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).
The first thing cops would have asked him was “What did he look like?” The second & third would have been “What was he doing and where did he go?”
The “What was he doing?” part is murky at best. Most have TM just walking along. I don’t think a statement by Mr Z has been released saying just why he thought TM was acting suspicious. Do you have one?
In a majority minority neighborhood it would not be unusual to see a black youth with a hoody walking around - night or day. Just that would not cause Z to focus on TM.
Incorrect. While the call does reflect that he had lost sight of Martin, the claim that he was returning to his vehicle was made in his statement AFTER the incident - not during the call.
The gap from the time Zimmerman opened his vehicle door to the time he acknowledged the dispatcher's "we don't need you to do that" is 18 seconds. When the call ends another minute and a half later, no only has Zimmerman not made it back to his truck, he changes his mind about meeting the police at the mailboxes. While not proof, it would seem to indicate that he was still looking for Martin. It is also possible that he DID give up at some point after that and was in fact returning to his truck -- but there is nothing in the recorded call that proves that.
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.
Excellent catch. I had not thought of that.
I don't see a full five minutes is possible in the timeframe
Martin and Zimmerman are aware of each others presemce and close enough for conversation. Phone goes dead at 1916
1917 Police are dispatched. In the next 13 minute the following sequential actions must occur.
It wasn't... The 911 call logs show what time the incident happened. It was right around 7:00 PM, the 3:00 AM nonsense began because by the time the reponding officers *finished* their reports, and closed them out on the incident, it was 3:00 AM the next morning...
the infowarrior
Where did you hear Martin was shot in the back? I haven’t heard that. If that is the case, then it would be a very different matter.
Again, if Zimmerman started the fight, then he had the authority to use deadly force to defend himself only if he reasonably believed his life was in imminent danger, and he had exhausted all other means of escaping that danger.
Who started the fight is an open question. On the one hand, we have Zimmerman's statement that he had stopped following Martin and Martin jumped him. On the other hand, the testimony/records of the phone call between Martin and his girlfriend suggest otherwise.
We also have the Zimmerman call to the dispatcher - while Zimmerman was under no obligation to listen to the dispatcher's advice, the fact that he did not (as well as several of his other comments on the call, such as the reference to "a**holes" who "always get away") shed some light on Zimmerman's state of mind at the time, and are of some relevance when determining who started the altercation.
That's not what the law says. The law says that you must reasonably believe that your life is in imminent danger. Losing a fistfight, even if a guy is on top of you and throwing punches, does not necessarily mean that your life is in imminent danger.
I would have advised the kid not to turn around and punch Zimmerman and then jump on top of him. I would have advised him that was against the law. Zimmerman, as far as we know, broke no laws, he was only stupid.
—Killing is something to be avoided at all costs.—
Well, we agree on that one. Also, your examples are different than mine. One was war, the other was nature.
I suspect we both agree that Zim should not have confronted Trav, and may have been empowered by the fact that he was carrying. It actually might be a good ad for “open carry”. If Trav had known he had a gun and that he was neighborhood watch, he may not have attacked Zim (assuming that is even what happened. Zim did not pull a gun and did not use it “quickly” from eyewitness reports. The fight went on for quite a while before he finally defended himself the only way he could. Maybe of some of his neighbors had been willing to get involved, Tray would still be alive and Zim would not have needed to do what he did.
I doubt very seriously that Zim ever wanted to shoot anyone and very much regrets putting himself in a situation where he needed to. Again, assuming things happened that way.
BTW, the reason you want to follow him is to be able to point him out once the cops get there.
“No facts have been shown that contradict George Zimmerman’s self defense claims.”
There is two (2) fact that can be used to ‘justify’ arresting and convicting George Zimmerman.
1: FEAR of Rodney King type riots.
2: FEAR of a civil (race) war.
The news (media) are still calling him “white”...
So when the news of a “no bill” (if it even goes to another grand jury) will be the catalyst for another Rodney King riot...But across the country...Just before an election...
“My plan is working perfectly!!!” ~Obama
Has Zimmerman been through the GJ process over there??? Hasn’t been in the news if he has...In Texas ANY homicide, whether it is justified, or not, goes through the GJ process...
This country is on a knife’s edge...It is so ripe for going over the edge it is not even funny...And when it does, this country will become unglued...
And who will be there to get it back under control, and never let go???
Fill in the blank __________________
Reiterating: 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 consider negligence.
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?
There is a lynch mob mentality that has been formed around this case, facts and due process be damned. All we can fairly do is speculate, but the hotheads and politicos are setting us up for nationwide violence over this.
Any evidence that he did so?
It’s very likely the police department consulted with somebody from the district attorney’s office before releasing Zimmerman on the night of the shooting.
Online versions of the original police report show that the PD initially classified the shooting as “Homicide/Negleg/Mansl”, specifically a violation of FL statute 782.11, “Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.”
It seems that Zimmerman was detained, handcuffed, and questioned. But based on the information available to them that night, the PD decided not to book him for a felony. The PD probably saw some valid legal reasons for releasing Zimmerman. I’m sure they thought about it carefully before doing so.
Quote:Killing is something to be avoided at all costs.
Oh really? At all costs? So a woman should allow herself and her children to be raped rather than shoot the s.o.b.? Or a person should allow an arsonist to burn down that person’s home rather than stopping the crime? Or any of dozens of other acts of great evil should be tolerated if stopping the evil meant killing the perpetrator?
AT ALL COSTS is much too strong a qualifier.
I was taught that a person who is armed is presumed to have an advantage and therefore is under legal obligation not to provoke violence;but that still wouldn’t require one to allow himself to be beaten to death.
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.