Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?

[Stoid]

@Steophan

Reasonable people already have rejected the evidence.

There is so much wrong with this… first of all, “rejected the evidence”?!? Do you think it is the job of the police to reject evidence?

Oh my god.

It is the job of the police to gather evidence. It is the job of the police to see that an ordinary citizen is standing over the dead body of another ordinary citizen and wonder if perhaps the death of the man on the ground was not a legal death, and to be reasonable enough to do their fucking job, which is to make an effort to find out as much information as possible about exactly what led to the ordinary citizen with the gun unloading it in the chest of the ordinary citizen with the Skittles.

It is not the job of the police to reject evidence, much less decide that the man standing over a dead body with a smoking gun who is telling them he did nothing wrong is all the evidence they need to bother gathering! WTF???

But that’s exactly what they did, and it’s outrageous. And it is because it is outrageous that we are finally hearing about it: Martin’s parents were appropriately outraged and demanded that a real investigation take place and that evidence actually be gathered to determine if what the man with the smoking gun standing over the dead body said was really true. Because they are reasonable people who very reasonably believe that the death of their teenaged son at the hands of another is a big deal and deserves to be treated as such, not brushed off like a fender bender.

@Steophan

You are still assuming and speculating. By stating the bolded part as fact, you are the one not being fair.

Zimmerman judged Martin to be a threat to him and executed him. It’s just a fact. Whether he was justified in doing so is the question, but that’s what he admitted doing, even though he didn’t put it that way.

Also, you are still missing the point that you have to presume him innocent. I’m not sure how I can make that point any clearer - do you not accept the truth of it, or do you somehow fail to understand it? Unless there’s good reason to think that we can prove he’s not innocent, no, he doesn’t have to explain anything to the judge and jury.

No he doesn’t have to explain anything. But that doesn’t mean quite what you seem to think it means, either:

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant’s innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence

Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. **The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. **After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

@Bricker

Why do you suppose that in all the press discussion of this case, you can’t find any legal expert – even those urging Zimmerman’s prosecution – advancing this “poor judgment” theory of crime?

Bit of hair-splitting, isn’t it…seemes to me that dangerous acts undertaken with reckless disregard for human life = poor judgment. Potayto/Potahto.

[grude]

Argh 5 minute edit window.

Also the local prosecutor has recused themself and instead a state DA will take over the case, it was also said that the justice department and FBI may get involved.

The Sanford mayor and US rep Corrine Brown spoke at the Sharpton Rally, along with Martin’s parents.

Thousands march in Florida after police chief resigns over neighborhood watch...

And the governor talked about creating a task forces and possibly making legislative changes in ref to the stand your ground laws.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/statement-florida-governor-rick-scott-regarding-cr/nLZ8N/

[enomaj]

@JoelUpchurch

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315,0,1716605.story

It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.

The boy said he is not sure who called for help. After a moment, his dog escaped, and he turned to catch it and a few seconds later heard a gunshot, he said.

Trayvon Martin Killing's Youngest Witness, 13, Still Can Hear The Screams

Stand Your Ground and Trayvon Martin

Austin Brown, 13, was walking his dog during the time of the altercation and saw both men on the ground but separated.

These articles say something different. The quote is from the second article.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

There is so much wrong with this… first of all, “rejected the evidence”?!? Do you think it is the job of the police to reject evidence?

Oh my god.

It is the job of the police to gather evidence. It is the job of the police to see that an ordinary citizen is standing over the dead body of another ordinary citizen and wonder if perhaps the death of the man on the ground was not a legal death, and to be reasonable enough to do their fucking job, which is to make an effort to find out as much information as possible about exactly what led to the ordinary citizen with the gun unloading it in the chest of the ordinary citizen with the Skittles.

It is of course their job to determine whether there is probable cause to arrest. They looked at the evidence and rejected the notion that it showed probable cause. That is their job. Now, they may have been wrong to make that determination, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is theirs to make, and that in another case they could well be right to make it.

I’m still far from convinced they were wrong, though. The descriptions we have of the evidence available at the scene don’t seem to show probable cause of a crime. Please remember that homicide, in and of itself, is not a crime in Florida, so the simple fact of a dead body, even one that was certainly killed by the suspect, is not probable cause for arrest

It is not the job of the police to reject evidence, much less decide that the man standing over a dead body with a smoking gun who is telling them he did nothing wrong is all the evidence they need to bother gathering! WTF???

Sorry, what? Are you seriously suggesting that the police investigation ended at the point they let Zimmerman walk away, and that nothing further has been done?

But that’s exactly what they did, and it’s outrageous. And it is because it is outrageous that we are finally hearing about it: Martin’s parents were appropriately outraged and demanded that a real investigation take place and that evidence actually be gathered to determine if what the man with the smoking gun standing over the dead body said was really true. Because they are reasonable people who very reasonably believe that the death of their teenaged son at the hands of another is a big deal and deserves to be treated as such, not brushed off like a fender bender.

The investigation is, in fact, ongoing, and evidence continues to be gathered. It seems to me that the authorities are taking the case very seriously, despite the opinion of people like yourself that Zimmerman’s rights should be ignored. Even if he is guilty of murder (which he almost certainly isn’t), he still has rights, and needs to be protected from people like you who would breach them.

Zimmerman judged Martin to be a threat to him and executed him. It’s just a fact. Whether he was justified in doing so is the question, but that’s what he admitted doing, even though he didn’t put it that way.

No, it’s an outright lie. Zimmerman executed no-one. Zimmerman, as a private individual, is not capable of execution. Stop making stuff up.

I take it you are ignoring the eye-witness evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the point he fired the gun? That would be an odd way to carry out an execution, even if it were to be possible.

No he doesn’t have to explain anything. But that doesn’t mean quite what you seem to think it means, either:

It means exactly what I thought it meant, but thanks for the cite. The part at the bottom about the government having to show probable cause is especially interesting, as they have not yet done so. And yet you still claim that he should have been arrested by now :smack:

[Steophan]

@Steophan

I take it you are ignoring the eye-witness evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the point he fired the gun? That would be an odd way to carry out an execution, even if it were to be possible.

This, upon checking, isn’t correct. The witness says Zimmerman was on the floor, and nothing about Martin.

[DrDeth]

@Bricker

Yes. But an application for a warrant must be supported by our old friend probable cause.

So what do you say in your affidavit to the judge that shows probable cause to believe that a blood sample from Zimmerman will reveal the fruits of a crime?

If I get the GJ to return a Indictment for Homicide, then I don;t think the judge would have a problem any more.

[Bricker]

@DrDeth

If I get the GJ to return a Indictment for Homicide, then I don;t think the judge would have a problem any more.

Well, actually, he would have a problem…

If I am indicted for car theft, does that give you probable cause to search my rectum for stolen diamonds?

Just because a grand jury has found probable cause to believe someone is guilty of some flavor of homicide does not automatically translate to probable cause to believe that a blood test would reveal relevant information concerning that crime.

[DrDeth]

@Stoid

It is the job of the police to gather evidence. It is the job of the police to see that an ordinary citizen is standing over the dead body of another ordinary citizen and wonder if perhaps the death of the man on the ground was not a legal death, and to be reasonable enough to do their fucking job, which is to make an effort to find out as much information as possible about exactly what led to the ordinary citizen with the gun unloading it in the chest of the ordinary citizen with the Skittles.

It is not the job of the police to reject evidence, much less decide that the man standing over a dead body with a smoking gun who is telling them he did nothing wrong is all the evidence they need to bother gathering! WTF???

But that’s exactly what they did, and it’s outrageous. And it is because it is outrageous that we are finally hearing about it: Martin’s parents were appropriately outraged and demanded that a real investigation take place and that evidence actually be gathered to determine if what the man with the smoking gun standing over the dead body said was really true. Because they are reasonable people who very reasonably believe that the death of their teenaged son at the hands of another is a big deal and deserves to be treated as such, not brushed off like a fender bender. .

There is no evidence any of this occurred. Yes, based upon the evidence at hand AT THAT POINT IN TIME, the police did not make an initial arrest, which was proper. They then continued their investigation. Next the DA was brought in, decided that Homicide may well be proper, and called a Grand Jury for a Indictment. In order to Charge Zimmerman with Murder, the DA MUST present the evidence to a Grand Jury. At that point in time he has to have enough evidence to convince them to return a indictment. This takes time.

The Police did exactly what they should have done (other than possibly release too much info). The DA is doing exactly as he should do. If they did anything else such as make a early arrest, release more info or file charges without a GJ indictment, they would jeopardize the investigation and the case.

For those who want Zimmerman charged with Murder- you should be praising them, not attacking their judgment.

Those making a stink about this simply do not understand the legal system.

[Bricker]

@grude

We get the Florida feed for our cable which means we can see local news there and I surprised no one has mentioned yet some of the developments that totally dominated local news yesterday(03/22/12).

For one the police chief in charge where the incident happened has suddenly resigned.

Thousands marched in protest and then a speech was given by Al Sharpton to the crowd.

The high school were Martin attended had a massive walkout in protest organized through twitter, several other high schools in the state also had walkouts in protest.
Thankfully it looks like the case won’t be forgotten and public outrage will force something to happen, it has already forced the resignation of the police chief.

Is there something special about this case that causes commentators here to shade or falsify news to help their perceptions?

According to CNN, “Sanford, Florida, police chief steps aside ‘temporarily’ in fallout from teen’s death.”

I grant you that’s not a ringing endorsement of his job, but neither is it a resignation. Why report it here as a resignation?

[Bricker]

@Stoid

Bit of hair-splitting, isn’t it…seemes to me that dangerous acts undertaken with reckless disregard for human life = poor judgment. Potayto/Potahto.

Writing to address this only for anyone reading who may be nodding in agreement:

No.

Imagine a great big circle labeled poor judgment. Completely inside is a smaller circle called “dangerous acts undertaken with reckless disregard for human life.”

If you’re in the “dangerous to human life” circle, you MUST be also in the “poor judgment” circle.

But it’s very possible to be in the “poor judgement” circle and still be outside the “dangerous” circle.

So, no, they are not equal. One is a subset of the other.

[Nars_Glinley]

@grude

And the governor talked about creating a task forces and possibly making legislative changes in ref to the stand your ground laws.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/statement-florida-governor-rick-scott-regarding-cr/nLZ8N/

That’s interesting. Doesn’t that imply that Zimmerman’s reliance on the SYG law was legally appropriate? If it weren’t, no changes would be necessary, right?

[DrDeth]

@Bricker

Well, actually, he would have a problem…

If I am indicted for car theft, does that give you probable cause to search my rectum for stolen diamonds?

Just because a grand jury has found probable cause to believe someone is guilty of some flavor of homicide does not automatically translate to probable cause to believe that a blood test would reveal relevant information concerning that crime.

"Your honor, we found blood at the crime scene and on the body that did not match the deceased.We need Zimmerman’s dna to see if it’s a match.”

Actually, wouldn’t Zimmermans lawyer want to show his clients blood was at the scene, and even perhaps on Martin’s hands?

[JoelUpchurch]

@enomaj

Trayvon Martin Killing's Youngest Witness, 13, Still Can Hear The Screams | HuffPost Voices
Stand Your Ground and Trayvon Martin - The Atlantic

Austin Brown, 13, was walking his dog during the time of the altercation and saw both men on the ground but separated.

These articles say something different. The quote is from the second article.

You’re right. That story can’t be reconciled with the other two. The Atlantic Story is actually quoting from an ABC story.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2yMKDEgc07

I notice The Atlantic stated this about the ABC story.

I don’t know how reliable this account is. The sourcing isn’t really stated with clarity.

I would tend to rate the ABC report as least reliable. The Orlando Sentinel next, since it was reported by their Seminole county court/police reporter and the Huffington Post first since they actually talked to the witness.

I was surprised that the Huffington Post actually seemed to have a reporter on this story and not regurgitating something from another source.

[you_with_the_face]

@Stoid

What’s with all the “No one knows! We don’t have all the facts!” So? All we’re doing is discussing.

My favorite part of the thread was when one part of Zimmermans statement that was reported in the press (his reasoning for getting out of truck) was discussed at length, with multiple posters explaining how it was perfectly reasonable that he would exit his truck to look at the street sign and furtherrmore, its consistent with the evidence we know about. Ergo, nothing to here, nothing to see.

But as soon as the other part of his statement is mentioned and questions are raised about how it doesn’t gel with the evidence, suddenly we’re all fools for using information in the press in all our analysis of what happened. So much cherry picking going on in this thread. I just wish folks were more honest about It.

And because this issue has been brushed away by the gallery because the press apparently can’t be trusted with the truth, I’m gonna assume that the consensus is that this is a potential sticky wicket in Zimmermans case, IF it’s true that he claimed Martin attacked him on the street. It possible that in his hasty attempt to create a narrative that demonstrated he wasn’t pursuing Martin on foot (the silliness about the street sign is another indicator), he ended up placing the start of the altercation in an unlikely area relative to where the shooting occurred. The cops might not have seized upon that weirdness if they knew from the beginning charges werent going to be pressed against the guy.

[Acsenray]

A guy is standing over a dead guy and says “I shot him.” I should think that this is more than enough evidence to constitute either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime might have been committed.

It seems ridiculous to me that his merely saying “It was in self defense” magically makes this vanish. There’s a dead guy that’s been shot; there’s a smoking gun; there’s an admission of having shot. Surely the mere assertion of a defense of self-defense is something to be tested in court and doesn’t dispel the reasonable suspicion and probable cause that’s right there in front of everyone’s eyes.

Am I completely off-base on this?

[newme]

I don’t believe anyone has linked this story from the day after the shooting:

FOX 35 Orlando | Local News, Weather, and Live Streams | WOFL

“The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

“And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”

Wasn’t Martin wearing a grey hoodie? That would make Zimmerman the man in the red sweater. I watched the video shown on that page, and I think the quote should run this way, my comments in bold:

{Witness says} “The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on {Zimmerman}, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’”

{snip in audio} I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

{Reporter says} John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

{Witness says} “And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top {Martin} beating up the other guy {Zimmerman}, was the one {now, after the shot} laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”

This is an adult male who, from only a few feet away, sees Martin on top of Zimmmerman, who is yelling for help. Moments later he hears a shot, and when he looks at the scene again, he now sees Martin lying in the grass. Does anyone interpret that video clip differently?

[enomaj]

President Obama weighs in:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/

Geraldo Rivera thinks Martin’s hoodie is an accessory to homicide:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/23/trayvon-martins-hoodie-and-george-zimmerman-share-blame/&sa=U&ei=JphsT9nUN8fz0gGToozMBg&ved=0CCwQqQIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGCEEUMUhaGOCCA5x98Z_daFlxFtg

[DrDeth]

@Acsenray

A guy is standing over a dead guy and says “I shot him.” I should think that this is more than enough evidence to constitute either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime might have been committed.

It seems ridiculous to me that his merely saying “It was in self defense” magically makes this vanish. There’s a dead guy that’s been shot; there’s a smoking gun; there’s an admission of having shot. Surely the mere assertion of a defense of self-defense is something to be tested in court and doesn’t dispel the reasonable suspicion and probable cause that’s right there in front of everyone’s eyes.

Am I completely off-base on this?

Yes. You are confusing what needs to be tested in court after a full investigation with why or why not a person needed to be arrested on the spot. There was no need for Zimmerman to be arrested on the spot. After the GJ returns a indictment for Murder, he will then be arrested. That’s the way it works. Most of the questions and inconsistencies raised here (many of which may or may not be based upon actual evidence) are things which would not be apparent at the time. At that point in time you had a man who had been assaulted. He had no criminal record that was available for the arriving PD to see. He had a legal gun permit. He was the watch captain. He had called 911. He was a homeowner, in that neighborhood. The PO didn’t even know Martin was a minor.

So, if Zimmerman had been arrested at that point in time, and his story checked out, the PD would be liable for false arrest. Also if you arrest him, you must charge him within a very short time, which means you either have to let him go or file charges based upon very little investigation. If you don’t arrest him, you can continue your investigation, and you can also charge him later, when you get back the facts from the investigation. And, the DA could NOT have charged him with Murder- in Florida the DA needs the Grand Jury to return a Indictment first. So an early chare could only have been for assault, and people are clamoring for murder charges.

A premature arrest or charging would just lead to Zimmerman getting off.

So I ask you – in the interests of placating the mob, should they have not followed proper procedures, so that Zimmerman is NOT brought to justice? Or should they follow proper procedures so that Zimmerman can at least be brought to trial?

[Blalron]

@DrDeth

Yes. You are confusing what needs to be tested in court after a full investigation with why or why not a person needed to be arrested on the spot. There was no need for Zimmerman to be arrested on the spot. After the GJ returns a indictment for Murder, he will then be arrested. That’s the way it works.

I’m curious: If George Zimmerman decided to take a vacation to another country that had no extradition treaty with the United States, would there be any legal mechanism to stop him?

[enomaj]

@ newme, that’s the first I’ve seen of that article. The story went national maybe a week/week and a half ago.

According to my links, if they are credible, they get seperated after that somehow. Both on the ground. This is the point at which I think Zimmerman draws his gun.

All this hinges on whether Zimmerman or Martin is the aggressor. If it’s Martin, case closed. If it’s Zimmerman, he has to retreat before he can use deadly force.