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).
I suppose at some point it might be called stalking if you did it regularly to someone, but that is obviously not the case here.
Zimmerman is a free citizen, and as such had no obligation what so ever to listen to the dispatchers advice. If he refused to listen to the dispatcher and kept following Martin.. was he dumb? maybe so. But that is a far cry from saying he somehow committed a crime by continuing to follow Martin (assuming he did so)
This is not my fight, but knowing org.whodat as I do, he deserves all the abuse he gets. I’ve never seen him get on a thread except for the purpose of being nasty and taking an opposite point of view.
I will never, NEVER, forget how he and about 15 other people here would come on every thread about Rick Perry and spew lies, nastiness and hatred.
I will never respect his opinion about anything after that.
If that’s too personal, go back and look at what he posted to me back then.
“Knock of (sic) the personal crap.”
You have been trolling on multiple threads and I, as have others, will continue to call you on it.
There are cases in which a person claimed that they felt threatened -- not that they were being physically attacked, but only "felt threatened" -- and reacted with deadly force and are walking around free today. In all likelihood, had Zimmerman ended up dead instead of Martin, that could have been Martin's defense.
Most of the arguments people are bringing up are state-of-mind type arguments: Was Martin afraid of the stranger who seemed determined to follow him? Was he angry? Both? Did Zimmerman ever consider that Martin might NOT be a bad guy? (I'll insert my personal opinion here - he didn't. I believe that Zimmerman honestly felt that Martin was guilty of something. His various comments to the dispatcher indicate that over and over.) When surprised/confronted by someone he already believed to be a bad guy, was he afraid? If so, how aggressively (righteously, courageous-in-the-face-of-danger in his mind) would he have reacted?
I don't think that "vigilante" was Zimmerman's normal state of mind. I also think that comments made during his call could, COULD, be used to argue a heightened sense of frustration with "assholes" who "always get away." I absolutely, 100%, believe that Zimmerman AT NO POINT thought to himself, "I'm gonna kill me a black kid today if I get the chance." His father is right; Zimmerman isn't that kind of racist. He's the same type most of us are. We judge people -- not just blacks, but everyone -- by how they dress, how they walk, how they speak...and we apply stereotypes. Zimmerman saw a black kid, in a hoodie, meandering around, and thought bad-guy-up-to-no-good...and acted upon that thought.
Walking around trying to spot a "suspicious person" isn't illegal. However, it can be argued that a reasonable person, especially a kid who's been raised in the "stranger danger" era, might view that as threatening. From what I've read, poor judgment on the part of both Zimmerman AND Martin caused this. And poor judgment in and of itself is not illegal. Poor judgment that results in injury or death can be - that's why we have laws on the books that cover negligence and such.
Did the person act in such a way those actions might reasonably result in injury or death?
Did Zimmerman not consider that searching for a criminal (which I believe was already decided in his mind) might result in a confrontation?
Did he not consider that if a confrontation occurred, he might have to draw the weapon he carried?
Did he not consider that drawing that weapon might result in death be it the "criminal's", his, or a bystander/occupant of a nearby residence?
Questions like this are usually reviewed by a DA, then possibly by a grand jury and trial jury.
This was a tragic event from start to finish for ALL parties involved.
All the evidence is that Zimmerman agreed with that THEN. He followed the advice. He'd lost sight of Martin, and given up pursuit. And as far as I can tell, the extent of pursuit that Zimmerman was interested in maintaining was only that sufficient to maintain visual contact.
“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?”
I think it’s a good question. Perhaps another factor is what was said between them before hand, if anything. I don’t know what is correct in the eyes of the law, but I can imagine scenarios where both acted reasonably (maybe not in the eyes of the law) and this still was the result. Seems like it’s all pretty much speculation until we hear more details.
Freegards
It depends. You need to flesh out your hypothetical. What is your race, and what is theirs?
Not on this forum. not if your name happens to be George Zimmerman.
It is only what the media says that matters. in Zimmerman's case, the media has said guilty. And the parrots on this forum pick up and echo the media's verdict.
Absolutely it was good advice. If Zimmerman had not continued to follow Martin, Martin would be alive today, Zimmerman would not be the center of this firestorm, and we would not be discussing it.
Documents released by Sanford, FL re: Trayvon Martin Investigation.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html
Difference between you and me: My wife and I were on a bike ride on a nice summer day and had stopped for coffee in Seattle’s international district. Suddenly this asian kid looking to be about 16 comes running around a corner as fast as he could. Soon about eight others came around right behind him. They caught up with him and took him down right on a busy city sidewalk and proceeded to beat the living sh$$ out of him.
I ran to the scene and started pushing the other gang members off him. A cab driver stopped in the street and did the same thing. Nobody else did anything. We succeeded in stopping the beating, but the kids face was so bloodied as to look pretty serious.
Could I have been hurt? Yep. But I live this mantra:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Our founding fathers took much greater risk than I did. Zimmerman was in a neighborhood that had some crime problem, and Tray was an unknown. For a vigilant Neighborhood Watchman, that REQUIRES that he keep an eye on the guy and maybe even let him know that he is being watched, just in case he has some nefarious act in mind.
All that matters is if at some point during the fight Zimmerman felt that his life was in danger, at that point had the right to use deadly force to save his life (it’s called self defense)
It very much DOES matter if Zimmerman started the fight. Florida law states that:
"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter [e.g., the self-defense justification] is not available to a person who . . . (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless . . . [s]uch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant."
So, if Zimmerman started the fight (or even if he merely "provoke[d] the use of force against himself"), he was not entitled to use deadly force against Martin in the ensuing fight, unless he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm ("great bodily harm" is typically defined as harm that puts one at a substantial risk of death or permanent serious disfigurement). Moreover, even under these circumstances, if he started the fight, he could not use deadly force unless he had already exhausted all means of escape other than the use of deadly force (e.g., by starting the fight, he would have nullified the "stand your ground" principle, and would have had an obligation to retreat if possible). This is a very difficult standard to meet.
So, yes, it very much matters whether Zimmerman started the fight.
One round in boxing is 3 minutes. Try to imagine 3 minutes in the ring with anybody. One minute of intense fighting can be lethal. My guess is thats about as long as this fight lasted. About one or two very long minutes for Zimmerman as he was on the bottom and getting the stew kicked out of him and screaming for help.
If there was any probable cause the police would have arrested Zimmerman by now and the DA would have filed charges. Since this has not happened the furor will continue for awhile and then die down when the authorities finally have a news conference and announce that no charges will be filed and the case is being closed. The DA is not going to go to court knowing they have a losing case.
His remark to dispatch was that he was returning to his vehicle, and I don't think he was expecting to meet the suspicious person there. Not saying that's wehre they met, just saying that the call paints a picture where Zimmerman was resigned to having lost visual contact, and was going to await police so he could point out where he last saw the suspicious person.
GPS on just Zimmerman wouldn't tell you "for sure" if he continued to follow the guy he lost sight of - and even GPS on both of them would not establish what each of them was seeing.
Do you have a source that actually says Martin was screaming “I’m going to kill you Mother F****r!!!” or did you just throw that in to increase the hysteria surrounding the case? Because once they see this in Free Republic many people are going to believe it’s true even if you made it up out of whole cloth. And this is the first I’ve heard of it.
People keep saying he called 911. He did not. He called the police department itself as he always did in these situations. They said (and I quote) “You don’t need to do that.”
I can't believe how many people hear these 911 tapes and conclude Zimmerman was told NOT to follow him. What the hell is wrong with people? It's been repeated by many on Fox News. And they call themselves professionals?
I will add, that you could make a case that the 911 operator was actually suggesting Zimmerman follow Trayvon but was just covering his backside by saying "we don't NEED you to follow him" at the same time implying it's ok if you do follow him as that will help is locate the suspect.
A perfect example of this was a recent case where a single mother shot and killed a man who was breaking into the mothers home with an accomplice. The mother was armed and asked the 911 operator if she could shoot the intruder. The 911 operator stated "I can't tell you to do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby" (not and exact quote but close). In other words we can't tell you to shoot this guy but if he gets in shoot him.
unless . . . [s]uch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.”
As I said, the second Zimmerman felt that his life was in danger he was free to use deadly force. You just proved my point.
Zimmerman was on bottom in the fight according to Zimmerman, witnesses, and the evidence. He yelled for help, and I am sure was trying his hardest to escape. Thus when and if he felt his life was in danger he according to your own posting of the law had the right to defend his own life even if he started the fight.
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.