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).
No facts have been shown that contradict George Zimmerman's self defense claims.
the seriousness of the charge is sufficient....
So....an Hispanic American kills a ‘Brother’, who was bashing hispanic/german American Zimmermans head against the sidewalk( and ultimately broke Zimmermans nose), dies when the shooter manages to pull his licensed pistol which the dead guy was trying to take from him. it goes off killing the hoodie wearing, pants on the ground, thug....and the media pulls out picures of the dead ‘brother’ from 10 years earlier like he was a sweet baby. and Sharpton and the left make THIS a cause celeb to ban guns?
EFFF U Rev. Al, and your media lackies too....
Here’s a hypothetical for you.
I’m walking in an alley way and 5 guys jump out and start beating the crap out of me.
I happen to have a gun, so I pull it out and blow all 5 of them away.
I’m a bit battered up and the 5 are dead.
No witnesses to the beating and no witnesses to the shooting.
When the cops show up, do they have ‘probable cause’ to arrest me?
All he did was punch Zimmerman to the ground, climb on top of him and beat him some more while screaming "I'm going to kill you Mother F****r!!!" when Zimmerman shot him for no reason.
He had a perfect right to beat Zimmerman to death because he is one of Eric Holder's people.
My understanding is that law enforcement must sign an affidavit stating that believe there is probable cause to make the charge of murder and if the outcome is justifiable homicide then law enforcement becomes liable to the defendant. This is another aspect of the 2005 stand your ground law designed to ensure that police don’t automatically arrest people for defending themselves.
There’s so much to sort out in this case and it’s really hard to know who was in the right at this point. Two things:
1. Obama had no business weighing in on this with his ridiculous and racially inferred comments.
2. Why exactly did Zimmerman continue to follow this guy after reporting him to 911 and they had dispatched police to the area? Also, the 911 operator wisely told him not to follow the guy. I don’t know if he’s guilty or not. But I do know that if he had wisely heeded that advice and not followed Martin, none of this would have happened. You don’t go looking for trouble.
We know that a 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. To this, Zimmerman said “okay” and later told police he had broken off following Martin and that Martin then became the persuer.
Whether this is true or not, we know that Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was pummeling him. We know Zimmerman had a head leaceration, facial injuries and possibly a broken nose.... and grass stains on his back.
The facts of this case may not corroborate the narrative created by the popular media, activists, pundits and even Rick Santorum.
Well, Duuuhhh!
From what I have heard there are witnesses.
Bump
In today’s politically correct USA, if YOU are black and you have successfully defended yourself against 5 predatory white haters, you are applauded and a fund is started to enable you to purchase (obtain) more ammunition.
However, if you are a blond, blue eyes white guy, who has just “offed” 5 men of color, expect the end of the world to be your lot. The footsteps you hear approaching belong to Al Sharpton, coming to preach against your striving to live.
I know there are witnesses.
My hypothetical was in response to the ‘probable cause’ statement.
To: marktwain
There’s so much to sort out in this case and it’s really hard to know who was in the right at this point. Two things:
1. Obama had no business weighing in on this with his ridiculous and racially inferred comments..........
While I agree with your statement, one must remember it is election time and there are many black votes in this country that may not have voted for Obummer the first time. He’s looking for more.
Both of those items are my questions too.
The issue I have is with the politicals ‘getting involved.’ They have no say in this matter, it needs to be handled locally as a matter of legel investigation, prosecution if substantiated etc. The only thing politicals should be saying about the case is the justice system must prevail.
As far as Zimmerman not following the dispatchers advice/instructions, only Zimmerman can answer for that. Ufortunately there are no witnesses to what took place between Zimmerman deciding not to heed those instructions knowing police had been dispatched and how he ended up on the ground yelling for help.
Two things could have happened in my thinking:
Martin circled back and jumped Zimmerman
or
Zimmerman attempted an apprehension/detainment that went bad after locating Martin
And why were these two out at 3am in the morning?
I am confident that the police would have initially arrested Zimmerman if there had been “probable cause”. If not, they could not, without danger of being sued.
Source/link, please.
I think you were replying to me.
I’m sure that Obama’s response has to do with politics. It’s the only thing he knows. My question is, is there any doubt he has the black vote locked up? He got 95% of it last time. Is he looking to bump it up to 96%? Imagine if a large majority of white America voted for a guy simply because he was white. I wonder what word we might be called. I think it starts with an ‘R’...
“... it is election time and there are many black votes in this country...”
That is one of the reason I have felt this case has gotten so much air time. Create race issues and then paint the GOP candidate as a mean cracker. The Democratic Party has to create some sort of fury in order to get certain masses out to vote. IMHO.
bookmark
I keep hearing this but how do we know that Zimmerman was not headed back toward his (car?) and was jumped by Martin? I think that if the police believed Zimmerman drew down on Martin Zimmerman would be in jail right now.
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!
—We know that a 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.—
Actually, no. The dispatcher told Z that they didn’t need him to follow Tray. Huge difference. Most men still would have followed.
Exactly correct!!
Stand your ground, Castle Laws, etc. exist to protect people from THE POLICE, AND PROSECUTORS who have a record of arresting the victim in cases like these.
I find it disturbing that we even need these laws but many states and communities have found them necessary to protect innocent people from unjustified arrest and prosecution. To put it bluntly we as a society are trying to balance out big government police state powers that have spun out of control.
Not to mention that a 911 operator has no legal authority to order anyone to do anything. Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to follow the operator’s suggestion.
I heard it happened around 7pm
I don't see that in the 4 pages of police report that I have (Twin-Lakes-Shooting-Initial-Report.pdf). I did see a report (clickable link to www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2863797/posts?page=149#149; not an official report, and I don't know the origin of it - might be a fabrication, for all I know) where the GF states facts that justify Zimmerman's actions and make Trayvon the aggressor.
It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman kept following Martin after the dispatcher told him not to (he is a free citizen and can walk down the street if he so chooses)
It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing(he is a free citizen and can talk to whomever he so chooses, it’s called free speech)
It doesn’t even matter if Zimmerman started the fight.
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)
yep battery, the same as you would get for a bar fight. A ticket basically and a small fine.
You are right, the 911 operator has no authority over Zimmerman. But that was wise advice and indeed turned out to be would you not agree? All he saw was Martin acting suspiciously, not even committing a crime. It’s worth calling the cops on, but not worth getting in a confrontation over. I’ll bet he agrees with me about right now.
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.