Because it doesn’t make any sense, that’s why. It has nothing to do with feelings, just common sense.
According to the logic espoused here, a person could pick a fight with a stranger for no legitimate reason and then shoot the person dead when said stranger defends themselves. As long as this person claims they were just protecting themselves in the heat of battle (nevermind that there is evidence that they instigated the battle), and they don’t deviate from their story in any way, the state can’t do anything.
How many people in here really believes that this how things play out in the real world? If a 225-lb man admitted to shooting a 140-lb unarmed woman in self-defense after accosting her on a dark street for specious reasons, it wouldn’t matter if he had cuts and bruises on his face. No one would believe his story. It would be obvious to everyone that it was the woman who was afraid for her life, not the other way around. We all know this.
It seems people are starting with the assumption that the kid was a threat and interpreting the evidence with that assumption in mind. But why should we work off that assumption? Just because Zimmerman made a claim? If we take self-defense off the table and just look at the evidence objectively, we have 1) a dead kid 2) a 911 recording that demonstrates Zimmerman had initially zeroed in on the kid from a far (meaning, he wasn’t in any immediate danger) 3) the shooter’s own admission that he stalked the kid, even though it wasn’t his duty to “help” law enforcement in this way (and in fact, he’d been specifically advised not to “help”), 4) evidence that a fight had ensued, and 4) an admission by Zimmerman that he shot the kid. None of the above are in dispute, to my knowledge.
I’m wondering what evidence there is that the kid initiated aggression against Zimmerman that could make the latter plausibly fearful for his life. The size differential alone makes it more likely that the aggressor would have been the heavier guy. The fact that he had an agenda and a gun triples that likelihood. He also had a car; why did he get out of it?
Here’s the crux: What yardstick are the authorities using here to assert that there is a preponderance of evidence for self-defense in this situation? I’m not saying that they don’t have a preponderance. I’m just intensely interested in learning what could possible comprise this “preponderance” given what is publically known about this case.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The implication here is that I can murder anyone I like in Florida just as long as there isn’t an eyewitness. I just have to claim self defense.
Jesus Christ.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t even have to claim self-defense. If you can kill someone and not leave enough evidence to convict you, you can get away with murder.
That’s not unique to Florida; it’s true in every state in the Union. If the prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence to convict, then you won’t, or shouldn’t, be convicted.
you with the face seems to be arguing that anyone who shoots someone else should be arrested and charged with something, no matter if there is evidence of wrongdoing or not. I am not sure of what the advantages of this would be - if the idea is to punish the guilty when there is not enough evidence to convict, that seems to go against the legal presumption of innocence that is supposed to apply.
Because the situation of “cold-blooded murder, but with no evidence” is pretty much the same as “legitimate self-defense with no evidence of wrong-doing”.
Sure, maybe it went down according to the scenario of “racist wannabe cop shoots innocent teen-ager in cold blood”. Maybe it went down according to “wannabe cop confronts teen-ager, who sucker-punches him in the face and knocks him down and yells ‘Imma kill you motherfucker’ while reaching into his jacket.”
No, I’m saying that if someone shoots someone and there are no other witnesses, we should not start off with the assumption that the shooting was the result of self-defense just because the shooter claimed it was.
Folks in here are acting as though Zimmerman’s claim prevents the state from arresting him until they can prove him wrong. Which sorta kinda makes sense, until you ask yourself: What if all other facts known to this case were the same except that Zimmerman claimed he went temporarily insane while fighting the kid. Would the cops be obligated to disprove this piece of silliness before sticking a charge on him?
In a court of law, you do, in fact, start off with the presumption of innocence. And that shapes what you do before trial as well.
They can arrest him, as long as they think they have probable cause. I don’t see what advantage there is in that. Assuming no further evidence is going to be forthcoming, and he isn’t going to confess, what is the point of arresting someone who is going to be found not guilty?
Since we are now getting into hypotheticals, suppose it’s a black teen-ager and a white wannabe cop. The teen-ager admits having shot the wannabe, the teen-ager has a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head. The teen-ager claims self-defense, and there is no evidence to contradict this.
Common sense would be a good start. Evidence of wannabee with the weapon, ignoring dispatcher’s instruction, size disparity, snack & iced tea found with the victim - not a weapon.
No, the lack of evidence of a crime prevents the state from arresting him.
We have lots of “what ifs” and “it could be that” but no actual evidence. You seem to want the state to assume that a crime occurred and require the suspect to disprove it. Our legal system simply isn’t set up that way, and for very good reasons. One consequence of that is that if a crime doesn’t leave evidence then it is very hard to prosecute.
Either way we wouldn’t have heard about it from you, since it wouldn’t be a “black victimization” story.
I wouldn’t have a problem if they arrested Zimmerman either. I think in any claim of self defense a lot is going to be based on the initial perceptions of the police. I don’t think it should end there, and that’s why it’s being reviewed, but I think that early contact in the investigation is incredibly important. There is a reason gun enthusiast forums teach people exactly what they need to say if they engage in defensive gun use–that initial interview is incredibly important in framing the entirety of the investigation.
I’ll say again, we have no idea what physical evidence exists in this case whatsoever. But let’s presume the physical evidence does not contradict the shooter’s story. If that is the case, and the shooter’s story to police came off as credible, and it matched the physical evidence, and in the opinion of law enforcement it was a justified defensive gun usage, what do you think the police should do? Try to make sure he gets punished anyway?
My take on it, if I were to say something without the evidence, is I think this Zimmerman guy deserves to be charged with something and deserves to go to prison. I don’t think it was premeditated murder, but manslaughter would be an appropriate charge. I think Zimmerman caused this situation.
I also think he may get away with it, and most importantly I don’t think the police are doing anything wrong or that he shouldn’t get away with it. I see a situation in which there is little evidence to refute this guy’s claim of self defense. The claim was credible enough to convince the police.
It seems there are really two things here.
One is the law. I think we have decent grounds, at least as strong a grounds as a non-lawyer who doesn’t have the full facts can have, to suggest legally Zimmerman probably will not be convicted of any illegal homicide in the state of Florida. Again, based on what we know right now.
The other issue is the matter of “fairness.” Is it fair that the police did not even arrest him? Would they have arrested a black kid who shot a neighborhood watchman and looked into the matter?
It seems at least some people aren’t so much upset that Zimmerman might walk (I think we’re all displeased with that based on our reading of the case, but begrudgingly accept it as a consequence of our legal system), but that the police never even arrested him. I can see where you come from on that, but the fact is I still don’t know that it’s better for the police to arrest someone who has convinced them that he acted in self defense. I don’t know to what level Zimmerman did that, but I feel that if you have a suspect who has convinced police he acted in self-defense and they found nothing in his statement or the physical evidence to suggest otherwise it’s not exactly the “correct” thing for them to arrest him just because it would make the family of the deceased happy.
That isn’t supposed to be the role of the police. I think it is valid that part of the police evaluation of the story take into context the shooter and what he was doing on the streets, I think you have to factor in that he was doing a neighborhood watch round because that does impact the believability of his self-defense claim. Should it? I don’t know if it should or shouldn’t, but every story is a situation and the person in the situation is a key element of the story as is their status in society. To put it into a simpler scenario, if I shoot and kill a 5 year old on my property and claim it as self defense, myself as a 6’5" 220 lb man should be looked at very differently than a woman shooting a 6’5" 220 lb man who is on her property and who she said she shot in self defense. The case here doesn’t involve any massive disparity like that, but I just point that out to make the point that you can’t consider a self-defense claim in a vacuum, you do sort of have to consider who is making the claim and if that claim makes sense coming from that individual.
No, he’s arguing that when, aside from the claim of self-defense, everything else leads one to believe a crime was committed, a claim of self defense should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card. The guy has either admitted to or evidence has been found for a compelling case of a crime being committed. Every person who has any sense is going to claim self-defense when they’ve committed what appears to be a crime, and that should have no bearing on whether the cops arrest them.
As for your question: scenario two is rather unlikely, but scenario 1 is not. Where is the kid’s assumption of innocence? That’s what seems to be flying all over these legal people’s heads: if you say he did not commit a crime, you are essentially convicting the dead kid. Since he’s claimed self defense, it’s an either-or situation. Either he was attacked illegally, or he shot illegally. There is no other option. Both the kid and the shooter cannot be innocent. And the evidence given so far shows a kid who would not behave like scenario 2.
And, sorry, but it is suspicious that the white guy with money is the one being assumed innocent and the less affluent black kid assumed to be guilty.
I think you’re misinterpreting at least how I (and perhaps Loach) are looking at this. I’m not assuming Trayvon was a threat. I’m not assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth.
All I’ve tried to say is that under the legal doctrine involved with self defense, in a prosecution, as long as Zimmerman established his self-defense claim the prosecution would have to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that bar, I’ve just said I think it will be very hard to disprove that.
I’ve not said “we” meaning observers, should accept Zimmerman’s story. Nor am I saying we should assume it is true. But once Zimmerman gets before a court of law, with life and liberty on the line, the State will have to disprove his story.
In response you guys keep saying how that defies common sense, how we’re just assuming everything Zimmerman says and etc. Well, I’ve given you guys SCOTUS cases that suggest what the actual law is. I’ve even quoted a Supreme Court Justice who says that having to prove a negative is a very high hurdle for the prosecution and that is how our system works. When the State is going to take away your freedom the bar needs to be extremely high, and the rules it operates under cannot and should not be what me or you find to be “common sense.”
When you charge someone, they are legally obligated to show up in court, and a warrant will be put out for their arrest if they fail to do so. That’s why we only let people out of jail on bail. The idea is that the state has some hold on you until it tries your case.
Presumption of innocence is wonderful, but this presumption should be based on what objective evidence shows.
If a dead body resulting from a fight between an unarmed victim and an armed perpetrator who initiated conflict with the victim unnecessarily doesn’t consitute enough probable cause, then I’m left wondering exactly what would constitute it. No one has really addressed this question.
Something worth noting is I’ve actually posted Florida statute.
For it to be murder they have to prove pre-meditation or that the shooting happened while the perpetrator was committing one of an enumerated list of felonies.
For it to be manslaughter they must show that it was unjustified. Not Zimmerman has to show it was justified they have to show that it was unjustified.
For it to be unnecessary homicide to stop an unlawful act, they have to prove it was unnecessary. Not Zimmerman has to show it was necessary, they have to show it was unnecessary.
Do you really think they can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt by just saying “Zimmerman is bigger than Trayon, he’s guilty.”
I don’t believe that is how our court system operates. If the police see all that they have, and see nothing that would fit a crime, should they really arrest him just to make you feel better about the situation, just because it seems fishy to not arrest a white guy. (I don’t think the “money” issue is fair, Trayvon’s dad lived in the gated community so Trayvon is from money too, I would assume.)
You can read them for yourself, but something all three types of illegal homicide in Florida have in common is they do not criminalize the simple act of homicide. They criminalize homicide “when.” Meaning “when you premeditated it” or “when you were acting recklessly” or “when you were showing negligent disregard for human life” or “when you acted unnecessarily.”
So just the simple evidence that Zimmerman committed the homicide doesn’t rise to the level of a crime in Florida. You have to show other things, those other things require evidence. That evidence apparently does not exist. But maybe it does exist and the State’s attorneys will bring it to light…you never know.
Has the decision been made not to charge this guy? If not, the argument is in advance of the facts - the real issue is not why he hasn’t been charged, but why he hasn’t been arrested and charged right now.
The answer to that is probably that the guy doesn’t pose much of a flight risk (presumably he’s hoping to get off on self-defence), so there is no need.
Fact is, circumstantial evidence is against this guy, but we don’t know what the actual evidence from forensics and witnesses is yet with any certainty.