It finally seems that now there will at least be a thorough investigation. This guy’s days as self styled judge, jury and executioner are likely over even if he escapes conviction, and Florida may be forced to re-evaluate their laws.
Yeah. I was wondering about this. A teen in this day and age without a cell phone?! Couple this with Blank Slate’s post 679 and you have a contradiction.
But his postulations are so wild and do not square with any of the undisputed facts or witness testimony that they are totally irrelevant.
I don’t see anything wrong with trying to weave together a story to explain the evidence on the table. That’s what the prosecution should be doing. But to believe Zimmerman’s story is to believe that someone out of his weight class, that has no motive or weapon, would actively pursue him just for the hell of it. Moreover, we would have to believe that the unarmed kid whaled on Zimmerman even after Zimmerman showed his gun. And that the screams we heard on the tape are those that do not belong to the unarmed kid, but to the guy with the 100lb advantage, who is on home turf, who knows the police are coming, and who has a lethal weapon.
Is it possible? Yeah. But there’s a lot of suspicion of belief necessary to label it plausible enough to take seriously.
I love that you’re able to be so unbiased here. But we know from your past history on this board that you have no problem weighing in on the credibility of other accusations. It is not wrong for us to play with the facts that we already know. At this point, it seems like any new facts that come out (like the fact that Martin called his girlfriend after Zimmerman says Martin started chasing him) are only going to make Zimmerman look bad.
It should be possible to blow a hole in Zimmerman’s story using the voice on the tape. If other recordings exist of both him and the kid that he murdered, a forensic analysis should tell us whose voice it really was.
To all those who say that we have nothing to fear by having law-abiding citizens carryiong concealed weapons, it is clear that you are wrong.
That gun control argument is asinine. I don’t care if some people state you should have nothing to fear by law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons, you very obviously have something to fear. However, that’s not an argument against a freedom.
You have something to fear letting teenagers drive. You have something to fear letting people speak their minds. You have something to fear letting people get private pilot licenses and training. You have something to fear letting people learn martial arts. You have something to fear letting police carry pepper spray. You have something to fear letting people buy fireworks. You have something to fear letting people handle your food.
I think in the article I linked about the Federal government starting an investigation it also is the first article where Sanford police expanded a bit on what Zimmerman said in his statement (if not, I’ll try to find the article I read.) Anyway, what I’ve read is the Sanford police revealed that Zimmerman’s statement was that he got out of his truck to look at a sign because he had lost Martin, and then Martin jumped out at him.
Now we have a girl who was on the phone with Trayvon right before the incident (as confirmed by call logs), who says something different than that. Now, part of my philosophy about not jumping to conclusions before all the evidence comes in is not jumping on various bandwagons the moment any compelling piece of new evidence is discovered. For the people in this thread who are essentially in love with making wild conclusions from every new piece of evidence, I should point out that the girl’s story potentially contradicts Zimmerman’s statement to police. Meaning there is now a piece of actual evidence that might contradict his statement, which would change how law enforcement would look at a statement explaining self defense and could put a significant chink in the armor of his defense. (Obviously her account can be contested by a defense attorney outright, or the defense attorney could contest the implications of it if not refuting it outright.)
The only other time I recall taking a strong position on a story before all the facts were in was the Crystal Magnum v. Duke lacrosse players rape accusation.
I believed at the time I had good reason to doubt her story, because of the way it had changed, and I suggest that subsequent events showed my doubts were justified. (Incidentally, I seem to recall you also taking at least some kind of a position in the threads devoted to that case. What was it?)
My memory may be failing me, but I don’t recall taking a strong for-or-against position on any other accusations before all the evidence was in. I admit that may be my own failure to recall, so please refresh my recollection – when you say that you know from my past history on this board that I have no problem weighing in on the credibility of other accusations, which ones were you picturing?
No, but it is wrong to demand Zimmerman’s arrest based only on the facts you already know.
Then I wonder what does it take to get arrested in Florida?
I mean, the guy has a history of incidents with registered complaints, he acted against instructions of 9/11 responder and an underage person is dead following conflict with him.
Isn’t there some sort of a threshold after which such an individual is deemed dangerous because, to me, this guy is off the rocker and society, fortunately, has a way of dealing with it?
Yes, this point was pretty obvious hundreds of posts ago. The only doubt here is whether the police employed due diligence in their investigation.
Yes. The threshold is the criminal code. When we have probable cause to believe a person’s conduct breaches the criminal code, then he may be arrested.
“Incidents” are not crimes. Acting against the advice of a 911 operator is not a crime. Killing a person, underage or not, is generally a crime, but there are circumstances which can negate the criminality of the act. One such circumstance is self-defense. This is the claim proferred by Zimmerman. In Florida, the law says that he has to show self-defense by a low standard of proof and then, to gain a conviction, the prosecution must disprove his claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case just breaks my heart. A promising young life cut short. I hope his family receives justice.
But here’s the thing that really jumps out at me, that only confirms my suspicions that the Sanford PD is not to be trusted.
How is it that a month after the shooting, it is only now that this potentially damning piece of evidence has come to light? Weeks after the cops came out to the press defending Zimmerman’s behavior? Even a cursory examination of the crime scene should have uncovered the boy’s fallen headset. I find it hard to believe that a competent detective that is truly willing to explore all possible explanations for the incident and look for evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, would have not picked it up and realized that his last call ended only moments before he was shot. Due diligence would have been to follow-up on this clue and see what information could be shed from it.
So if this follow-up was not done, this speaks poorly of the PD and it’s a million-dollar lawsuit waiting happen. If this follow-up was done, and yet the cops maintained from the start that Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was unimpeachable, the public is overdue for a good explanation for this.
That said, Zimmerman’s claim that he was confronted by Martin on the street doesn’t mesh well with the facts, even in the absence of this call. Even if we could accept that Martin was brazen enough to attack him without provocation, it is implausible that Zimmerman–an 250 lbs armed man, remember–would be too weak to stand up for himself right then on the spot and be chased away from his truck into the backyard of someone’s house. I’m not saying the cops should have immediately declared this BS, but it should have sounded implausible enough to cause them to do more digging than it sounds like they did.
Well, it all sounds quite reasonable.
However, isn’t the probable cause fulfilled by the following:
-
Zimmerman did not find himself in a conflict by a chance or by circumstances beyond his control but rather he made a conscious decision to act where there were no reasonable justification for him to act in a manner he acted
-
Zimmerman was, in part, motivated by the fact that he has a gun and he was willing and able to use it
-
Zimmerman, as facts from conversation with 9/11 dispatcher and Martin’s movement show, did not show restrain nor did he reacted in a manner appropriate but rather acted opposite, aggressively and in clear provocation of other person private space
What I’m saying is that from what we know so far, Zimmerman is the one who acted irrationally regardless of what Martin said or did, and taking history of incidents into consideration, seems to me that he would certainly do exactly the same again, if in a similar situation.
They arrested Dominique Strauss-Kahn for less.
We use the shorthand term “probable cause” to mean "probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that the suspect is the person who committed it.
So, let’s see:
It depends on what you mean by “conflict.” It’s not a crime to go up to someone and say, “Who are you, and what’s your business in this neighborhood?”
Is that what you mean by “conflict?”
Or did you mean the striking of blows? If so, what evidence do you have that shows Zimmerman was the first to strike a blow?
Even if true, that is not a crime.
How do you know he acted in violation of anyone’s “private space?”
Irrationally as far as you’re concerned. But he acted legally, so far as we’re able to show.
On the contrary, the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn was supported by more than sufficient probable cause. The police had the unambiguous statement of Nafissatou Diallo that she had been the victim of a sexual assault. There was no physical evidence immediately apparent that contradicted that report. In other words, the evidence against Zimmerman requires a supposition – “he must have done thus-and-so.” But the evidence against Strauss-Khan was an accuser, saying definitely and without hesitation, “He DID do thus-and-so.”
Now, of course, as the investigation proceeded following his arrest, Ms. Diallo’s story began to unravel as she began changing her story. While she first claimed she waited in the hallway until after Strauss-Khan left, an examination of the hotel’s electronic pass key logs showed that she had entered other rooms. She then said she had continued to clean other rooms after her encounter.
So what was strong probable cause initially, based on the totality of circumstances then known to the arresting officers, became weaker over time. Here, there is not yet sufficient evidence to create probable cause in the first place, as far as we know.
Quick question: if it becomes clear that Zimmerman actively chased Martin, what are the legal implications? Is running after someone (who has not assaulted you or done anything else wrong or threatening) in itself an act of aggression that could void self-defence claims?
I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Wouldn’t that definitely be assault? I don’t think self-defense can hold up if you’re committing a crime against someone, but I’m not a lawyer.
I must be old fashioned, but I don’t understand why kids think it is cool to walk around with a hoodie on in warm weather when it isn’t raining. I can’t think of any item of apparel better designed to make people think you are up to no good, other than a ski mask. Of course, down here in Florida, a hoodie is almost useless, since it doesn’t really get that cold. “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on.”, sounds like a non sequitur.
I don’t see why it would. Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal by questioning Martin (if that is what he did). Martin was doing nothing illegal by running away, either (if that is what he did). But as long as Zimmerman did not attempt to physically prevent Martin from running, I doubt this could be considered assault just by following Martin and attempting to continue the interview.
Regards,
Shodan
Looks like the State’s Attorney is going to call a grand jury.
At this point I’m assuming the offenderati and recreational outragers really have nothing left to complain about, unless you want to keep insisting that “this all should have happened faster.”
It certainly does get chilly enough down here to use a hoodie, there’s nothing weird about him wearing one. My interpretation of the act of putting the hood on was to indicate that he’s not doing anything to provoke the other person, just an indication that your eyes are forward and you’re not looking for trouble.