According to one of the articles linked back around post #180 or so, there was a description of them handcuffing Zimmerman, interrogating him at the station, and then releasing him.
This is what is termed an arrest, until they decide they don’t want to keep him, based on his statements, demeanor, etc, and they instead call it ‘questioning’ or ‘detaining’ instead. On the paperwork in my town, it is present in the name of the form and says “Arrest or Detainment log” or something similar, one of which is to be circled or checked accordingly.
So the answer, from my POV as a civilian who has been detained and released, is that it is no different than arrest, one is still in jail until released, and so, in fact, Zimmerman WAS arrested and taken to jail. He was just released a few hours later when they realized they couldn’t charge him.
In your hypothetical the man is claiming consensual sex. The fact that they are strangers (which you confirm with this quote that they are strangers in your hypothetical) makes it less believable that they were engaged in consensual sex. If I was a police officer I would question the credibility of a claim that a woman would decide to have consensual sex with a stranger without at least some compelling back story (does the man at least claim they met at a bar, had established some kind of rapport or etc?)
In your hypothetical you have a woman claiming she was raped in a public area and a man claiming they were having consensual sex in a public area. In the real situation you have a violent confrontation in which the only living survivor claims he was following the deceased as part of his self-imposed duty of community watchman and the deceased became agitated over being followed and instigated a conflict.
Between those stories, I find it more credible that someone who was a community watchman might piss someone off due to following them than I would believe a man’s claim that a random stranger wanted to have sex with him in a public alley.
All it proves is he said “these guys always get away.” What do you believe it proves about intent and state of mind? If you believe it proves anything you do not know what the word proves mean. I’m not defense attorney, but if I was representing Zimmerman I’d say that Zimmerman, in his time on the community watch patrol had seen lots of teenagers get away with doing stuff and he was intent on following Trayvon so he could direct police to whichever home he entered. Your claim is that it is proof of intent to start a fight. It’s not proof of that, it’s evidence that can be presented in two different ways (and I’m sure it would be in a trial.) That’s not the same as proof.
True.
True (in one of your hypotheticals, anyway.)
True, although in your first hypothetical you did not make it so clear that the police arrive on the scene.
True.
True.
I’ve already pointed out some. But additionally:
The claim of self defense by Zimmerman has some level of support that the man in the other case does not have. For one, Zimmerman called 911 before the confrontation and relays that he thought the deceased was suspicious. In your hypothetical there is not such aspect. While that can be interpreted both ways (and should be considered both ways) it provides “some level” of believability that Zimmerman was not intending to commit a crime, since he called police to report a suspicious person.
Your biggest problem is you’re assuming a bare level of knowledge of the Zimmerman case is the entirety of the knowledge, and then saying the police should arrest based on that. You do not have full knowledge of the case.
Additionally you are obsessed with this concept that because we are trying to offer a reasonable explanation as to why police wouldn’t arrest someone who claimed self defense that we are claiming Zimmerman is innocent. It’s almost like you people didn’t even want to have this thread. The OP asked “why hasn’t Zimmerman been arrested” we postulate on why, explaining how these things sometimes go and why given certain sets of circumstances police may make a judgment call and not make an arrest. You guys are obsessed with the general concept that police might make a judgment called based on the totality of the evidence, that part I don’t get.
No one here has ever ruled out police misconduct in this case, either. I’ve said “that is also one of the explanations” that they were not performing their duties appropriately. I’ve just also said, in a case scant on evidence, that another possibility is that in the opinion of law enforcement an arrest was not warranted.
Your position is that any claim of self-defense should be approached as false until proven otherwise. Myself, I just want the police to take all of the information in and then decide if the claim seems credible or not. If they don’t know, I’d prefer it go to a prosecutor and maybe even a jury to sort it out. However, I also don’t believe it technically incorrect for a police officer to decide on a case in which he isn’t sure, to pass on arresting the suspect. Police have discretion in how they do their jobs.
Until more information comes out I see no reason to continue in this thread. What I will say is this: Zimmerman may have committed a crime. Based on what I know, I’ve always said he seems wrong to me, and I would not be surprised if he acted in bad faith.
However, the OP was wondering why the shooter had not been arrested.
No one in this thread knows for sure why the shooter has not been arrested. We only know why Chief Lee told us he has not been arrested.
The general point I wanted to make was, the police investigate situations and can make a decision that they:
a) do not have sufficient evidence to make an arrest (lack probable cause)
b) have sufficient evidence to arrest, but a very weak case and are thus disinclined from making the arrest
c) have sufficient evidence to arrest, but a very weak case, but decide to arrest to let the State’s Attorney decide what to do
d) believe a claim of self defense, and do not arrest because they believe it was justified homicide
e) disbelieve a claim of self defense, have evidence to support a manslaughter or etc charge, and make an arrest
In all of these scenarios this isn’t the terminal situation. The State’s Attorney can look at any case brought to them and decide not to pursue charges. They can also look at a case where a man wasn’t arrested by police and decide he committed a crime and file charges on their own.
I have only attempted to argue general concepts based on what might be the case in this scenario. I’ve tried to add a qualifier repeatedly that I don’t know all the facts of this case. I’ve repeatedly tried to emphasize the State’s Attorney may find this case is worth prosecuting, and that as evidence comes out there may be persuasive proof not only that Zimmerman should be charged, but that he is guilty of manslaughter.
I do not feel there is persuasive evidence thus far, simply because of the general principle I explained earlier: that once a claim of self-defense meets the “preponderance of the evidence” barrier, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I do not feel based on what we know it is “intrinsically incorrect” to have not arrested Zimmerman. Because I don’t know the full evidence, I did not hear Zimmerman’s statement. I think that if an investigator hears a statement, and combined with evidence and his professional opinion that the suspect was telling the truth, the police officer can exercise his discretion in different directions.
I feel the assumption when the thread was started is that the only reason the police did not arrest him is because of racism or something of that nature. My only desire was to demonstrate that instead, there are many valid reasons for not arresting someone who has claimed self defense.
Some of the arguments people have made in this thread to undermine the concept that you don’t always have to arrest someone who claims self defense is ludicrous. Further, the earlier argument that it “must be wrong” that all you need to support a claim of self-defense is a credible statement and evidence that corroborates your story is faulty. That’s precisely what you need to support a claim of self defense, and while some of you seem to think that opens a flood gate for people to get off Scot free of cold blooded murder, it is absolutely the case. Some people are working under the assumption that you have to prove self defense, which is not accurate.
I wasn’t trying to imply that you support the shooter’s claims, but I think the reporter’s story should carry weight even if they don’t cite their source. You said upthread that until shown otherwise you would assume the police acted in good faith, given the circumstances I don’t share that confidence and trust the news more.
With the new information on the witness statement, and assuming she told the police what she says she told them, do you still think the police acted appropriately in letting Zimmerman go free? I’m sure it’s complicated but to my layman’s perspective it’s really hard for me to understand.
If the self-defence laws in the state of Florida are such that it’s OK for me to shoot dead a teenager half my size because he punched me in the nose on a public street, then those laws are dure for some serious revision.
Can you finally quit with the hot air and wasted bandwidth and talk substance already?
How is it different? And please, not more of the goldfish dog cat whatever shit. You’ve had half the day to come up with a rebuttal, and yet you’re still serving up lameness.
Like what? Public safety? What could be more alarming than homocide? Sounds like some more half-baked lameness.
If we’re going to factor in this asshole’s statement into our analysis of what is likely, certainly some objective weights and measures matter too. You can’t rake me over the coals for talking about size, when you keep insisting the shooter’s statement should carry weight when assessing probable cause.
If an unarmed shooting victim is 50 lbs or more lighter than the guy who fought and then killed him, that might not be definitive proof of an unfair fight. But it’s a great indicator that it was. We have different weight classes for wrestlers and boxers for a reason, right? Why should we all of the sudden ignore this basic principle of physics?
Um no. This is a poor inference to make, and it says more about your ability to form a coherent argument than it does mine.
You know I’m not saying that. My position has been repeated over and over again throughout this thread. But because I’m nice, I’ll spell it out to you.
**
The cops are under no obligation to disprove or challenge Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense just to press charges against him. All they have to do is establish probable cause of a crime by looking at the physical and circumstantial evidence. If the facts point to manslaughter or murder, it does not matter that Zimmerman is whining about self-defense. **
A newspaper article with anonymous sources carries weight in the court of public opinion. But of course it’s not relevant to the legal case.
That updated cite implies that at least part of the investigation was sloppy. If the witness is reliable and not a crank. I am not assuming she is a crank. But believe me when I tell you I have done some eye rolling when I see who they quote in articles about somethings I have been involved in.
As to whether I still think they acted appropriately? I’m not sure if I ever did say that. I was simply trying to provide answers as to why legally they were able to reach that conclusion. Not if it was correct. Since none of the information gathered has been released I can’t say for certain. From what I have read none of it will be released until the conclusion of the states attorney’s investigation.
Sex between strangers happens all the time. Probably just as frequently as one-sided fights that skew in favor of the sgnificantly smaller guy.
If I were a police officer, I would question the credibility of a claim that this skinny 17 year-old kid, who had every right to be where he was, had unleashed a life-threatening, unprovoked attack on a guy who had been stalking him for several minutes, without at least some compelling back story (did anyone else in the neighborhood complain that Martin was behaving menancingly, had he ever been violent before, was he prone to rampages etc.?)
But this “self-imposed duty” sounds eerily like harrassment. Harrassment in a public area that Martin was perfectly entitled to be.
Both scenarios are in a public area because that’s another important detail related to circumstantial evidence. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in his own home and there were signs of a break in consistent with an attempted robbery, then these findings would support self-defense even in the absence of Zimmerman claiming such. But on a public street, in an open area? The evidence doesn’t lead us to think self-defense.
I never said both stories are equally believable; only that the basic set up is the same for both. Physical and circumstantial evidence for and against the suspects are essentially the same.
Have you heard the full tape? I’m asking you this seriously, because I haven’t. But according to stories in circulation, Zimmerman purportedly uttered racial slurs and other things. If you don’t think this plus “these guys always get away” paints a unflattering picture of someone bound and determined to get his hands on a fleet-footed nigger, I don’t know what I could say to help you see this. I really don’t.
Thanks for the lecture, but I never used the word “prove” so it’s unnecessary. Evidence is not proof, if just evidence. Nothing by itself “proves” anything. I used the word clue for reason.
No I didn’t.
So what? An overreactive wannabe cop is liable to report anything to 911, doesn’t mean his suspicion had merit. If he told the dispatcher the kid looked suspicious because he was black and wearing a hoodie, what then? Does that still suggest self-defense?
The 911 call may very well be evidence that suggest Zimmerman was being overly imaginative and racially biased in his assessment of suspicion. Even if its a clue that he wasn’t intending to commit a crime, if he’s talking like racist maniac on that tape, this should tell us that his state-of-mind could have easily led him on that path.
Since I haven’t heard the tape, I can’t say how much weight this gives us claim of self-defense.
You just matter-of-factly stated that the 911 calls make his story more credible! Unless you’ve heard it, there is no way for to you say that. So you’re guilty as much as me in assuming all of this knowledge.
We’re talking about three scenarios since you subdivided yours.
One of your scenarios involves a woman claiming she was raped, with evidence of a fight between her and a larger man. The man claims consensual sex.
One of your scenarios involves a woman being killed, with evidence of a fight between her and a larger man. The man claims they had consensual sex and then a fight broke out and he killed her in self defense.
The present scenario involves a man identifying over a 911 call someone he views as suspicious, he then approaches. Violence ensues, Zimmerman suffers some wounds and shoots and kills Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman claims self defense.
If you claim I’m just serving up “lameness” or “hot air” one more time I will no longer respond to you in this thread. The simple fact is those three things are all unique situations that are different. They are different because they are different. A woman claiming she was raped and a man denying it is different than a man claiming he shot an assailant in self defense. If you don’t think they are different situations then we literally have no common ground of rational thought upon which we can meet for the purposes of discussion.
If you assume the worst about Zimmerman it is that he’s a hot head who escalated a situation and then killed a kid. While that makes him a menace, his likelihood of being an immediate public threat in the next few weeks is not high.
If you assume the worst about the man in your scenario he’s someone who violently rapes/assaults/murders women in dark alleys for no reason, meaning he could potentially be a serial killer and certainly could be a serial offender.
An unbiased panel of observers would conclude the man in your scenario could be more easily considered someone who is likely to be a risk to the public in the immediate future if you believe the worst about him.
I have a serious problem with your claim we must conclude Zimmerman is the likely aggressor because of his larger size. I’d be fine if you were saying “it’s unlikely Zimmerman genuinely felt his life was in danger because he was significantly larger than Trayvon Martin.” That’s a worthy argument, not an ironclad argument by any means, but I wouldn’t object to it out of hand. You have genuinely stated that being larger means it’s more likely you’re the aggressor. That goes against all experiences of my life and common sense, I’ve known many small people who pick fights with big people (and not all of them lose those fights, either.)
Sure, I agree if we’re just talking as “citizens on the street.” But I wouldn’t want a case to rest on this argument. If you factor size out entirely you have:
Injured man (Zimmerman)
Dead teenager (Martin)
Injured man claiming self defense
That doesn’t immediately suggest anything, other than a matter needing a great deal of attention. It could be murder, manslaughter, or something else. Adding the fact that Martin was a lot smaller than Zimmerman weakens his claim of self defense, but absent any other evidence (meaning the state of evidence we had at the beginning of this thread) it doesn’t in itself make me say “Zimmerman must be lying about self defense.”
What I find interesting is you are so obsessed with the size issue and insist we accept your inferences made on that issue, or at least accept that reasonable police would factor it in to find Zimmerman’s claim intrinsically lacking in credibility. When Bricker stated you could infer legitimate self-defense because Martin had no fist-fight injuries on him but Zimmerman did (implying a one sided fight in which Zimmerman was being beaten without mercy) you rejected that out of hand. If Martin was 25 years old but the same size as he was now, and he had no injuries at all (aside from the gunshot wound) and Zimmerman had multiple physical injuries I think people would be more likely to have considered that angle. I see no reason that Bricker’s conjecture about how we should interpret one party being injured from obvious fist fight wounds and the other part lacking fist fight wounds to be just as compelling as your size argument.
I also believe you to be intrinsically operating in bad faith on this aspect of the discussion. You claim that your cat could inflict greater wounds than the wounds Zimmerman received. Since you do not have the police report handy, I seriously question how you could possibly know that. How do you know the extent of Zimmerman’s injuries when no one else other than Zimmerman, perhaps some of his neighbors, and the investigators know this?
It’s almost like an investigator would have to weigh a bunch of factors like this and then come to some conclusion based on the best of his ability, and that maybe there isn’t some absolute factual rule about how the police should have behaved in regards to the evidence we know about.
Remember the whole point is that investigators can make a decision not to arrest on several criteria: one is that they don’t believe they have legal grounds to arrest at all, and the other is they don’t believe a crime was committed, and the other is they don’t believe they have sufficient evidence for a conviction.
Just based on the evidence that we knew at the beginning of the thread, I have never said the police should not have arrested Zimmerman. I’ve only said that if they made a judgment call based on his statements (we still have no idea how he made his statement, what level of grilling he underwent, how long he was questioned, what tone he took during the questioning or etc) combined with the physical evidence then I do not think that is intrinsically wrong. You seem to insist that Zimmerman, because of the information we had at the beginning of the thread, could not possibly make a credible claim of self defense that any reasonable person would believe. I’ve only said I believe otherwise, that I could imagine a credible claim of self defense.
Of the three criteria for deciding not to arrest, the only two that I’ve seen Sanford police quoted as using are that they believe it was self defense and that they lack evidence to arrest. Like I’ve said (and I feel it’s just wasting space to keep saying it) we do not have to believe Sanford police are competent or that they don’t have inappropriate racial bias. In fact, I’m starting to think they have some bias against Martin or at the very least did not competently investigate this case. However, that’s just indications from a news article from someone who observed some part of this thing or overheard some part of this thing from her living room or something. I don’t instantly call everyone involved corrupt and racist based on whatever news story is at the top of the ticker. Any incident like this my first instinct is to wait until it is resolved before I really say unequivocally what I think about the situation.
This from the person who says, “The size differential alone makes it more likely that the aggressor would have been the heavier guy.” The same person who (without having any idea) that Zimmerman’s wounds are no worse than wounds that could be inflicted by a house cat. The same person who said that because of the size differential, Zimmerman was likely never in any danger at all. I seriously wonder if you’ve ever been in a physical confrontation, because of the deep level of ignorance you are showing on this aspect of things, from a purely physiological standpoint.
They are also under no obligation to dismiss Zimmerman’s claim of self defense out of hand based on the facts as we know them. In fact, they can, while appropriately executing their duties, take Zimmerman’s statements, find them credible on the surface, investigate the physical evidence, and decide it corroborates Zimmerman’s claim and believe that it was a justified homicide.
When I say this, please realize I am not talking about what has actually happened here because we don’t know what actually happened. All I’m saying is police can analyze evidence and come to their own conclusions and exercise discretion in how they decide to proceed.
Do you at least agree that is true? I’m not saying you have to agree that in exercising their discretion in this case they made the correct decision. I’m just saying do you at least agree that police can analyze evidence in a case, even including accepting a suspect’s statement as credible, and make a judgment call about what to do next? Or do you believe police have no such discretion?
Florida law states is is okay to shoot and kill someone if:
I do not believe that a teenager giving you a bloody nose would meet this criteria. But I also don’t presume that is all that happened in this case. I don’t actually see what harm is being done with just waiting until the State’s Attorney finishes its investigations.
I’m intrinsically not a big fan of cases like this where everyone forms a virtual lynch mob based on half information.
I’m also not a huge fan of cases where anyone who feels like talking to the newspaper or television is presumed to be telling the truth about bad police actions. No one here is such a babe in the woods they think it impossible the Sanford police looked at the case and pre-decided to let Zimmerman off because he’s a white guy shooting a black kid wearing a hooded sweatshirt. I just don’t think it’s right to just assume that is the case; I’ve seen too much to be shocked if it is, but I’m not going to just assume that.
And what is your reason for taking Zimmerman’s 911 claims at face value. So what if Zimmerman tells 911 that Martin is scary? In the absence of evidence that corroborates this claim, we have no reason to believe it, let alone assume it was reasonable. It’s only if you start with that assumption and look at everything through that lens that you would believe that this 911 call tells us anything about Martin’s actual threat level.
What about a dead woman knifed to death by a man claiming self-defense. Still different than Zimmerman? I see you keep glossing over the second scenario.
But I’ve grown tired of arguing with you, Martin Hyde. If in truth you really believe the guy is an asshole who likely committed manslaughter, I’m amazed at the amount of energy you’ve spent defending his statement. Bravo.
you with the face, we just gotta wait and see what is churned out with this. Many eyes are trained on this case now. We can only hope that this fact alone is enough to keep the authorities from fucking things up (any more than they may have already).
The key is the amount of discretion I expect law enforcment to exercise. This discretion should be indirectly proportionate to the severity of the potential crime. Possession of weed? Okay, whatever. But homocide? I don’t need a cop to be acting like judge and jury when bias on their part could completely jeopardize public safety and prevent justice from being done.
If we are talking about a potential homocide–the most serious offense on the books–cops need to be as objective as possible when interpreting evidence of a crime. They can look at subjective stuff as much as they want, just as long as they don’t let this influence how they respond to objective stuff. Again, for homocide, I think that’s the least we should expect.
I wonder if you see the ironic danger in your wording. Convicting someone without evidence is its own form of vigilantism. Witch trials and lynch mobs await at the end of that road.
Your indignation is irrelevant. “Innocent until proven guilty” isn’t just a good idea; it’s the law.
No irony, just a simple nod to common sense. Nothing about this incident justifies what Zimmerman did to that kid. He might get away with it under Florida’s “stand your ground” statute, and if so, then there is blood on Jeb Bush’s hands too. It’s not as if I’m going to form a lynch mob, but its still my opinion that this was vigilante murder. Perhaps I don’t share your faith in the so-calllled justice system.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
I am starting to believe you may have a learning disability. No one has defended his statement. How could we. We don’t know what his statement is. Only the police know what the statement was. Cite where either me or Martin defended this statement we have never heard or read. The only point that was being made was that you were wrong when you said his statement should be ignored. It was explained many times that a suspect statement should not be taken at face value or as the gospel truth but needs to be compared with the evidence on hand. I do not see how that is a hard or controversial concept. I have been able to get convictions due to suspect statements. I have also been convinced of a suspect’s innocence during an interview. That even happens on tv where you get your legal knowledge.
Interesting article about the case and if correct it raises serious questions about Zimmerman not being charged. Cutting and pasting is a drag on this phone, so my apologies but you’ll have to scroll down to the relevant paragraphs. According to this source, under the “stand your ground” law, if you initiate a confrontation that turns violent then you must use any and all means of escape before using deadly force.
Thats how I interpret it as well. However at this point we only know that they ruled it self defense, not why. What happened between the time he got out of the car and the gunshot, what he said happened and what the police believe they can prove are all unknown. The police do have access to that statute too so I’d have to assume in their own minds it fits the law. At this point I can’t say how. I’m assuming more will be released after the states attorney is done.