steophan

Those “little scratches” that covered half his head with blood, yes. Of course, if you’d actually paid attention, you’d know that external injuries are not a reliable indicator of head trauma.

Head trauma is a reliable indicator of head trauma. Those little scratches are another thing entirely.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

So far as I can tell, 776.032 does not have any application to grand juries. And even if it did, the question facing you with the face was “Was there probable cause, at the scene of the shooting that night, to believe Zimmerman’s use of force was excessive?” Answer: no.

Of course there was. Witnesses heard a teenager yelling, remember? Make up your frickin mind already. There was probable cause to make an arrest. In addition to that, the victim was unarmed and the shooter–after a period of pursuit–went well out of his way to be in the same area as the victim prior to him being gunned down.

I find it amazing that anyone at this late date would insist nothing stinks about the way this investigation was handled. The chief of police was made to resign, the lead detective was shipped out of the department, and the whole force is being investigated for violating Martin’s civil rights. Stuff like this generally doesn’t happen if folks are clean. I know that must be upsetting to accept, but grow up already. Corruption exists in this world.

[dimmy_derko]

@you_with_the_face

Of course there was. Witnesses heard a teenager yelling, remember? Make up your frickin mind already. There was probable cause to make an arrest. In addition to that, the victim was unarmed and the shooter–after a period of pursuit–went well out of his way to be in the same area as the victim prior to him being gunned down.

**I find it amazing that anyone at this late date would insist nothing stinks about the way this investigation was handled. **The chief of police was made to resign, the lead detective was shipped out of the department, and the whole force is being investigated for violating Martin’s civil rights. Stuff like this generally doesn’t happen if folks are clean. I know that must be upsetting to accept, but grow up already. Corruption exists in this world.

Too many treasured beliefs being challenged at once, for that to happen with some people.

[Terr]

@Bricker

ARGH!!!

Will all you people PLEASE stop making these sweeping statements of the law that are utterly wrong?

To indict him, we simply need probable cause NOW to believe that he’s guilty of the crime.

Dershowitz disagrees. Please point out, in the indictment affidavit, where the evidence that supported “probable cause” part was.

[Bricker]

@dimmy_derko

Maybe not, but don’t try and tell me they don’t have an equivalent law for charging people who help cover up a crime which might well have been murder.

Sure they do.

But what are the elements of that crime? Do you know?

No. But that doesn’t stop you from announcing that it should be applied in this case.

No, I’m saying if it could be proved she had moved Z’s vehicle away from somewhere he never said it was, she knows he has lied and she has helped him hide it, hence she should be culpable.

Are those the elements of the crime in question, then?

You have no idea, do you?

If anyone cares, FSA § 777.03 defines an accessory after the fact:

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Of course, that doesn’t apply to Ms. Zimmerman, because she is a wife.

Let’s read further:

(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

That seems to apply. So, to be guilty of an offense under this section, the state would have to prove:

(1) Ms. Zimmerman moved the truck, which
(2) assisted or gave aid to
(2) Mr. Zimmerman, who had committed murder of a child under 18 years of age,
(3) With the intent that Mr. Zimmerman avoid or escape arrest, trial, or punishment.

Agreed?

[doorhinge]

@dimmy_derko

…No, I’m saying if it could be proved she had moved Z’s vehicle away from somewhere he never said it was, she knows he has lied and she has helped him hide it, hence she should be culpable.

All you have to do is “prove” that to be the case. The SA/police still have the option of arresting Mrs GZ “IF” there were any evidence of your fantasy.

Two men met, they asked each other what they were doing there, one began punching the other, one man’s nose was broken and his head was bleeding, the man on top, who was administering the beating died of a single gunshot wound.

Did TM punch GZ because of where GZ vehicle was parked?

You’re under the impression that the Crown should simply arrest everyone and only let them out when they can prove that they weren’t involved. It’s little wonder that so many countries kicked the British out.

[Bricker]

@Terr

Dershowitz disagrees. Please point out, in the indictment affidavit, where the evidence that supported “probable cause” part was.

I have no idea what an “indictment affidavit” is.

Perhaps you mean the affidavit supporting the prosecutor’s information.

I agree that the affidavit is short on probable cause.

That does not mean that probable cause does not exist.