Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

GZ was arrested. I imagine the homicide detective was privy to information that other investigators had already acquired, such as GZ admitting he had shot and killed someone, and some of the witness' statements on scene. Like the quote you supplied, officers have a lot of leeway with regard to being able to make an arrest based on probable cause, all they have to do is "feel" they have enough evidence.



Maybe that "REQ" means required? Maybe Serino had to call him.

No. He was not arrested that night.

REQ = Request

 

[Cylinder]

That night? Before a homicide detective has even talked to the potential arrestee?


"Police officers can make an arrest at virtually any dadgum point they feel they have enough probable cause to make an arrest," Bumpus-Hooper [spokesman for Wolfinger] said. "They do not need our permission and they do not seek our permission."

The SAO acts as a legal advisor for the police in their district regarding potential crimes. They set policies to protect potential prosecutions. That's why they're on call. The police will apprise them of what has been done and what they think they should do regarding searches, detention, etc...

For instance, a sharp ASA will know which judge is on call to sign warrants and know how they interpret probable cause or if the standard changes after midnight, etc...

 

[Rare Truth]

Thank you.

 

[Alt+F4]

Or how about one where the President of the United States is asked about the case, clearly is familiar with the case, and comments about the case?

Obama is also clearly familiar with the case of the murders at Sandy Hill Elementary and all but one of those victims was white.

 

[Matthew Best]

Obama is also clearly familiar with the case of the murders at Sandy Hill Elementary and all but one of those victims was white.

Possibly even more familiar with them than you are!

 

[This is The End]

The police use the SAO on call as a legal advisor for potential criminal cases. I would be shocked if SPD policy did not require SPD to contact SAO in all cases of homicide.

Right but wouldn't they normally wait until office hours if it was after office hours? Or are you literally saying that calling at 11:45 PM on a Sunday would be normal?

 

[phonebook]

The LA riots occurred for a very specific reason. The local police were more notorious for corruption and violence than the current NYPD, and yet they were exonerated even when their violence was caught on video.

I wonder what percentage of the rioters were white? The "very specific reason" required the looting and destruction of businesses, vehicles, etc.; the beatings (and in some case killings) of random non-blacks being pulled from vehicles, etc? That's what sparked the unrest, but that's not some sort of justification, explanation, or "reason", for the actions of the rioters. When it comes down to it, it was blacks rioting because of a perceived injustice against a black man, and especially when the person(s) committing the injustices weren't black.

Anyways, my point was to counter your apparent assertion that because, up to this point, there haven't been any violent protests (which isn't true anyway: "Maybe it has something to do with the NBPP bounty and the SPD car being shot up near the crime scene."), that that somehow shows there wouldn't be if it turns out that GZ is viewed as escaping punishment for exacting an extreme injustice against a black person.

That has little to do with that case. There's no indication that the people there will riot - and the protest leaders have repeatedly espoused non-violence.

Since when have protest leaders lead riots? If there are any "leaders" in riots (isn't that sort of an oxymoron?), it certainly wouldn't be the persons arguing for peaceful protest beforehand.

The answer is simple. A basic investigation would show that Martin was simply walking home from a local store, and that Zimmerman wrongly saw this as "suspicious", and then chased and shot Martin. That's quite enough for a trial.

Why just a "basic" investigation, and not a thorough one? Trials are expensive for government, and are supposed to be avoided if there isn't enough evidence to convict. And what if the thorough investigation didn't conclude that there was enough evidence for a trial?

I do not agree with that last sentence. In each event, we have a violent person, attacking another person, who gets let go because of "stand your ground". And each decision is foolish.

Do you live in the US? Are you aware of how big this story is (or was, and will be again once the trial starts)? That this small-town case has gotten the attention of the U.S. Attorney General, and even the President of the United States, do you really think that plays no role, whatsoever, in setting this case apart from those others?

 

[phonebook]

No. He was not arrested that night.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/justifies-arrest-probable-cause.html

The above link/article tells me otherwise.

 

[phonebook]

Obama is also clearly familiar with the case of the murders at Sandy Hill Elementary and all but one of those victims was white.

And what does that have to do with comparing this case with other self-defense or SYG cases? It doesn't appear you read the comment I was replying to.

ETA:

Possibly even more familiar with them than you are!

Haha, nice catch!

 

[phonebook]

Right but wouldn't they normally wait until office hours if it was after office hours? Or are you literally saying that calling at 11:45 PM on a Sunday would be normal?

How "normal" was this case for that police department?

ETA: They were about to release GZ at that time, I believe (they conducted one more brief interview a hair after midnight), so perhaps that necessitated this phone call.

 

[Unabogie]

How "normal" was this case for that police department?

The night of the shooting? They hadn't even notified the victim's parents yet. Are you suggesting there was some sort of political outcry on the 26th?

If not, then yes, have the police chief come out to a murder scene and having the lead detective call the SAO at midnight may seem a little odd.

And let's remember that the SA and chief both resigned based on their actions regarding this case.

 

[johnny karate]

I was replying to this part of his quote specifically: "But when you are recorded actively following a person who was just walking down the street, and you're confessing to shooting and killing that same person minutes later, I think you should go on trial."

Notice he uses no specific actors, and doesn't include Zimmerman and/or Martin. He was presenting a hypothetical situation that he may think closely mirrors this situation, but he didn't specify this situation. I asked why a trial was necessary instead of an investigation, when considering only the above circumstances (which is all the poster I replied to presented as warranting a "trial").

First of all, the previous poster was clearly talking about this case, so I'm not sure why we're playing that game.

Secondly, I'm not sure what distinction you're making between what was presented and what you think this case looks like.

An investigation was done, charges were filed, and now it's going to trial.

That's how the system works.

O'Mara has had more than one opportunity to make this case go away if that's what the evidence truly warrants, but he hasn't.

Reasonable-minded people see that as an indication that there is actually a legitimate case to be made against Zimmerman.

Others drone on about how immunity hearings are hard and judges are mean and riots.

I never claimed there was "no" evidence. There is circumstantial evidence, but not enough to warrant a conviction, in my opinion.

Great. So you admit there's evidence against Zimmerman.

So why do you seem so offended by the idea that Zimmerman should go to trial, and so convinced it's all nothing more than political theater?

Besides, "putting it all together" requires components you're using that I never presented to make that "whole".

Your arguments speak for themselves.

Either you think Zimmerman is being fairly charged and tried, or you don't.

Which is it?

ETA: There is also a lack of sufficient evidence FOR him, without his testimony, at an immunity trial. Remember, at an immunity hearing, the burden is on the defense to prove, to the preponderance of evidence standard (51%+), that the defendant was justified in using self-defense. It's not as simple as having to only provide enough evidence/arguments to present a reasonable doubt against the charges. Likewise, the prosecution is under no obligation to present evidence that proves (to any standard) that GZ committed a crime (that's what the trial is for). All the prosecution has to do is supply as little evidence as possible to counter whatever the defense offers, and without GZ's testimony (or full access to his statements to investigators), that's going to be a stiff challenge for the defense. I imagine MOM believes GZ taking the stand, especially at an immunity hearing, would be a bad idea.

I wonder how many of the other immunity/"SYG" hearings were successful without the defendant testifying? My guess is very few if any.

Yeah, this all just nonsense.

According to you Zimmerman is at the same time an innocent man wrongly accused, and the most hopelessly tongue-tied, idiotic person in the history of the legal system.

What could a perfectly innocent man possibly say during an immunity hearing that would doom him to eventual conviction?

 

[phonebook]

The night of the shooting? They hadn't even notified the victim's parents yet. Are you suggesting there was some sort of political outcry on the 26th?

No. Did you read the comment I was replying to?

If not, then yes, have the police chief come out to a murder scene and having the lead detective call the SAO at midnight may seem a little odd.

It does? Based on what standard or comparison?

Sanford has about 3-5 "murders" a year (unsure if that reflects what are labeled as "homicides"). I don't see it as being that odd that the chief of a relatively small town comes to the scene 3-5 times a year. Perhaps they recognized that this was unique. It wasn't just some gang-related incident or something.

 

[johnny karate]

Why just a "basic" investigation, and not a thorough one? Trials are expensive for government, and are supposed to be avoided if there isn't enough evidence to convict. And what if the thorough investigation didn't conclude that there was enough evidence for a trial?

Then the case would have been dismissed a long time ago for lack of evidence.

It wasn't.

 

[Unabogie]

No. Did you read the comment I was replying to?



It does? Based on what standard or comparison?

Sanford has about 3-5 "murders" a year (unsure if that reflects what are labeled as "homicides"). I don't see it as being that odd that the chief of a relatively small town comes to the scene 3-5 times a year. Perhaps they recognized that this was unique. It wasn't just some gang-related incident or something.

Hmm, I thought Sanford was such a crime-ridden hell hole that self-appointed vigilantes needed to arm themselves and go on nightly patrols. 3-5 murders a year sounds pretty darn safe. Perhaps George is just a paranoid yahoo?

Question: how much has he spent on "security" since his arrest? Have his parents left their home and claim to move from hotel to hotel to avoid people targeting them?

Wow, you know, maybe they really are just a paranoid family of yahoos.

ETA: Ooh, I forgot one more question. Does his brother think all black people mightB risky?

Yep. Armed patrols. Racist rants. Paranoid hotel hopping. Lying in court to hide money and passports.

Those wacky Zimmermans! Always beset by enemies from all sides!

 

[phonebook]

An investigation was done, charges were filed, and now it's going to trial.

That's how the system works.

Correction... an investigation was done, charges were not filed... the attorney for the family of the victim then went on a PR campaign (even hiring a PR firm), public outcry ensued, that reached all the way to the president of the United States, a "special" prosecutor was assigned, more evidence was apparently uncovered, or re-imagined, and THEN charges were filed.

Is that how the system works?

Others drone on about how immunity hearings are hard and judges are mean and riots.

I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's potential innocence and you won't have any of that.

Great. So you admit there's evidence against Zimmerman.

Sure there is, but it's all circumstantial in nature. There's also circumstantial evidence that TM assaulted GZ, bashed his head against the concrete, etc.

So why do you seem so offended by the idea that Zimmerman should go to trial, and so convinced it's all nothing more than political theater?

I feel like I've explained myself sufficiently in this regard already. There shouldn't be a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction. The original investigation didn't find such evidence, and it wasn't until a very political process occurred that somehow the evidence status changed, with the imposition of a "special" prosecutor who was actually able to find additional evidence, or interpret the existing evidence in the right way to go straight to 2nd Degree Murder. Was it DD's testimony that pushed it over the edge? If not, what was it? Do you really think that Angela Corey, the State Attorney who chose to charge a 12 year-old as an adult for 1st degree murder, was chosen with the notion that she potentially wouldn't find a reason to convict?

Yeah, this all just nonsense.

According to you Zimmerman is at the same time an innocent man wrongly accused, and the most hopelessly tongue-tied, idiotic person in the history of the legal system.

What could a perfectly innocent man possibly say during an immunity hearing that would doom him to eventual conviction?

In what way is it nonsense? Be specific.

You're exaggerating. He has a legitimately diagnosed "mental disorder" that he's on medication for, and that has known issues with memory. He has exemplified this poor memory and general poor communication abilities in previous NEN calls, in his television interview with Hannity, in his many interviews with investigators, etc., etc.

He will likely say the same confusing things said in his interviews with the investigators that have lead many, like Unabogie, et al, that he is lying, instead of considering the possibility that it might actually be his memory that's at fault, it might actually be his obviously compromised communicative abilities at fault, or the fact that he might be telling the truth. Someone like him requires some benefit of the doubt, but that has not been given, whatsoever.

 

[phonebook]

Then the case would have been dismissed a long time ago for lack of evidence.

It wasn't.

We're just not going to agree on the extent that the publicity of this case has affected the way it's been handled.

 

[phonebook]

Hmm, I thought Sanford was such a crime-ridden hell hole that self-appointed vigilantes needed to arm themselves and go on nightly patrols. 3-5 murders a year sounds pretty darn safe. Perhaps George is just a paranoid yahoo?

With a crime rate of 66 per one thousand residents, Sanford has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 15. Within Florida, more than 92% of the communities have a lower crime rate than Sanford.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/sanford/crime/#description

Hmmmm??

 

[KatieG]

Correction... an investigation was done, charges were not filed... the attorney for the family of the victim then went on a PR campaign (even hiring a PR firm), public outcry ensued, that reached all the way to the president of the United States, a "special" prosecutor was assigned, more evidence was apparently uncovered, or re-imagined, and THEN charges were filed.

Is that how the system works?



I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's potential innocence and you won't have any of that.



Sure there is, but it's all circumstantial in nature. There's also circumstantial evidence that TM assaulted GZ, bashed his head against the concrete, etc.



I feel like I've explained myself sufficiently in this regard already. There shouldn't be a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction. The original investigation didn't find such evidence, and it wasn't until a very political process occurred that somehow the evidence status changed, with the imposition of a "special" prosecutor who was actually able to find additional evidence, or interpret the existing evidence in the right way to go straight to 2nd Degree Murder. Was it DD's testimony that pushed it over the edge? If not, what was it? Do you really think that Angela Corey, the State Attorney who chose to charge a 12 year-old as an adult for 1st degree murder, was chosen with the notion that she potentially wouldn't find a reason to convict?




In what way is it nonsense? Be specific.

You're exaggerating. He has a legitimately diagnosed "mental disorder" that he's on medication for, and that has known issues with memory. He has exemplified this poor memory and general poor communication abilities in previous NEN calls, in his television interview with Hannity, in his many interviews with investigators, etc., etc. He will likely say the same confusing things said in his interviews with the investigators that have lead many, like Unabogie, et al, that he is lying, instead of considering the possibility that it might actually be his memory that's at fault, it might actually be his obviously compromised communicative abilities at fault, or the fact that he might be telling the truth. Someone like him requires some benefit of the doubt, but that has not been given, whatsoever.

In that case, he shouldn't have been given a CCW permit. Let the excuses roll for this vigilante who couldn't control himself and shot and killed an unarmed teen. Really, this isn't helping his case at all.

 

[Mister Earl]

Correction... an investigation was done, charges were not filed... the attorney for the family of the victim then went on a PR campaign (even hiring a PR firm), public outcry ensued, that reached all the way to the president of the United States, a "special" prosecutor was assigned, more evidence was apparently uncovered, or re-imagined, and THEN charges were filed.

Is that how the system works?

No and yes. Unfortunately, this country has a history of favoritism and unequal treatment, especially so across racial lines. I for one believe that there is enough with this sitation that is wrong that warrants a more thorough examination. If Zimmerman is found innocent, so be it. If he is found guilty, so be it. The important part is letting all sides know for sure that due diligence was done. This does not appear to be the case in the first instance.

I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's potential innocence and you won't have any of that.

No, what you quoted above is all completely independant of whether or not Zimmerman is innocent or not.

Sure there is, but it's all circumstantial in nature. There's also circumstantial evidence that TM assaulted GZ, bashed his head against the concrete, etc.

There's circumstantial evidence that injury happened. It's just heresay to suggest Trayvon was the one who initiated the assault, and completely contradictory to the actions of both on everything leading up to that point.

I feel like I've explained myself sufficiently in this regard already. There shouldn't be a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction. The original investigation didn't find such evidence, and it wasn't until a very political process occurred that somehow the evidence status changed, with the imposition of a "special" prosecutor who was actually able to find additional evidence, or interpret the existing evidence in the right way to go straight to 2nd Degree Murder. Was it DD's testimony that pushed it over the edge? If not, what was it? Do you really think that Angela Corey, the State Attorney who chose to charge a 12 year-old as an adult for 1st degree murder, was chosen with the notion that she potentially wouldn't find a reason to convict?

I can only explain in as I see it. And to be fair, I'm looking at this in a moral and ethical light rather than a purely legal one. We have one man who unnecessarily went out of his way to initiate a confrontation with a presumeably innocent bystander. That bystander was then shot to death. The claim of self defense fails in that the trivial wounds Zimmerman had were nowhere near at the level that would make lethal force acceptable. His story has enough plot holes in it to make Bollywood look like Shakespere. He has since engaged in various forms of suspicious behavior, which in my opinion, appear to be the actions of a person looking to dodge the hammer when it falls, rather than an innocent person waiting for reality itself to intervene on his behalf in the courtroom.

You're exaggerating. He has a legitimately diagnosed "mental disorder" that he's on medication for, and that has known issues with memory. He has exemplified this poor memory and general poor communication abilities in previous NEN calls, in his television interview with Hannity, in his many interviews with investigators, etc., etc.

I wish to make the point that those medications would also not prevent him from willfully lying to cover himself when he has every reason to do so.

He will likely say the same confusing things said in his interviews with the investigators that have lead many, like Unabogie, et al, that he is lying, instead of considering the possibility that it might actually be his memory that's at fault, it might actually be his obviously compromised communicative abilities at fault, or the fact that he might be telling the truth. Someone like him requires some benefit of the doubt, but that has not been given, whatsoever.

I give him the benefit of a doubt. I'm completely prepared to be proven wrong. If I am proven wrong, I will consider making a sandwich. That is the depth of my concern as far as how correct I might be. But I'm still very skeptical. And frankly, baffled as to how anyone can consider the lethal force used and think mere head scratches and a whinged nose justifies it.