elucidator, the fight wouldn’t have to happen outside of earshot. Talking about someone’s mama isn’t against the law. So under SYG, you could start a verbal argument and as long as the other person got violent enough to convince the witnesses around you that you had good reason to fear for your life, you’d be off the hook.
So just make sure all the witnesses hate your brother-in-law too, and you’re golden. 
That cocksucker? You kidding, everybody fucking hates…oh, you mean, like, hypothetically.
This was mentioned in the other thread, and it appears that the police can cuff someone without arresting them if they agree to it. It would be interesting to know how common that is, though, and what the usual reasons for it happening are.
I’d be inclined to say that the fact that he was handcuffed suggests against him being given special treatment by the police.
Bull. The same cops that gave Zimmerman all the benefit of the doubt they could possibly come up with would arrest you in a second in that scenario.
The stand-your-ground law is an after-the-fact excuse for their behavior in this particular case not a policy.
But perhaps I’m too cynical.
Yes, but driving a car is not probable cause to get a blood test.
Even the implied consent law is of no help here, since you need reasonable suspicion of intoxication to get him to in front of a breathalyzer.
And I haven’t heard anything reliable about any specific, articulable facts that would support reasonable suspicion of intoxication or impairment. Have you?
Yes, they can.
Rick, the man had just shot and killed an unarmed teenager. If he’d backed into a parked vehicle on the street, it would’ve been probable cause for a breathalyzer; you’re saying youth-shooting doesn’t rise to at least the same level?
ETA: It may not have mandated a tox screen, but you can’t seriously believe any court would have denied there was probable cause if one had been administered.
This is one of those moments, when I’m kidding, but I’m not. Besides, being arrested doesn’t matter all that much, what matters is being convicted. And to prevent that, all you need do is convince some number of jury members that your client had a “reasonable” fear of severe bodily injury. In many places, that’s only one, don’t know about Florida, but evidence indicates that Florida adheres to whichever standard is the most retarded. So, I’m guessing one.
Secondly, you may be right, but so what? Who says that only sophisticated legal thinkers are likely to crave murder? Sure as shootin’, some Ricky Retardo is going to see this as a free pass.
Submitted for your horror:
Odds are good that my scenario not only could happen, but already has. But if it hasn’t happened, it will. And the killer will walk. I’d love to be wrong, but I’m a pessimist, and it doesn’t happen often enough.
PS: as you may already know, this sort of “stand your ground” law is a result of the efforts of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). ALEC is enough material for ten Pit threads, so I’ll just leave that there, for now.
Then perhaps you could clarify your earlier post about Dunaway v. New York? That seemed to say that they couldn’t, or at least that any evidence they gather from doing so would be inadmissable.
This article in Slate.com this morning talks about if Zimmerman’s arrested, what the trial could look like. I post it here because there are apparently still a lot of unforgivable missteps that most reasonable people would point to as a serious oversight, enough to cast suspicion on the Sanford Police Department on their horrible bungling of the case.
Bricker, you first responded to me saying that its possible the police are keeping the investigation under wraps, if only to better catch Zimmerman. But according to the article, they haven’t yet:
Analyzed the 9-11 voice recording. Before you respond to all of these issue that its not their job, realize that I’m not saying what will and will not get into court. But a full, thorough investigation by the police would surely try to capture as much evidence as possible and let the prosecutor argue with the judge what can and cannot be admissible in court. The police don’t do that. So even if there is a small chance the tapes won’t be admissible, in the scope of an investigation, such an analysis has to be done. Why hasn’t that happened?
Talk to the funeral director. He would have to dress and prepare Trayvon’s body. There may be some evidence on him of a scuffle, if he was really on top of Zimmerman pummeling him
Talked with the girlfriend. They haven’t even done that, and she’s the last person other than Zimmerman who talked to him.
Some conservatives, not you Brick, seem to think that liberals just automatically side with the black kid because of some racial thing. But those people need to understand that with each piece of evidence we hear that leaks out, it knocks Zimmerman’s story on its ass. Each single piece of information we get may or may not convict him, but all together they paint a pretty damning portrait.
elucidator - I checked your link, then read the comments, then went to the FBI for more data. It appears that the ABA might have some problems with their report.
If we take handguns - the type of firearm most likely to be carried concealed and resulting in a shooting (similar to the death of Mr. Martin):
2006: 154
2007: 161
2008: 171
2009: 167
2010: 170
I also don’t see the 326 Justifiable Homicides in 2010 that the ABA listed - Total for 2010 is 278.
I believe that to be a member of the ABA, you have to be a lawyer. I resent your insinuation, sir, and demand an apology!
OK, all kidding aside, what is the point you are trying to make? That there was no rise in “justifiable homicide” where “Stand your ground” laws have been enacted? In that case, you’ve got a lot more work to do. Start by googling “justifiable homicide rates”, and you will be very, very busy. At any rate, your FBI statistics don’t reflect any such analysis. Which is needful, yes?
At any rate, the question only arise in this particular, un-hijacked context if the State Attorney decided not to pursue charges because he thought he couldn’t make it stick due to the SYG law. Such a suggestion has been bandied about, but not confirmed, so far as I know.
Of course I can.
Backing into a parked car implies a loss or lack of physical coordination or control. The car you hit wasn’t moving. And even then, that alone won’t support a blood test. You need something more.
Shooting and killing an unarmed teenager doesn’t imply any such thing. I can absolutely believe a court would deny a warrant for a blood test if the only fact adduced to support probable cause was, “He shot and killed an unarmed teenager.” where are the specific facts that show a probability of intoxication?
Sure.
The police may briefly detain someone, and handcuff them, without probable cause. This brief detention period allows them to investigate their reasonable suspicion, and either confirm or dispel it. Reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, but higher than a mere hunch, guess, or unparticularized suspicion. It requires that the officer point to specific, articulable facts that taken together would warrant a man of reasonable caution to entertain a suspicion of criminal activity. During this detention, a person may be handcuffed.
Dunaway v. New York concerns the extension of this sort of detention by transport to the police station. This cannot be done without either consent or probable cause. In fact, there’s such a thing as a Dunaway warning:
We would like for you to come down to the precinct with us to discuss (current crime). You are not under arrest, and you don’t have to go with us. You are free to walk away at this time without saying anything more if you wish to do so.
Can you quote the article’s claim that this hasn’t happened yet?
Wasn’t Trayvon autopsied? Wouldn’t the medical examiner’s report be better evidence than the funeral director’s impression?
Have they tried? Has she been willing to talk to them?
Fact: Suspect has just admittedly shot and killed an unidentified youth, claiming self defense.
Fact: Slain youth has been found with no weapon, and suspect has not claimed he was attacked with a weapon.
Fact: Witnesses corroborate that a physical altercation occured between suspect and victim.
Fact: No witness has been found to corroborate how the altercation was initiated.
Fact: Suspect has complained of head injuries, making simple observation of his behavior unreliable as a test for intoxication.
But you’re right that Zimmerman exercised superior aiming and trigger pulling motor skills, Bricker. But note that his exercise of those skills resulted in the death of another human, for which no verified justification has been provided. To some law enforcement professionals, this might indicate a “loss or lack” of emotional “coordination or control.”
I suppose we can blame the 13th Amendment for the lack of interest by SPD. After all, no one’s property was damaged in this incident.
And yes, that last bit was deliberately hyperbolic. Sue me.
Learn something new every day. I’m curious as to whether handcuffing the person of interest is SOP after said person has volunteered to come down to the station.
I was wondering this too. I have not heard anything about whether or not an autopsy was done.
If Trayvon’s body was NOT seen/autopsied by a medical examiner, this would be another reason to pit the authorities for bungling the case from the very beginning.
Likewise, there should have been a very thorough report about Zimmerman’s “injuries” by attending medical professionals. This report would be the main (if not conclusive) evidence of the extent of the injuries. if the injuries were minor, this should have clued the police in that Zimmerman’s story was not exactly 100% truthful. If there is not a very detailed medical report about BOTH parties in the police file then the investigation was bungled from the beginning.
Are you serious?
The answer is no. Nothing here supports probable cause for intoxication. Death may mean lots of things, but general outrage about an unjustified death does not translate into specific reason to suspect intoxication.
I would guess ‘yes’ for officer safety. But I would also want to actually see the department SOP.