Not irrelevant but not the most important factor by a long shot.
What is the most important factor?
OK, fine. But please do try to remember your new-found respect for other posters in threads where I talk about race, and don’t say things like “Rand Rover thinks black people are mentally inferior” etc.
Certainly. I’d say having a history of violence (as opposed to not having a history) should factor into our assessment as well. What do you think?
I can tell you what the least important one should be.
The testimony of the one fellow who stands to gain the most by lying.
I don’t recall talking about you before. Why would I start now?
Size may not be irrelevant, that was probably overstating. But you act as though size is evidence of who the aggressor was:
I think that’s farcical, and a drunk attorney could tear that argument apart in court. There’s good evidence Trayvon was kicking Zimmerman’s ass.
I’ve been in enough bars to know that size ain’t everything. One of the toughest guys I’ve ever known weighed 150 lb and unless you wanted to come out of it with pieces taken out of you, I don’t care how big you were or how tough you were you wouldn’t start a fight with this guy. All else being equal size is an advantage, that’s why we have weight classes in martial sports, but two people on the street there are way too many variables for me to accept that just because Trayvon was smaller Zimmerman is more likely to be the aggressor.
If I was on a jury I’d be inclined to think Zimmerman escalated things based on the fact he needlessly exited his car, and based on the fact he has had previous assault charges against a police officer (I believe that wouldn’t be admissible in court, though), and just based on the fact he is some guy who patrols his neighborhood with a loaded gun at night for kicks. But the size thing is just stupid. Trayvon was 17 years old, at 17 you can be as strong as many grown men. In this case there is at least some indication Trayvon was physically tougher than Zimmerman.
A history of violence might predispose a police investigation, but if they fail to come up with any supporting evidence in this case, and don’t think they can obtain a conviction we’re right back to the beginning. Should the police really arrest someone on a “feeling” based on a negative opinion of a guy, even when in their professional opinion they do not feel there is a hope of the charges sticking?
:rolleyes:
[Quote=monstro]
First off, fuck you for putting me in the same sentence as that sociopath.
[/quote]
No one has ever said Zimmerman’s statement (it’s not testimony) should be the most important piece of evidence. What I’ve said is if all the police have is the statement from Zimmerman and the physical evidence, and those two things combined do not show unjustifiable homicide as required under Florida statute, then what is the practical reason to arrest?
You guys have read the Florida law, right? It specifically says an element of the crime of manslaughter is that the killing is unjustified. Doesn’t that suggest to all of us the prosecution needs to demonstrate the killing is unjustified?
Just saying “Zimmerman’s story isn’t believable” doesn’t really get you there, not even close.
That’s only confirmation that I’ve always been a sharp cookie.
Do you wish to continue wacking off in front of us, or do you have something substantive to contribute to the discussion?
Above is addressed to RR.
If you are going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I’m going to stop engaging you.
Size is relevant in establishing whether Zimmerman’s only resort was to shoot Martin. If you truly think this is a trifle detail relative to Zimmerman’s self defense claim, I have to wonder if you are smoking crack rock. Any prosecutor who didn’t use this information to challenge Zimmerman’s claim would be guilty of incompetence.
As far as evidence of aggression, the 911 call is enough to finger Zimmerman on that account, so there’s no need to even bring their sizes into it. But we could ask ourselves how likely is it that Martin, who presumably had no track record of violence or any other aberrant behavior, would pick a fight with a stranger who was significantly bigger than him, on a dark street, by himself. Sound implausible to me. Doesn’t add up. I expect you will shrug this off too, though.
So that’s two posts in a row of you saying something and me proving you wrong with a direct quote from you.
You just keep talking, we should get to 3 in no time at this pace.
Should the police let their feelings enter the equation at all? What is interesting is that you seem to take no issue with cops using their beliefs about Zimmerman color their determination that probable cause exists, but you express dismay over the prospect that their feelings could influence them in the opposite direction. How are you reconciling all of this in your mind?
Either the objective evidence speaks for itself, or it doesn’t. I don’t want any cop using his subjective judgement when he decides to arrest me or not. Because where does that leave me if he’s biased against black women?
A lot has been made of the fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and got out of his car to go to him. Neither of these things are by themselves considered acts of aggression, without the benefit of foreknowledge of what subsequently happened. For all we know* Zimmerman started by asking Trayvon if he had the time.
Am I correct that this happened within a gated community? How if at all does that compare legally to an encounter on a purely public street? Does the neighborhood watch within a gated community have any legal standing similar to a security guard on private property?
Finally, it’d be really interesting to hear just how and when the gun came out. Did Zimmerman offer any final warning before firing?
I think I should start a thread in GQ asking if it’s possible to disprove the statement “I do not recall”. I’ll solicit answers from all the lawyers on the board, since they are trained to know things like this.
We’re not saying its unbelievable. We’re saying it’s irrelevant in establishing probable cause for manslaughter.
One of these things involve police taking someone’s liberty away, I think the criteria to do that needs to be stronger than the criteria under which they decide it’s okay not arrest someone and continue their investigation.
So police should not evaluate a suspect’s statement one way or the other when they have no compelling physical evidence to explain a situation? That makes sense.
Would you say the same if Zimmerman’s statement involved a bunch of self-contradictions and things that went against the physical evidence? Could we accept that as probable cause for arrest? Is the statement of the suspect only of evidentiary value when it is harmful to the suspect’s case?
Come on now. We’ve already established that Zimmerman phoned in Martin as a suspicious character and was told not to pursue him. And he replied that he would, because people like him “always get away”.
I can buy a lot of stuff, but I am not buying that this dude strolled up on Martin to ask the time. We do know enough not to navel-gaze in this particular direction.