Trayvon Martin

[Soxbadger]

Just because I hate this line of argument:

 

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

 

turns into

 

(2) A law enforcement agency must use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1). (rest of section removed)

 

And done.

[Soxbadger]

The grand jury may not mean anything, you dont need to go to a grand jury to file charges.

[iamshack]

Just because I hate this line of argument:

 

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

 

turns into

 

(2) A law enforcement agency must use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1). (rest of section removed)

 

And done.

This doesn't cure anything...they still don't have the evidence, at least according to what we know, to arrest the guy. You just want to presume he's guilty (or at least presume he's guilty enough to be arrested until we can determine he's not guilty). That's not a reasonable solution to this problem.

[Soxbadger]

No it absolutely cures it. The reason they dont want to arrest is because of the section I removed.

 

I dont want to presume anything. I want it treated the same way any other shooting would be treated. If an unarmed person is shot and they are not in the act of committing a felony, its hard to argue that there isnt enough for any crime, ANY CRIME.

 

Where am I saying murder? What about assault with a deadly weapon, what about a million other crimes that could be charged?

 

People are arrested for nonsense every day, sometimes it isnt even the right person. No one is saying that the charges cant be dropped, but the simple fact is, there are 0 charges. Its just so absurdly unusual to have an unarmed dead man who wasnt committing a crime, and have 0 charges pending.

 

Dont they even have something like unlawful discharge of a firearm?

 

I mean really, no charges.

[iamshack]

No it absolutely cures it. The reason they dont want to arrest is because of the section I removed.

 

I dont want to presume anything. I want it treated the same way any other shooting would be treated. If an unarmed person is shot and they are not in the act of committing a felony, its hard to argue that there isnt enough for any crime, ANY CRIME.

 

Where am I saying murder? What about assault with a deadly weapon, what about a million other crimes that could be charged?

 

People are arrested for nonsense every day, sometimes it isnt even the right person. No one is saying that the charges cant be dropped, but the simple fact is, there are 0 charges. Its just so absurdly unusual to have an unarmed dead man who wasnt committing a crime, and have 0 charges pending.

 

Dont they even have something like unlawful discharge of a firearm?

 

I mean really, no charges.

You've said they aren't arresting because its not a slam-dunk case, meaning they don't have the evidence. If they don't have the evidence, they shouldn't be arresting him with some bogus bulls***. It's not unlawful discharge, because he discharged in the act of self-defense. There are a litany of crimes which go unnoticed every hour in this country, including people getting killed. Unfortunately, sometimes there are no witnesses. You may be in favor of throwing s*** against the wall and hoping something sticks, but I'm not. If they can't arrest because they have no solid evidence that says he acted in an unlawful manner, than there is no solid evidence to arrest him. It may be a police failure or it may just be s***ty reality, but you don't arrest him for s***s and giggles and hope you find something later.

 

Your argument is really going to be "people are arrested for nonsense every day"?

Edited April 11, 2012 by iamshack

[Soxbadger]

You've said they aren't arresting because its not a slam-dunk case, meaning they don't have the evidence.

 

And I dont think you need to have a "slam dunk" to prosecute, you just need to have enough evidence that there is a good chance the person is guilty. A good chance should result in about a 50% conviction rate, nothing like the rate the Prosecutors get.

 

Prosecutors only take sure bets, Id have no problem taking this case to the mat right now. Unarmed victim, shot on the street, not near the shooters home. I dont even need any other facts, the only question is going to be jury selection. Bad jury I lose, good jury I win.

 

But I dont win 99% of my cases either, if they dont settle, that means that there is generally a legitimate question of fact. But do I quit? Do I tell my client, "Well sir, I may lose so Im not going to take this case because its difficult." No, I take the case and I do my best, and sometimes I win cases I shouldnt, sometimes I lose cases I should have won, but that is the system. Anyone who has tried a case or even argued a motion, knows that there is always a slight chance you will lose and you cant let that small chance dissuade you for going for it.

 

What the Prosecutor does, and what should be done, are 2 entirely different things.

 

If they don't have the evidence, they shouldn't be arresting him with some bogus bulls***

 

I disagree if the police send me an affidavit asking that I press charges, I am going to press charges. The police wanted this prosecuted...

 

Lets look at the facts, which are clearly available, instead of relying on the ever insightful, "Throwing s*** against the wall" remark. You do realize, that in basically every criminal thread, I have supported the Defendant, Bonds, Blago, and the list goes on, this is the 1 time, Im saying that something is wrong. So dont try and make some grandiose statement, about how you think I want arrests to work, because obviously you have not read a single post of mine on these boards.

 

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/28/sanfo...arge-zimmerman/

 

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

 

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction,

 

Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

 

 

Now lets look at the facts. You have a police officer who signs an affidavit stating that he does not believe Zimmerman. Does the Prosecutor reconsider? Does the Prosecutor want to file charges so that they can perhaps interrogate Zimmerman, maybe ask him some questions to try and determine if he is lying.

 

You have other evidence, a 911 call where the operator specifically instructed Zimmerman not to follow.

 

Is that not enough?

 

What do they need to press charges? A witness who saw the whole thing?

 

The police who interviewed Zimmerman (unlike the Prosecutor who likely never has even spoken to him), did not believe Zimmerman. If you are the only witness to a killing that you committed and you are not "believable", what else do they need?

 

Its basically saying that if they walk into my apartment and there is a dead body, if I say "It was self defense" they cant charge me, even if they think Im lying.

 

What type of a f***ed up world is that, seriously? What more evidence could they have?

 

You have the murder weapon, you have a confession and you have a liar. That is means and opportunity, add in all of the 911 calls, now you got motive "Police dont do anything, Zimmerman was going to take the law into his own hands."

 

If they can't arrest because they have no solid evidence that says he acted in an unlawful manner, than there is no solid evidence to arrest him. It may be a police failure or it may just be s***ty reality, but you arrest him for s***s and giggles and hope you find something later.

 

If that is not good enough evidence, then no one should ever be charged with a crime.

 

"Officer that wasnt my marijuana, I dont know how that got in my backpack."

 

There isnt any solid evidence that didnt happen, so they cant charge me, right? They found the bag in my car, but they cant prove I put it in there, although they believe im lying. No charges, agree?

 

(edit)

 

No, my argument is that there is so much evidence to suggest charging him with a crime, that its absurd when you consider how many truly nonsensical crimes are prosecuted.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Soxbadger

[iamshack]

Badger, I have seen your position before, so yes, I have read your posts on these boards and you know it.

 

I honestly don't know what happened. If you read what I have posted in this thread you'd note I've said all along that Zimmerman is most likely guilty and most likely exponentially increased the chance of Martin ending up dead because of his actions.

 

That being the case, if the police did want him to be charged, and the prosecutor did not, then that is a problem with the justice system, not the way the legislators are drafting the laws.

 

If the prosecutor does not want to charge because of his conviction rate, than the manner in which promotions for State's Attorneys occur needs to be changed.

 

Rewriting the law doesn't make the evidence more solid. Rewriting the law doesn't make the conviction rate of a Prosecutor a less important number. Rewriting the law doesn't address the fact that the police can't establish any solid evidence which shows that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense that evening, no more than they could if they had to win a common law self-defense action.

[Balta1701]

The grand jury may not mean anything, you dont need to go to a grand jury to file charges.

I know, but he brought up a grand jury as a specific thing he'd like to see happen, so I thought that it was a relevant point.

[southsider2k5]

You've said they aren't arresting because its not a slam-dunk case, meaning they don't have the evidence. If they don't have the evidence, they shouldn't be arresting him with some bogus bulls***. It's not unlawful discharge, because he discharged in the act of self-defense. There are a litany of crimes which go unnoticed every hour in this country, including people getting killed. Unfortunately, sometimes there are no witnesses. You may be in favor of throwing s*** against the wall and hoping something sticks, but I'm not. If they can't arrest because they have no solid evidence that says he acted in an unlawful manner, than there is no solid evidence to arrest him. It may be a police failure or it may just be s***ty reality, but you arrest him for s***s and giggles and hope you find something later.

 

Your argument is really going to be "people are arrested for nonsense every day"?

 

Oh the bright side that would get Zimmerman a mandatory strip search, right?

[Balta1701]

The special prosecutor in this case has indicated that she will hold a press conference "no later than friday" to "release new information" on the case.

 

This means one of a couple things. Either the press conference will announce charges, the press conference will announce that charges aren't being brought, or the special prosecutor doesn't know what kind of case she's on and will simply give an update without realizing an update without an explanation of why charges aren't being brought would be needlessly inflammatory.

 

Either way, things will be happening soon.

[Texsox]

Get rid of the gun.

 

One of the oddities of the gun debate that I have never gotten around comes to mind. The anti-gun people generally do not own guns, nor have they ever owned guns. This is normal and expected because they would be a bit of a hypocrit to own guns and advocate for them being illegal. At the same time owning a gun and being a responsible owner adds some insight to the argument that I believe is important.

 

Everyday people use things incorrectly and harm comes to people. From cars to cheeseburgers, cigarettes to scissors, stuff happens. Responsible gun owners see the differences and the similarities. Non gun owners see a gun as an evil weapon with no value.

[Balta1701]

One of the oddities of the gun debate that I have never gotten around comes to mind. The anti-gun people generally do not own guns, nor have they ever owned guns. This is normal and expected because they would be a bit of a hypocrit to own guns and advocate for them being illegal. At the same time owning a gun and being a responsible owner adds some insight to the argument that I believe is important.

 

Everyday people use things incorrectly and harm comes to people. From cars to cheeseburgers, cigarettes to scissors, stuff happens. Responsible gun owners see the differences and the similarities. Non gun owners see a gun as an evil weapon with no value.

If you are doing something stupid with a car or scissors and harm comes to someone else, you face charges, even if it is just involuntary vehicular manslaughter. If you are doing something stupid with a gun and harm comes to someone else...you wind up having your name graffiti-ed onto black cultural centers as a hero.

 

People don't pick fights because they have their car to defend them. People don't become more aggressive because they have a pair of scissors in their hands.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know why some people still find this hard to grasp.

 

If it hadn't been for the national outrage, George Zimmerman would have walked off into the sunset. The police weren't investigating. The DA wasn't pressing charges. If the media hadn't picked up this story, that was it. It was done. He was getting away from even being investigated or seriously questioned over shooting someone to death.

 

No I get that. And i'm fine with arguing that the handling of the case initially was poor. But we're beyond that now.

[StrangeSox]

No I get that. And i'm fine with arguing that the handling of the case initially was poor. But we're beyond that now.

 

 

George Zimmerman seems to have disappeared and he still hasn't been charged with anything.

[Jenksismyhero]

Just because I hate this line of argument:

 

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

 

turns into

 

(2) A law enforcement agency must use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1). (rest of section removed)

 

And done.

 

Probable cause is such a low hurdle these days, i'm not really sure what the big deal is. This statute is no different than any other criminal law on the books - cops can't get a phone call saying X did Y to Z and arrest them before they perform any sort of investigation. They have to come up with some probable cause for the arrest.

 

[Balta1701]

Probable cause is such a low hurdle these days, i'm not really sure what the big deal is. This statute is no different than any other criminal law on the books - cops can't get a phone call saying X did Y to Z and arrest them before they perform any sort of investigation. They have to come up with some probable cause for the arrest.

A dead body and the killer holding a weapon?

[Jenksismyhero]

George Zimmerman seems to have disappeared and he still hasn't been charged with anything.

 

Um, you've seen the bounties on his head right? Do you blame him?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

A dead body and the killer holding a weapon?

 

And a pretty iffy statement by Zimmerman about the whole thing, and boom, there you go, maybe the statute was adequate in this situation and really it was the s***ty county state's attorney handling the case.

 

[StrangeSox]

Um, you've seen the bounties on his head right? Do you blame him?

 

George Zimmerman has yet to be charged with a crime.

[Balta1701]

And a pretty iffy statement by Zimmerman about the whole thing, and boom, there you go, maybe the statute was adequate in this situation and really it was the s***ty county state's attorney handling the case.

I wouldn't call the statement iffy at all. He claimed self defense. How do you go about proving him wrong? Even if he lied, he's still got a slight injury, there's no hard evidence, and the only other witness is dead.

[Jenksismyhero]

George Zimmerman has yet to be charged with a crime.

 

Doesn't mean he won't be. We'll know Friday when, GASP!, we'll find out what the cops actually know instead of relying on a police report and some grainy video.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

George Zimmerman seems to have disappeared and he still hasn't been charged with anything.

 

Between all of the threats on his life and people giving out his home address, can you blame him?

[Balta1701]

Between all of the threats on his life and people giving out his home address, can you blame him?

Depends on if anyone in law enforcement had ordered him to stay in contact about his location or not leave the state.

[southsider2k5]

Depends on if anyone in law enforcement had ordered him to stay in contact about his location or not leave the state.

 

Has that ever been indicated?

[Jenksismyhero]

Has that ever been indicated?

 

No, but it's more fun to speculate that he's fled the country to evade justice for his senseless killing.