The job of the police is to make a threshold determination on the existence of probable cause and the strength of evidence for a conviction.
The job of establishing guilt sufficient for conviction ultimately rests with the prosecutor, and the job of weighing the evidence and imposing conviction rests with the court.
My argument all along is that there is evidence that Zimmerman acted acted “unnecessarily” and “recklessly” by stalking the victim even when advised not to do so by 911. The power differential between the two individuals further supports these two things.
So again, if there is some evidence that renders these details insufficient probable cause, I think the public is entitled to know what that evidence is.
I guess the point being that, to the casual viewer, having a bloody nose is not sufficient evidence to outweigh the circumstantial evidence that a guy alleged to have previous issues with violence and authority gunning down a weaponless kid with no history in the street demostrates probable cause.
The least imaginative among us can picture a fellow who, realizing he’s lost his temper and gone too far, bloodies his own nose and claims self-defence in the absence of witnesses. It just doesn’t seem like a slam-dunk requiring no court case to decide.
I admit that maybe there is more to it, but assuming that the cops have actually made the call (and as far as I know they haven’t), it appears to be an odd one.
I don’t know the case law language in Florida, but I don’t imagine it differs darstically from my state. In Virginia:
Quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth.
The key language here is: totality of the circumstances meant to police officers.
You recite only those facts which support your view. But probable cause includes the totality of circumstances.
According to this Miami Herald report:
So the police are aware of some evidence that, in their view, supports self-defense.
How you can weigh that evidence, without knowing what it is, is unclear to me. It seems obvious that without knowing the specifics of what Chief Lee is evaluating, you cannot possibly have an opinion on the existence of probable cause.
But it seems you do.
Which brings us to another problem with not taking this thing to court: a lack of transparency.
If by “compelling” you mean “sufficient to establish guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, I don’t see that case, nor does the investigating police department, at least to date.
No, you aren’t. The dead kid isn’t charged with any crime, nor will he be. It would be a practical impossibility, but saying “we can’t disprove self-defense” does not establish anything except that the state cannot disprove self-defense. It does not establish that the black kid was in the wrong. There isn’t any evidence of that either, just like there isn’t any evidence that it wasn’t self-defense by the wannabe.
Again, you are mistaken. The black kid is not assumed to be guilty of anything. And I rather doubt that this rent-a-cop is a particularly affluent person.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it has been addressed -
[QUOTE=you with the face]
So again, if there is some evidence that renders these details insufficient probable cause, I think the public is entitled to know what that evidence is.
[/QUOTE]
ISTM that you are making a mistaken assumption here. Zimmerman does not have to produce evidence to disprove anything. The state has to do the disproving. The details you mention are not (at least to date) sufficient to prove it wasn’t self-defense.
Regards,
Shodan
All that is evidence of is that a fight took place between he and the victim. The wounds by themselves gives us no clue as to who the aggressor was or whether Zimmerman was actually afraid for his life.
I know that if a big fellow came charging towards me in a menancing fashion, I would do what I could to hurt him so that he’d leave me alone. If I got a few licks in before the guy shot me dead, would that be compelling evidence that he acted in self-defense? No. Keep in mind that I weigh as much as the kid in this story.
Too soon to tell.
If the police never release their findings, then your point is well-taken.
At this stage, however, I would expect the police to be conducting an investigation. It is often improvident to release details of the investigation to the public because it can harm the eventual prosecution of the case.
So right now, there is nothing inappropriate about the lack of transparency.
Do you disagree?
Were there wounds from a physical fight on the victim?
If not, then there is another inference that can be drawn: that the fight was, prior to the gunshot, somewhat one-sided.
It certainly would be evidence. “Compelling?” No. But evidence sufficient to cross the barrier of “preponderance of the evidence?”
Yes, I think so; it would mean that the ‘aggressor’ may not have thrown the first – or any – punch. Again, though, since I haven’t seen all the evidence, I really can’t form any sort of an informed opinion.
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion?
The fact that Zimmerman was bigger than the kid, or a security guard, does not establish that he charged at the kid in a menacing fashion.
Regards,
Shodan
According to the chief of police they have no probable cause to arrest him. That is the factual answer, what some people seem to be wondering is whether some sort of racism is involved with that decision.
Check the thread again, the police have actually made the call that they were not going to arrest. They listed as their reason “they lacked probable cause for an arrest.” Chief Lee then said that they have sent or are sending the case file for the State’s Attorney for the county in which this event happened. The State’s Attorney has made no charging decision, but the police have. So he might still be charged, but at least at this point the police investigation appears to be concluded sufficiently that they’ve passed it on to the State’s Attorney.
Has Zimmerman raised a prima facie self-defense justification? I believe that the uncontradicted narrative is that Zimmerman initiated the contact by leaving his car (against police advice) and pursuing Martin. There is no availability of self-defense when one is the initial aggressor, nor is one entitled to use deadly force in self-defense where there is no danger of grievous bodily harm.
I don’t know that he has even had to raise a defense, you don’t have to raise a defense if you haven’t been charged.
I suspect all he’s done is give his side to the police, who decided based on that and whatever other evidence they had they were not going to arrest him. The Police Chief has come out and said in news articles we’ve quoted in this thread he isn’t arresting Zimmerman because they did not find probable cause and that the case was being reviewed by the State’s Attorney.
It could help if some of the people getting into this thread late read the thread and its links to news articles at some point.
That’s an interesting article.
There’s a certain slant to that paragraph, isn’t there? If the man’s arrest record was expunged, then it ceases to exist – at least for the purpose of answering the on-scene question, “Do you have an arrest record?”
But the paragraph is written in such a way as to suggest that something sinister, or at least mildly underhanded, is being described.
Anyway, Shodan asked you, “What evidence do you have that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion?”
You responded with that entire link, presumably conveying your belief that somewhere in that link, the reader will find evidence that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion.
I can’t reproduce the entire body of text here, but this appears to be the most damning portion:
I agree that the tone is suggestive of bad conduct on Zimmerman’s part. But since the tone of the “expunged” paragraph was also suggestive of bad conduct, but in reality said absolutely nothing untoward, I am moved to ask: what, specifically, either in the quoted text or anywhere else in the article, actually says that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion? At best, he know he followed Martin and a fight broke out.
Where do we get to the “unlawfully,” the “charged,” and the “menacing?”
Quite to the contrary, Bricker, I find that the article faithfully reproduced all relevant information. Certainly you had to do no further outside research to find out about the expungement. It was right there in the very sentence. It seems, rather, that you’d have preferred less candor, that is, no mention of the expunged offense whatsoever. Accordingly, I think you are more upset that your position is a bit weakened, and I do not accept your characterization that the article is engaging in innuendo.
As discussed above, I do not accept your contention that the news article is biased in its recounting of the incident. The second quote from your post, that Zimmerman initiated the contact and pursued Martin (which is uncontradicted by the parties), as well as the witness who reported hearing Martin call for help (which has been subjected to suggested “correction”), adequately establish by circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Reasonable doubt does not exclude appropriate inferences on the basis of circumstantial evidence where direct evidence is not available.
To review: on the one hand, we have the uncontradicted account of Zimmerman leaving the car to pursue Martin against police advice and a witness who indicated Martin called for help. On the other hand, we have the flat assertion of self-defense by the accused. The balance of this evidence does not tend to Zimmerman’s favor.
That’s evidence Zimmerman approached Trayvon, but nothing else. There is no evidence available to the public indicating who started the confrontation. All we know is that the police have said they found no probable cause to arrest and that they think this is a case of self-defense.
Favor or disfavor, nothing you’ve said would be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of an unjustified killing. In a hypothetical trial a prosecutor would posit Zimmerman started the fight and a defense attorney would posit the opposite, I have no idea how a jury could be certain of either thing, so I think it very unlikely Zimmerman would be convicted on the simple fact he approached Martin, since presumably his narrative will indicate Martin actually started the fight.
If Zimmerman’s attorney were to say Zimmerman approached with no violent intentions, and Martin started the violence, then Zimmerman’s approach is irrelevant. If Zimmerman’s attorney indicates that his client did not expect to be attacked, it would also erode any “duty to retreat” arguments, since Zimmerman would argue he was unaware he would need to retreat until after the violence began.
Reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt. It must accord with the ordinary experience of prudent people. The law also allows cases to be made by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. A fact can be proven up beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence alone. It is also the province of a jury to assess the credibility of witnesses. The credibility assessment is not one that must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
A jury could very well find Zimmerman not to be a credible reporter of events and reject the testimony that Martin started the fight. They could then also find that he was the aggressor on the basis of his initial pursuit of Martin and the overhearing of Martin calling for help. This would be a legally adequate (that is, not below the reasonable doubt standard) disposition by the jury.
I think you have been right on point with what I am thinking. Look, I have certain assumptions about Zimmerman. I can form an opinion on what a man driving around a gated community with a loaded weapon as part of a neighborhood watch is like. My opinion is not good. But it is not necessarily correct either. But the law does not have anything to do with my feelings, just what they can prove.
Well its not the police’s job to throw shit on the wall and see what sticks. The level of proof needed for an arrest is lower than for a conviction but without possibility of a conviction its nothing but a waste of time. And in general it is very bad policy to arrest someone with the thought that, “What the Hell we can always drop the charges later if we don’t get enough.” But that is moot right now. The police are currently saying there wasn’t enough probable cause. Since they have information I don’t I can’t make a conclusion. I think I might have reached a different conclusion then they did if I was investigating but I can’t be sure.
Yes. Full of anonymous “witnesses”. Seems to be a lot of witnesses to an incident that had no witnesses. Did any of these witnesses talk to police? What was on their official statements? Anonymous statements do not hold up too well in court. <sarcasm smilie>