I thought the claim of on scene self defense negated the PC for arrest under FL law which has been quoted.
If he was not under arrest, it must mean the police supported at that time his statement, so how can they deny it if asked later on the stand.
I don’t say this is untrue, but it seems illegitimate to me in the following sense.
Looking at the available evidence, the police either do or don’t have probable cause to arrest. It’s hard for me to imagine that the suspect can say anything to remove the probable cause if it exists. And the suspect saying nothing certainly doesn’t add more evidence to create probable cause, does it? OTOH, the suspect can certainly create probable cause by some kind of admission during a statement.
So I would forward this question along to the lawyer types here, in general and in specific to the Martin case.
Had Zimmerman refused to give a statement to police would they have any more grounds to arrest him than they already did (or didn’t)?
And, if you can indeed talk your way out of probable cause to arrest, that seems to be at least one argument in favor of talking to police immediately. Which is pretty much against all the legal advice I’ve ever heard given to suspects.
10 hours worth? He must have been very excited.
Absolutely, and it sometimes works. But if it doesn’t work, you’re well and truely fucked. Conversely, if you do lawyer up, then likely the worst thing to happen is a night in jail and a small legal bill, if that. “Do you feel lucky, punk?”
Couldn’t have been. Our armchair CSI experts here have determined there were no stains. 
“He’s an excitable fellow, my client.” 
Forgot to add: I’ve heard defense counsel make worse arguments. 
In general I believe you are right but in the case I used and I suspect in the M/Z case, If the shooter had been unwilling to speak about his actions and reasons he would have been arrested. Take my friend D. for example you have dead guy in the parking lot of the store, you have witnesses who know exactly who the shooter is, including the idiot S. who is screaming “D. shot him for no reason”(its a long story) and D. says I am not talking til I see my lawyer. I am pretty that’s a ticket to Jail, maybe not an indictment from the GJ, but I bet you would be arrested on suspicion of Murder on the spot. In other words without explaining your actions they aren’t going to assume it was self defense, on the other hand you might be wise to shut your trap and go to jail so you don’t say something that would undermine your defense. I only have knowledge of the one case and it can’t apply to everyone
I’m still wondering about this policy of transporting everyone.
We see in on TV, some grieving loved one is at the station giving a statement. Afterwards, they are too shook up and worn down. Detective says, “Let me get someone to give you a ride home. Officer, would you take this lady home, please?”
Officer says sure, escorts her out to the car, then pulls out the cuffs and says, “Ma’am, per our department policy, anyone we transport has to be in cuffs. It doesn’t mean anything, you’re not in trouble or anything, it’s just policy for our safety.”
:dubious:
If she’s grieving they probably won’t handcuff her since they wouldn’t feel threatened. Someone suspected of murder would have me slightly more defensive than a visibly grieving and shooken (shaken?) up family member or what have you.
But if it’s policy, then they have to. Right?
Or does the policy have some more finer language about differentiating between suspects and non suspects? Or what?
Because so far the folks mentioning the policy give the impression they would handcuff said grieving widow on the grounds that she is distraught and was never searched, and might just flake out and pull a gun to end it all, or whatever.
I am wondering about the handcuff element myself. If he went in INvoluntarily, as I have said, he was under arrest. If he went in voluntarily though, he could have chosen to refuse to wear them. So why was he wearing them?
I don’t see how policy dictates cuffing a voluntary intake person.
Not exactly. Florida requires that there be probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful. A claim of self-defense is part of the totality of circumstances, but the weight of other evidence could conceivably overcome it – say, for example, there were witnesses how saw the entire event and could counter the assailant’s claims.
No, it doesn’t mean they supported it – it means at that moment they did not believe they had probable cause that the force used was unlawful. It doesn’t remotely imply an acceptance of his claims – just a lack of contrary strong evidence at that moment.
Right, I should have been more clear, as anyone can claim self defense. Here we run into the “totality of the circumstances”, as you point out. Just as in a Terry stop, it can also apply to PC.
The new enhanced video I saw on yahoo shows Zimmerman with scar/gash on the top/back of his head.
Hey Lawbuff, can you provide a link or a site name for the enhanced video as a lot of people are claiming the regular video is evidence Zimmerman was unhurt, and I have a question for you " If it can be reasonably assumed the Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, no matter Zimmermans earlier actions, Z’s use of force will be considered legal" sorry not exactly a question but…
Thanks for the knowledge
The general doctrine of the use of force is that it must = the use of force against you. By that I mean, as Newton said “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. You can’t use deadly force simply because a person is fighting with you or has assaulted you. You must feel imminent serious injury or death will be inflicted on you if you do not use your deadly force first, so called/termed “preventive” defense.
Boyo, this is what I was refering to in my post 32 on page 1, from my law dictionary; Steven H.Giffis (Barrons books);
Sub category of DETENTION;
Investigative detention refers to the holding of a suspect without formal arrest during the investigation of his possible participation in a crime. Such investigative detention is unconstitutional if probable cause does not exist to charge him with the crime. 442 US 200.
What is your skin color?
A friend who took a gun ownership class (in Illinois) told me that if you shoot someone, the magic words are, “I feel shaken up and need to go to the hospital.” You then get a day or two where the cops can’t ask you anything, and I imagine that the accommodations are better than jail. YMMV.
Every lawyer will say that yes, you should identify yourself. After all, that’s the law. So saying “Hey, I am guizot, not guigot, look, here’s my ID” is not really lawyering up.
Thanks