Martin/Zimmerman III

[Robin Of House Hill]

Trebla,

Yes, it does. That's why SYG sucks.

[Maia]

The police have the right to detain someone for a limited amount of time. If they do not develop sufficient evidence, or believe their is no evidence of a crime, they must release him.

They seemed pretty uninterested in gathering any evidence, though. For instance, Zimmerman wasn't tested for alcohol or drugs even though I'd have thought that it should have been essential in a case where a suspect has been proven to kill somebody and the only possible defense would be his correct reading of the situation. Nor was his stalking of Martin questioned. Nor were his clothes examined. Etc, etc. To me it looks like their were actively refusing to investigate.

Whether Zimmerman should have been arrested is secondary, it is their failure to gather evidence that raises all the red flags.

I really hope that that PD department and it's procedures are examined under the magnifying glass and appropriate measures taken.

[Robin Of House Hill]

You need an eyewitness to determine that the kid was unarmed and weighed 100 lbs less than the shooter?

I don't see how you can spin "I thought he was going to kill me" as a justification for stalking and then shooting an unarmed kid in the street. I don't care if he was high. I don't care if he was casing houses. I don't even care if he threw a punch at Zimmerman. None of that justifies Zinnerman's reaction.

The fact that Martin was unarmed is irrelevant under SYG.

In a court of law, no one cares about opinions.

[Nukelavee]

Also, I don't think Robin actually is supporting Zimmerman. She's merely pointing out this is how things have played out, this is what they have to work with.

[Robin Of House Hill]

They seemed pretty uninterested in gathering any evidence, though. For instance, Zimmerman wasn't tested for alcohol or drugs even though I'd have thought that it should have been essential in a case where a suspect has been proven to kill somebody and the only possible defense would be his correct reading of the situation. Nor was his stalking of Martin questioned. Nor were his clothes examined. Etc, etc. To me it looks like their were actively refusing to investigate.

Whether Zimmerman should have been arrested is secondary, it is their failure to gather evidence that raises all the red flags.

I really hope that that PD department and it's procedures are examined under the magnifying glass and appropriate measures taken.

Without sufficient evidence, they couldn't arrest him and without an arrest, they couldn't gather the evidence you suggest, unless Zimmerman was unbelievably stupid and provided it voluntarily. What I think you and a lot of the public are suggesting is that they should have bent the law, arrested him and gathered all that evidence. Of course all that evidence would have excluded and permanently barred from being introduced, by any judge who had half a brain.

The 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The fact that Martin was unarmed is irrelevant under SYG.

In a court of law, no one cares about opinions.

Even the authors of SYG say that the law doesn't apply to this case. Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground, he forced a confrontation.

Opinion doesn't enter into it, just law. "It looked like he was high or up to no good" is not legal justification for killing someone. "I thought he was going to kill me" is not legal justification in this case as the kid was clearly unarmed and was at a marked disadvantage physically. It's not a reasonable legal defense.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If killing another human being isn't probable cause, I don't know what is.

[Tempra]

You believed that an unarmed kid who you outweigh by more than a 100 lbs was going to kill you? Sorry, but I don't believe that to be defensible. This is Manslaughter plain and simple.

Really? I outweigh Floyd Mayweather Jr. by 100 lbs, and I have no doubt that he could kill me without much trouble. And a gun does little good if it's holstered and i'm already engaged in hand to hand combat.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Really? I outweigh Floyd Mayweather Jr. by 100 lbs, and I have no doubt that he could kill me without much trouble. And a gun does little good if it's holstered and i'm already engaged in hand to hand combat.

Trayvon Martin was a professional boxing champion? Your point is taken, but I don't think it applies here. If the kid had a bat or a 2X4 or a knife, I could buy into Zimmerman's defense.

[Maia]

Without sufficient evidence, they couldn't arrest him and without an arrest, they couldn't gather the evidence you suggest, unless Zimmerman was unbelievably stupid and provided it voluntarily.

Not sure about this. It is possible to have search warrants without arresting anybody, after all. Nor is even a warrant required for alcohol controls during traffic stops. Also, given that there was a dead body, surely even in the US a certain amount of investigation ought to be required to determine whether the killer should be arrested and charged. I don't know US or Florida laws, but it seems to me that in such a case more than the killer's say-so would be required to decide that.

[Tempra]

Trayvon Martin was a professional boxing champion? Your point is taken, but I don't think it applies here. If the kid had a bat or a 2X4 or a knife, I could buy into Zimmerman's defense.

I don't want to defend Zimmerman because I think he was absolutely wrong to follow Martin. With that said, Zimmerman would have been unaware of whether Martin was a sissy or a championship fighter until after the fight started. I don't think we should presume that Zimmerman could not be threatened by someone smaller than him just because Martin was not armed. The human body is incredibly fragile and a well placed punch to the nose can kill anyone.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Even the authors of SYG say that the law doesn't apply to this case. Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground, he forced a confrontation.

Opinion doesn't enter into it, just law. "It looked like he was high or up to no good" is not legal justification for killing someone. "I thought he was going to kill me" is not legal justification in this case as the kid was clearly unarmed and was at a marked disadvantage physically. It's not a reasonable legal defense. The authors of SYG weren't there and cannot possibly know what happened.

In view of the fact that there were no eyewitnesses, two scenarios are possible. One, Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued, and two, Martin turned and confronted the guy following him and a struggle ensued. In either case, it's the struggle that gives some credence to a defense under SYG. Clearly unarmed? If I come up to you and push you, do you have any way to know if I'm armed?

If killing another human being isn't probable cause, I don't know what is.

In and of itself, killing someone is not evidence of a crime. The circumstances surrounding the killing make that determination. In this case, the police had one witness, Zimmerman. His demeanor and answers to their questions as well as examination of the scene, were all they had to go on. Neither of us has that information.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Clearly unarmed? If I come up to you and push you, do you have any way to know if I'm armed?

That matters why? Martin was unarmed. That's fact, not opinion. Did Zimmerman even claim that he thought Martin had a weapon?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Not sure about this. It is possible to have search warrants without arresting anybody, after all. Nor is even a warrant required for alcohol controls during traffic stops. Also, given that there was a dead body, surely even in the US a certain amount of investigation ought to be required to determine whether the killer should be arrested and charged. I don't know US or Florida laws, but it seems to me that in such a case more than the killer's say-so would be required to decide that.

Most judges do not issue search warrants without ascertaining that their doing so has a basis in law. I'd have to research Florida law to be more specific.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

In and of itself, killing someone is not evidence of a crime. The circumstances surrounding the killing make that determination. In this case, the police had one witness, Zimmerman. His demeanor and answers to their questions as well as examination of the scene, were all they had to go on. Neither of us has that information.

True, but we're talking about probable cause here. The police arrive to find a dead body and the shooter who readily admits to killing the victim. That's so far beyond probable cause that it's not even worth mentioning it. Under those circumstances the police are expected to search the perp and to gather evidence. That they didn't to the extent that they should have is what should be questioned here.

[Robin Of House Hill]

That matters why? Martin was unarmed. That's fact, not opinion. Did Zimmerman even claim that he thought Martin had a weapon?

Your original statement he was "clearly unarmed" is based on information obtained afterward. Whether Zimmerman believed Martin was armed, isn't relevant under SYG. You're arguing how things should be, not how they actually are.

[Robin Of House Hill]

True, but we're talking about probable cause here. The police arrive to find a dead body and the shooter who readily admits to killing the victim. That's so far beyond probable cause that it's not even worth mentioning it. Under those circumstances the police are expected to search the perp and to gather evidence. That they didn't to the extent that they should have is what should be questioned here.

Probable cause that he killed him, but not probable cause that it was a criminal act. Killing people is not necessarily illegal. If I wake up in my home and find you standing over me and put a .38 cal high velocity hollow point in your brain, I've killed you, but have committed no crime. Admittedly, my example is more obvious, but if the police did not believe they they had enough evidence to arrest because they had insufficient evidence that a crime occurred, they can't search him.

[awesome possum]

Come on already. The kid laying dead at the cop's feet was sufficient evidence that a crime may have occurred.

This is all on the Sanford PD. How corrupt and dirty and lazy they are is fairly public knowledge now. Even SYG being as stupidly broad as it is doesn't change how terrible those police handled things.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Your original statement he was "clearly unarmed" is based on information obtained afterward. Whether Zimmerman believed Martin was armed, isn't relevant under SYG. You're arguing how things should be, not how they actually are.

No, I'm arguing facts. Martin was unarmed. Whether or not Zimmerman thought he was armed has less relevance than the facts. He killed an unarmed man. Hell, I'll take it one step further. Legally, he killed an unarmed juvenile.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Come on already. The kid laying dead at the cop's feet was sufficient evidence that a crime may have occurred.

THIS. If the police had decided to perform a full body cavity search of Zimmerman at that point it would have been justified. This is a homicide, not a facking traffic stop.