I’ve mostly been away from the Dope for the week, lots going on. When I left there were about 6 pages in this thread. I can not wade through what this thread has become. I tried but there was just too much of the same stuff over and over. But the above just pisses me off. At the time you wrote this NO ONE was taking Zimmerman’s side. There were some who thought he should be arrested based on the law. There were some that thought he should be punished regardless of the law. And there were some who were strictly trying to answer the question as it was originally posted, the reasons why he wasn’t arrested while explaining basic principals of law and the way Florida law is written. Maybe since then someone has come out on Zimmerman’s side. At the time you wrote that not one person had stated they believed he was justified. I’m sorry if you got mad that some are able to view an issue without going into RO territory. But throwing out an accusation like that is just immature.
Funny thing is I have been going through some of the same issues this week that were brought up in this thread. I have been working a case in which I believe there is probable cause for an arrest, I am certain I can get an indictment, but the prosecutor is balking because they don’t think they can get an easy conviction. I have been working my ass off on it and I am spent. Its not a case you will ever hear on the news. But these are the things we have to deal with every day. But somehow I couldn’t convince a legal novice that convictability is an issue when deciding when to arrest someone. :rolleyes:
Good luck trying to explain the law and legal procedure to the outraged. I do hope that this leads to at least a better interpretation of this Florida law if not repeal. As I said long ago I do believe that by the end someone in the chain will decide to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
This is what the police know on the* night of the shooting*:
Zimmerman calls the police to report a suspicious person. Police are dispatched.
The police arrive on scene and find Zimmerman standing over Martin’s body.
Zimmerman is bleeding from the nose and back of the head. He tells police Martin attacked him so he yells for help. He says he shoots in self defense.
As far as I know, no independent witness says who started the fight.
Many witnesses report hearing yells for help.
One witness, a man known as John, presumably tells police that night that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was calling for help.
Where is the probable cause for arresting Zimmerman that night?
I wonder how everything would have played out in a non-SYG state. After reading about the Garcia case in Great Debates, it seems that Florida police, prosecutors and judges have just given up on “self-defense” cases, no matter how dubious the claim.
Heavens to Betsy, how many times must this be repeated?
The following furnish probable cause (i.e., facts sufficient to allow a prudent person reasonably to surmise that criminal activity is likely afoot and that the suspect is likely responsible for it)
• Martin was shot and killed
• Zimmerman’s gun did it
• Nobody else was around to fire the gun
• Neighbors had shortly before heard a scuffle and a gunshot
• ZIMMERMAN ACKNOWLEDGED SHOOTING MARTIN (A big one!!)
Knowing the above, a prudent person could reasonably (indeed, very easily) surmise that a crime has been committed and that Zimmerman was the one who did it.
Notice that what is not required for probable cause is either the absence or disproof of any purported defenses to the alleged crime.
Bricker has repeatedly stated that the police need to take the totality of circumstances into account. What Bricker has not shown is that, in this case, were the police to arrest Zimmerman without disposing of his allegation of self-defense, a Fourth (plus Fourteenth, for the sticklers) Amendment violation would have occurred. Bricker will not make this claim because he knows it to be wrong, and now, so do you.
So why doesn’t every self-defense shooting (or claim thereof) result in an immediate arrest? The whole effin’ point of Stand Your Ground laws (such as Florida’s) is to remove the automatic presumption of manslaughter.
Notice that what is not required for probable cause is either the absence or disproof of any purported defenses to the alleged crime.
.[/QUOTE]
My apologies. IANAL. I will stand back and let you and Bricker slug this one out.
Just to clarify, you are saying that there is probable cause if police believe a crime may have been committed. Totality of circumstances are irrelevant.
Bricker is saying there is no probable cause if the police reasonably believe it is more likely no crime was committed.
The video is interesting, since they interviewed the witness in person. I would say that he was more than a few feet away if the spot where Martin’s father was looking at is actually where the shooting actually took place. The reporter pointed at “Johns” house earlier and it looks like it was at least 100 feet south of there.
The reporter does point at a point beside “Johns” house, but that doesn’t seem to jibe with the report that Martin was found at 1231 Twin Trees, which would be the third unit from the north end. It’s possible that he deliberately pointed at a different house to protect “Johns” anonymity.
Yes, there may have been probable cause. So? Let us assume they did arrest him. There’s two possibilities:
His story checks out, he sues the PD and wins
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
“Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she
is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.”
His story does not check out. After a short time, he must be charged or released. If charged the DA must be sure (on the basis of only a couple days of evidence gathering) to get the charge right or he jeopardizes his case. Meanwhile, since Zimmerman is charged, he lawyers up, and has a chance to conceal evidence, figure out a perfect story, etc. Now, Florida law does not allow the DA to indict anyone for a capital crime without a Grand Jury. So, that means the DA may have to consider only Assault charges since he doesn’t have time to fully investigate the crime and can’t bring a indictment for murder without a grand jury.
As has been seen, the DA and police took the right step, which was not arrest or charge Zimmerman until more evidence could be gathered and then that evidence presented to a Grand Jury. Note that the fact that a GJ has been called is saying the DA is considering Murder as a possible charge.
Anything else would be premature and would jeopardize the case. If you want Zimmerman to go free, you should make sure the police and DA jump the gun and proceed without the proper steps. If you want Zimmerman charged with murder- then you should applaud the police and DA.
There’s enough material pointing to Zimmerman going nuts and shooting Martin to warrant an arrest. You seem to think that an arrest presumes guilt. It does not, it could just be the police doing their due diligence. In fact, with the audio of the cell phone conversation and the 911 tapes already out there, I fail to see how anyone can think there isn’t the slightest chance of murder.
We’ve heard Zimmerman’s first 911 call but did he make another after the shooting?
Does SYG cover the actual initial arrest procedure, or just what charges can be brought after an investigation?
I’m not convinced he needed to be actually arrested at the scene, but it seems reasonable to bring him in immediately for questioning and hold his gun for testing.
Prosecutorial discretion. I never said that wasn’t a real thing. But understand this: if you say, “There was no probable cause to arrest,” then you are saying, as a matter of law, the suspect cannot be arrested. That is an altogether different thing to say (and, in this case, would also be a grossly erroneous thing to say) than “the police or prosecutor must not believe it would be wise to arrest this person now.”
Discretion entails a very accommodating standard of review, but it does not mean that the actions cannot be reviewed at all. Now, nobody can challenge a failure to arrest in court (who would have standing to do so?). However, we, as citizens, can review the action in the same accommodating spirit and see if it is, despite being so accommodating, wanting. We should review it because our system is one that operates by the consent of the governed, and we should be vigilant regarding the actions of officers of the executive branch.
So, in this instance, one would want some explanation for what appears to be a very arbitrary refusal to arrest. Hitherto, they’ve only said that Zimmerman has claimed self-defense and they have not been able to disprove. But, they have adduced no explanation as to how vigorous their attempt to disprove it has been or the facts they found that corroborate (or at least fail to refute) the claim. “Just trust us, OK,” does not adequately meet even the very low bar of the abuse of discretion standard.
No, the whole effin’ point is to allow the accused to avoid a trial, by showing at a pre-trial hearing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to statutory immunity. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010).
My take on the video. It begins at the spot of the shooting, behind and east of 1231 Twin Trees. The camera is looking south. Later reporter and camera go around to the front door of 1231 Twin Trees, which is on the west side of the building. Thats where he talks to John.
If so, it seems to me that the “stand your ground” defense doesn’t apply to a lot of situations:
It seems to me that Subsection (1) of this statute doesn’t apply because the kid wasn’t breaking into anything.
And it seems quite dubious to me that Subsection (3) would apply. It doesn’t say that if someone gets into a fight with you that you can use deadly force. It says that you have to be in fear of death or serious bodily harm. Is every bar fight or altercation then going to become valid grounds for someone to pull out a firearm and start shooting? Was that really the intent of this statute?
It is not that totality of the circumstances is irrelevant, it is rather, does the totality of the circumstances provide an adequate basis for a reasonable person to conclude that criminal activity is likely afoot and that the suspect is likely responsible for it?
The totality of the circumstances/probable cause does not require that criminal activity be the only possible conclusion. The police do not have to be convinced or certain that criminal activity is taking place.
Nor does taking the totality of the circumstances require the police to adjudicate any affirmative defenses. (By the way, when raising an affirmative defense, the accused is pointing not denying the facts alleged by the prosecution, which without more, make out a crime; the accused is saying other further facts decriminalize his actions.)
Bricker’s analogy is inapt because the suspect does not allege an affirmative defense, rather subsequent events necessarily reveal that no criminal activity occurred at all, not, as Zimmerman’s defense obligates him to claim, that the crime did occur but was legally justified.
In the article, “John” says he told the man in the red sweater to stop. Did anyone else catch that?
Stop what? It seems like he was telling him to stop yelling for help. It would never occur to me to tell someone in a life and death struggle to stop yelling for help though.
That statute refers back to the one I quoted and the one newme quotes for the applicable standards.
And this one also refers back to the one I quoted. What standard is there (imminent death, great bodily harm, forcible felony) seems to follow the same kinds of standards.