He confessed to the shooting! There’s no question whatsoever that Zimmerman killed Martin (the actus reus for murder/manslaughter). That’s a huge slam-dunk for the prosecution in the absence of a criminal defense.
The prosecution only has a burden of proof with respect to the elements of the crime. There is no burden on the prosecutor to disprove affirmative defenses for which a prima facie case has not been made. If the accused does make a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to disprove. (And if the prosecution succeeds, the burden again shifts to the accused to rebut the prosecution.)
As to affirmative defenses, which self-defense is, the accused has the burden of production (i.e., the accused must raise the defense, the prosecutor does not, at any time, have to disprove any possible defenses not raised by the accused) and the burden of persuasion (i.e., has to convinced the finder of fact by some specified quantum of evidence). In a criminal trial, the accused must prove up his affirmative defense by a “preponderance of the evidence” (usually glossed that the accused must show that the allegations of fact that make up his defense are more likely true than not).
So, in this instance, Zimmerman must raise and make out a prima facie case that he both actually and reasonably feared that he faced an imminent danger of grievous bodily harm. Also note that the jury may reject uncorrobated testimonial assertions as not credible. Obviously a defendant has an incentive to lie. I think a lot of people think that in a he-said/the-other-guy-didn’t-say-because-he’s-dead situation, the testimony of the survivor must be taken as gospel. That isn’t the case, you can’t meet he-said with either direct evidence (usually, the she-said) or circumstantial evidence (for instance, what he said sounds deeply implausible in light of his contemporaneous statements and actions).
Of course, in this case, the prosecution will also have the phone call and Zimmerman’s initiation of the contact with which to challenge Zimmerman’s credibility. They will also point out that Zimmerman’s self-defense claim is legally insufficient, since self-defense is not available to initial aggressors (unless the victim then escalated a non-deadly force situation to a deadly force one).
No no no, this guy was clearly shot. The high levels of cocaine found in all Black men is only fatal when they’ve been hit with PR-24s or Tazed. (The now antiquated straightstick kills by aggravating their normally high levels of alcohol and THC.)
Of course we can make up scenarios. But from the information we have, the most likely scenario, in my mind, is the one where a hothead screwed up and killed a kid without sufficient cause to justify a claim of self-defense.
It’s not the cop’s job to be persuaded by dreamed up scenarios just because the suspect leads them to think a certain way. Cops are tasked with looking for evidence of a crime. Period.
Let’s say he does. So what? Is it the cop’s job to play judge and jury with this information?
Thank you for the explanation. I agree that Zimmerman should have just stayed in the car. I think one of the articles quoted him as saying, “Those assholes always get away” or words to that effect. So it sounded like he was afraid that the kid wouldn’t be around when the police officer arrived and that’s why he got out of the car.
Based on your interactions with Loach, I have very little confidence in your beliefs about what cops do and why they do it.
You and others seem to believe that Zimmerman’s previously expunged conviction shows something or other. Why do you want the cops to ignore evidence on one side, but not the other?
Worrying that a scofflaw will evade punishment is something quite different than worrying that one is in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm—it is only that latter worry, acutally and reasonably held, that licenses one to use deadly force in self-defense.
The only claim I’m aware he made in the 911 call was that Martin was suspicious. That’s a subjective claim that actually isn’t too terribly important. There is absolutely no way to prove what someone believes to be suspicious, or to disprove they believe something is suspicious.
In the section of my post you were quoting I was simply laying out the facts that we know. It is a fact that we know Zimmerman called 911 and said he saw a suspicious black male. I did not say there was a suspicious black male, only that Zimmerman called 911 and said there was.
No one that I’m aware of has claimed the 911 call is evidence of Martin’s threat level. The 911 call can both hurt and help Zimmerman. Obviously a prosecutor can use his “these guys always get away” statement against him (to unknown effect, as there are several counter-arguments to that.) However, the fact that he called 911 can be pretty effectively presented as evidence Zimmerman had intentions to follow the law and did not intend to take the law into his own hands. It’s not proof of that, but it would definitely be used to frame the story by his defense.
See, despite me telling you multiple times you are still confused. I’m not defending Zimmerman’s statement. The entirety of Zimmerman’s statement could be false. What I’m defending is this:
The concept that police can listen to a suspect’s statement and decide whether it is credible or not. Should they take their feelings on statement credibility as more important than the physical evidence? Absolutely not. But if their feelings on statement credibility combined with corroborating physical evidence lead them to a decision, there is nothing inappropriate about it.
You guys are obsessed with this particular case. All the OP asked in this thread is why Zimmerman hadn’t been arrested. The only people who know factually are the police. All we can do is speculate and repeat what the police have said to the media (that they couldn’t disprove his claim of self defense and that they didn’t find evidence of a crime.) My only point from the beginning was “without knowing the evidence ourselves it’s impossible to know for sure, but in general the police can look at a situation where self-defense is claimed and decide to believe that claim and not to file charges.”
I’m not confused about why you guys think Zimmerman is in the wrong, I’m just confused as to why you’re opposed to the general concepts I’m talking about. It’s also strange you’re so convinced we’re defending Zimmerman, when everyone who has said anything trying to explain the police actions has explicitly stated they aren’t defending Zimmerman but were just explaining a possible reason that the police may not have arrested him.
You know, the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, as you seem to do here when you ask why we care about something that actually happened (Zimmerman’s prior and subsequently expunged episode of aggressive behavior) but not something that you completely invented (maybe Martin was actually a hardened criminal), is a distressing indication that you might be losing your mind, no?
I should first point out in the post of mine you’re quoting I explicitly say that Zimmerman getting a bloody nose from the kid isn’t justified homicide, as I was replying to a post that made that point.
The order from 911 has been called essentially irrelevant legally by the police. I don’t know that I’d agree with that as I think it could be relevant in a trial, but the police are probably correct that it is not as important as you believe it to be.
We’ve already addressed the size issue.
I agree that on the face it may seem the man was not preventing imminent death or great bodily harm. However lots of things seem one way when they really aren’t. Any news story about a controversial crime or law enforcement activity often changes many many times as it spins around and as more facts come to light. I just don’t jump to conclusions. I agree on the face it doesn’t seem like self defense. My point originally was we don’t have the evidence the police do so the way it seems to us is not terribly important.
Yes, it is simpler to assume Zimmerman was in the wrong. I lean towards that way myself. This thread’s title isn’t “Do you think the neighborhood watch shooter committed a crime?” The thread’s title is " Why hasn’t the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?" If I’m going to speculate on why someone wouldn’t be arrested, I can only rely on my knowledge of the law and criminal procedure (not expert, but I didn’t flunk civics class either) to contribute an opinion (the purpose of this forum.) My opinion will only be explaining reasons for not arresting Zimmerman.
Not because I think Zimmerman should not have been arrested, but because I thought this discussion was about “reasons why he wouldn’t have been.”
To me, it’s like if someone started a thread titled, “Why didn’t John McCain beat Barack Obama in the 2008 election?” And I started listing various reasons I thought McCain lost, and everyone was countering it with “but McCain should have won!!!”
The whole point of this thread was to, I thought, proffer reasons an arrest may not have happened.
But it’s still just an uncorroborated claim so it doesn’t matter. The existence of the 911 call provides us just as much information as the surveillance video in my hypothetical does. Neither tells us anything authoritative about the victim, but they do provide clues about the suspect.
If evidence points to manslaughter, his intentions to follow the law don’t mean much. He very well might have wanted to be a hero by nabbing Martin. Doesn’t alter the evidence that says he acted unnecessarily and recklessly.
It is *when the physical and circumstantial evidence alone *screams bloody murder. That’s all I’m trying to get you to see. If you can find it in your heart to agree with this, then maybe we can stop arguing.
The statutes in Florida don’t clearly explain to what degree you have to explain self-defense. I know the “general legal principle” worth absolutely nothing in this case, is that you need to demonstrate your self defense claim to a “preponderance of the evidence.” I’d be surprised if Florida’s law (as interpreted by the courts) is such that you literally have to offer no evidence at all.
I guess my mistake is in thinking people actually wanted to discuss reasons he may not have been arrested. I think it’s possible it’s actually a thread to bitch about the fact that he was not arrested.
Maybe English isn’t your first language, but I’d just point out that negative questions in English can often serve functionally as suggestions or protestations.
EX:
Why don’t you have some cake? (Usually is an invitation to try the cake, not “Give me reasons why you’re not eating it.”)
Why didn’t you tell me you were married!? (As often as not means, “You slime!”, rather than “I wonder why you forgot to mention it…”)
Whether this was the OP’s intention, I don’t know.
No one has ever said that if the evidence points to murder the police shouldn’t make an arrest. I think what’s been said since page one by myself at least 10 times is that no one participating in this discussion knows the full evidence. So no one can say what the evidence points towards.
All we can say is what the news suggests, the news “represents the evidence” but in this case it has yet to actually present real evidence.
Real evidence would be transcripts or summaries of Zimmerman’s statements released by police, actual transcripts of statements taken by witnesses, the findings of the coroner/M.E. about the nature of the shooting itself, the actual 911 tapes (which I believe have yet to be released) and etc. Specifics in any of those can dramatically change the way something “looks.”
In New York City a murderer out on parole was working at a McDonald’s. Two women were angry that he looked at a $50 they passed him to see if it was counterfeit and jumped the counter at him. He ran back into the back and got a metal stick and beat them with it.
The news in NYC that I read kept referring to the man’s crimeand his victim and how the man “savagely attacked” the two women. He was arrested initially and charged with assault (they had charges filed against them as well.) In the end, the charges against the man were dropped and the women’s charges were not. The newspapers wanted to spin it hard as an essentially unwarranted beating of two women by some crazy violent monster, but the actual law didn’t work out that way. I’m just never one to jump on recreational outrage bandwagons at this stage in a story, or at any stage really.
When all the evidence comes out if it looks like cold blooded murder and Zimmerman is never charged, I’ll be outraged (not recreationally, though.)
Most here are aware that there may not be a lot of evidence, but with what is known the decision to not arrest seems unnecessarily hasty and understandably raises suspicions. An apparently innocent African American teen returning from picking up snacks during halftime of the NBA All Star game, killed by a white “self appointed” neighborhood watch captain with referenced anger issues and an expunged record of an incident with police. Hopefully the prosecutor will investigate this very thoroughly, because it certainly doesn’t appear that the police have.
Just skimmed the thread, so apologies if I missed something. Two points:
(1) Kimmy_Gibbler, I think you’re misstating the law. In Florida, like most states, the burden of disproving self-defense falls on the prosecution, not the accused. * E.g., Jenkins v. State*, App. 2 Dist., 942 So.2d 910 (2006). So that makes it more plausible that the reluctance to arrest is about whether the police think there’s sufficient evidence to prosecute, though prosecutorial discretion could still play a role even where self-defense is the accused’s burden.
(2) Nevertheless, there’s obviously enough evidence known to the public to prosecute and overcome a self-defense theory. Someone upthread said common sense is not evidence, but that’s just not true. A jury is perfectly able to make common sense inferences from the fact that this victim had no obvious reason to threaten the life of the killer, and the fact that it was the killer that initiated contact. That fact alone is enough to cast doubt on the killer’s credibility sufficient to overcome the affirmative defense.
So the (sincere on my part) question is this: what evidence, now unknown to us, could there possibly exist to persuade the prosecution (and by extension the police) that this isn’t a case worth charging?
Would evidence that the victim attacked the killer at some unknown point in time be sufficient? Why?
I suppose there could be evidence that the victim told a friend he was gonna randomly mug a guy that night or something, but is that the kind of outlandish hypothetical we’re left with, or is there something plausible here?
All wrong. As repeatedly posted in this thread, the physical act of killing somone, the actus reus, is not a crime in and of itself in Florida. That’s huge. The state has to show that elements making it murder or manslaughter exist. And the whole point of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is that it’s not the defendant’s job to actively prove a case of self-defense; the prosecution has to prove the shooting did not meet the guidelines of lawful self-defense.
Complaints about proceedure aside, the police made a clumsy mess of public relations. They should have passed the buck with: “we’ve passed our findings on to the state’s attorney and they willl make the final determination.”
All they’ve managed to do is cause more confusion.