Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[smitcompton]

Hi,

You're right, it a terrible thing that happened and the public outcry has helped propel this case to receive the attention it deserves.
I have never been one to be afraid of some speculation even though our legal staff cautions that the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Gypsy is right in that I was ignorant at one time in my life on how the sytems works and so for those of you who aren;t clear on it, you ought read what she says as well.

However, it is clear to me that Zimmerman has taken his role as Neighborhood Watch person to the extreme. The police did ascertain that he was taking Criminal Justice courses in school. His previous 911 calls(somewhere around 40) always reporting a suspicious person in the neighborhood. This was a usual event for him. Even though the dispatcher told him it was not necessary to follow the kid, he did because he didn't want him to get away before the police came. He told the dispatcher his cell phone number so when the police arrived they could call him to find where he was. I speculate that he was the one calling for help, simply because he had cornered the boy and wanted help to keep him there. The boy began to run and this guys brain failed him and he shot, to keep him for the police arrival. I'm with Danny, its murder. They will charge him with something, I do not know what.

Of course race had something to do with it. A black kid in his neighborhood could only be up to no good. I am afraid of black men.
But I won't shoot them. Thats where I have a problem. I tell myself I have good reason to be afraid.

I hope he is charged, and I think he will be. I am not serving on a jury and so feel I can speculate without ruining the American Justice system.
It was a sad day! I'm Danny, you said it well again,

Annette

 

[Maria D]

I see it as different because of the things this law apparently limits specific to arrest when the shooter claims self-defense. From what I understand, the police cannot arrest him without meeting a higher bar regarding what they believe about the shooter. So other cases from other states wouldn't be analogous.

Ok, so you're saying that in Florida if you claim self-defense due to "Stand Your Ground" an arrest cannot be made until the police have cause to believe you weren't "standing your ground?" Would the police be allowed/required to at least investigate if a crime took place? According to this timeline at abcnews.com http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/, police took Zimmerman at his word. They did not do a drug/alcohol test or background check. Is simple investigation no longer allowed due to this Stand Your Ground law?

 

[Sha]

It's such a stretch to say that Zimmerman felt threatened by Trayvon yet continued to stalk him down. If he felt threatened he would've been running away/trying to hide. Trayvon is the one who likely would've felt threatened and could've reasonably lashed out in self-defense if he chose to.

I'm not in the U.S, but have been following the case. So very sad! Sounds like the Police Dept. made a lot of racial assumptions, i.e Zimmerman likely acted innocently, because he's 'white', and Trayvon was likely the attacker, because he's 'black'. No further questions asked. Definitely not the way proper investigation should be done. I really hope this case is seriously re-investigated because we can't set the precedent that you can just go around shooting people because you have a 'reason' to believe they're up to no good. (And if you listen to the tape, what reason exactly, did Zimmerman give for thinking that Trayvon was up to no good? That he was wearing a hoodie and walking around, looking at houses? Being suspicious/'alert' about a stranger in the area is one thing... but hunting that stranger down and killing him is quite another.

 

[MissStepcut]

I see it as different because of the things this law apparently limits specific to arrest when the shooter claims self-defense. From what I understand, the police cannot arrest him without meeting a higher bar regarding what they believe about the shooter. So other cases from other states wouldn't be analogous.

Ok, so you're saying that in Florida if you claim self-defense due to "Stand Your Ground" an arrest cannot be made until the police have cause to believe you weren't "standing your ground?" Would the police be allowed/required to at least investigate if a crime took place? According to this timeline at abcnews.com http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/, police took Zimmerman at his word. They did not do a drug/alcohol test or background check. Is simple investigation no longer allowed due to this Stand Your Ground law?

Why would a drug, alcohol test or background check have changed their impression of him? Do you have some reason to think he was high or drunk? Why would they automatically check for drugs and alcohol if they didn't suspect it after bringing him in for questioning?

Also, since Zimmerman was questioned by police and then released, which is glossed over in that timeline, I really don't think MSNBC is framing things in the most objective way.

 

[Maria D]

I don't think the media is necessarily objective but I don't see the gloss-over here. It says the police "took him at his word" so that implies there was questioning. They questioned him, Zimmerman claimed self-defense, they released him. It doesn't sound like they actually investigated anything, just questioned Zimmerman and since he said it was self-defense, that was the end of it. The drug/alcohol testing or background check would just be routine investigation, I would think. I know at the high school I work in when there is a physical altercation of any kind that kind of investigation is pretty routine.

What I'm asking you, and maybe you just don't know, is to clarify whether the "Stand Your Ground Law" means that the police must accept a "self-defense" claim without further investigation. You wrote: "I see it as different because of the things this law apparently limits specific to arrest when the shooter claims self-defense." Do you know what the the things are that this law apparently limits? Can you be more specific?

edited to add: I brought up the Rory Holland case to illustrate that an arrest was made immediately even though the defendant claimed self-defense and the trial did not occur until more than a year later. You and Gypsy both implied (unless I am misunderstanding both of you) that an arrest can not be made in this case without jeopardizing the chance to to later convict.

 

[Maria D]

I've been racking my brain all day trying to remember the name of another Maine guy who shot and killed claiming self-defense. His name is Sabato Raia and in 1997 he killed 3 men who followed him home from a bar after arguing with him there. The killing was execution style. Raia came out of his house, walked over to the unarmed men and shot them in the forehead. According to Maine's Castle Doctrine, "deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed." Since the jury bought that Raia believed deadly forced was imminent, they acquitted and he went free.

BUT, Raia was arrested the same night as the killings and held without bail until the trial in 1998.

So yeah, nothing anyone has said here convinces me that the police could not/should not have arrested Zimmerman. Yes, it's Florida, not Maine -- are you telling me they can't even make an arrest in that state when a person admits to shooting and killing another? Doesn't pass the straight face test, sorry.

 

[MissStepcut]

I don't think the media is necessarily objective but I don't see the gloss-over here. It says the police "took him at his word" so that implies there was questioning. They questioned him, Zimmerman claimed self-defense, they released him. It doesn't sound like they actually investigated anything, just questioned Zimmerman and since he said it was self-defense, that was the end of it. The drug/alcohol testing or background check would just be routine investigation, I would think. I know at the high school I work in when there is a physical altercation of any kind that kind of investigation is pretty routine.

What I'm asking you, and maybe you just don't know, is to clarify whether the "Stand Your Ground Law" means that the police must accept a "self-defense" claim without further investigation. You wrote: "I see it as different because of the things this law apparently limits specific to arrest when the shooter claims self-defense." Do you know what the the things are that this law apparently limits? Can you be more specific?

edited to add: I brought up the Rory Holland case to illustrate that an arrest was made immediately even though the defendant claimed self-defense and the trial did not occur until more than a year later. You and Gypsy both implied (unless I am misunderstanding both of you) that an arrest can not be made in this case without jeopardizing the chance to to later convict.

"So what is truly distinctive about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law? It is this: while self-defense conventionally is just that -- a defense, to be raised at trial -- self-defense under the Florida law acts as an immunity from prosecution or even arrest. Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes provides that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." This odd provision means that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense cannot be tried, even though the highly fact-intensive question of whether the person acted in self-defense is usually hashed out at trial. The law thus creates a paradox: the State must make a highly complex factual determination before being permitted to avail itself of the forum necessary to make such a determination."

Source: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/03/trayvon-martin-and-floridas-stand-your-ground-law.html

That is basically why I think it's different than the other cases you brought up in other states, and why the prosecutors and police are being unfairly maligned here.

 

[MissStepcut]

I've been racking my brain all day trying to remember the name of another Maine guy who shot and killed claiming self-defense. His name is Sabato Raia and in 1997 he killed 3 men who followed him home from a bar after arguing with him there. The killing was execution style. Raia came out of his house, walked over to the unarmed men and shot them in the forehead. According to Maine's Castle Doctrine, "deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed." Since the jury bought that Raia believed deadly forced was imminent, they acquitted and he went free.

BUT, Raia was arrested the same night as the killings and held without bail until the trial in 1998.

So yeah, nothing anyone has said here convinces me that the police could not/should not have arrested Zimmerman. Yes, it's Florida, not Maine -- are you telling me they can't even make an arrest in that state when a person admits to shooting and killing another? Doesn't pass the straight face test, sorry.

Hey, don't blame me for a stupid law. I sure as heck didn't write it.

 

[Maria D]

Miss StepCut, here's the actual statute (as opposed to a blogger's interpretation of it):

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(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.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

The police have probable cause that the force used was unlawful. The kid was unarmed and had been chased down -- as heard in the 911 call. Also, what's the worst that can happen if it turns out that a jury decides the defendant was immune? The state pays expenses, big deal. It's not like the entire justice system explodes from making a wrongful arrest. Innocent kid dead. Shooter admits killing. Arrest should be made already. Not rocket science.

 

[MissStepcut]

Miss StepCut, here's the actual statute (as opposed to a blogger's interpretation of it):

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(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.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

The police have probable cause that the force used was unlawful. The kid was unarmed and had been chased down -- as heard in the 911 call. Also, what's the worst that can happen if it turns out that a jury decides the defendant was immune? The state pays expenses, big deal. It's not like the entire justice system explodes from making a wrongful arrest. Innocent kid dead. Shooter admits killing. Arrest should be made already. Not rocket science.

That's not just some blogger, it's a criminal law professor, so I think we can give his interpretation of the law a bit more deference than you are.

You think it's a slam-dunk based on your interpretation of the facts as presented by the media and your interpretation of the statute. Like Gypsy said, it doesn't matter, under the law, that the kid was unarmed. It matters what Zimmerman reasonably believed. And like Professor Mannheimer said, the factual determination that needs to be made my the police is a complicated one. Frankly, based on the language, it sounds a lot like a mini-trial pre-trial.

I am not even saying that under the statute, Zimmerman has gotten any sort of immunity. I am pointing out the barrier to process this law has created.

 

[Maria D]

The *authors* of the law say that Zimmerman should be arrested, so I think we can give their interpretation of the law a bit more deference than you and the blogger law professor (who has never practiced in Florida) are.

 

[MissStepcut]

The authors of the law are politicians. I really have no idea why what they say about the law applied to this specific and politically unpopular situation, after the bad law they wrote is being applied, should carry any weight.

 

[Gypsy]

The *authors* of the law say that Zimmerman should be arrested, so I think we can give their interpretation of the law a bit more deference than you and the blogger law professor (who has never practiced in Florida) are.

Maria their interpretation of the law means very little at trail. Let me give you an example.

Here in CA we had a law passed a couple years ago that outlawed TALKING on the cellphone.

Now the writers of this law MEANT that all actions on any electronic devise that is interfering in safe driving habits should be outlawed. But they did not say this. It did not even OCCUR to them that they would NEED to say it. And I mean EVERY legislator and staff member and lobbyist. Many of whom are lawyers-- all of them thought the law as WRITTEN was clear.

Guess what happened? Everyone in this (stupid) state started texting the day after the law went into effect. And when the were arrested and the law trotted out, it became clear that the law was in fact written TOO narrowly and DID NOT cover texting. And that texting was okay.

The fact that the Legislature INTENDED the law to cover ALL activities on electronic devises was irrelevant. They THOUGHT they were being perfectly clear.

But ACTUAL PRACTICE proved that the law was not written correctly to have the intended effect. So the legislature had to pass an amendment/new law.

This happens ALL THE TIME. Why? Because the public tests laws in unexpected and wacky ways that 'reasonable people' of the legislature often NEVER predicted. It's just the way things are.

The Florida law is an example of this. The LAW is not interpreted by the legislature. It's called Separation of Powers. The Law is interpreted by the judiciary AS IT IS BEING TESTED.

Another thing that has not been brought up is: The laws of evidence can lead to "unduly" prejudicial "facts" being excluded from trial and being barred from presentation to a jury. That is another reason why it is much easier to convict a man in the media than it is to convict him in a CRIMINAL court of law (different rules of procedure for civil cases). So the 911 tapes, Zimmerman's assault record, his application to the police academy-- ANY OF THOSE under the right set of circumstances could be inadmissible at trial and weaken the prosecution's case further.

All I am saying and what I think MissStepcut is saying is: If you listen to the 'public' and the 'media' you would think that convicting this man is a game of Chutes and Ladders when really it's a game of advanced Chess and strategy and the RULES of the game are vitally important.

Murder HAS no statue of limitations. IF there is enough evidence found I'm sure he will be brought to trial. I think it is good that there is more investigation being done. And yes, that has resulted from the public outry. But there is a point at which the "good" becomes bad. And that's when a mob mentality results in an irresponsible and premature push to trial.

AND-- when a person is arrested either a Grad Jury or a Judge decides if the case is strong enough to bring to trail. If the case isn't deemed strong enough you are required to release the person. WHAT therefore is the POINT of arresting someone if you can't HOLD THEM and bring them to trial. Because in this country you can't arrest people and force their detainment indefinitely while you hunt for evidence. Once you arrest someone, within a pretty short time-- you have to PROVE you have cause to keep him detained.

 

[Maria D]

Well, Michael Siegel, the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Clinics at the University of FLORIDA Law School and former federal prosecutor agrees with the lawmakers so I have no idea why what you or the blogger say should carry any weight either.

 

[Laila619]

The *authors* of the law say that Zimmerman should be arrested, so I think we can give their interpretation of the law a bit more deference than you and the blogger law professor (who has never practiced in Florida) are.

Maria their interpretation of the law means very little at trail. Let me give you an example.

Here in CA we had a law passed a couple years ago that outlawed TALKING on the cellphone.

Now the writers of this law MEANT that all actions on any electronic devise that is interfering in safe driving habits should be outlawed. But they did not say this. It did not even OCCUR to them that they would NEED to say it. And I mean EVERY legislator and staff member and lobbyist. Many of whom are lawyers-- all of them thought the law as WRITTEN was clear.

Guess what happened? Everyone in this (stupid) state started texting the day after the law went into effect. And when the were arrested and the law trotted out, it became clear that the law was in fact written TOO narrowly and DID NOT cover texting. And that texting was okay.

The fact that the Legislature INTENDED the law to cover ALL activities on electronic devises was irrelevant. They THOUGHT they were being perfectly clear.

Again though, does plain old common sense not apply here? It's just so ridiculous.

It's just impossible to think of EVERY.SINGLE loophole ahead of time and write all those into the law as well.

 

[MissStepcut]

Well, Michael Siegel, the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Clinics at the University of FLORIDA Law School and former federal prosecutor agrees with the lawmakers so I have no idea why what you or the blogger say should carry any weight either.

Well that's not exactly what he said. As he concedes, we all only know what has been made public.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/stand-ground-law-center-fla-shooting-15976334#.T2_Z_2Auh5s

 

[MissStepcut]

Again though, does plain old common sense not apply here? It's just so ridiculous.

It's just impossible to think of EVERY.SINGLE loophole ahead of time and write all those into the law as well.

Jeez though, they could try a little harder to think through a few of the consequences, like putting a barrier in front of police carrying out their duties.

 

[Gypsy]

THIS is what I am afraid of.

Sentiments like this, that ignore how TRULY HARD it is to convict a man BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, in an actual court, and under the rules of evidence...

been jailed immediately.

zimmerman should have been arrested and had his day in court. i would then believe that our justice system works.

....

and this

He should be dealt with the way any other murdering loose cannon is dealt with: life without parole. It might take a few years, but I hope that will be his sentence.

that convict AND HANG a man in the media lead to ridiculously HIGH public expectations about how THE REAL WORLD will treat this man's trial and possible punishment.

And force a premature trial.

And the guy gets off. OR he gets convicted of a lesser charge (Involuntary Manslaughter-- very likely) instead of WAITING and getting the guy for something like aggravated manslaughter or even murder if they can show enough premeditation with more evidence.

THEN, the public is OUTRAGED! Clearly THE JURY was RACIST TOO! Riots ensue. Rioting in Maimi, Orlando, Atlanta... and more people die.

Because the fact is... all this public outrage is demanding blood. What happens if the public doesn't get that blood.

How many people who are simply doing their job, that the public CLEARLY doesn't understand, are going to be painted with the 'racist' paint brush. So far we have the cops (and I'm on board with the dispatcher being racially insensitive), the prosecutor, and most of the entire COUNTRY where this took place being decried as racists with an agenda.

Pretty soon it's going to be the special prosecutor, if they don't arrest this guy (regardless of the fact that there might not be grounds for arrest), or the Grand Jury that doesn't indict OR the judge that at arraignment decides there is NOT enough evidence to proceed to trail, AND then the defense attorney (clearly ANY defense attorney who defends this guy is racist right? ) and then ultimately... the jury.

All because people do NOT understand our justice system and the checks that are included in the process of a criminal trail.

Again, no statute of limitations for murder. Why not wait and SEE if there is truly enough evidence to reasonably justify a trail (not even a conviction, just enough evidence for a trial) before you've already decided this guy should be drawn and quartered and killed.

 

[Gypsy]

The *authors* of the law say that Zimmerman should be arrested, so I think we can give their interpretation of the law a bit more deference than you and the blogger law professor (who has never practiced in Florida) are.

Maria their interpretation of the law means very little at trail. Let me give you an example.

Here in CA we had a law passed a couple years ago that outlawed TALKING on the cellphone.

Now the writers of this law MEANT that all actions on any electronic devise that is interfering in safe driving habits should be outlawed. But they did not say this. It did not even OCCUR to them that they would NEED to say it. And I mean EVERY legislator and staff member and lobbyist. Many of whom are lawyers-- all of them thought the law as WRITTEN was clear.

Guess what happened? Everyone in this (stupid) state started texting the day after the law went into effect. And when the were arrested and the law trotted out, it became clear that the law was in fact written TOO narrowly and DID NOT cover texting. And that texting was okay.

The fact that the Legislature INTENDED the law to cover ALL activities on electronic devises was irrelevant. They THOUGHT they were being perfectly clear.

Again though, does plain old common sense not apply here? It's just so ridiculous.

It's just impossible to think of EVERY.SINGLE loophole ahead of time and write all those into the law as well.

Laila I thought it was perfectly clear until I KID YOU NOT I was driving home in rush hour and the THREE cars next to me had drivers texting. I was like this:

In awe. So no... once people have some skin in the game. Once they are IN COURT had have to defend themselves against a ticket, or worse a conviction common sense goes out the window and what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the law, regardless of the intent of the lawmakers, becomes PARAMOUNT.

I don't like it. But I spent YEARS studying it. And yes, many times I was shaking my head at the complete and utter lack of common sense in both the public AND the lawmakers.

To err is human.

 

[Maria D]

Gypsy, thanks for taking the time to write out that explanation, I really appreciate it. My last post was written and submitted before I read yours. I get what you are trying to teach and I thank you for doing it in such a non-patronizing way.

But.

Even with this obviously flawed law, it does appear that the arrest should/could have been made. The probable cause that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense is the 911 call. Many legal experts *in Florida* are saying that even with this law, Zimmerman does not have arrest immunity. The outrage is not over lack of a conviction, but of an arrest.

As for a conviction -- anything could happen. We've seen that before.

 

[Maria D]

Miss Stepcut, well of course all any of us can give an opinion on is what's publicly known about the case. That doesn't change the fact that the opinions of legal experts in Florida outweigh those of people posting on this forum or law professors outside of Florida who write blogs.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, thanks for taking the time to write out that explanation, I really appreciate it. My last post was written and submitted before I read yours. I get what you are trying to teach and I thank you for doing it in such a non-patronizing way.

But.

Even with this obviously flawed law, it does appear that the arrest should/could have been made. The probable cause that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense is the 911 call. Many legal experts *in Florida* are saying that even with this law, Zimmerman does not have arrest immunity. The outrage is not over lack of a conviction, but of an arrest.

As for a conviction -- anything could happen. We've seen that before.

Here's the thing. I consider myself a reasonable person.

I HATE the fact that a vigilante killed a kid holding a bag of skittles.

I really do.

And I have listened to the 911 tapes, all of them.

And my first thoughts were: wow I hope that dispatcher gets fired cause he really f*cked up and... WHY did the guy chase after the kid???

But my second thought was... I'm missing something. George says on the tapes that he thought the kid might have a weapon. The 911 calls do not say who was asking for help. Was it the shooter or the kid? If it was the shooter, was he in fear for his life and why? What HAPPENED between when the 911 call by the shooter ended and the kid ended up shot. And HOW did George get his injuries? Was the kid shot in the back or in the front.

If I am the cops and George says:
" I was the one asking for help" and there is NO ONE who can say it wasn't me.
I have a license for this gun and training.
The kid was shot in the front.
And the kid has Georges blood on his hands which show he was the one who hurt George.

All I'm left with is this:
WHY did George chase the kid. And, I'm sorry... but just CHASING the kid, while IMO a STUPID thing to do... is not ENOUGH cause for arrest.

And neither, as sad and HORRIBLE as it is, is JUST the presence of the kids dead body holding a bag of skittles.

So what is the POINT of an arrest if the guy is going to be cut loose at arraignment or after a grand jury for lack of evidence.

Isn't it BETTER to wait until the minimum requirements for an arrest are met so that once the guy is arrested he stays in prison?

 

[MissStepcut]

Miss Stepcut, well of course all any of us can give an opinion on is what's publicly known about the case. That doesn't change the fact that the opinions of legal experts in Florida outweigh those of people posting on this forum or law professors outside of Florida who write blogs.

Except your professor wasn't giving a legal analysis. Unless he did somewhere out there and I missed it.

Edit: the prof I quoted is looking at the statute and explaining why the police have to jump through more hoops than usual. I would sincerely be interested in a professor explaining why the hoops are easily cleared, but all I see are cherry-picked quotes light on analysis.

 

[luv2sparkle]

It should matter that the boy was unarmed. There have been police officers who have been charged for shooting an unarmed person.
I feel so sad and upset for his family. I can't imagine the pain of all of this for them.

There should be outrage at injustice. What kind of people would we be without it? Protests and public anger do no good, I agree. But I would think it would be some comfort to the family to know that people care about what happened to their son, even if it doesn't make a single bit of difference in the legal system.

That's an example that proves my point, not yours. What's REASONABLE for a trained police offer who is required BY LAW to announce himself AND tell the person to PUT THEIR HANDS UP is very different for what is REASONABLE for a guy with NO training, who is put in a situation that is outside his experience, and who is running on adrenaline, and who isn't REQUIRED to do ANYTHING if he fears for his life except defend himself.

This type of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS post is why the public outcry is NO HELP at all. Because the people outcrying have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

What this post of yours Gypsy says about you to me is you are really full of yourself.

 

[MissStepcut]

What this post of yours Gypsy says about you to me is you are really full of yourself.

How much expertise in the subject matter do you have to have before you're entitled to it?

 

[luv2sparkle]

Edited.

 

[movie zombie]

what do parents teach their young children to do when a stranger is following them or approaches them?
or tries to touch them?
or tries to keep them from going home?
or starts asking them questions about what they are doing and where they live?
if it were your kid being stalked by a stranger what would you want your kid to do?
please. what do you want your child to do? trayvon called 911.......and it wasn't good enough.
yeah, its emotional.

i'm not saying lynch the guy.
he deserves his day in court.
arresting him and getting his day in court would be better than what is happening to him now.
at least the family would have known that the death of their son was being taken seriously.

 

[Gypsy]

what do parents teach their young children to do when a stranger is following them or approaches them?
or tries to touch them?
or tries to keep them from going home?
or starts asking them questions about what they are doing and where they live?
if it were your kid being stalked by a stranger what would you want your kid to do?
please. what do you want your child to do? trayvon called 911.......and it wasn't good enough.
yeah, its emotional.

i'm not saying lynch the guy.
he deserves his day in court.
arresting him and getting his day in court would be better than what is happening to him now.
at least the family would have known that the death of their son was being taken seriously.

It is emotional for the family and for the public and maybe even for some members of the media.

But not for the prosecutor who has to try the case. At least, not in the same way because it can't be and allow them to do their job properly. For all you know they might be outraged and frustrated because they CAN'T arrest the guy. Goodness knows that's happened before.

And honey, I KNOW what you mean about the part in bold, and part of me wants to agree with you. But the victim's family's rights to justice-- HECK, the entire population of the US's right to justice-- do not trump that man's rights to not being held without probable cause. That's the ENTIRE point of our justice system. If there truly is probable cause and he's not being held... sure. Hold him.

And I wouldn't want to live in a world where the victim's family's right to justice DOES trump a person's right to prosecution for probable cause.

luv2sparkle...I wasn't impressed with your post either.

 

[Imdanny]

So yeah, nothing anyone has said here convinces me that the police could not/should not have arrested Zimmerman. Yes, it's Florida, not Maine -- are you telling me they can't even make an arrest in that state when a person admits to shooting and killing another? Doesn't pass the straight face test, sorry.

Yes, laughable. The argument the Sanford police could not arrest him because he claimed self-defense Is absurd.

 

[Imdanny]

what do parents teach their young children to do when a stranger is following them or approaches them?
or tries to touch them?
or tries to keep them from going home?
or starts asking them questions about what they are doing and where they live?
if it were your kid being stalked by a stranger what would you want your kid to do?
please. what do you want your child to do? trayvon called 911.......and it wasn't good enough.
yeah, its emotional.

i'm not saying lynch the guy.
he deserves his day in court.
arresting him and getting his day in court would be better than what is happening to him now.
at least the family would have known that the death of their son was being taken seriously.

It is emotional for the family and for the public and maybe even for some members of the media.

But not for the prosecutor who has to try the case. At least, not in the same way because it can't be and allow them to do their job properly. For all you know they might be outraged and frustrated because they CAN'T arrest the guy. Goodness knows that's happened before.

And honey, I KNOW what you mean about the part in bold, and part of me wants to agree with you. But the victim's family's rights to justice-- HECK, the entire population of the US's right to justice-- do not trump that man's rights to not being held without probable cause. That's the ENTIRE point of our justice system. If there truly is probable cause and he's not being held... sure. Hold him.

And I wouldn't want to live in a world where the victim's family's right to justice DOES trump a person's right to prosecution for probable cause.

luv2sparkle...I wasn't impressed with your post either.