For those who say there is not enough evidence to bring about a charge, what kind of evidence would be necessary? There’s a dead body. There’s a suspect. It’s been established by multiple individuals that the kid was a visitor, not an intruder. There’s evidence that the captain–who was carrying a weapon–instigated a conflict by confronting someone who was not carrying a weapon. There is evidence that a scuffle took place, but since it takes two to scuffle, that alone is not an evidence for who started what. But it’s evidence of something, okay.
How is the above not enough evidence to arrest the guy so that a warrant can be issued in the event he decides to skip out on court? Isn’t that one of the purposes of making an arrest? If comes out there that is insufficient evidence to convict the guy of murder or manslaughter, charges can be dropped. But you don’t have to have rock solid proof just to charge someone.
All I know is that if Bubba Jenkins shot someone who was lawfully going about his/her business, and the only other witness to the event was dead by Bubba’s hands, it would matter very little what he claimed the truth was. He’d be arrested first, then the questions would be asked.
We haven’t established that a crime has been committed yet, so it’s not clear that he’s a suspect.
True, but not directly relevant to what happened after.
What evidence is that?
Again, evidence of what?
You also don’t get to charge someone with a crime just because you have a dead body. You must have a pretty good case before you can charge someone with a crime.
What is the minimum amount of evidence needed to establish that a crime has taken place when the only witnesses to the event are either dead or the shooter?
“Sanford neighborhood Crime Watch captain George Zimmerman has previously been arrested in 2005 for suspicion of battery on a law enforcement officer, but the charges were dropped for an unknown reason.”
Zimmerman 2005
"Investigators plan to turn the case over to the Seminole-Brevard State Attorney’s Office, the agency responsible for making a charging decision.
Sanford’s mayor, chief of police and city manager plan to hold a news conference this afternoon at 4 p.m."
With the shooter as the only witness, evidence of a crime would pretty much have to be forensic- physical evidence that contradicted the claim of self-defense.
And all of that is probably making the police and prosecutor want to look at this guy, but remember those sort of facts couldn’t be part of the trial, the prosecutor has to feel he has a case he can convict on.
We don’t know what story the shooter told police. In many cases of defensive gun use, the person claiming self defense will be the only witness to the crime. So if he has a credible story that is either backed up by physical evidence, or not contradicted by physical evidence, it’s not going to be easy to bring charges or win conviction.
Without knowing the physical evidence or what story the shooter told police I don’t know how anyone, based on what we know, can know better than the prosecutor whether charges should be filed already.
Same as with anything else, probable cause to arrest and beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. But in the real world a prosecutor will not proceed if he does not think he can get a conviction.
Simply speculation but one reason for a delay would be to wait for the autopsy results. The preliminary results would be quick but toxicology takes a while. Even if there was no evidence of drug use they wouldn’t want to charge and then find out a week later that the dead guy was hopped up on goofballs and pixie dust. Especially because there were no other witnesses.
The claim of self-defense is being made by the guy who did the shooting. Unfortunately, the other witness to the event is dead and so he can’t confirm or deny this claim. Which means that as far as claims go, it means very little.
Of course he’s going to claim self-defense, if has any sense in his head. If investigators had to find evidence to contradict these claims everytime they were made, few people would be arrested for murder.
Bolding mine. So you think that they don’t have to find evidence to refute a defendent’s claims? You do realize the burden of proof lies with the prosecution?
Yes, every time that a claim of self defense is made and the prosecution presses charges they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. How else do you think it works?
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but investigators certainly need evidence of a crime before making an arrest.
So, if the shooter says “I shot him in self-defense”, and there is no testimony or physical evidence to contradict this, then the shooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence and he walks. And it is a waste of resources to arrest someone you can’t convict.
IANAL, but that is my understanding of how it works.
They do. That’s how our legal system works. You need evidence of a crime before you can charge someone with that crime. Everytime. Yes, it may mean that some crimes go unpunished, but so far no one has come up with a better system.
You are conflating the burden of proof necessary to score a conviction with that necessary to make an arrest. The burden for the latter is a lot lighter than the former. I agree that to prove murder, they need to rule out self-defense. But you don’t have to do that to make a charge.
In the time it takes the government to finish its investigation of this “event” (since apparently it’s too premature to call it crime), this guy could have high tailed it to Cuba or some place. That’s the probablem with waiting until all evidence comes in before making an arrest.
Without evidence or witnesses to contradict a claim of self-defense, all a prosecutor would have to go on would be to take the case to trial and see if a jury considered the shooter’s story believable. In that case it woud be the prosecutor attempting to tar the defendent’s credibility, the defendent trying to look sympathetic, and the jury holding the defendent’s life in their hands. If for example, the shooter had a prior history of dealing narcotics and the victim purportedly owed him money, the jury might not be too sympathetic to a claim of self-defense.
With a lot of bogus claims of self defense I imagine:
The defendant’s story “doesn’t hold water” as Cousin Vinnie would say. Meaning the defendant makes factual claims that are inconsistent or directly contradict the physical evidence. A bad story can be presented to a jury as evidence that the entire claim by the defendant of self defense is suspect.
You can establish a motive for the defendant to want the victim dead, which can undermine the self defense angle. For example you find out they are rival gang leaders, or you find out that the victim was sleeping with the defendant’s wife and find evidence that the defendant knew that and had made threatening phone calls and death threats to both the defendant and wife.
Witnesses to the crime observe that it wasn’t self defense.
I would bet #1/2 are big ones, most people who commit a crime are terrible at lying about it to police and say a bunch of stuff that the police easily see through. A lot of people in a situation like that, once their lies have been exposed, will confess.
A half smart criminal will realize the only thing they should say in a situation like this is “I feared for my life, and I need to have an attorney present to answer any further questions.” If you say that, and then awhile later go with an attorney to explain what happened (after going over with your attorney what wording to use and etc), and the physical evidence supports or at least “doesn’t refute” self defense, then I imagine it’d be very difficult for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction and thus it’s unlikely they would pursue a case.
The physical injuries to the shooter in this case is one of the few pieces of physical evidence we know about, and on the face they would help a defense based on self defense.
Thank you for the lesson. But as a police detective I am aware of the process. I am also aware that unless its an on view arrest by the officers on the scene, prosecutors will not go forward with a case that they do not believe they can win. Not saying that they only go forward with slam dunks but they will not waste time with a certain loss. Sometimes there just isn’t enough evidence to convict. And they will not make an arrest to keep someone from fleeing to Cuba if he is not a flight risk. At this point we sort of know what the shooter is claiming happened. We have no idea what kind of evidence they have either way. Each case is handled differently according to its own circumstances.
As an outside observer, you have a 17 year old kid who left his dad’s house to get a drink and a bag of skittles from a convenience store. He comes back, headed back home, and ends up getting killed by a neighborhood watch guy who (based on the media portrait of him) probably has a subscription to Soldier of Fortune and etc.
There is no logical reason why this kid would have tried to attack or hurt the neighborhood watch dude. There is also superficial evidence the neighborhood watch dude is prone to violence and escalating situations.
What I can see happening is he confronted the kid and a fight broke out. We don’t know if the neighborhood watch guy antagonized the kid or if the kid himself has an ultra short fuse and decided it was time to kick ass.
That isn’t a positive story for the neighborhood watch guy. If he intentionally provoked someone into hitting him, and then shot the guy dead and didn’t genuinely fear for his life he deserves to be charged for murder. But based on the little narrative I just said, I can see how we might not like this neighborhood watch guy. But we can’t send people to prison based on imagined narratives, we genuinely don’t know what happened, and there appears to be no strong evidence to cast doubt on the self defense story.
If the neighborhood watch guy did something bad here (and my “gut” makes me feel he is at least culpable of something “wrong”) I don’t know what people expect law enforcement and prosecutors to do. Our criminal justice system is based on being able to use evidence to prove criminal acts to a jury. Even if we “know” from our seats in the 10th row back, this neighborhood watch guy did wrong, I don’t really see what the police or State prosecutors are supposed to do if they have no evidence to work with. You can’t convict people based on a hunch based on the fact the victim appears to be a decent kid and the neighborhood watch guy appears to be an asshole.