Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Yenrub
- Start date
and 
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
And you obviously don't know how lenient a standard probable cause is. Nobody on this board is an expert in defending murder prosecutions in Florida. With that said, some of us know a bit about criminal defense. And I feel pretty confident in saying that there is absolutely no question that they had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman on April 11.
kentric
Footballguy
Its nice to see we're off the "did the jury laugh or did they not" garbage which went on for 1 1/2 pages. Watched the prosecutions presentation yesterday. Tried to work on the emotions of the jury. Good work by West so far on the cross-examination of the Neighborhood Watch witness. Interesting to do about the letter of recommendation. Lunch over. Trials beginning again. Good stuff so far.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
And yet they didn't because......? hmm?
I believe there were a few similar instanced posted earlier in this thread, including one were a black guy shot/killed a non-black guy and was not arrested either..
You do understand that if they charge someone without having significant evidence the case can be thrown out of court right? Before it even starts.. The prosecution breaking rules leads to lost cases..
Last edited by a moderator:
Spanky267
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
The reason you're looking for is called "prosecutorial discretion." Prosecutors often don't bring charges in cases where they aren't sure they will get a conviction. Or, arguably, because it's a close call and there will be political backlash.
It is true that a case can be dismissed on a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause. But those motions succeed EXTREMELY rarely. In the self defense context, you'd probably need uncontroverted eyewitness testimony. If you disagree, I'm open to being shown a case. It should be pretty easy to find. Just look for "dismiss" /50 "self-defense" /50 "probable cause."
Last edited by a moderator:
kentric
Footballguy
Nice buildup to the experience/credibility of the Sargeant.
Not sure what the Prosecution's motive is on the Sargeant giving mouth to mouth without a mouth protector. He emphasized this yesterday in opening statements as well. Not sure if its to make the Sargeant look more compasionate or to point to the magnitude/desperateness of the event.
Not sure what the Prosecution's motive is on the Sargeant giving mouth to mouth without a mouth protector. He emphasized this yesterday in opening statements as well. Not sure if its to make the Sargeant look more compasionate or to point to the magnitude/desperateness of the event.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
So long as we have unbiased opinions such as you have graced this thread to keep us bad guys in check the world will be a better place.
The Commish
Footballguy
And to you, a dead kid doesn't qualify as "reasonable suspicion"? I can go on about countless cases where people are "brought in for questioning" where they are effectively in jail for 24 hours at a time. Is the person given stripes and thrown in a cell? No. That's yet another dubious distinction I'm not sure matters to the points being made.
The Commish
Footballguy
It's interesting in what we as individuals see. The defense is doing a decent job of getting phrases out (like "follow from a distance"), but the prosecution is also doing a good job at letting the jury hear that recommendations / policies (whether set forth by the HOA or by the police) were not followed as they should be. I'm wondering what will be more important to the jury. Defense needs to be careful. If they continue to drive the point home that Zimmerman was cool/calm/collected, the prosecution could give them a left jab with "fully aware of the situation and chose to continue pursuit instead of letting the police do their job". As they told the story about the stucco guys catching the thief, one can't help but think, if Zimmerman would have handled it the same way, this would have been avoided.
The more I hear, with all the uncertain / possible scenarios, I am seeing a hung jury.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
If the dead kid was killed in self defense, and there was a corroborating witness, who saw it close up, right in front of his door when he came out to see what was going on.. There was not enough evidence to say he wasn't defending himself.. You have to have a strong case in order to restrict someones civil liberties...
When you're brought in for questioning, you aren't dressed out and placed in a cell, or handcuffed, etc..You aren't arrested..And generally it's voluntary..There is a limit on how long they can detain you without charging and arresting you as well..
But the main point being, the police can not arrest you in order to get information, you have to be charged with a crime in order to be arrested..
And Zimmerman was brought to the police station for questioning that night.. Directly from the scene of the incident..
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Strawman in bold..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
They did detain and question him.. No one here said that shouldn't have been done.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely.. You trying to switch bait on me here? I'll bit on anything, I'm just curious..
Last edited by a moderator:
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Because without any proof of what happened exactly I'm supposed to say Zimmerman was acting in self defense, rather than If he was.. ?
How else are we supposed to discuss the points that we don't have evidence to support in not with "If"s and "I think"s...? Outside of the facts and evidence of the case it's all speculation.. At least my speculations aren't contradictory to the facts and evidence of the case..
Why don't you tell us how you think it went down.. And if your speculation contradicts evidence, maybe explain that a little for us.. Like 'John' seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.. Start from the beginning, spell it out for us..
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I can assure you that it's perfectly OK to arrest someone and charge them without enough evidence to convict. Any case on probable cause will tell you that.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
Andrew Branca, LOSD @LawSelfDefense #Zimmerman Trial: What an absolutely brutal morning for the State. Crushing. http://bit.ly/14V1xtO
12:06 PM - 25 Jun 2013
12:06 PM - 25 Jun 2013
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Maybe you can explain why you edited out a sentence in that paragraph? I've added it back in, in red for you so the context of my comment would be correct..I can assure you that it's perfectly OK to arrest someone and charge them without enough evidence to convict. Any case on probable cause will tell you that.Strawman in bold..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
They did detain and question him.. No one here said that shouldn't have been done.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely..
And no, it's not ok.. Without evidence to convict, the case is thrown out... Was of time, money, and an infringement on that persons civil liberties..
In a probable cause case, there would be some evidence that suggests to the arresting officer that the law was broken, and that there would be more evidence they can extract from you. Probable cause doesn't give them the right to arrest you and charge you, it gives them the right to detain you, investigate, question, search...
Last edited by a moderator:
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
Just got back from launch, I guess I missed this...
The alleged vigilante wannabecop was offered the chance to be a quasi-police officer, complete w/ uniform and marked car w/ a flashy light, and he turned it down??!!
The alleged vigilante wannabecop was offered the chance to be a quasi-police officer, complete w/ uniform and marked car w/ a flashy light, and he turned it down??!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
No, there just has to be PC for an arrest. A person doesn't have to be charged upon arrest - but then can generally only be held for up to 24 hours and should be charged shortly thereafter.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I ignored it because we're not talking about the standard to detain and question. We're talking about the standard to arrest. Which is probable cause. Which is defined as evidence of such nature to give a reasonable man a suspicion that a crime has occurred. And the case law has specifically stated that such a standard does not mean that the State must establish a prima facie case (or in other words a rebuttable presumption that all elements of the crime have been committed). You are suggesting that the State must establish such a prima facie case. That is flat out wrong. It's not a question of opinion. It's a question of clearly established constitutional law.Maybe you can explain why you edited out a sentence in that paragraph?I can assure you that it's perfectly OK to arrest someone and charge them without enough evidence to convict. Any case on probable cause will tell you that.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
And no, it's not ok.. Without evidence to convict, the case is thrown out... Was of time, money, and an infringement on that persons civil liberties..
In a probable cause case, there would be some evidence that suggests to the arresting officer that the law was broken, and that there would be more evidence they can extract from you. Probable cause doesn't give them the right to arrest you and charge you, it gives them the right to detain you, investigate, question, search...
There is no summary judgment in a criminal trial. The remedy for insufficient evidence in a prosecution is acquital, either through jury verdict or through a Rule 29 motion made after the close of the state's evidence, the close of the case, or the verdict.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Yep. Does any other network have it?
I am more concerned not that there was enough evidence to arrest and question him, but whether the evidence in this case would have been enough for a prosecutor to take this to trial in absence of all the political pressure. Did this go to trial based on the merits of the case or was it a cave in to the intense media coverage and protests.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
My fry Zimmerman agenda? Like pointing out that there is not a single report that one juror laughed at that lame joke yesterday? You can't even accept what all media observers said about the jury's reaction - talk about an agenda.
My position has been and is that I am extremely skeptical of Zimmerman's story and think he should have gone to trial but I wasn't there, so I don't know if he is guilty or not - so contrary to what you think, that doesn't make me one of the anti-Zimmerman folk (apparently if one criticizes your opinion that makes them a Zimmerman hater). I do know, however, that if Martin was white and Zimmerman black, this thread would probably not exist and if it did, most people currently on the side of the defense would be arguing for a conviction.
squistion
Footballguy
My fry Zimmerman agenda? Like pointing out that there is not a single report that one juror laughed at that lame joke yesterday? You can't even accept what all media observers said about the jury's reaction - talk about an agenda.
My position has been and is that I am extremely skeptical of Zimmerman's story and think he should have gone to trial but I wasn't there, so I don't know if he is guilty or not - so contrary to what you think, that doesn't make me one of the anti-Zimmerman folk (apparently if one disagrees with your opinion that makes them a Zimmerman hater).
Last edited by a moderator:
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Thank you!!I ignored it because we're not talking about the standard to detain and question. We're talking about the standard to arrest. Which is probable cause. Which is defined as evidence of such nature to give a reasonable man a suspicion that a crime has occurred. And the case law has specifically stated that such a standard does not mean that the State must establish a prima facie case (or in other words a rebuttable presumption that all elements of the crime have been committed). You are suggesting that the State must establish such a prima facie case. That is flat out wrong. It's not a question of opinion. It's a question of clearly established constitutional law.Maybe you can explain why you edited out a sentence in that paragraph?I can assure you that it's perfectly OK to arrest someone and charge them without enough evidence to convict. Any case on probable cause will tell you that.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
And no, it's not ok.. Without evidence to convict, the case is thrown out... Was of time, money, and an infringement on that persons civil liberties..
In a probable cause case, there would be some evidence that suggests to the arresting officer that the law was broken, and that there would be more evidence they can extract from you. Probable cause doesn't give them the right to arrest you and charge you, it gives them the right to detain you, investigate, question, search...
There is no summary judgment in a criminal trial. The remedy for insufficient evidence in a prosecution is acquital, either through jury verdict or through a Rule 29 motion made after the close of the state's evidence, the close of the case, or the verdict.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
You are conflating two different things (which is understandable because this isn't really intuitive).
If there is probable cause to indict, then there is enough evidence to go to trial.
Even if there is enough evidence to go to trial, there may be a problem with selective prosecution if the State did not pursue prosecutions against similarly situated defendants for an improper reason (most commonly race or gender, but it could conceivably be media coverage).
It is very, very hard to even get a pre-trial hearing on selective prosecution, much less win a motion to dismiss on that basis. Because of the racial overtones of the case, Zimmerman might have a better shot than many others, but I imagine he'd have a hard time truly finding other similarly situated defendants (i.e. defendants claiming self defense with no eyewitnesses).
Godsbrother
Footballguy
No way I would want my neighborhood watch reps walking around with a loaded gun. They aren't cops, they there to keep a look out and call the police if they see suspicious behavior. Let the cops do their job...
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
No. Pointing out 3 posters for bias that are not pro-Martin and ignoring any bias by all of the Pro-Martin posters in this thread makes you a member of the kill-da-zimmy crowd.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
"If someone disagrees with your opinion" ? lol You were seeking/naming me, not the other way around.. You had a problem with my opinion.. Or at least what you thought was my opinion. (It's obvious you still don't know what my opinion is)
squistion
Footballguy
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Probable cause in this case is what got Zimmerman detained... So obviously it is relevant.. We're talking about the Zimmerman case.. And after detaining him the police knew they did not yet have enough evidence to convict, so he was released... There was obvious intent by you here, deleting 1 sentence from a double quote post..I ignored it because we're not talking about the standard to detain and question. We're talking about the standard to arrest. Which is probable cause. Which is defined as evidence of such nature to give a reasonable man a suspicion that a crime has occurred. And the case law has specifically stated that such a standard does not mean that the State must establish a prima facie case (or in other words a rebuttable presumption that all elements of the crime have been committed). You are suggesting that the State must establish such a prima facie case. That is flat out wrong. It's not a question of opinion. It's a question of clearly established constitutional law.Maybe you can explain why you edited out a sentence in that paragraph?I can assure you that it's perfectly OK to arrest someone and charge them without enough evidence to convict. Any case on probable cause will tell you that.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
And no, it's not ok.. Without evidence to convict, the case is thrown out... Was of time, money, and an infringement on that persons civil liberties..
In a probable cause case, there would be some evidence that suggests to the arresting officer that the law was broken, and that there would be more evidence they can extract from you. Probable cause doesn't give them the right to arrest you and charge you, it gives them the right to detain you, investigate, question, search...
There is no summary judgment in a criminal trial. The remedy for insufficient evidence in a prosecution is acquital, either through jury verdict or through a Rule 29 motion made after the close of the state's evidence, the close of the case, or the verdict.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Here's a real mind ####. I am skeptical of Zimmerman's defense, but not without sympathy for Zimmerman. Without having read enough on how Florida's expansive self-defense law is applied, I think Zimmerman would have a hard time meeting a common law self-defense defense. But lots of somewhat sympathetic defendants would.
The Commish
Footballguy
My theory is largely irrelevant so I haven't spent hardly any time coming up with what I think happened. I don't know if the dude is innocent or guilty and don't pretend to. As I listen, I weigh the information presented and think about all the things that could have happened and what was most likely to happen of those various things. So, right now I am at the point where I believe Zimmerman saw a kid he didn't know. He made a snap judgment about this kid and called the cops. He talked to the cops and ignored their suggestion. Had he stopped when he was told following wasn't necessary, he would have been sitting in his truck, waiting for the cops to come. He was doing "something" outside of his truck. That's all I've got right now.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
Any lawyers know if Z will be tried for Manslaughter through this proceeding, does FL have automatic inclusion of lesser charges?
State hasn't even sniffed at proving the depraved mind standard of Murder 2.
State hasn't even sniffed at proving the depraved mind standard of Murder 2.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
You ignore some things in this speculation.. The operator didn't suggest he didn't need to follow until he was well outside of his truck and on down the road.. So he wouldn't have been in his truck still if he followed the suggestion. Also, how do you know he didn't follow the suggestion and stop following? The timeline and location the altercation took place, suggests Trayvon either never left the area.. Or doubled back to confront Zimmerman.. How do you account for this?
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
Comcast has some cheesy news panel/info type panel talking about current events, that they broadcast over HLN's broadcast for about 15 minutes per hour; mind-numbing.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
People are indicted after being released subsequent to detention and questioning all the time. Usually because the prosecutor is going to present evidence to the grand jury. Believe me when I say that the only relevance that the probable cause to detain Zimmerman has on this case is whether evidence obtained by questioning subject to that detention may be admitted at trial. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. We can look this stuff up.Probable cause in this case is what got Zimmerman detained... So obviously it is relevant.. We're talking about the Zimmerman case.. And after detaining him the police knew they did not yet have enough evidence to convict, so he was released... There was obvious intent by you here, deleting 1 sentence from a double quote post..I ignored it because we're not talking about the standard to detain and question. We're talking about the standard to arrest. Which is probable cause. Which is defined as evidence of such nature to give a reasonable man a suspicion that a crime has occurred. And the case law has specifically stated that such a standard does not mean that the State must establish a prima facie case (or in other words a rebuttable presumption that all elements of the crime have been committed). You are suggesting that the State must establish such a prima facie case. That is flat out wrong. It's not a question of opinion. It's a question of clearly established constitutional law.Maybe you can explain why you edited out a sentence in that paragraph?I can assure you that it's perfectly OK to arrest someone and charge them without enough evidence to convict. Any case on probable cause will tell you that.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
And no, it's not ok.. Without evidence to convict, the case is thrown out... Was of time, money, and an infringement on that persons civil liberties..
In a probable cause case, there would be some evidence that suggests to the arresting officer that the law was broken, and that there would be more evidence they can extract from you. Probable cause doesn't give them the right to arrest you and charge you, it gives them the right to detain you, investigate, question, search...
There is no summary judgment in a criminal trial. The remedy for insufficient evidence in a prosecution is acquital, either through jury verdict or through a Rule 29 motion made after the close of the state's evidence, the close of the case, or the verdict.
My intention is not to make you look bad. Or to get Zimmerman convicted. My intention is very simple. When someone talking out of their ### misstates a proposition of law, and I am aware of that fact, I tend to correct them. Because one cool thing about the law is thatwe have lots of established answers. We can look at cases. Such as Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 ("[W]e do not retreat from the established propositions that only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause.").
From the case law, it appears that the defense must establish some evidence that there is a viable self-defense claim. At that point, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.
The Commish
Footballguy
It's the live broadcast of the court room with an annoying "anchor" taking them in and out of break
Occasionally they will have a person come on and explain what the prosecution or defense is trying to accomplish in specific series of questions....spin indeed. Unless you're talking about the night time shows, which I'm guessing disagree with you based on your comment.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Then why go through the trouble of deleting a sentence at all if it didn't matter.. You were taking what I said out of context..People are indicted after being released subsequent to detention and questioning all the time. Usually because the prosecutor is going to present evidence to the grand jury. Believe me when I say that the only relevance that the probable cause to detain Zimmerman has on this case is whether evidence obtained by questioning subject to that detention may be admitted at trial. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. We can look this stuff up.Probable cause in this case is what got Zimmerman detained... So obviously it is relevant.. We're talking about the Zimmerman case.. And after detaining him the police knew they did not yet have enough evidence to convict, so he was released... There was obvious intent by you here, deleting 1 sentence from a double quote post..I ignored it because we're not talking about the standard to detain and question. We're talking about the standard to arrest. Which is probable cause. Which is defined as evidence of such nature to give a reasonable man a suspicion that a crime has occurred. And the case law has specifically stated that such a standard does not mean that the State must establish a prima facie case (or in other words a rebuttable presumption that all elements of the crime have been committed). You are suggesting that the State must establish such a prima facie case. That is flat out wrong. It's not a question of opinion. It's a question of clearly established constitutional law.Maybe you can explain why you edited out a sentence in that paragraph?I can assure you that it's perfectly OK to arrest someone and charge them without enough evidence to convict. Any case on probable cause will tell you that.. Alternatively, you were suggesting that it's ok to arrest someone and charge them with a crime without enough evidence to convict.. Which is something else entirely..You like qualifying with lots of "ifs" and "buts" don't you? That day, police were called to a scene where a kid was dead and his killer was beaten up. I think there is plenty of probable cause for the guy to be detained and questioned for more information. If you disagree, so be it
And no, it's not ok.. Without evidence to convict, the case is thrown out... Was of time, money, and an infringement on that persons civil liberties..
In a probable cause case, there would be some evidence that suggests to the arresting officer that the law was broken, and that there would be more evidence they can extract from you. Probable cause doesn't give them the right to arrest you and charge you, it gives them the right to detain you, investigate, question, search...
There is no summary judgment in a criminal trial. The remedy for insufficient evidence in a prosecution is acquital, either through jury verdict or through a Rule 29 motion made after the close of the state's evidence, the close of the case, or the verdict.
My intention is not to make you look bad. Or to get Zimmerman convicted. My intention is very simple. When someone talking out of their ### misstates a proposition of law, and I am aware of that fact, I tend to correct them. Because one cool thing about the law is thatwe have lots of established answers. We can look at cases. Such as Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 ("[W]e do not retreat from the established propositions that only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause.").
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
I don't think anyone is advocating arming neighborhood watch patrols but if I am going to ask someone to watch my house sitting out in a car in a bad neighborhood, I do not know if I refuse them a gun.
