Posted on 03/23/2012 2:08:00 PM PDT by vikingrinn
Florida law does not have any specific statutes on citizen’s arrest.
Read more: Florida Citizen’s Arrest Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7258531_florida-citizen_s-arrest-laws.html#ixzz1pzSeEqhh
I am baffled, too. But I'm also baffled by how many people repeat things that are factually untrue about the case, then draw conclusions. Some of these facts are important, others probably not. I'm going to offer a few corrections to your "hypothetical" below.
This is a circumstantial case that basically comes down to whom FReepers are most willing to give the benefit of the doubt to:
Character A: Violent criminal record; history of overreacting; armed
Character Z (by which of course I mean zed): No criminal record; suspended for tardiness; Skittles
Actually, that is not the choice at all. Character Z has no story. He is dead. We only have Character A's version (at least the small parts of it that the police have told us) and the various eyewitness accounts and audio recordings. Our decision is whether all of this adds up to evidence of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt."
A is “patrolling” the neighborhood in his car.
The police report states that Zimmerman was out running a personal errand, not "patrolling."
Z is returning to his father’s house (in which he does not usually reside) from the local gas station because he wanted candy during the NBA All Star Game half time break (yeah, I know, who watches the NBA All Star game, or any All Star game for that matter? but still...).
Here's one of those little things that keeps getting repeated. He was not watching the NBA All-Star Game. Tip-off was at 7:37 PM - seven minutes after "Z" was pronounced dead. Is that important? Nope. But it is a fact.
A follows Z in his car because he suspects him of wrongdoing.
No, he stopped his car, and then he got out of it. We hear this on the recording.
The only reasons that A suspects Z of wrongdoing is that Z is wearing a hoodie.
No. He stated that the individual was acting suspiciously, loitering in the rain. It is worth noting, I think, that police have been called to the neighborhood 402 times in the last year. 46 of those calls were from Zimmerman. Police have investigated at least 9 burglaries in the neighborhood in the last year. (I'm still not clear on the "history of over-reaction" statement above, so I thought I'd put Zimmerman's frequent calls to police into perspective a little bit.)
A, subsequently exits his car and proceeds to follow Z on foot, despite the 911 operator’s instruction that A “doesn’t need to do that”.
This is the most commonly mischaracterized part of the evening. First, Zimmerman did not call 911. He called the Sanford Police non-emergency number. When the operator said "we don't need you to do that" (follow Martin,) Zimmerman responds "okay." He remains on the phone for nearly two more minutes, during which he states that he no longer sees "this kid" and does not know where he went. Go listen to it yourself.
Police officers arrive on the scene to find that Z is dead of a bullet wound to the chest caused by A’s weapon. A has grass stains on his back and a bloody nose which he claims he received in a fight initiated by Z. A claims that he shot Z in self defense.
I think you are skipping a few things. Several eyewitnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. So it is not really a matter of "A claims" he was injured in the fight. This is pretty important, since you are asking people whether they should give A the "benefit of the doubt." Corroborating testimony tends to bolster the case for granting that benefit.
Putting aside any considerations of race/politics for a minute,
I'm afraid that horse has left the barn...
1) Who, if anyone, is morally responsible for Z’s death?
Well, that's not the question we started with, is it? Clearly, Zimmerman is morally responsible for the death. Which does not, on its face, mean he acted immorally. That's a different question.
2) Who, if anyone, is legally responsible for Z’s death?
Zimmerman, by his own admission. But the question is whether his act was illegal, or criminal. And perhaps whether he is civilly liable. We already know that he killed him.
3) What is the obligation of the local police force in investigating this incident?
I would certainly expect them to have roped off the scene, collected physical evidence, confiscated the gun, taken Zimmerman into custody for questioning, tried to revive Martin and canvass the neighborhood taking statements from all witnesses. And guess what? They did all those things. So what are you really asking?
google it. he told the dispatcher he was pursuing and the dispatcher told him to cease and desist said pursuit. Nothing obfuscatory about it.
For the 100th time, he was told no such thing. And my post indicated that inherent in the right of a citizen to make an arrest is the necessity that a citizen be able to determine that an offense occurred, which implicitly allows a citizen to gather information leading to such an arrest, so long as they break no laws during such information gathering.
Furthermore, from what I have read so far, Martin was not even trespassing. Zimmerman is not protected by a citizens arrest statute. He shouldn’t have pursued.
All irrelevant. It is not unlawful for me to walk up to someone and ask them what they are doing.
You're lying, then.
The dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that".
Not the same as "told him to cease and desist".
Accuracy is important when you're calling for someone to be charged with a crime.
it was a clear directive to cease pursuit and it completely destroys his stand your ground defense. the only person standing their ground was Martin.
Let's complete the story here. The operator asked Zimmerman if he was following, Zimmerman said yes, and the operator said "we don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman replied "Okay." He then remained on the line for almost another two minutes, near the end of which he stated that he did not know where "this kid" went, and that he could not see him. There is no evidence on that recording that Zimmerman gave chase, and I'd encourage you to listen to it for yourself.
No, it wasn't. But for the sake of argument, let's even say it WAS. Zimmerman is under no legal obligation to obey the commands of a 9-1-1 operator.
Back to reality, it was not any such "directive".
you know, forensics will tell us....what was the angle of the shot...how far away...etc...
the truth will out...
but I don't believe for one second that this was a deliberate crime...
I have many reservations about carrying guns, and yes, concealed permit holders...
if a guy has a gun, he's apt to feel a bit too confident and a bit too confrontational....somehow holding a gun makes some feel like big men....its that machismo that is dangerous and the result is this Z guy following this young guy and the horrible outcome...
btw, I just heard on NG that the last 8 burglaries in that neighborhood were done by young black males...
so the table was set....
He probably could have expressed himself better but I think his point is valid. Personally, the reason I think that Zimmerman should be held accountable is that I can see myself in Martin’s shoes. If someone looking like Zimmerman followed me around I’d feel threatened and be very tempted to swing first. If he made any movement to “detain” me or touch me in anyway then I would definitely take a swing. It seems to me that a lot of FReepers are saying that at that point the other guy would have the right to shoot me. I just don’t get that.
101stAirborneVet explained this situation to you very clearly.
Let’s lay it out real clear so you can understand - if you want to defend the racists and Goebbel propagandists in the media, don’t expect normal people on FR to cheer on your stupidity.
We don't know the character of these few moments. We don't know how far away from Martin Zimmerman was during the "following" phase. We don't know how close Zimmerman ever got to Martin prior to the altercation.
People have a tendency to fill in the blanks with what they think might have happened, then draw their conclusions based on that version of events.
As freedom loving people we must not do this. We are a nation of laws, and Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; unarrestable until probable cause of all elements of a crime have been established.
A lack of probable cause says nothing of who was "right" and who was "wrong", or whether a situation is tragic or not. It is a cold, impartial, surgical and clinical thing to find probable cause. It must be done without supposition, without speculation and without emotion.
If we depart from this, even for a moment, we depart from the fundamental principles of America.
enough said
enough said
What statute was broken here? Once again, it doesn't matter if YOU think something is "wrong", or a "tragedy". It doesn't matter whether you think someone is a bad person, or that they are a wannabe cop, or a busybody, or anything else.
All that matters is the law when you are calling for criminal charges.
Unless you want our nation to charge people with things irrespective of the duly enacted laws. You guys are going down a very dangerous road buying into this pitchfork mob stuff.
The liberals are literally convincing you to turn away from the rule of law and embrace mob justice.
Really? That’s enough for you? Zimmerman saying “okay,” and then clearly no longer following is just irrelevant?
I thought maybe you just didn’t know about the rest of the call, but it turns out you prefer to edit out the parts that don’t fit your conclusions. Or did I misunderstand you?
you’re the ones being stupid because you’re defending a stand your ground defense that doesn’t exist and thereby undermining the effectiveness of this important component of our right to self defense. Zimmerman chased, confronted, shot, and killed. Stand your ground does not authorize chase. Furthermore, Florida has no citizens arrest statutes. Zimmerman was wrong and when he has his day in court, I’m sure that will be the opinion of his jury as well. Oh, and let’s not forget that Martin wasn’t even trespassing on the premises and the dispatcher told Zimmerman to remain in his vehicle and there is a witness that states that Zimmerman confronted Martin initially thereby initiating the events that led to the shooting.
Dispatch told him he didn't need to do that, and Zimmerman abandoned his pursuit. He was headed back to his truck to wait for police. That's his story, anyway. The 911 tape corroborates tat. In other words, that's his "story" as events were transpiring, as well as afterward.
Have you considered a scenario where the tables are turned? Where Zimmerman, initially the pursuer, became the pursued?
Ohhhh. I see the problem here.
For your information, I don’t think Stand your Ground will be important if this matter goes to trial. If Zimmerman is lying on his back being beaten about the head and face, and that is the moment he uses deadly force, he needs no “Stand your Ground” law to defend himself. He cannot retreat if he is pinned to the ground OR under contemporaneous attack when he fired. It matters not that he was “following” Martin, as it is not unlawful to do so.
You have no evidence Zimmerman “chased” anyone. You are using the word “chase” to cloud thinking. You have no evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin. You say “chased, confronted, shot, and killed” as if to substitute your simple understanding of this event for that of the police officers, detectives, supervisors, and crime scene technicians.
Your point being?
"That there man can do a lot of funny things with this language of ours. He can take a word and weasel it around and suck the meat out of it like a weasel sucks the meat out of an egg, until it don't mean anything at all. " - Dave Sewell, quoted by Theodore RooseveltBut if you ant to use the least informative term, go ahead. Weaselling is all that separates us from the animals (except the weasel)
I want to use a word that doesn't color the events to support my preconceived notion. For the record, I believe that AT THIS TIME there is no evidence to support a charge against Zimmerman, BASED ON all the information I have seen.
All the calls for his arrest and murder I have seen on the internet make use of loaded, rather than neutral, language and depictions.
If we are to advocate depriving someone of liberty, should we not do so objectively and impartially, and based upon facts and evidence rather than loaded words?
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.