Right, you’re the one who described it as a factual rape which the defendant would try to present as just rough consensual sex. However it doesn’t matter if it was rape or just rough sex what it represents is additional physical evidence. Namely evidence that violent sex occurred.
Do you think we’d be having this same discussion if Zimmerman was found to have violently sodomized Trayon Martin before shooting him and then claimed he just had rough sex with Trayvon (consensual) but then a fight broke out and he had to use self defense?
Now that I’ve specifically shown you how your hypothetical’s totality of the facts are vastly different from this situation. While I won’t hold my breath I trust everyone will see what a stupid analogy it was.
There are disadvantages to early arrests, too. Sometimes you can get more incriminating information on a suspect by allowing them to remain free. You obviously have to weigh that against other considerations (are they a threat to the public and etc.) Once someone is brought in certain types of evidence can become more difficult to collect.
Since you say “undue credence” maybe you can recognize the concept of “due credence.”
I think you imagine it like this:
Police take Zimmerman’s statement.
Police collect and review physical evidence, and highlight exclusively any instance in which the physical evidence corroborates Zimmerman’s statement.
Police develop a theory of what happened, primarily based on Zimmerman’s claims and then try to fit the physical evidence into that theory.
What I imagine actually happens in a case like this i:
Police take Zimmerman’s statement. During this statement the police will pay very close attention especially to anything Zimmerman says that is self-contradictory. Most likely they pepper Zimmerman with some questions on the spot, especially questions that force him to essentially repeat what he already said to see if he’s telling a consistent story or if they can get him to inadvertently say something he’s trying to hide by coming at him from different angles.
Police collect and review physical evidence. Noting anything that jumps out at them, especially anything that directly contradicts the statement Zimmerman made. They also will note anything that directly corroborates the statement Zimmerman made.
Police develop some theory as to what happened. They take into account Zimmerman’s statement, which they will decide is credible or not. Or they will decide they have no idea if it is credible or not if they are unable to make a conclusion. That will be one part of this process, but the physical evidence and any people who may have overheard the situation will also be a big part of this.
If the theory the police come up with, based on their investigation, is that Zimmerman committed a crime they will probably arrest him. However if they’re certain or very sure the evidence is so weak they will be sending a dud to the prosecution I have to imagine they may be hesitant to make the arrest. I’d expect they would at least involve the prosecutor in the discussions since there is truly no point at all to make the arrest if the prosecutor is just going to look at it and decline to take up the case. (Just like the police, the prosecutor can exercise discretion and are not required to prosecuted every case that comes across their desk.)
Give me some real world examples to work with, and maybe I’ll entertain this question. And make sure that in any example you create that involves a victim, the victim is too dead to provide a statement that counters the suspect’s.
That is the wrong answer by the way. You can’t throw out the statement in #3. It will not be the only consideration but it can’t be ignored.
Dead body. Subject #1 is dead. Subject #2 claims he shot subject #1 in self defense. In his statement subject #2 states he was in fear for his life, he was assaulted knocked down to the ground and there was a struggle for the gun. There are no signs of a struggle and no injury to subject #2. The autopsy reveals the gun shot came from at least a foot away. There is no evidence that subject #1 ever touched the gun.
Dead body. Subject #1 is dead. Subject #2 claims he shot subject #1 in self defense. In his statement subject #2 states he was in fear for his life, he was assaulted knocked down to the ground and there was a struggle for the gun. During the interview subject #2 admits that he panicked and shot subject #1 when he acted angry towards him but there was no struggle or assault.
Dead body. Subject #1 is dead. Subject #2 claims he shot subject #1 in self defense. In his statement subject #2 states he was in fear for his life, he was assaulted knocked down to the ground and there was a struggle for the gun. At the scene there is blood matching the wound to the back of subject #2’s head. There are bruises to the face of subject #2. There are abrasions to the knuckles of subject #1. The autopsy reveals the gunshot was at point blank range and there was a laceration on the hand of subject #1 consistent with getting bit by the slide.
Same question. You Ok with using his statement in 1 and 2 but not 3? And I am not saying that in #3 he is necessarily telling the whole truth or even that he isn’t lying outright.
Actually, no I didn’t present it as “factual rape”. In the first scenario, I presented the woman’s claim and then the accused’s claim. In the second scenario, since the woman is dead, I could only present the killer’s claim. So you let your feelings get away with your ability to dispassionately analyze their claims.
But yes, I agree with you, evidence of violent sex is what counts here. It matters very little what the suspect says happens. Likewise, it matters very little what Zimmerman claims is true. We should just let the physical and circumstantial evidence speak for itself.
You seem to have latched on the rape too hard. Consider that while we don’t have evidence of sodomy, we do have evidence that the two actors fought. We also have evidence that Zimmerman initiated contact with the kid and was determined to nab him for racially-charged reasons*. We have evidence that the kid was unarmed and significantly smaller than Zimmerman. We don’t have evidence as to why Martin would initiate aggression against Zimmerman, but we do have evidence as to Zimmerman’s intent and state of mind. None of this is in dispute, IIRC.
As you said before when we were talking about evidence of violent sex and the irrelevance of the suspect’s statement, Zimmerman’s statement should not alter how we look at this data. His self-defense claim shouldn’t interfer with our analysis of the information I just typed. Do you or don’t you agree with this?
*According the stories I’ve read. Which might not be 100% accurate, but it’s the best we have to go on since the police still hasn’t shown its hand.
You set up a straw man. You set up a scenario in which there was a crime in which the elements are completely different. You set it up so that every bit of physical and circumstantial evidence points to it being a crime. And you pretend that it is equivalent to the other case. Not only is it a completely different crime, you set it up so that there is no way the statement could be seen as anything other than a complete fabrication. Then sat back and waited for someone to fall into your trap. Your clumsy straw man is not something to be as proud of as you seem to be. Let it go. It’s not helping you.
You know you have a police officer in this thread telling you that is not how it is done. Is it your belief that the appropriate role of the police is to analyze only physical and circumstantial evidence and ignore any suspect statements?
I know you want this to be true. Those who get there information from the world and not TV have told you otherwise. What has happened In this case so far has told you otherwise. And yet you cling to it. No one said his statement should be taken at face value. No one said it is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. But in an offense that intent is a major factor and which has factors built into the statute may make it justified, it can not be ignored.
I didn’t give you any wrong answers because I didn’t answer your question.
Why would it be necessary to put much (if any) weight into subject 2’s claim, if the evidence by itself doesn’t point to self-defense? I’m be leaning towards homocide just on what the evidence shows. I’ll need more info to determine what kind of homocide this most likely is, but that info is not likely to come out of subject2’s mouth.
Does the evidence show sign of a struggle? What were the events leading up to the event? Any bad blood between the two that could be corrobated by other witnesses, that is suggestive of motive?
I think we all agree that self-incriminating statements should carry more weight than non self-incriminating ones. But even when you have confessions, you can’t assume that this is the whole truth. A confession of manslaughter shouldn’t mean we ignore evidence that points to premeditated murder. It doesn’t mean the investigation stops there.
What does the physical evidence combined with the circumstantial evidence tell us? What evidence is there that subject1 initiated aggression against subject2? We have signs of a struggle, yes. But what events could have precipated that struggle, based on the evidence we have? Is there evidence that suggests subject2 acted unnecessarily and reckless? Is there evidence that subject1 was posing an immediate danger to anyone and needed to be confronted by subject2?
How many weight should we give subject2’s claims we we assess all of this data? Why should give it any weight at all, when subject1 isn’t alive to counter any of it?
It was a wrong answer because his statement should not be ignored under any circumstances. What weight it is given, or in which direction it pushes things depends on the situation.
It’s given weight if it matches the evidence. How much weight does depend on other information. Sometimes there is no other information. Sometimes that means you can’t go forward with the case. It happens. Yes it sucks when it does.
On a scale between 1 and 10, how much weight do you think the cops should give Zimmerman’s statement assuming all they had to go by is the 911 call and the physical evidence that we know about.
Now we are done. Feel free to cite where I have shown bias towards Zimmerman at all. Just the opposite. I have stated several times I believe he is guilty of manslaughter given the information available and filling it in with some assumption. I have stated I believe if it happened in my jurisdiction he would be in jail right now but the law here is a bit different (for instance here you must retreat unless you are in your home, in Florida by law you never have to retreat). You have let your emotion cloud your judgement. I have only tried to give factual answers without any recreational outrage. Feel free to continue with your Law&Order view of the law (or is it Castle?) I’ll be here in the real world.
That’s a bullshit question. No one here is claiming anything based on the physical evidence we know about. That’s what you guys keep forgetting every 10 posts. We’re saying that if the police conducted an interview and collected physical evidence, and based on the interview and the physical evidence they decided it was self defense, or they decided that they lacked probable cause to arrest, or they decided that the evidence was so weak the State’s Attorney would not be able to prosecute the case, then the police can reasonable exercise their discretion and not arrest Zimmerman.
I’ve said many, many, many times in this thread that our presumption is the police have evidence we do not have, namely because we know they have the full 911 tape, the autopsy, and the specific physical evidence at the crime. We have only heard vague second hand accounts of the physical evidence at the scene, the investigators actually had the real physical evidence to analyze themselves.
I obviously did not read your original scenario carefully enough, I had thought it was a case in which you described a rape but then said the rapist claims self-defense. Obviously I did not read your foolish hypothetical carefully enough to comment on it. I actually was intent on not commenting on it at all, because it remains dramatically different than the situation in the actual Zimmerman/Martin shooting. Congratulations on repeatedly bringing up a stupid, irrelevant hypothetical and getting me to comment on it without fully reading it.
That being said, now that I’m in the proverbial bear trap I’ll address it this one last time.
In any criminal matter, police must act based on the law, policy, and the specific circumstances before them. An incident in which a woman has physical injuries and signs of violent sex and she is alive and claiming rape, you have a different situation than the Zimmerman/Martin case. There are different interests at stake and there are different things you need to be worried about.
You seem hung up on the size argument, but to me the size argument is of little importance in both your hypothetical with the woman and your hypothetical with the man. If we’re to put so much emphasis on size, then we most presume that any case in which a small person claims aggression from a larger person, the larger person is at fault.
In the real world, I’m sure there have been many actual cases where a man (larger than a woman) has rough sex with a woman who then claims it is rape to damage the man’s reputation, get him in trouble or etc. False rape claims do happen, but under your system of logic where we must only consider the fact the woman is smaller and injured and ignore the story the man says (even if it’s extremely plausible and is backed up by significant physical evidence) you would basically be advocating a system in which any woman who is smaller than a man can have men sent off for rape regardless of what’s actually happened.
It is impossible to fully investigate the case without both considering the story of the man and the story of the woman. The very manner in which the stories are told is evidence. If the man’s story lacks any credibility, then his story becomes additional evidence against him. But if it explains the circumstances and is corroborated by the physical evidence, it can direct the investigation into making sure the claim of rape isn’t being fabricated.
To get back to the Trayvon case, you’re basically saying the police should have taken Zimmerman’s statement and only considered how it could condemn him and not at all factor in any piece of the physical evidence that might corroborate his story and thus give credence to his claim of self defense.
That’s stupid. For one thing, assume the police are predisposed to bias against Zimmerman, they think he was a bad guy from the get go and want him to go away. Even if they think that, they should still look at how his story is corroborated by the evidence. Because that will come out at trial and the State’s Attorney is going to want to know from the police that the defendant is going to be able to corroborate parts of his story with physical evidence. That’s important to communicate to the State’s Attorney. The State’s Attorney may think he can present a picture to the jury in which Zimmerman’s story isn’t compelling, and he may be able to convince the jury that Zimmerman hasn’t established his claim of self defense, but either way he’s going to want to know that Zimmerman’s story as he tells it is corroborated by the evidence. That impacts how the State’s Attorney prepares his case and also will impact whether he is willing to make a plea deal and what he’s willing to agree to, the stronger Zimmerman’s defense the more likely he is of winning an acquittal and the more likely the State’s Attorney is to want a plea arrangement.
Your argument however is that we should only consider physical and circumstantial evidence. Namely that Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Zimmerman said “these guys always get away” and that Zimmerman had signs of getting beat up.
Well, there is no factual conclusion you can make from those you can only make guesses. And the guesses based on that evidence range from premeditated murder to justifiable homicide. The police have to get Zimmerman’s version of the story to have any hope of understanding what happened. Yeah, if Zimmerman is a master liar his story may get him off the hook. But that’s true whether the police believe it or not (because if he’s a masterful liar then presume he can convince at least 1 of 12 jurors it was self defense.)
Many murders do not leave physical evidence that is different from self-defense. Sometimes there is clear physical evidence to differentiate between a murder and self-defense. If the police, taking the totality of the evidence believe a defendant’s claim of self-defense is true, I do not see why they should arrest him.