I think we’ve learned an important lesson.
If you shoot a kid with a bag of Skittles in his hand, you best make sure he’s dead if you don’t want an assault charge on your record.
The only thing lame is your analogy, and it’s pathetic and shows an extremely warped concept of analogies if you think that your fantasy rape story has anything to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case.
I’ve already said “everything is a situation” and the situation in your analogy is materially different from the one we have here. Meaning I would expect a trained law enforcement professional to probably come to different conclusions in both scenarios.
Is that so hard to understand.
I’m reminded of how the English legal system worked in the 19th century. An accused on trial had no right to testify, because of course he would lie if he was guilty.
And again arrests are not the end point. An arrest comes with an expectation of getting a conviction or a plea down the road. Why do you care so much about an arrest if nothing further will come of it. They go hand in hand. That is why throughout I have mentioned both what is needed for an arrest and What is needed for a conviction both are important.
Jesus Christ this has nothing to do with what I feel. How many times do I have to say I feel he acted improperly. But from me it’s just wild conjecture. Even if what some anonymous source tells a reporter is 100% true, it is irrelevant to the investigation unless they agree to come forward. If there are witnesses that have different information and they come forward during the states attorney’s investigation it may change everything. I hope there is more evidence that comes to light.
I just wish all those that want an arrest and the chance to send in the ‘Closer’ or put them in the ‘Boat House’ with JJ Cool or let ‘Castle’
at them were around when my 18 year old daughter was murdered or when one of my sisters was raped by the same guy twice .
I have been on several juries and people with that much ‘do gooder’ in them cause many a jury to do the wrong thing … IMO as foreman and juror and having to deal with what they believe and not the evidence provided.
The rapist is in prison, my daughter’s killer is not. ( You want to call the ethnic card, I will play with the rapist and & the guy that let him out wrongly so he could double offend. ) Rape & killin are both bad, but not the same as is being said here. ( Been there & still having to live without ‘justice’. )
You all wanting arrest because you think common sense demands it have no clue about the real world and seem to think that you could fix it all with common sense. “L” & “B” & “MH” have all but made you drink for the real world but it does not seem to work, which is why after reading every post & link & more I come in late shaking my head at their patience.
Minds will not be changed on this because minds are not doing the talking about what & the way it should be, the emotions are and not with a full grasp on reality.
No, it is not a correct reading of what I wrote. I said “it would be hard to bring charges or obtain a conviction” not “hard to establish probable cause.” Probable cause is a relatively low legal barrier to overcome. When I say “hard to bring charges” I’m not saying hard to meet probable cause, but rather saying it would be hard for the police to justify bringing charges due to the high likelihood the case against the suspect is not sufficiently strong to result in a conviction and may not even be strong enough for the State’s Attorney to go to bat.
That’s a judgment call, one that you seem convinced police should never make based on the totality of this unique situation which doesn’t involve sexual intercourse/potential sexual assault, video evidence of the suspect lying in wait or etc. Those are not the same situations or the same circumstances, the totality of those unique situations is very different and I would expect a law enforcement judgment call to be dramatically different for both cases.
It does not mean that. It simply means that in a case where there are no eyewitnesses and the physical evidence only shows that there was a scuffle then one person shooting another, that the statement from the shooter should be compared against the physical evidence and checked for internal consistency. If the shooter is making a claim of self-defense, and their story is internally inconsistent, or contradicts the physical evidence that becomes evidence to use against them in court, and strengthens the case against them. However, if the shooter’s story is personally convincing and consistent and is corroborated by evidence then rightfully it will impact the law enforcement officer’s judgment, perhaps even leading him to conclude it was self defense.
You do realize law enforcement has every right to look at the totality of the circumstances and say “I think this would fit the strict letter of the self defense statute, even if I do feel a little iffy about this Zimmerman guy.” We can agree or disagree on whether that should have been done here, but I’m one who believes in waiting for all the evidence to come out before jumping to such conclusions.
FWIW, I’ve repeatedly said I would not have a problem with the police arresting him. Or if the police had decided “well, Zimmerman’s story is consistent and corroborated by evidence, but I don’t feel he’s convinced me he acted in self defense. I don’t know that we could convict on this, but I’m going to arrest and let the State’s Attorney see what they can do with it.” I think that is also an entirely appropriate conclusion and action.
Long before that (like 1200s and such) under English common law if you proved that person A killed person B no other fact was important. It was murder, and carried a mandatory death penalty. There was no right to self defense, no crime of passion or etc.
This was insanely harsh, and one side effect was that lots of people who acted in self-defense would run to a priest. By running to a priest they could petition to be tried before the ecclesiastic courts which did allow you to say you were acting in self defense and etc. I believe if they believed it, they would brand your thumb as a punishment (it was seen as a sin to kill whether in self defense or not, I guess) but you wouldn’t be hanged, and you couldn’t be tried by the regular courts.
Not just homicide but lots of cases were dealt with so harshly in regular court it lead to droves to flee to ecclesiastical courts. Eventually the monarchs felt that this undermined their royal power, so they gradually eroded your ability to run to a church court. At the same time, they started incorporating things like self defense mitigation to homicide and such to address the underlying cause of people fleeing to those courts.
I like hot air as much as the next guy, but you’ve given us a lot more of this than we need. Next time, bring a rational argument.
I’m not the one who is trying to compare an incident in which one person shot another, after calling 911 and telling them they saw said person and considered them suspicious, and who makes a claim of self defense to police on the scene to someone who lies in wait on video for 10 minutes then attacks and rapes a woman and stabs her to death.
I’m not the one calling elephants gold fish then saying people who disagree with me are irrational.
It’s not up to a cop to be judge and jury, that’s why. That’s why I care.
The views you’ve expressed here suggests you think cops should only make an arrest if they think they can get a conviction. You’ve said it repeatedly in so many ways.
Well if that’s the case, why do you think our judicial system has set a low threshold for probable cause relative to the threshold needed to prove guilt? Do you think that wasn’t done on purpose?
And for what reason was he considered suspicious again?
Yes, right after he killed someone. Not unlike my revised hypothetical. Keep going.
Now wait a minute. The guy in my hypothetical claimed he was only acting in self-defense while having rough sex with the lady. Why have you reached these awful conclusions about him when all the physical evidence is consistent with his claims?! You must not know how justice works.
First it was dog and cats. Now we have elephants and goldfish. Still not cute enough. Sorry.
I don’t believe you have explained what you think are the advantages of arresting someone if there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.
Do you feel there are such advantages?
Regards,
Shodan
I am not giving you my opinion on how I think things should work. I am telling you how they do work. A patrol officer coming to the scene of a crime will care only if he has probable cause for an arrest. If it is more complicated a detective is called in. Detectives do and must take a longer view than just what is happening that night. As I said before in my jurisdiction we work hand in hand with the prosecutor in all major crimes. Apparently it works differently in Florida. And circumstances dictate different actions at different times. Yes I have been involved in cases where the attitude was"arrest them all, let the judge sort em out." I have also been involved in cases in which I was sure someone was guilty, could have pushed for an arrest but there is no way I could have gotten a conviction. Had to let it go. My prosecutor would not approve a warrant for a case they can’t win.
And when I say “this is some bullshit”, what I really mean is that this is some bullshit and I’m amazed you’ve typed it out for all the world to see.
Let me get this straight: even if a cop can show probable cause exists for a crime as serious as homocide, are you saying that it’s appropriate for them to decline bringing charges if they feel that the State’s Attorney might have to sweat a little to prove guilt beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt?
Why have a grand jury then? I mean, if cops are supposed to triage issues like this.
They can do this only if they give undue credence to Zimmerman’s statement.
Arrests tend to made while an investigation is in progress. Meaning, while evidence is still being collected and analyzed.
As long as the investigation is still open, none are us are in the position to say there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.
So I’m not obligated to come up with advantages for such a fantastical thing.
On TV yes that is how it happens.
What are the advantages of arresting someone before the investigation is complete, then?
Regards,
Shodan
I already explained that to you.
Since you like hypotheticals let me give you three.
-
Suspect gives a statement. His statement is contradicted by the physical evidence.
-
Suspect gives a statement. During questioning the suspect confesses to the crime.
-
Suspect gives a statement. His statement is corroborated by the physical evidence.
Are 1 and 2 OK but 3 should be ignored?
That’s also why the decision to arrest or not isn’t the terminal point in a criminal case, the government’s prosecutors always have the option to file charges of their own and obtain arrests warrants (which the police will then execute.) But police are supposed to exercise some degree of independent judgment in deciding who to arrest or not, and strength of case is absolutely part of that independent judgment. What I find shocking is you don’t seem to know this; this is Civics 101.