Could be. You watched the “John” interview. What did he say?
A few more facts:
At the community in question, in the year prior to Trayvon’s death, there were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting.
Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association, speaking of Zimmerman: “He once caught a thief and an arrest was made. He helped solve a lot of crimes.”
Police played the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin’s father, who told then that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644910&page=8
We don’t know anything.
Yeah, and?
Read Kimmy’s post on probable cause again. Then explain how you honestly believe that Zimmerman could convince a civil jury that arresting him that night was unreasonable?
I’m interested in the nature of the bias, and I don’t think it’s as much about race as it is about guns. But we’ll never get the facts there…
Doesnt’ have to be a slam dunk in order to be extremely believable. “ill will, spite, malice” and something else. I think it’s entirely legitimate to characterize the mindset of the man on the 911 tapes as being one of “ill-will” Whether a jury agrees is what juries are for.
They haven’t, and neither has this thread.
We absolutely can, I think we must!:
From this site:
Of course it is! See the previous! If Zimmerman was the aggressor, claiming that he was defending against Martin defending himself from his aggression is not the way self-defense works
No, but your actions in deciding to treat other people like criminals matter in assessing whether your later action of killing them was justified. It has a direct bearing on the outcome you are standing trial for.
Incorrect. See previous.
Correct.
The overall charges and the prosecution’s case however does need to be a slam dunk. Reasonable doubt is a very high bar.
I once read that most medieval sieges, when the attackers would storm the castle they prevailed. That doesn’t mean storming a castle is easy, it rather meant that it was so difficult that generally the attackers only tried it when the castle’s defensive integrity was massively compromised and the attackers could move in with overwhelming, irresistible force.
Most prosecutions, the overwhelming majority, end in convictions if they got to a jury verdict. That is not because they are easy or the burden is low, but because it is so high a prosecutor never gets in that court room without overwhelming advantages.
I don’t want to dig through this thread to find it, but my memory is in Florida you must demonstrate the act is imminently dangerous and demonstrative a depraved mind. The jury instruction then, I believe, specifies three criteria which all must be met to qualify under that definition. Firstly a person of ordinary judgment and reason must know that the action might seriously harm or kill another person (that is easy to prove in this case, a reasonable person would believe shooting someone in the chest would likely seriously injure or kill them.) Secondly, the act must be done from hatred, spite or an evil intent. Proving that is not so easy a thing.
All it takes is one juror who doesn’t buy your evil intent argument and the trial ends in a hung jury.
While I suspect massive sarcasm, I do think I’ve been pretty consistent in saying just that very thing.
I’ve speculated on possibilities based on news articles, sure, but I’ve maintained throughout we really don’t know the particulars. We still have no clue at all what Zimmerman said in his police statement. We have no clue on the actual dimensions of the crime scene. We have people saying it was a fight that took place over 3-4 yards (properties, not unit of measurement yards) and the shooting happened a good distance from the point of the altercation beginning. We have other people saying other things. We have witnesses saying stuff to the media, but the police saying they made different statements to them. We don’t actually have any formal witness statements or Zimmerman’s statement.
Those initial statements made by those witnesses and Zimmerman are probably the most important pieces of evidence in the case and we have no idea what they say. Sure, we’ve all read stuff about what Zimmerman may have claimed. But our lens on that is the news media who have the information from a source who may or may not be reliable, and I have personal history with making comments to reporters and seeing very different things end up in print.
If Zimmerman made an internally credible statement, and then a bunch of witnesses said stuff that didn’t contradict Zimmerman it makes sense why things have happened the way they have.
What I do worry about, if Zimmerman is a bad actor, I’ve seen “in the news” some evidence that some of the initial witnesses may have been reluctant to tell the full truth. For whatever reason they didn’t want to go against Zimmerman because to their mind he just shot some random trouble making guy who had come into the neighborhood, or they just plain didn’t want to get much involved. As the news frenzy has started they find out he’s shot a 17 year old kid with candy, and they had second thoughts about giving a weak ass incomplete or even incorrect (false) statement to police.
Well, they can never take those statements back. They could have seen outright murder by Zimmerman, and a defense counsel is going to bring out every single one of their original statements to police and absolutely destroy the credibility of their testimony such that it will have no real value at all.
That sounds like a small price to pay compared to the quagmire the PD is mired in now.
Right?
According to the police department they were told by the prosecutors they lacked evidence for conviction, which is why they had not moved to make an arrest. It’d be very atypical anywhere for police to make an arrest if the DA tells them they won’t pursue a case due to not being able to win at trial.
Since we have no idea what internal discussions went on I have no idea if that is why the police didn’t make an arrest, but if it is, then it tells me the only thing the police really should have done differently is their PR. They should not have released all this information.
What they primarily should have done is reached out to the parents early and often, been a source of comfort to them and made the parents feel that they were on their side. Tell them the investigation is difficult but ongoing, and if they are able to bring charges on the approval of the DA they will. A large part of the reason this has become national news is Trayvon’s parents made it an issue locally and it got picked up from there. If the police had handled Trayvon’s parents better and treated them as the parents of a crime victim (even if they didn’t feel they had evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt) I doubt we’d even know about this case right now.
I’ve seen you take me, Stoid, you with the face, and perhaps Magiver to task for speculating with the facts as we know them to be.
I have not seen you give other posters the same treatment.
The only people around here being called “crazy” are the ones who deign to express disbelief about an incredible story. If we were to hear this story in any other context, we’d probably all be on the same page. But for some reason, now it is a black box of mysteriousness. One which precludes even the most basic reasoning.
The “angry blacks” remark still stings, Martin. Do you still think this is an “angry blacks” thing, or perhaps something a bit more complicated?
Stripped down, whose behavior was more reasonably viewed as threatening/frightening/disturbing:
What Zimmerman saw that he found alarming:
Teenage boy, walking down the street, talking on his cell phone, perhaps eating skittles or drinking tea.
What Martin saw that he found alarming:
Man in an SUV following him, watching him, getting out his car and revealing that he’s a great deal bigger than him and is now approaching him.
If I’m a skinny teenage boy (read: vulnerable, common target of assault) there’s a good chance I am scared that this guy is a pedo rapist and I go into fight/flight mode to protect myself. I’m a woman, (vulnerable, common target of assault) and if I were in Martin’s position I would be crapping my pants with fear.
So?
I don’t know that it does, I only know that there seems to be at least one or two legal experts making the statement that it’s fairly standard procedure to check for drugs and alcohol in a homicide investigation. So far there hasn’t been any very solid sourcing for whether this is true or not, but it seems perfectly reasonable that it would normally be included as part of a complete and thorough investigation designed to determine the truth of what circumstances actually led to the violent death of a private citizen at the hands of another private citizen: was the private citizen who did the shooting drunk or otherwise impaired? That’s certainly pertinent information to have (and in some cases could actually be helpful to the defense).
If you were the person designing how to find out as much as possible about what circumstances led to the violent death of a private citizen at the hands of another, what would you include?
Of course you can. And because you are a very large man I have never seen before in my life, at least until I noticed you following me around and watching my every move, you can reasonably expect that your decision to behave like this could lead to my feeling extremely threatened and reacting with whatever force I can come up with to keep you away from me and prevent you from abducting or otherwise harming me.
On the other hand, my decision to walk to the 7-11 to get some snacks and then walk back home should in no way lead me to expect that you, acting as the pseudo police for your neighborhood, will find me unacceptably suspicious and feel it is necessary to question me about my presence.
I knew it! Gingrich slams President Obama:
Thought it would be Limbaugh but maybe he’s still licking wounds from the Sandra Fluke flap. Shoulda kept your trap shut and let the Etch-A-Sketch thing fester.
My question is aboutFlorida Section 776.012* Use of force in defense of person*, especially the bolded part in paragraph (2):
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
Don’t all arrests require probable cause? If so, why add that bolded part of paragraph (2) to the law? Am I wrong in thinking the legislature added that clause in order to provide a more stringent proof of probable cause in cases of self defense versus cases not involving self defense?
Well, that’s the nature of the original question you started the thread off with. We can only speculate about why Zimmerman has not been arrested. It only makes sense that we can speculate on potential reasons to explain **the fact that he has not been arrested. **But when the “other side” makes grandiose factual assertions that are clearly not speculation but instead include comments like “Zimmerman is clearly a murderer” or “the police clearly have enough evidence to arrest” or “this case is an easy conviction because no reasonable person would believe Zimmerman’s story” those aren’t innocent speculation but factual assertions about things no one in this thread could possibly know because to speak authoritatively requires evidence none of us possess.
My comment that you are referencing was never intended to be a statement about the “entirety” of this issue. What I actually said was:
I stand by that unequivocally because I believe that is what is happening. “Black outrage” is a serious thing in politics. Ever since the civil rights movement there have been many incidents in which the black community has responded to things with massive protests that are primarily about grievances the black community has against something or about some perceived/real injustice perpetrated against a black person by “the white man.”
When this happens, it brings out common clownish characters like Al Sharpton and et al., but it also has real political impact. That’s not an intrinsically bad thing. In a democracy it’s actually a good thing, the reason race is important is precisely because most politicians these days, white or black, are deathly afraid of being viewed as racist. The ones who actually are racist are probably more afraid of being found out as a genuine racist than the ones who aren’t racist are of being perceived incorrectly as racist. So often times if you have an issue that ignites the black community it gets a great deal of political attention, more so than it would if it ignited say, the gay community.
But that is fine, that’s what politics is all about in a democracy. A bunch of people from a minority group get mad, make noise about it, get attention, something gets done. Sometimes.
That’s fine when the “something gets done” is something like a bad law gets overturned or a racist politician or government official gets shamed out of office. But I’m not comfortable at all when this force is used to alter how the State investigates someone, especially when that someone is a Hispanic guy and the angry citizens are blacks going at him because one of their own is killed. To me that is a scary sort of “tribal justice” thing in which the blacks got really loud and angry so the State is now going at Zimmerman hard to appease the blacks. It’s also scary even if race wasn’t involved at all, because whether stand your ground laws are good or bad I don’t think it’s consistent with a truly fair justice system is Zimmerman goes to prison when dozens of other cases in Florida with similar scenarios (some even more egregious scenarios) have not resulted in anyone going to jail.
I’m also not nearly so concerned when the “angry blacks” are rallying to get someone released from jail who they feel is unjustly imprisoned. Like that black teenager in Georgia who got something like a 10 year prison sentence for receiving oral sex from his teenage girlfriend who was like 2 years younger than him, that’s a fine thing to rally against. It’s fundamentally different to rally against a corrupt official, a bad law, an unfair conviction than it is to rally for someone to be punished. That’s scarily close to a lynching, and you add in race and it’s scarily close to one group trying to lynch a guy from another race through the judicial system.
[I almost didn’t use the word lynching there because of its historical connotations in America. I decided to use it because it is an appropriate simile and because lynchings are not intrinsically race based. I also was obviously not talking about a literal lynching because Zimmerman is at no risk of execution and if he was it would be judicial and thus by definition not a lynching.]
While I dont’ think there is the slightest question than Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin almost exclusively because he was a young black male, I don’t think Zimmerman is all that unusual there, nor do I think it means that Zimmerman is a raging race warrior. I think that a lot of people who honestly and sincerely understand that no one is automatically anything at all just because of their ethnicity and do not automatically and mindlessly dislike and distrust everyone of a certain race still may find themselves feeling a little more uncomfortable and a little more suspicious in the company of a 17 year old black boy in a hoodie than a 17 year old blonde boy in a hoodie. It’s very difficult to be truly immune to the effect of media, and we are all exposed to a lot more images of violent and criminal black boys than blonde boys. Doesn’t make it right, just saying it’s so.
But I don’t think it really explains the degree of bias in his favor. I think the bigger driver of that is what I’ll call gun-love. I think an anonymous survey of what people think of Zimmerman, think of blacks, and think of guns would show a much higher correlation between passionate gun supporters and Zimmerman sympathizers than between racists and Zimmerman sympathizers.
Just a theory, and I can’t do that survey to prove it. But that’s more of what it looks like to me.
I’m wondering if the polarized perspectives here could be related to the degree of trust one has in institutions. Particularly law enforcement.
I don’t distrust the police, generally. And I’ve already admitted that I’d be willing to give Zimmerman more benefit of the doubt if he were in fact a police officer. But I suspect the police did a quick scan of the situation and assessed it as unwinnable immediately. Why would anyone put any serious effort into an investigation of an unwinnable case?
If you’re already on record saying you believe Zimmerman’s story, and then you realize that you shouldn’t have done that, why wouldn’t you do whatever it takes to actually strengthen support for Zimmerman’s claim? Your credibility is tied to his credibility. That is so not a good position for a police department to be in.
Martin seems to think this is a mere PR blunder. I think it will be the undoing of any case that could be brought.
I mentioned that if the prosecutor was telling police they lacked evidence for conviction then the police are receiving more of the blame than is probably fair; at least in terms of deciding to arrest versus not deciding to arrest (which appears to be the greatest controversy in this case.)
In that scenario the PR missteps would the greatest fault in how the police had handled this.
I’ve said probably since page one of this very long thread that there is a potential the police handled the actual investigation incompetently. However, I’m loathe to jump on bandwagons criticizing police performance on half-information. I’ve seen too many cases where police get crucified over half-information.
So far, the only two things I’ve personally seen which show me a strong indicator of missteps are:
-
If it is truly common police procedure to ascertain whether or not someone involved in a self-defense (claimed) shooting was intoxicated, and that was never done with Zimmerman, that is a sign of a significant misstep.
-
If it is truly the case that the police had no idea Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend very shortly before the incident, until weeks later when she came forward to the media, that shows they didn’t fully pursue everything in this case, namely that they had never looked at even the call log on the phone. Back in the day you had to actually go to the phone company to get call records, but now with cell phones they actually only had to look on the cell phone itself and see when the last call came in / was received and how long it lasted. I suppose if the phone had a screen lock they may not have been able to do that without the phone company, though.
Martin was 6’3" and a football player. Zimmerman, according to different sources, either 5’2" or 5’9" and chubby.
I think he might feel in fear of his life, but I think in the situation described above he has taken unreasonable actions that have put his life at risk. If I get into a fight with a cop and pull a knife, it would be reasonable for me to fear for my life, but it does not negate the fact that had I not engaged in reckless and violent behavior, my life would not be at risk.
The law EXPLICITLY addresses that and says the use of deadly force at that time is allowed. See http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html
6’3" 140. And who said Martin was on defense? At 6’3" he probably played WR. Zimmerman was 5’X", 220. Martin may have had a reach advantage but once they were on the ground, Zimmerman should have been able to turn the tide. And if we believe the ABC news article that says Austin McClendon (Brown is his mom’s surname) saw them on the ground seperated., that’s probably what happened.
If Martin’s on top wailing away, Zimmerman is probably fending off those punches. Plus Martin is either on top of(waist) or in front(abdomen/chest) of the gun. So fending off punches with one hand and grabbing the gun and bringing it back around to shoot with the other hand adds a degree of difficulty. Separation makes it easier for Zimmerman to pull his gun. At which point we can ask is he still in danger.