I’m pointing out exactly that common definition. If someone is mostly wrong, how can their analysis be used for PROBABLE cause, even if we all know they are occasionally right?
See the problem? Probable? Versus not probable?
I didn’t really think Serino was a broken watch, ya know? My point is, he knew in his gut, heart and head that Z’s story was wrong, but his hands were tied behind his back by the bs laws supposedly designed to protect people from oddballs like George.
That’s a heck of a lot of words to say “the evidence I choose to deem important backs me up.”
Whether you think the laws are bullshit or not, they apply to Zimmerman just as much as they apply to anyone else. That’s the problem with so many people in this thread - they think that because, in their opinion, Zimmerman’s behaviour should be illegal, it is illegal. That’s not how a justice system works, it’s how, as has been said many times, lynch mobs work.
Still unable to actually refute me, eh? I’m not overly surprised. But it’s not the evidence I deem important, it’s the evidence that actually exists. If there’s some I’ve missed, be a good chap and provide it, like I’ve repeatedly asked.
The same law that allowed them to put handcuffs on his wrists and interrogate him at the station for 3-5 hrs.
Please provide a cite that the law allowing brief detention also allows for invasive drug testing, specifically in Florida law.
It doesn’t.
Knowing Florida, you can be tested for using alcohol if you are seen running a stop light, but catch you with a gun stood over a dead body, and it’s suddenly a civil rights transgression to even think about wanting to know what’s fueling you.
A lynch mob would have dragged him out of the police station on the night. If you’re going to use hyperbole, do it right.
Nope, I’m not that interested in even attempting to sway your view. I’m just responding to you when the mood suits.
That sounds about right. Driving is a privilege, and submitting to said tests is a condition of doing so, but bearing arms is a right, as is self defence. Of course, if they had probable cause to believe he was not, in fact, exercising those rights, but was breaking the law, they could have tested him.
I will point out that, even if he was off his face, he could still have been acting in legitimate self defence.
I’m fairly sure by now that you could point out reasons why he was acting in legitimate self-defence if he’d used a sawn-off shotgun and claimed he thought Trayvon was a black bear with a hoody, or some such shit
It would only have been invasive if Zimmerman refused to be tested and they forced it on him.
He had just as much freedom to refuse handcuffing and interrogation, but he complied. He also had the freedom to decline that pseudo-lie detector test, but alas, he took that as well. So why would it have been illegal for the cops to test this guy for drugs? As with all the other stuff, he could have said no.
Only if he reasonably thought that. Otherwise, it’s not guilty by reason of insanity.
OK DragonAsh, lets go through this rationally and without the emotional baggage that seems to follow those who know what Zimmerman was thinking at the time. I’ve reviewed his phone call and the video again and agree that the phone call ended after he got to the street.
The back entrance is South in the direction Martin ran. In the video he walks to the end of the sidewalk and then back toward his truck. The fight starts on his way back toward the truck which is consistent with the video reenactment and is after the phone call ends.
His intent throughout the conversation is consistent. He calls the police and keeps Martin in sight and avoids direct confrontation. He does not get out of his car when Martin approaches. Martin on the other hand approaches his car which shows his intent to confront. It makes sense that Zimmerman does not want Martin to know his address and he demonstrates that by a reluctance to give it out on the phone. Yes, he is prepared to stand out in the open and look for Martin.
Yes, looking at the video he says he still wants to meet with the police even though he’s lost sight of Martin. He has lost sight of Martin for the second time and he is still looking for him.
clearly he’s looking for Martin. Are you suggesting that he can’t multi-task or that a solid address wouldn’t be useful.
There is no bullshit involved. If he spots Martin then he can direct the police in the right direction when they call. He originally intended to give an address and did not. This does not negate the thought process for walking in that direction it reinforces it. If he was solely searching for Martin at the time of the call he would have walked South on the sidewalk towards Martin’s house which is the last known direction Martin was heading. But he chose to walk East.
His video re-enactment is not linear to the phone call. It’s not rehearsed yet he remembers toward the end of the walk to the street that he said the dispatcher asks him if he’s following Martin and then agreeing not to follow him. He points backwards to where that was said. The call continues on for another minute and a half. This does not negate the statement that he walked to the street or the reason behind it. Based on the location of the fight it appears that he stayed in that area which is consistent with his account.
Steophan, no long-winded waffle to respond to from me - I’ll keep it short and sweet.
With great power - eg. the right to be able to take another person’s life - comes great responsibility, yes? Do you think Z showed great responsibility that evening?
I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
Hope everyone is having a good holiday–and I mean it.
We’ll continue the war tomorrow–peace today LOL.
Look, Mac, do you believe he was where he said he was when he ended his nen call, at the rightmost tip of the T? Realistically, how long would it have taken him to walk to the point where he says Trayvon came out of the shadows if he was heading straight back to his truck?
Can you see how he HAS to be wrong about the fight happening so soon after the nen call ended? Now, why would you not be concerned about this discrepancy?
Again, you are wrong about Florida law. Maybe it’s because you don’t live in the United States. Police must have probable cause to test someone. Probable cause would consist of acting in a altered state such as weaving on the road or slurred speech or the smell of alcohol or marijuana or other conscious altering drugs.
Realistically he would have been looking for Martin in the last known area he saw him and not seeing him walk toward the direction he expects the police to arrive. What else would you expect him to do?
I don’t think that quote particularly applies to this situation, but I’ll answer your question in a sec. What I will say is that it very much does apply to the police, who have the power to arrest, and the courts, who have the power to imprison or even kill, and they have the responsibility to use that power only at need, and with the strongest of proof.
I’ll answer that in two parts. Firstly, at the instant he shot Martin, his responsibility is to himself and to those who depend on him. Martin, by putting Zimmerman in the position he was in, lost the right to care by Zimmerman. At that precise moment, if he is in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, he has no responsibility to look after Martin.
Secondly, I’ll talk about what happened shortly prior to that. Zimmerman saw someone acting in a way that made him suspect criminal activity. Rather than ignore it, he took responsibility and phoned the police. He made the rather foolish decision to follow Martin, but when he was asked to stop doing so by the dispatcher, he stopped. Again, I would say that was a responsible act.
He was then attacked by Martin, despite as far as we know having done nothing to him to provoke it. He didn’t immediately fight back, judging by the lack of injuries to Martin, but instead called for help. When that help didn’t arrive, and as his injuries mounted, and his fear increased, he shot Martin to protect himself. I certainly don’t consider that irresponsible, but it is of course extremely unfortunate that he didn’t wait a few seconds longer.
So, I think his actions were responsible. I don’t believe he could reasonably have expected to be attacked following his actions, and I don’t believe he could reasonably expect his actions would lead to the death of anyone. That, to me, is a sufficient level of responsibility.
But, if they did see them weaving, even if they didn’t kill anything, it’d be fine to pull them over and test them? Is that what you are saying?
And you think that’s reasonable, but testing someone with minor injuries who claims to have killed someone in self-defence is not?