Another Shooting

[aborgman]

I can see that happening in another state. But burglar who runs and gets chased down =/= kid walking home from the store and gets chased down.

Yeah, but when you shoot an unarmed man who is begging for mercy (in the words of the SHOOTER) nowhere near your property...

Plus, the homeowner apparently got charged in the first place. This guy....not even a charge,

This homeowner was in clear and direct violation of Michigan law, and admitted it - both to the police and to newspaper reporters. He basically told the news that he violated the law while laying out all the evidence that he did... and he was found innocent.

not even brought in for questioning

Sorry, but that doesn't exactly seem to be the case.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Apparently after the shooting, a narcotics detective questioned Zimmerman

Neighborhood Watch Shooting of Trayvon Martin: Probe Reveals 'Questionable Police Conduct' - ABC News

But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions,

...and about the dispatcher instructions:

Lee said the directions the 911 dispatcher gave Zimmerman to not accost Martin when the incident arose were not mandatory instructions.

"That is a call taker making a recommendation to him. He's not under a legal obligation to do that, so that is not something we can charge him with.

 

[pin_head_47]

Technically Zimmerman was "arrested" at the scene, he was cuffed and brought into custody by the officers who arrived. He was released later after being brought in for questioning. That would probably imply that although they had enough to bring him in, they couldn't make the charges stick at that time. And it's not hard to think why.

When the cops brought him in initially, he probably shut his mouth completely (like any smarty person would do) and waited for his lawyer. This guy is a law student remember, he at least somewhat knows what he's doing. When Mr. Laywer gets there, he tells him everything he needs to say to get off on self defense, at least temporarily, and since there is currently no witness or physical evidence to prove otherwise, they have to let him go - at least for now.

It seems like some people are assuming that since Zimmerman is not in jail, the police are doing nothing about the situation. I don't think that's the case. I think the police are just making sure that they have enough evidence against him so that any charges will stick the first time; any case against him be far from a guaranteed grand slam. And with the high profile this case is getting, I can only imagine how much worse the tension will get if the case gets botched and Zimmerman walks free. Then we'd really see the poop hit the fan.

 

[Kosko]

It's really sick all the way around. I feel terrible for the child's parents, and hope Zimmerman spends the rest of his life in jail.

 

[macaroni tony]

Sorry, but that doesn't exactly seem to be the case.

a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions

So apparently a narcotics officer (narcotics officer???) showed up at the scene and questioned him. Where does it say he was brought in for questioning...

I'm not playing this game anymore today; too worn out from work. Guy chases down, shots and kills an innocent kid. Police shows up. Guy walks away from scene; still never arrested. Load of crap.

 

[macaroni tony]

Technically Zimmerman was "arrested" at the scene, he was cuffed and brought into custody by the officers who arrived. He was released later after being brought in for questioning.

Everything I've read so far say he was never brought in to custody at all, just questioned at the scene

 

[Gaius46]

Exactly. I must say, as a non-USAian, the fact that Zimmerman has not been arrested even though we know his weapon caused Martin's death (rightly or wrongly) feels very strange.

Habeas corpus - which Canada also has - and the fifth and sixth amendments to the US Constitution require that someone being jailed must be charged with a crime and made aware of the charges. People can be locked up for short periods of time - a day or two - but if they aren't charged with a crime they must be let go. You cannot arrest someone and toss them in jail while to try to figure out what to charge them with.

 

[onosson]

Habeas corpus - which Canada also has - and the fifth and sixth amendments to the US Constitution require that someone being jailed must be charged with a crime and made aware of the charges. People can be locked up for short periods of time - a day or two - but if they aren't charged with a crime they must be let go. You cannot arrest someone and toss them in jail while to try to figure out what to charge them with.

I can't believe they can't even THINK of a possible charge when an unarmed kid who wasn't committing any crime is now dead.

And as you say, they can lock you up for a short time while they investigate. I would think that indisputably killing someone with your firearm would at least warrant that... no? Still seems like a very strange course of events to me - but I don't live in Florida.

 

[aborgman]

Guy chases down,

Maybe, we don't know.

shots and kills an innocent kid.

Maybe, we don't know.

Police shows up. Guy walks away from scene; still never arrested.

If they don't have enough evidence to convict under Florida law, why would they arrest him?

I mean - we had a guy admit to a murder around here recently, and not be arrested for a month after that. After turning himself in and admitting the murder.

 

[aborgman]

And as you say, they can lock you up for a short time while they investigate. I would think that indisputably killing someone with your firearm would at least warrant that... no?

No, surprisingly not in a lot of cases.

Michigan is only a Castle Doctrine state (not a "stand your ground" state like Florida) and we regularly have folks involved in claimed "self defense" shootings that are not held while the investigation is ongoing.

 

[macaroni tony]

If they don't have enough evidence to convict under Florida law, why would they arrest him?

I mean - we had a guy admit to a murder around here recently, and not be arrested for a month after that. After turning himself in and admitting the murder.

I said I wouldn't, but here I am...folks get arrested all the time because there is enough there to arrest them, and evidence is gathered until the trial date to either convict or acquit. Looks like there is plenty there to arrest the guy, but dept. doesn't care enough to do it.

 

[aborgman]

I said I wouldn't, but here I am...folks get arrested all the time because there is enough there to arrest them, and evidence is gathered until the trial date to either convict or acquit.

I agree that folks are arrested all the time because there is enough there to arrest them, and evidence is gathered until the trial date.

It also true that folks aren't arrested all the time because there isn't enough there to arrest them, and evidence is gathered until they can arrest or they give up.

Looks like there is plenty there to arrest the guy

Hard to say. We have no idea what is in the 911 recordings, and we only have news reports about what SOME of the witnesses said.

 

[JimB52]

Maybe, we don't know.



Maybe, we don't know.

Maybe you don't know. Seems pretty clear to me that George Zimmerman targeted a black child walking through a white neighborhood, chased him down and murdered him. And, unless the Federal Government gets involved, will get away with the killing.

 

[Southpaw5]

Maybe you don't know. Seems pretty clear to me that George Zimmerman targeted a black child walking through a white neighborhood, chased him down and murdered him. And, unless the Federal Government gets involved, will get away with the killing.

+1

 

[aborgman]

Maybe you don't know. Seems pretty clear to me that George Zimmerman targeted a black child walking through a white neighborhood, chased him down and murdered him.

So you know that Martin wasn't the one to start the physical altercation?

You know (even though 911 tapes haven't been released and only a couple witnesses have spoken - one who has changed her story) what happened?

You understand the laws regarding "stand your ground" in Florida and how it relates to homicide law?

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

And, unless the Federal Government gets involved, will get away with the killing.

Even if the Feds get involved, the killing may have been legal under Florida law.

 

[JimB52]

So you know that Martin wasn't the one to start the physical altercation?

You know (even though 911 tapes haven't been released and only a couple witnesses have spoken - one who has changed her story) what happened?

You understand the laws regarding "stand your ground" in Florida and how it relates to homicide law?

While it may all be circumstantial, the evidence seems clear that the physical altercation was initiated by Zimmerman. The boy was not shot in Zimmerman's car. He did not drag Zimmerman 200 feet to the murder scene. If you are chasing someone, how is that "standing your ground"?

Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you believe Mr Zimmerman's side of the story?

 

[JimB52]

Even if the Feds get involved, the killing may have been legal under Florida law.

They would not be charging him under Florida State law.

 

[onosson]

If Martin had a "right to be" on the sidewalk (I'm presuming here...but so far no one's suggested he wasn't permitted to be where he was) and if Zimmerman had a gun (no wait, there's no IF there, we know he did), then wouldn't Martin be justified in using any amount of force against Zimmerman if he "reasonably believed it was necessary" (whatever that means) in order to protect himself? If that's the case, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman first, if he did so under a reasonable belief (based on the fact that some stranger was following him around in his car for a while, maybe got out and chased him) wouldn't that be completely LAWFUL on Martin's part??

How on earth can any justice system proceed to untangle ANY altercation with such a law on the books?

 

[macaroni tony]

While it may all be circumstantial, the evidence seems clear that the physical altercation was initiated by Zimmerman. The boy was not shot in Zimmerman's car. He did not drag Zimmerman 200 feet to the murder scene. If you are chasing someone, how is that "standing your ground"?

Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you believe Mr Zimmerman's side of the story?

aborg "plays devil's advocate" whenever the potential victim is a minority

 

[sandmangeck]

This thread wouldn't have passed the first page if it were White on White or Black on Black, and that's sad.

 

[Gaius46]

If Martin had a "right to be" on the sidewalk (I'm presuming here...but so far no one's suggested he wasn't permitted to be where he was) and if Zimmerman had a gun (no wait, there's no IF there, we know he did), then wouldn't Martin be justified in using any amount of force against Zimmerman if he "reasonably believed it was necessary" (whatever that means) in order to protect himself? If that's the case, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman first, if he did so under a reasonable belief (based on the fact that some stranger was following him around in his car for a while, maybe got out and chased him) wouldn't that be completely LAWFUL on Martin's part??

How on earth can any justice system proceed to untangle ANY altercation with such a law on the books?

It boils down to "who started it". If you kill someone because they were defending themselves when you initiated the incident you cannot claim self defense.