you’re falling into the same trap as Sampiro and drilling this down to a single factor.
I’ve made my position clear regarding Zimmerman. I think he projected his feelings about the kid and his actions instigated a confrontation that resulted in Martin’s death.
The delay in arresting him is a function of building enough of a case to present to a grand jury.
Your statement of what the cop would do falls into the same category of Zimmerman deciding what Martin’s actions would be.
I’m actually not taking a position on what would have happened had the exact situation occurred with the races reversed. There’s way too many variables in terms of how stories get national (international, really) attention like this to say whether it would have happened. What I am saying though, is that the hypothetical reverse is moot, because it wouldn’t have happened.
plenty of (white) teenagers in my area get chased down by the cops all the time. I’m not aware of any instructions given to black officers to ignore them. Now we have a statistical shortage of black officers but that’s another thread. Maybe they’re all assigned to the hood. Don’t know. What is relevant is that this guy WASN’T a cop. He was a wanna-be cop whose hobby apparently involved being part of a neighborhood watch.
While there are certainly racial issues that involve disparities there’s an awful lot of unsupported opinion in threads like this regarding how other people think. I think we should focus on what we know about Zimmerman and not projected it beyond that.
You are asserting that it is the practice in Florida to not arrest people who are known to have shot and killed other people until they have built enough of a case for a grand jury, and by implication that this is what would have happened if the races were reversed. Because that’s how its done.
Without doing any research at all I am going to say this is a completely ridiculous assertion that you are making up out of whole cloth. If you can share some reputable source that supports this assertion as a factual one, great, I will withdraw my statement. Til then: bullshit, Hot & Steaming variety.
False. I drew a conclusion (A valid one based on loads of good information, but let’s set that part aside). The action I then took in relation to that conclusion was to make a statement on a message board.
In stark and tragic and horrifying contrast, George Zimmerman drew a conclusion.The action he then took was to follow and kill a 17 year old boy.
These two things are not in any way whatsoever the same category. That you would suggest they are is bizarre.
None of that, in my opinion, adds up to a history of violence.
As the police had already determined that they had no probable cause to arrest him, I’m not sure on what grounds they could have performed a blood test.
I agree entirely with this. The lack of intent means that, whatever did happen, it wasn’t murder.
If the response of the Grand Jury is that he should not be charged due to lack of evidence, it will bother me, because it will show that the police were correct, and the mob had no basis for their complaints. If they do charge him, it will be seen at the trial what evidence the police had available when they decided not to arrest him, and there would potentially be an investigation into why he wasn’t arrested.
The fact that he’s neither done a runner nor committed any crimes since this incident suggest that there was no reason to make an immediate arrest, though, it’s not the case that failure to arrest him at the scene precludes ever arresting him.
I understand where you are coming from emotionally here, but there’s no way that could be used as a definition. It would mean anyone that killed someone in a car accident would be a murderer, and that’s absurd.
One important thing, that can’t be stressed enough, is that murder requires intent. It is not a synonym for homicide, not even as a popular definition. There’s not much that even suggests Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
Ok.
This is IMHO, and this thread has been dominated by opinions. I guess I shouldn’t complain.
But I am just curious, so here’s a mini-poll within this thread: what will you say, do, think, if the grand jury no true bills Zimmerman – that is, if they fail to indict? Acknowledge the lack of probable cause? Demand a new grand jury? Demand a federal grand jury? Join arms and march for justice? What?
George Zimmerman 's previous 911 calls released
Zimmerman once fought a cop. Those guys have to pass a physical. That also means unafraid to mix it up. He had a gun, an 80 lb weight advantage and, unless it was the cops, a flashlight. I just don’t see those blood curdling screams coming from Zimmerman. He had the advantage. If he thought Martin was armed, he would have consider the possibility that Martin would just draw his weapon and fire. Chasing an armed suspect is something trained officers approach with caution. Caution that Zimmerman didn’t show.
before I jumped in and comment I’d like to make absolutely certain I understand your position: you agree that the police had no probable cause?
Secondly, do you mean to say that any killing that is done without a premeditated intention to cause death is never murder? Do you mean to say that because Zimmerman may not have left the house with the idea of finding someone to kill that it was not then his intention to cause the death of that boy? That intention could not have been formed prior to his pulling the trigger of a gun which is known to cause death?
Excuse me, are you saying that when person A kills person B it is normally the practice and should be the practice to not arrest person B when he tells you he was defending himself and simply wait to see if he runs or commits another crime and if he doesn’t run or commit another crime within two weeks feel comfortable that you had no cause to arrest him for killing another human being? Please clarify this for me because I find it very difficult to fathom.
Are you now saying that Zimmerman pulling out a loaded gun, pointing it at the chest of the 17-year-old boy and pulling the trigger, causing a bullet to rip through the boy’s body, killing him, was not meaningfully different from accidentally losing control of a vehicle?
As for what you feel cannot be stressed enough, not to mention what you think is and is not absurd, you may want to check with the Florida legislature, Since intention is not a feature of most of the ways that murder is defined in Florida law. Whatever you may think of the importance of intention, Florida does not agree. Florida calls it murder if you’re the person who sold the drugs to the fool who took too much and died. hardly intentional.
I will think, “Damn. I wonder what the hell the prosecution did to not convince those people that a crime occurred.”
And that is absolutely all I will do. I will not storm the courthouse or lynch Zimmerman or throw a garbage can through a pizzeria window.
If Zimmerman ain’t guilty and his case really is weak, then the grand jury will not come to anything. NO HARM, NO FOUL.
But Martin, the innocent in this situation, deserves at least that. He does not deserve the police throwing up their hands prematurely and saying, “Zimmerman’s story makes sense to us!” If it makes sense to them, all of their asses need to be fired right now.
The question is: What will YOU do if the grand jury decides that there is enough evidence to go forward? Will you apologize for the obnoxious remarks you have made against me and you with the face, or will you continue to pretend you have been the dispassionate voice of reason, just waiting for all the facts to come in?
I recall that you said information contradicting Zimmerman’s claim would be the tipping point. We’ve had multiple pieces of contradiction–like him denying he gave chase when you can hear him doing so on the 911 tape, him claiming that Martin pursued him when Martin’s phone log would make this very unlikely, him claiming that Martin came up from behind him and assaulted him in a location where the actual shooting did not take place. Seems to me your tipping point has been reached, and yet you are still waiting for some magical piece of information to be revealed (and it can’t be from the biased media!).
All new information is likely going to be against Zimmerman. I say this because if the cops had really felt Zimmerman was in the right, they wouldn’t be sitting on any pile of “secret” information at this point. Not with the media breathing down their necks. Either all of the “pro-Zimmerman” evidence has already been shared or it just doesn’t exist. Anything else–like the lack of blood alcohol results (which are SOP, as they should be!) and the neglect of the phone records–only serve to highlight the police department’s incompetence and the incredibility of Zimmerman’s story.
Stoid, it wasn’t too long terribly long ago that you posted long screeds with your analysis of another legal situation, one with you were much more personally familiar, and thereafter discovered you had virtually no clue what the hell you were talking about.
I congratulate you on your willingness to get back on the horse that threw you. Just because you had no idea how to correctly interpret the law then is no reason to stop trying!
However, here you’re making an error that reminds me of your previous misadventures – the “almost right” trap.
Since intention is not a feature of most of the ways that murder is defined in Florida law… WRONG.
*Florida calls it murder if you’re the person who sold the drugs to the fool who took too much and died. * Correct, but conviction still requires intent – not to cause death, but to provide drugs. Intent is an element. It’s not a strict liability crime. It has a scienter component.
I have been waiting for the facts to come in.
Earlier in the thread, you hinted that in other situations, I had been willing to jump on accusations without waiting; I asked you for examples and you ignored the request. I’ll ask again. And I’ll add to that request examples of obnoxious remarks against you or you with the face. What did I say to either of you that was obnoxious?
I would like to read Zimmerman’s statement to the police, post-incident.
Nice! ISWYDT.
This is what you posted way back:
Why should you have to wonder what I would say, Bricker? I have not advocated vigilante justice or staging a coup. So why would you even have to ask this question? That is obnoxious to me because you are implying that simply weighing in on this case–like tons of other Dopers have done–is akin to being biased or prejudiced.
You are able to be so detached in this case, but you were so fired up about the Dartmouth rape case that multiple Dopers had to give you a course in basic statistics. We were entertained by pages of pages of crazy scenarios about ninjas wearing purple tutus carrying coins turned on their side. Talk about navel-gazing! At least here we are playing with the facts as they stand and trying to piece them together to make a likely story. You were perfectly fine taking the side that the accuser in the rape case was a “lying whore” (while joining in the nastiest attack of you with the face that I’ve ever seen). Never once did I hear you caution the crowd against leaping to conclusions before all the evidence came in.
The truth is that you have shown that you are not above playing “judge” and “jury” in a Straight Dope thread. And I have no problem with this either. I just wish you would allow others the freedom to do this as well without saying they are unreasonably biased. Especially since the facts are pretty biased in this case. The smell of fish wafts only from ONE side. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing this out!
Whatever the Grand Jury does or doesn’t do, but especially if they don’t indict, there’s going to be some big-time agitation for amending or abolishing the SYG law, in Florida and quite possibly elsewhere too. It’s starting already.
Opponents of the law have argued from Day 1 that it was an invitation to vigilantism, and this and other cases have shown that to be correct. If you dispute that this is vigilantism, then you’re just playing with definitions of the word.
I’m seeing news articles discussing some other cases that have gone down in the past few years that, for whatever reason, didn’t grow the legs this case has.
The Stand Your Ground law is essentially a license to kill. All a pistol-packing Floridian has to do is get you alone with no witnesses handy, blow your head away, and then claim that he had reasonable fear for his safety. It isn’t surprising that the NRA was behind this piece of shit legislation. It needs to be repealed in every state where it exists.
SYG laws were supposed to be “the people’s” anti-crime measure. It was supposed to drive crime down. It was supposed to give every good guy permission to blow away every bad guy who might accost you on the street. Muggers, rapists, jerks in general, Beware! The Good Guy has this “self defense” defense now, to blow you away with impunity.
Okay, so far, so good. (Let’s suppose for sake of argument.)
Now, in any such confrontation between Mr. Bad Guy and Mr. Good Guy, what in the world is to prevent Mr. Bad Guy from blowing away Mr. Good Guy instead of the other way around, and then get off with the self defense defense?
That’s something I’m not getting here. It seems like these SYG laws will do every bit as much to let bad guys shoot good guys with impunity, as it does to let good guys shoot bad guys with impunity. Why did anybody think this was going to be a good idea?
LOL! That’s one of the silliest logical wranglings I’ve heard in a long time. That’s like saying a car accident is murder “with intent” because there was INTENT to drive with lapsed insurance. If murder can be proclaimed for any death that results during any other criminal act, than this case could easily be called murder.
If would-be murderers didn’t already know about the implications of SYG, they certainly do now. Good luck with that, Floridians.
I’m saying that the reason no blood sample was taken was because the police believed they had no probable cause for arrest. What I believe about it is irrelevant, frankly, but since you asked I’ll say. My default assumption would be to believe them, as they are the professionals and have more information than me. Given information that challenges that, I may change my opinion, but I’ve not got to that point. There seems to be more information coming out that may justify an arrest now, though.
As Bricker has explained, it doesn’t have to be intent to kill, it has to be intent to commit a criminal act. If he was using the gun in self defence, his intention was to defend himself, and that is not illegal in the jurisdiction we are talking about, in the circumstances he claims occurred. To put it very clearly, there are a set of circumstances where he could have pointed the gun at Martin, shot him and killed him with no criminal intent, and indeed without committing any criminal act. That is not in question - what is in question is whether those circumstances actually happened.
I’m saying there was no pressing need to arrest him on the spot. If he’s no threat to anyone else, and isn’t going to run, it makes no difference if he’s arrested then, now, or in 6 months time.
If Zimmerman’s account is true, then they are both unfortunate side effects of a perfectly legal action. Please, note the “if”. So, if it is true, you are correct, there is no meaningful difference between the situations.
Martin Hyde has quoted the particular laws earlier in the thread, and Bricker has interpreted them at several points. To take your particular example, selling drugs is illegal. If someone intentionally sells me drugs that I take, and which kill me, they are guilty of murder because they intentionally committed a felony that led to my death. If they sell me some bleach to clean my floor, and I drink it and die, they have no liability as the sale of bleach to me was perfectly legal.
Murder is only one of several crimes involving killing another person, others include manslaughter and various types of negligent homicide. Apart from that, there are plenty of circumstances where one can kill another and it not be criminal. If you want my actual opinion on this case, it’s probably manslaughter. However, were I on a jury with the evidence I’ve seen so far, I would not convict, as “probably” does not equal “beyond reasonable doubt”, and were I a prosecutor, unless I saw much stronger evidence than I’ve already seen, I wouldn’t prosecute the case.