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).
It depends on how many you shot in the back.
Liberals in the MSM are acting like it’s 1964 - this took place in Mississippi OR Georgia - AND Bull Conner is Chief of Police. I’m embarrassed for them. They’re idiots.
Here’s a link to how people in the MSM think - it’s some elite New York Times connected ‘journalists’ talking freely when they don’t know a conservative is taping them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFOmUXR080
Slight correction - while he acknowledged the dispatcher's "we don't need you to do that" comment with an "okay", he never tells the dispatcher that he was going back to his car. From what I've read, the comment about heading back to his truck was in the statement he gave the police after the shooting.
From police report: “bleeding from the nose and back of the head”
The key to this situation is the law. In your sample case, you start a fight and then use force to prevent yourself from being killed when you are losing big time.
Are you guilty of murder or self defense?
The answer is... IT DEPENDS.
In MO, the lethal force laws require the user of force NOT to be the initiator (RSMO 563) and IF one was indeed an instigator, and then, having broken off his attack, is counter-atacked, he may then indeed be able to claim self defense. The issue would be what constituted “breaking off”-fleeing, saying uncle, what?
That is where the fine teeth of the law are aplied by first the Police who are first on the scene, then the investigators, then the Prosecuting Attny, then a grand jury. Arrest may occur at any point.... But certainly if and when the GJ forwards a recommendation of charges....
The SYG law in FL is notwhithstanding, I think, if Z indeed had initiated (meaning attacked, not just trailed etc) then he may be in jeopardy of murder or other charges, unless he subsequently broke of the engagement and attempted to depart etc as described above (if FL law is similar).
As I undersdtand it, the GJ in this case meets in April and will have the duty to review the facts for PC and either bill or no bill Zimmerman.
The feds will likley act the clown either way-
My personal opinion based on what I have read/heard (tapes) is that Z follwed M in his car until M disappeared around a building, then M sneaked up n and attacked Z, gaining a lethal advantage (on back, bloodied w/head wounds, beaten down) and Z eventually shot him. I may be wrong, but my understanding based on the information available(not all facts , I think).
Evidence, witness statements and forensics will be the clincher to the truth, but popular opinion has long been known to twist that quite well.
My recommendation is patience. Let the process work thorough. I have faith in my fellow citizens, but outside influence may hurt the truth one way or another.
The stat/feds should be looking to quell the conspriacy to commit kidknapping and murder etc, even if Z is guilty of murder. I won’t be holding my breath...
I think what was meant was that a shoot to kill should be the final defense. To be blunt, though, I suspect Zim was not shooting to kill. Rather, he was shooting to get the beater off him. It just happened to be a fatal shot. Just a conjecture.
Actually, someone else has pointed out that although the dispatcher told him he didn’t need to follow, it may have been more along the lines of this:
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.
Please provide a link for the police report, I have not seen that.
Show me the law which says it is illegal to follow someone on public streets.
Show me the law which says it is illegal to follow someone on public streets.
I saw that post, but I don’t buy it. Two completely different cases. One was a woman having her door busted down by someone. No time for police and her life was in imminent danger. At first Zimmerman was in no imminent danger and was just following him and reported it to the police. What happened afterwards is the question.
He mentored black youth with his wife....he was not racist Get a clue!
He mentored black youth with his wife....he was not racist Get a clue!
They wern't out at 3AM. The only source of that was some BS blog article. Dispatch was at 19:17 hours.
I thought it was around 9:00 PM and raining.
I don’t necessarily buy it either. But it makes the point that we really don’t have all the facts regarding this case. And some facts will forever be in some people’s heads.
I don’t agree with everything Zim did, based on what I’ve read, at least, but I also think a strong case for self defense may be in order here. Or, more precisely, there is not a strong enough case for murder.
The only way, in my mind, that Zims first actions really play into this is if it could be proven that his goal, in following (and maybe confronting) Tray was to cause a physical confrontation. If that can’t be proven, there is really no case, based on what I am reading of eyewitness testimonies.
True, although did he get into close contact range? Then it becomes another matter. They were in close contact range at some point.
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)
True, and Martin could have told him to eff off too.
It doesn’t even matter if Zimmerman started the fight.
That is wrong, and one of the things being sorted out before Florida makes their decision.
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)
Close. What matters is if Zimmerman REASONABLY believed his life was in danger. Reasonably in the eyes of the jury, not the eyes of George Zimmerman, David Duke, Barack Obama, or Al Sharpton. Whether he was or not is still being investigated.
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.