Think about that for a moment: you look at at a non-functional Rolex (or Timex, if you prefer). Is it probable you now know the right time?
So much for Serino being the authority on probable cause.
I suspect the reason he was put on patrol rather than outright fired was due to concerns that he’d be seen as a martyr by folks who mistakenly see him as a good guy.
Hopefully if and when all of SPD’s shenanigans see the light of day, he will get what’s coming to him.
I have spent years as a criminal defense attorney, evaluating factual situations and determining whether they represented probable cause as a matter of law. And unlike Serino, who even you acknowledge was wrong except when he was right, my evaluation of a given set of facts against a given legal framework has remained consistent.
Serino now himself says he did not have probable cause – he has recanted. I have not.
So Serino now agrees with me.
What makes you more qualified to say that than a criminal lawyer? That’s ignoring the fact that it observably doesn’t, as there’s actually no evidence at all that Zimmerman wasn’t acting in self defence at the time he shot Martin.
There’s also plenty of evidence that he was, but a lot of that is of limited value, but on a balance of probabilities standard, he was acting in self defence. Not that that’s particularly relevant.
The problem is, you don’t really understand what evidence is, or what conclusions can legitimately be drawn from what evidence. Remember well, we are not looking for evidence that the force used was legitimate. As soon as Zimmerman claims that, it’s effectively presumed true. We need evidence that it wasn’t. Evidence that Zimmerman was lying is not evidence that the force was illegitimate. Neither is evidence that someone screamed, even if it were evidence that Martin screamed - that’s simply evidence that force was used (which we already know).
So, what is your evidence that the force used was illegitimate?
Sure, why not? He actually made a cogent argument and explained his rationale for doing so.
You know what I don’t think was correct? Serino saying that because George Zimmerman’s story was the best available evidence, there was nothing else to see.
Do you know why I say that?
Because George Zimmerman was eventually arrested and is still squirming in the hot seat over this matter. And the guys who said, “Nothing to see here!” are no longer in the picture, their careers forever tainted.
The fact Zimmerman is still very much charged with 2nd degree murder, despite all the scrutiny and Faux News outrage, indicates to me all this shit-bricking about erroneously filed affidavits is misplaced. The shit-bricking should be directed to the initial dismissal of this case, both by Serino and his former supervisor. Personally, I am even more bothered by the fact that no one thought to test Mr. Zimmerman for any intoxication on the night of the incident, but the young man who lost his life that night was not given the same cover.
There’s even more that’s troubling, but it has been expressed a million times over already. Seemingly for naught.
Yes, a detective that has been demoted to foot patrol, who corrected witnesses at the scene and asked horribly leading questions during an interrogation on tape, who has said things to the press that completely contradict statements he’s signed off on in official police records, who is now being investigated for violating Martin’s civil rights because of how he handled things, agrees with you Bricker. With endorsements like that, I can see why you say the kinds of things you do.
Are you under the impression that Bricker is the only criminal lawyer in this world? For every lawyer who thinks like Bricker you can find one who doesn’t.
It’s funny that ** Bricker** and you like to whip yourselves up in a frenzy every time I dare to express disagreement with him. He’s overly fond of making appeals to authority, but perhaps if he was make a argument based on substance, I would be inclined to listen to him. But “I’m a lawyer so I know better than you” doesn’t cut it.
Nice one, centurion.
Now welease Bwicker.
I’ve thought about it and I still haven’t got a clue what you are getting at. The broken watch adage is a well known one for suggesting that someone who’s mostly wrong can sometimes be right. Let’s just leave it at its common definition and not try to wangle it into some other kind of shape.
His gut instincts that Z should be charged with something were bang on, it’s his application in applying all the available evidence to the situation that is being viewed as faulty.
The irony of you making an appeal to the authority of another lawyer does not escape me, so I’m not even going to bother responding to that cite.
Bricker’s argument is based on substance. I’ve asked you more than once to lay out the evidence that shows probable cause that the force used was illegitimate, and you’ve ignored me each time. You refuse to back up your argument, putting you firmly in the camp of “I don’t like what he did, so he must be punished”, along with your chum betenoire.
No-one should be charged with anything, ever, because of someone’s gut instincts. We’re back to the lynch mob, sadly.
There is no recognised authority on the state/Trayvon Martin v Zimmerman yet, as all the real facts of this case have yet to be decided upon in a conclusive manner, and even then, the likelihood of this trial just fizzling away after it’s over is slim to non-existent.
He had plenty to go on besides his gut instincts.
The information to make his case that this was an unlawful killing was there in front of him the following day, when he watched Z lie through his teeth about Trayvon come back from behind the houses, circle his vehicle, then head back to the T, none of which he mentioned in his nen call.
Add that to his initial claims of being put straight on his back by the first punch, Trayvon jumping out of bushes, and his incredible 40ft stagger before getting pounced on like a baby lamb at the mercy of a vicious young lion, and he had plenty enough reason to be reading Z his rights.
That he’s lying, if that happens to be the case, is not evidence of anything. This has been explained to you over and over again. What about it do you not understand?
It is evidence he isn’t being honest, and when you are up on a murder charge, credibility is a key component of any trial. What about it do you not understand?
Btw, you can’t properly accumulate evidence if you don’t protect the crime scene from the elements and other possible spoilers.* But to decide to cordon off an area and investigate it forensically, you’ve first got to avoid falling into the trap of believing everything the guy with the gun is telling you.
- Considering the cops arrived so soon, this is another unforgivable error by SPD.
If he’s lying, you may ignore his testimony. You may not assume the opposite. You must prove it.
Even if you can prove he was lying, that in itself is not evidence of any sort that he murdered Martin. It may not be used to arrest, charge, or convict him.
If, of course, the only evidence in his favour was his testimony, and there was otherwise compelling evidence of his guilt, he’d be fucked. As neither of those premises is true, he is, and will hopefully remain unfucked.
To ask a question that will hopefully make you understand, how would knowing Zimmerman lied about where he parked his car in any way impact on the question of whether the force he used on Martin was legitimate?
It would change the whole dynamic of the event if it were known that on the night, Z had got ahead of T’s route down the path, gone through one of the cut throughs, intercepted Trayvon’s route home and then claimed Trayvon had marched up to him in a confrontational manner.
Nobody would have bought his self-defence claim under such circumstances and he wouldn’t have been waiting so long to be charged.
Here’s one for you now. How about you provide anything other than Z’s say so that he had good reason to use lethal force?
This trenchant analysis misses a large elephant in the room: additional evidence was developed in the days after the shooting. I agree that probable cause exists NOW for manslaughter, and it’s possible that probable cause exists NOW for second degree murder. Zimmerman’s phone records, Dee Dee’s report of her conversation with Martin, the autopsy report showing very minor injuries to Martin – all of those are powerful pieces of evidence that support probable cause for manslaughter.
But the question I’m discussing is whether probable cause existed that night. You cannot point to the eventual charging decision as evidence of probable cause existing that night.
Can you?
Can you explain what law would have permitted the police to test Zimmerman?
None of that has any relevance to whether he was acting in self defence or not.
Why? That’s all that’s required to establish that he had such reason, absent evidence to the contrary. Evidence that you, or anyone else for that matter, continue to claim exists but notably fail to provide.
But, just for the sake of it, I will. Zimmerman had fresh injuries at the time the police arrived, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and multiple cuts, bruises, and abrasions to the front and back of his head. He was, according to witnesses, engaged in a physical struggle with Martin immediately prior to shooting him, in which Martin was on top.
Florida law states that one may use lethal force in self defence if one is in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, and if one is unable to escape by any other means, one may use such force even if one initiated the fight.
It is reasonable to think that someone with such injuries, and on the losing end of a fight in which they have sustained serious head injuries, would be in such fear, and that it would be reasonable. It is also reasonable to think that someone in such a position may have had no other means of escape other than lethal force.
Therefore, one may conclude that the force Zimmerman used may have been legitimate.
The word “may” is important here. I’m not claiming to have proved that the force used was legitimate, and I’ve repeatedly said that I’m not sure that’s possible - hence my opinion that he may well not be granted immunity. What I am claiming is that, in the absence of any evidence that the force was not legitimate - evidence I’m asking you to supply, as you’re claiming it exists - there was no probable cause for arrest. I’m further claiming that, even if such evidence exists, the fact that it’s reasonable to conclude he may have been using legitimate force provides reasonable doubt to the claim that he wasn’t, therefore he is not guilty of murder, and cannot be found guilty at trial.
At trial, the prosecution will not merely have to provide opposing evidence to mine, but will have to either show my reasoning is not based on facts - that is, what I’m claiming as evidence is demonstrably false, or show my reasoning is flawed. That is, of course, in addition to providing evidence that proves his guilt - merely disproving one scenario where he’s innocent does not accomplish that.
So, that’s how it’s done. Your turn now. Bring some evidence, and reasoned argument.
ETA - No reference to Zimmerman’s statement needed, apart from the initial claim that it was self defence.