It is tiring, this thread. It is tiring because it’s making me feel that if we can’t even agree on the basics, then what’s the point of talking anymore?
If I say Zimmerman chased Martin, someone will accuse me of being biased because there is no proof of this. But the evidence that we do have points to the strong likelihood of this event occurring.
If I say that Zimmerman claims he got struck when he was looking for a street sign and that’s where he stood his ground, I will be portrayed as being a crazy nut who’s making shit up. And when I offer an excerpt from the newspaper article where I got my information, I will be portrayed as a idiot for believing everything I read.
If I say “let’s wait and see”, I get pats on the back.
If I say, “This is a travesty!” I get accused of forming a lynch mob.
And yet I am not ready to throw up my hands in defeat. I just have to swallow the frustration and keep going. I beg you to do the same.
I’m not sure I get your question…a cop tells a cop that Zimmerman defended himself? What does that mean or prove or reverse? Please clarify, because to the extent that I follow, nothing changes - cops are still deciding that Zimmerman acted in self-defense so there’s no probably cause to arrest him and pursue an investigation into the possibility that it was not self-defense.
The only way that would be different is if Cop A was a direct eyewitness to everything that happened from start to finish and in that capacity reported to another cop that there was no probable cause. In which case there still needs to be an investigation that examines everything, rather than simply accepting one cop’s word or one cop and the shooter.
As for believability being the crux, when it comes to someone losing their life at the hands of another, what the cops believe in the moment should not be the deciding factor about what happens next. The cops should be thorough and diligent in collecting all the information and evidence they possibly can no matter what they personally believe, and leave the question of believability to be decided in court after there are enough facts to make a meaningful determination.
NO, what I meant was, there is a shooting, an officer comes to the scene where another officer who did the shooting says what Zimmerman said, “I shot him”.
NOW, of course the policeman (actor) is going to be initially believed it was in the line of duty, legal, no on scene arrest.
Since the thread deals with why was not an on scene arrest effected, the fact the actor says he shot the person is not automatic arrest facts.
They can’t be looking South. There would be astreet before those buildings running transversely and besides you can see Martin’s father standing next to where they interview him later in the segment.
On the contrary, your answer was that you’d put in your affidavit that Zimmerman’s statement was disorganized and he was twitchy.
I like that answer just fine, if it’s true.
Is it? You say it’s true because you can’t imagine he wasn’t. I am pointing out that your inability to imagine him providing an organized statement with a calm demeanor doesn’t preclude it from happening.
In other words, you’re begging the question: the cops screwed up, you assert.
How do you know, I ask.
Because they didn’t do a blood test. How could they get a warrant to force a blood test? By saying Zimmerman was twitchy and his statement was disorganized. But WAS Zimmerman twitchy, and WAS his statement disorganized? Yes, you affirm. He must have been.
Why? Because you can’t imagine that he wasn’t.
There are no goal posts moved here. The point remains: could the police have gotten a warrant for a blood test from Zimmerman if he refused to voluntarily provide one? No, because they would need a warrant. You can’t answer that point by declaring yes, they can get a warrant by claiming Zimmerman was twitchy and his statement was disorganized, unless it’s true that Zimmerman was twitchy and his statement was disorganized. And you don’t know it’s true, and you can’t make it true by declaring that you can’t imagi it otherwise.
Suppose that Zimmerman hadn’t said anything. He exercised his 5th amendment rights and kept silent when the cops appeared on the scene.
Given everything that we know to date (phone logs, 911 calls, witnesses statements, arrest records, etc.), would a reasonable cop have probable cause to arrest this man?
This question was asked earlier, but I can’t remember if it was answered.
If the answer is yes, why? What evidence is present in this 5th amendment situation that tips the scale against Zimmerman, that isn’t present now?
As I stated earlier, what one cop decides is PC another may not, the same with a Jurist’s decision. The SC rules 5-4, who is legally right? The 5 of course.
Now that brings to mind Justice Jackson’s quote;
“We are right because we are final, we are not final because we are right”.
For a “false arrest/4th AM” suit to succeed, which requires a violation of “clearly established law”, if Zimmerman was arrested on scene, he would have a hard time proving it, as Police enjoy “qualified immunity” in color of law suits.
Just as PC has no precise definition, Due Process does not either.
I don’t think I understand this law. If I get into a fight with someone (in the state of Florida), it escalates into a killing and there are no witnesses, all I have to do is claim self-defense and I won’t even be arrested?
That scares the hell out of me. Forget that Florida vacation I was planning.
I think the moment the police heard the 911 tapes, they should have made an arrest (I think they had cause to do this immediately, but I’m giving them some discretion).
Because assuming Zimmerman claimed the things that are being reported (e.g., he did not provoke the fight by chasing menacingly, because Martin had snuck up from behind and ambushed him), he is contradicting the 911 tape.* This contradiction alone would cast doubt on Zimmerman’s credibility in a reasonable person.
Bricker, thousands of posts ago, said that contradictions between Zimmerman’s statement and evidence would tip the scales against Zimmerman’s claim, in his eyes. I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that this counts as a contradiction. But I have teeny weeny hunch that I will be disagreed with. And the cycle of arguing will continue through the night.
The only innocuous explanation that I can gin up is that Zimmerman admits to chasing Martin for a short distance, decides to stop and hightail it back to the truck, drives to an intersection, gets out with his attention more on the street sign than to the guy he was just chasing, and then is ambushed. This is believable (if you do not believe the girlfriend’s story at all, that is). But if the police did not think to bring him in for another line of questioning right after hearing the 911 tape, just to see how he would “fix” this contradiction, well, this is just horrible. Because waiting would give Zimmerman ample time to remember his conversation with the dispatcher and concoct a believable story that absolves him of any badness. Let’s hope that the police possessed knowledge of the full nature of the 911 call when they questioned him.
The arrest concerns an on scene arrest, not a total escape.
Just like some states require a misdemeanor be committed in the officer’s presence if they will arrest without a warrant. It does not mean no arrest upon a warrant can take place later.
Sigh. Look, really, you have to stop getting your law from prime-time TV. See those things? “phone logs, 911 calls, witnesses statements, arrest records, etc” they were all collected after the initial incident. Now this little thing called the US Constitution sez that at that time, the police need to get a Warrant. It’s gone beyond what a “reasonable cop” and “probable cause”.
Look at my prior post “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/investigati...n_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.
Now- do want Zimmerman charged with Murder or do you want him to go free?
Look at my prior post “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/investigati...n_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.
Now- do want Zimmerman charged with Murder or do you want him to go free?
Okay, so it sounds like PC= whatever the cop whats it be. Which means that repeatedly asserting that the cops don’t have probable cause to arrest Zimmerman is a meaningless statement. If they wanted there to be probable cause, they could find probable cause. It’s not an objective quantity.
That said, but we should be able to predict how most reasonable cops would assess a homicide. Otherwise, there would be a lot of known killers walking around with spotless records. It would always be a mystery how the cops would respond. Sometimes the killers would be arrested and sometimes not. That doesn’t seem to be case for the most part.
So how do you think most reasonable cops would respond to a situation in which the shooter neither confirms or denies wrongdoing, but all the other facts present in Martin’s shooting were present. Whats the likelihood they would say there’s no PC?
I have never been a police officer, just took Criminal Law as my College Major, so 1st hand, I can not say, but PC is a “flexible” doctrine.
A simple denial may be swaying, to counter, under Evidence Rules when a person stands mute when asked a question, it does not mean it is an “Adoptive Admission” of guilt.
