Trigger-happy Neighborhood Watch Kills Black Teenager

The local policy are legally preventing from arresting a person carrying a legal gun unless there is evidence it was not self-defense (right to bear arms, etc). The state police will have broader powers and the case seems to be with them now.

GeorgeK said:

I agree with Zoombie, throw away the key.



He could have something on the Police Chief. Bullies often do form sort of packs.

Click to expand...

I come here for the reasoned debate and calm logic expressed in P&CE threads. But this thread looks more like a lynch mob. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised at the willingness to hang this guy from the nearest tree based on a few news stories. "The kid was an angel, the shooter was a murderous bully with 'something on the police chief'."

Maybe. And maybe I'll get dog-piled for saying this, but how about we see what an investigation reveals, what a jury has to say? I've been involved in these kinds of incidents, where news stories get people all riled up. They rarely contain the whole truth either because not all details are made known to reporters, or because it makes for a lesser story.

We're writers. Most of us can spin this a hundred ways in the time it takes me to type this post. We can take assumptions and turn them into dramatic teleplays with infinite backstories and machinations.

For example, I'm waiting to hear that one of the reasons the PD was/is being cautious is that Mr. Zimmerman got the gig on the recommendation of Chief Lee. But they are spin and conjecture, little to no evidence to support them. Fictions, until proven otherwise. Suppositions and allegations at best.

The call to the dispatcher was most likely recorded. If there is something racially indicative on it, that will come out.

Investigations do, in fact, take time. And, if they are going to charge Mr. Zimmerman, they will want this case solid.

MarkEsq said:

Maybe. And maybe I'll get dog-piled for saying this, but how about we see what an investigation reveals, what a jury has to say? I've been involved in these kinds of incidents, where news stories get people all riled up. They rarely contain the whole truth either because not all details are made known to reporters, or because it makes for a lesser story.

Click to expand...

Personally, I find the lack of transparency and withholding of information rather telling.

ok, as presented:

a lot of the shit sounds wonky. and I know way too many people who would be exactly the "bubba" type people here seem to be assuming this guy is. and honestly, I strongly suspect he is, and if so, I hope he gets sent to prison. Ideally with a very large, very angry black cellmate.

That said, I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the "hang him now, hold the trial later" vibe in this thread.

sorry, it isn't just the opinions maybe so much as delivery?


i did find it amusing to read that it sounds like the guy was in danger of getting his ass kicked by a kid 100lbs lighter than him....

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not interested in hanging anybody, being against the death penalty and all.

However, not being privy to the information the police have, I have to wonder why it is that he is not -- at a minimum -- in a holding cell. Have they already determined it's self defense? Has he already been booked and charged and arraigned and released on bond? Did I miss all of that?

Otherwise, why the heck isn't he in jail right now, pending all of this? He shot someone to death. There is no dispute about that. I am not familiar with how the system works to that degree, but I am very surprised he's not at least in custody. Or is he, and I missed that, too?

Those are not snarky questions, and I don't expect anyone else to answer them (though it'd be nice *wink*). I'll google. But that's my beef with the goings on at the moment.

ETA: I see, not enough evidence to arrest him. Really? So, if you shoot someone, and everyone and their dog know it, you admit it, etc., since you claim self-defense, they can't arrest you? Really? I feel incredibly stupid here, but I don't understand that.

Cranky said:

ETA: I see, not enough evidence to arrest him. Really? So, if you shoot someone, and everyone and their dog know it, you admit it, etc., since you claim self-defense, they can't arrest you? Really? I feel incredibly stupid here, but I don't understand that.

Click to expand...

again, I have serious doubts about this guy's conduct, but assuming you shot an intruder, and you weren't a flight risk, is this what you'd expect? straight to jail and held there until trial?

I don't know what determinations they made, from what I read it seems they may be working on charges, but you can't hold someone on a "well, we almost have the evidence to hold you, its comin soon anyway..."

(I hope that it is that, although the bits on an officer questioning the suspect first instead of taking a statement, and them correcting a witness, and them not releasing any 911 calls, all seem a bit suspect.)

MarkEsq said:

I come here for the reasoned debate and calm logic expressed in P&CE threads. But this thread looks more like a lynch mob. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised at the willingness to hang this guy from the nearest tree based on a few news stories. "The kid was an angel, the shooter was a murderous bully with 'something on the police chief'."

Maybe. And maybe I'll get dog-piled for saying this, but how about we see what an investigation reveals, what a jury has to say? I've been involved in these kinds of incidents, where news stories get people all riled up. They rarely contain the whole truth either because not all details are made known to reporters, or because it makes for a lesser story.

Click to expand...

(Douses his torch but still holds his pitchfork)
Part of what makes our system work is the illusion that it works. When anyone, ANYONE, seems above the law, then there is no law. We are not asking for a lynching. When the powers that be say that this guy is above the law, does not need to be arraigned (I'd be satisfied if he got arraigned and the judge said, he's not a flight risk and can be out pending an investigation) and we only have their word that there will be an actual investigation, then one more brick in the wall that separates us from anarchy has crumbled.

That's why people are getting riled up. It seems more and more stories of corruption are surfacing and there will be a boiling point. Read history. It always happens.

quicklime said:

again, I have serious doubts about this guy's conduct, but assuming you shot an intruder, and you weren't a flight risk, is this what you'd expect? straight to jail and held there until trial?

Click to expand...

This wasn't an intruder, wasn't inside a house and wasn't on the shooter's private property.

quicklime said:

again, I have serious doubts about this guy's conduct, but assuming you shot an intruder, and you weren't a flight risk, is this what you'd expect? straight to jail and held there until trial?

I don't know what determinations they made, from what I read it seems they may be working on charges, but you can't hold someone on a "well, we almost have the evidence to hold you, its comin soon anyway..."

(I hope that it is that, although the bits on an officer questioning the suspect first instead of taking a statement, and them correcting a witness, and them not releasing any 911 calls, all seem a bit suspect.)

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. I would expect, having confessed to shooting someone, that I would be at least taken into custody. They can hold you for -- I believe -- 48 hours, and then they have to either charge you or let you go. I would absolutely expect to be taken into custody while they did the initial investigation, at a minimum. I also would expect that, barring some really obvious evidence that it was self-defense and they decide not to press charges, that I would have to go to trial, absolutely.

I freely admit that I don't know how it works. I've never been arrested or charged with any crime. That is the reason for my confusion.

If you shoot someone in self-defense, I need more than your word for it. Zimmerman's best (only) defense would be to make such evidence as public as they can. The fact that they haven't only makes him look guilty.

The way things are presented, it seems pretty clear that it's as bad as it looks (a senseless, racist murder by a trigger-happy delusional psycho).

The part that really, really bothers me, here is that he got out of his car.

This little tidbit is not in debate. Zimmerman admits it, the cops admit it, and given the story, it's pretty impossible to get around.

You've got a man with a gun in a car following an unarmed teenager on foot. At some point, the guy decided to get out of the car with the gun.

That, right there, is where culpability comes in, IMO. Zimmerman ignored the police's "suggestion" to stand down, left the relative safety of his vehicle and initiated contact with Trayvon--none of which suggests a man who is in any way scared for his life--and he brought deadly force along with him.

No, I'm not a judge and jury, and I'm not suggesting we form a mob and attack this man on the street. I'm saying what we do know of this case is outrageous and upsetting, and if what we "know" now turns out to be true, the man needs to be locked away for a long, long time.

Cranky said:

I would absolutely expect to be taken into custody while they did the initial investigation, at a minimum.

I also would expect that, barring some really obvious evidence that it was self-defense and they decide not to press charges, that I would have to go to trial, absolutely.

.

Click to expand...

I would expect the former, and suspect the latter as well also. I also have a clean legal record and lack of firsthand knowledge, and I admit the story seems more than a bit fucked up. Just hoping, really, REALLY hoping, that's because they are being careful and methodical, and not because they're whitewashing


george, I'm aware they were on the street, but the point is if they ARE buying it as self-defense, or at least looking at that, I'm not sure how they'd have grounds to hold you. And the first guy they hold who a jury decides was imprisoned unlawfully, I suspect the dept. gets to pay through the nose, if such an event ever happens....so even if they aren't whitewashing they may choose to call him a low flight risk and collect their data without the issue of holding him beforehand, since they can arrest him later.

(I'd be satisfied if he got arraigned and the judge said, he's not a flight risk and can be out pending an investigation)

Click to expand...

This, basically. As it is the local PD appears to be treating him as if he was, in fact, some legitimate form of law enforcement.

That sets a pretty nasty precedent.

As I don't know Florida law, I'm wondering if there is something attached to an arraignment that, if they don't have solid evidence (eyewitness, etc.) creates some kind of liability for the PD, or some form of double indemnity for Mr. Zimmerman.

Yeah, I think the other way around would be the logical choice. Hold him in jail until he proves it was self-defense.

It seems like a legal loophole. Seriel killer shoots nineteen toddlers to death. "Parlay! It was in self-defense!" "Ah ok, you can go sir, good day." "Hey wait, none of the toddlers were armed! Come back here!" "So long, suckers!"

quicklime said:

george, I'm aware they were on the street, but the point is if they ARE buying it as self-defense, or at least looking at that, I'm not sure how they'd have grounds to hold you. And the first guy they hold who a jury decides was imprisoned unlawfully, I suspect the dept. gets to pay through the nose, if such an event ever happens....so even if they aren't whitewashing they may choose to call him a low flight risk and collect their data without the issue of holding him beforehand, since they can arrest him later.

Click to expand...

Williebee said:

This, basically. As it is the local PD appears to be treating him as if he was, in fact, some legitimate form of law enforcement.

That sets a pretty nasty precedent.

As I don't know Florida law, I'm wondering if there is something attached to an arraignment that, if they don't have solid evidence (eyewitness, etc.) creates some kind of liability for the PD, or some form of double indemnity for Mr. Zimmerman.

Click to expand...

Maybe I should do what Obama did with the NDAA and sign this with reservations?

Kaiser-Kun said:

Yeah, I think the other way around would be the logical choice. Hold him in jail until he proves it was self-defense.

It seems like a legal loophole. Seriel killer shoots nineteen toddlers to death. "Parlay! It was in self-defense!" "Ah ok, you can go sir, good day." "Hey wait, none of the toddlers were armed! Come back here!" "So long, suckers!"

Click to expand...

isn't that sort of 100% in opposition to the entire premise of "innocent until proven guilty"?


again, I suspect the guy is guilty, but I am starting to wonder too how much of a legal risk it is for cops to toss him in jail immediately, for everything from the increased risk of a lawsuit to the diminished likelihood of a drunken "I shot that damn darkie" confession to a bar-buddy......around here, it seems a fair number of convictions are made in part because people have trouble shutting up, especially once they think they are in the (relative) clear.


all the above said, in skimming, I also aggree with the poster who suggested it felt almost like the cops were considering the guy a form of law enforcement....and if there's a place I would expect the legal system to fail, FL is only slightly above MS and AL

quicklime said:

isn't that sort of 100% in opposition to the entire premise of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Click to expand...

"Innocent" doesn't means "walk away free". It means you are not sent to jail until your guilt is proven. Again, if you claim self-defense you need to present me with some evidence. This isn't a window broken, it's a man shot to death. I'm not going to let a potential murderer walk away just because he says he's innocent, which is all Zimmerman's defense has done so far.

Innocent until proven guilty only means you are owed the benefit of the doubt by society. Nobody in this thread is saying he is guilty, only that it seems very probable.

Kaiser-Kun said:

"Innocent" doesn't means "walk away free". It means you are not sent to jail until your guilt is proven. Again, if you claim self-defense you need to present me with some evidence. This isn't a window broken, it's a man shot to death. I'm not going to let a potential murderer walk away just because he says he's innocent, which is all Zimmerman's defense has done so far.

Innocent until proven guilty only means you are owed the benefit of the doubt by society.

Click to expand...

no, not at all. It has nothing to do with society, it is the premise for our legal system. The burden of proof goes to the prosecution, not the other way around.

and you were the one advicating holding him IN jail, until his guilt was proven....

quicklime said:

no, not at all. It has nothing to do with society, it is the premise for our legal system. The burden of proof goes to the prosecution, not the other way around.

and you were the one advicating holding him IN jail, until his guilt was proven....

Click to expand...

I think the problem here is that he undoubtedly shot Trayvon. There isn't a question there. The only question is whether or not that shooting was justified. Knowing that Zimmerman killed someone, without knowing whether or not he was justified in doing so, rather disrupts the normal "presumed innocent" thing. Someone is dead. We know who is responsible.

In this case, guilty or innocent doesn't really seem to apply, at least the way we normally understand it to be. I understand and agree that principle is or should be sacrosanct in our system. But it makes dealing with cases like these that much more difficult, imo. More often than not, I would think, when someone is shot dead, there is some degree of culpability on the part of the shooter. Even if it does turn out to be self-defense in this case, I still think Zimmerman bears a good portion of responsibility for the outcome. He didn't follow police directions, and as a result, got into a confrontation that ended with someone dead. As a watch captain and someone who was legally able to carry a gun, I think he failed in his responsibilities. I think at the very least, his conduct was negligent and contributed to Trayvon's death.

Of course, I guess that's getting off the point of presumed innocence, though. *sigh*

quicklime said:

no, not at all. It has nothing to do with society, it is the premise for our legal system. The burden of proof goes to the prosecution, not the other way around.

and you were the one advicating holding him IN jail, until his guilt was proven....

Click to expand...

It has been pointed that the victim was unarmed, alone, much younger and could never pose a physical risk. Against police recommendations, Zimmerman followed him, got out of his car, gun in hand. There was "a physical confrontation", and next we know, a corpse.

All of it seems like a very good amount of guilt evidence to me, more than enough to throw off his "presumed innocent" status and hold him in a cell as a preventive measure against his escape until he brings forth evidence to his innocence, which so far has not happened.

Kaiser-Kun said:

It has been pointed that the victim was unarmed, alone, much younger and could never pose a physical risk. Against police recommendations, Zimmerman followed him, got out of his car, gun in hand. There was "a physical confrontation", and next we know, a corpse.

All of it seems like a very good amount of guilt evidence to me, more than enough to throw off his "presumed innocent" status and hold him in a cell as a preventive measure against his escape until he brings forth evidence to his innocence, which so far has not happened.

Click to expand...

you don't hit a tipping point--if they do not have sufficient evidence to hold him, and he isn't a flight risk, they can't just hold him anyway to make you feel better.

there is no spot where burden of proof suddenly does a 180 and the accused is the one supposed to prove inocence. should it go to trial, the DA will try to prove intent and/or negligence, in a case like this there won't be much to prove innocence anyway, only rebuttals which will either damage the prosecutor's narrative or fail to do so.

quicklime said:

you don't hit a tipping point--if they do not have sufficient evidence to hold him, and he isn't a flight risk, they can't just hold him anyway to make you feel better.

there is no spot where burden of proof suddenly does a 180 and the accused is the one supposed to prove inocence. should it go to trial, the DA will try to prove intent and/or negligence, in a case like this there won't be much to prove innocence anyway, only rebuttals which will either damage the prosecutor's narrative or fail to do so.

Click to expand...

1. What I've posted is my opinion, and how I feel whatsoever has no bearing at all on the case, so do yourself a favor and knock off the condescending bullshit.

2. From the very beginning, they have more than enough evidence to hold him. Read the very post you quoted, or any other in this discussion.

3. He is not innocent. He may have killed in self-defense, which he has not proven to a jury, but the fact remains that he killed.

i guess, as side points,

1. it looks upthread like FL has somewhat unique laws regarding self-defense to begin with

2. anyone with legal experience? Say this was with a car rather than a gun (because I feel like some extra bias is going into this based on him carrying a pistol): if I am negligent in running someone down while drunk, and I am not deemed a flight risk, i cannot be held indefinately before trial, correct? Now what if I am actually going to trial for premeditated vehicular homicide? Again, I believe you can't be held without reason to believe you will flee, but I am not a judge.