Source/link, please.
Joe, you didn't invent that quotation, did you?
Say it ain't so, Joe.
Posted on 03/26/2012 5:27:56 AM PDT by marktwain
To arrest someone for a crime, the police need probable cause to believe that he committed the crime. But what if it’s clear that the person committed the act (e.g., intentionally killed someone), but it seems likely that he has a good affirmative defense (e.g., self-defense)? My view is that probable cause should be probable cause to believe that the conduct was indeed criminal, and if the self-defense case is strong enough, that negates probable cause to believe that a crime (as opposed to a justifiable homicide) was committed. But when I looked into this several years ago, I saw that the few courts that had discussed the matter were split.
Florida law, though, clearly resolves this: “A law enforcement agency … may not arrest [a] person for using force [in a self-defense situation] unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.”
So in Florida, the police must have probable cause to believe that the defendant wasn’t acting in lawful self-defense in order to arrest the defendant. It’s not enough to say, “we have probable cause to believe that you killed the victim, so we’ll arrest you and then sort out later how strong your self-defense case is.”
I can’t speak with confidence to whether in the Martin/Zimmerman case the police indeed have such probable cause (which, as you may recall, is a not very clearly defined standard that is well below proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and probably somewhat below preponderance of the evidence).
Two hypothetical situations for you (or anyone).
You have a gun. You start a fight with someone. During the fight, he gets the upper hand and is beating you up. You take out your gun, shoot and kill him. Self Defense or not?
Or
You have a gun. You ask a guy a question and he turns on you and starts a fight. During the fight, he gets the upper hand and is beating you up. You take out your gun, shoot and kill him. Self Defense or not?
If who started the fight is a determining factor, then that is the problem here with this case. The only witness to the start of the fight is Zimmerman. There are witnesses to the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him up at the time of the shooting, but does it matter who started the fight?
I did not realize it was 3AM when this took place. That makes the excuse that I heard as to why Martin was out bogus. That it was halftime from watching a basketball game and he was going out to get skittles for his little brother. I suppose that he could have been watching re-runs of a previously played game, but it seems highly unlikely and could be easily checked as to what games were being re-run on the TV that night and whether it was halftime at those games during that time. If they had TVR, I suppose it could be checked for the game, etc..
I will say one thing, if I’m out for some reason at 3 AM and someone is following me, I might double back and jump them also. I can see Martin being justified in attacking Zimmerman. Needless to say, there’s a lot to sort out in this case and if I was any politician, I would stay away from any judgement of this case in either direction. Of course, it seems that Obama hasn’t learned his lesson from the beer summit.
Depends in which state the shooting occurred.
In my state, PA, you have a good chance of not being charged {unless it's in Philly and they are black and you are white}.
If you are in MD, you are going to jail for having a gun, and maybe five counts of 2nd degree murder. Same with IL, and I'm not sure about the rest of the states.
I think I heard somewhere that Zimmerman had lost site of Martin when last talking to the operator. I suspect that Martin was hiding nearby at that point and jumped out and attacked Zimmerman.
Not that it really matters. Even if Zimmerman started the fight, he would still have the right to defend himself if during the fight he felt that his life was in danger.
example:
I start a fight with someone.. he gets me on the ground and starts to choke me to death... I don’t have to let him kill me just because I started the fight, I have the right to defend my life even if I started the fight.
It was a bit after 7:00pm and it was dark out.
Where are you two getting 3:00AM? Everybody else is saying early evening.
No facts have been shown that contradict George Zimmerman's self defense claims
Enough said. Please refer all posting on this case to the City Manager's Report and updates. They outline all that is known at this time about the case.
Above all, do not yield to Left-Wing Provocation by arguing this case in public. The City Manager's concise reports are models of calmness and rationality. No amount of shouting will convince those who need to believe otherwise, or others like Mr. Obama and his election team who wish to use this case as a political tool.
It happened between 7 and 7:30.
3AM was the time the investigation at the scene completed.
The shooting did not occur at 3am. According to the police report, the police were first dispatched at 7:17pm.
Source/link, please.
Joe, you didn't invent that quotation, did you?
Say it ain't so, Joe.
Is it true that Martin was shot in the back?
This took place around 7:15 p.m., not three on the morning.
Just to complete the picture, in your hypothetical, you might be found justified in defense of your life (it'll be a fact-specific inquiry, up to the jury), but you will still have committed a tort or a crime, that of starting a physical altercation.
It was the Skittles man! It was the Skittles!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.