Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[Coito ergo sum]

What if I said it was self-defence, that you were trying to steal my monocle?

It is supposed to depend on the evidence.

What would happen in the UK if I attacked you and tried to steal your monocle, and you beat me up, but nobody was around to see?

We'd both get arrested and charged with a fracas, perhaps an aggravated contretemp.

As I heard on the radio today, under Florida law, as no-one else witnessed the shooting and the chap claimed self-defence, the police wouldn't investigate. Is this not so?

It's a charter for armed murder if that's the case.

Which ought to make one question whether that is, in fact, the case.

[FBM]

My impression is that they looked at the crime scene (cursory investigation) and found nothing to contradict Zimmerman's claim. I think the least they should've done was to detain him without charges for 24hrs or whatever the legal limit is while the scene was more thoroughly investigated and other evidence, such as the phone recordings, was collected.

I'm sure the police would have done just the same if it was this Zimmerman chap who'd ended up shot.

Maybe they were confused about what to do because neither of them was white.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah, thanks for clarification. Re CESs point, above, no, it is not a crime to defend yourself in the UK. If you shot someone dead, you could probably expect to stand trial but would be acquited if you had been judged to have used appropriate force.

Oddly enough, that is the same thing here in the States. HOWEVER, if the evidence is abundantly clear, like, take an extreme example: a woman is defending herself against an armed assailant in her home, she is on the phone with 911 and asks what she can do if they guy breaks in and comes after her, the 911 operator says she can't tell her what to do but she should do what she has to do. The woman shoots the assailant dead. No trial was necessary. http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-sho ... d=15285605 If the UK system would require that person to stand trial, then I think that is not very nice.

The police are SAYING in this case that the evidence they encountered at the scene indicated that no arrest or trial was necessary. It is not "automatic" that arrests are made anytime violence occurs. The police make probable cause determinations and factual determinations as a threshold matter.

If, however, they breached their duty here and failed to arrest when they should have, well, then they ought to suffer the consequences. There is no reason an arrest can't be made after the day of the incident, however, and that often happens when there are crimes but they have to figure out what happened and who ought to be prosecuted.

We have two competing pressures, though, that are both avenues for miscarriages of justice. One, the cops could be racists, tacit or overt, and simply did not arrest Zimmerman because the victim was black, or Two, they may be pressured by interest groups who were not there and don't know what happened to make an arrest based on political factors, rather than what actually happened.

Often, guilt seems clear based on limited information in the media. Example - the Duke University "rape" case, in which some frat boys were convicted and hanged in the media and everyone "just knew" they did it. The final result was a prosecutor was disbarred for misconduct in continuing to prosecute after clear exculpatory evidence was revealed to the prosecutor and the prosecutor did not turn it over to the defense.

[MrJonno]

Ah, thanks for clarification. Re CESs point, above, no, it is not a crime to defend yourself in the UK. If you shot someone dead, you could probably expect to stand trial but would be acquited if you had been judged to have used appropriate force.

Might not get charged but thats not the same as being arrested. You kill anyone for any reason in the UK and expect to spend some considerable time down the police station justifying your actions. Being arrested just means there is reasonable grounds to suspect you may have committed a crime. If there is a body and you say you put it there then thats going to count as reasonable grounds. You may be innocent until proven guilty in court but for the period 24 hours or so that you under arrest the police can quite happily assume you have commited a crime until you show overwise

[Clinton Huxley]

Ah, thanks for clarification. Re CESs point, above, no, it is not a crime to defend yourself in the UK. If you shot someone dead, you could probably expect to stand trial but would be acquited if you had been judged to have used appropriate force.

Might not get charged but thats not the same as being arrested. You kill anyone for any reason in the UK and expect to spend some considerable time down the police station justifying your actions. Being arrested just means there is reasonable grounds to suspect you may have committed a crime. If there is a body and you say you put it there then thats going to count as reasonable grounds. You may be innocent until proven guilty in court but for the period 24 hours or so that you under arrest the police can quite happily assume you have commited a crime until you show overwise

Aye, then, I think, would be up to the Crown Prosection Service whether to press charges.

[Coito ergo sum]

I suppose, it may not be outside the realm of possibility that the police looked at a particular case and quickly, within the day, decided they ought not prosecute, and thereby caused outrage among a community which did not share the same view of it.

Apparently, there is often no, or little, action taken when police in Britain kill people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wMwGkg0X0I Must mean that British law specifically allows it....

[MrJonno]

Perk of the job being able to kill people illegally and get away with it if you are a policeman in the UK or anywhere for that matter, far better to keep that perk to as few people as possible

[FBM]

No, legally. So far.

[klr]

What if I said it was self-defence, that you were trying to steal my monocle?

It is supposed to depend on the evidence.

What would happen in the UK if I attacked you and tried to steal your monocle, and you beat me up, but nobody was around to see?

We'd both get arrested and charged with a fracas, perhaps an aggravated contretemp.

As I heard on the radio today, under Florida law, as no-one else witnessed the shooting and the chap claimed self-defence, the police wouldn't investigate. Is this not so?

It's a charter for armed murder if that's the case.

Which ought to make one question whether that is, in fact, the case.

Unfortunately, that's what it looks like. While the accused in a court of law is assumed innocent until proven guilty, the threshold for having a case to answer in the first place is quite different. Person A pursues, confronts and shoots dead person B, and the police "investigation" is seemingly limited to a few perfunctory questions to person A about the circumstances.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is supposed to depend on the evidence.

What would happen in the UK if I attacked you and tried to steal your monocle, and you beat me up, but nobody was around to see?

We'd both get arrested and charged with a fracas, perhaps an aggravated contretemp.

As I heard on the radio today, under Florida law, as no-one else witnessed the shooting and the chap claimed self-defence, the police wouldn't investigate. Is this not so?

It's a charter for armed murder if that's the case.

Which ought to make one question whether that is, in fact, the case.

Unfortunately, that's what it looks like.

You think it looks like that under Florida law if nobody witnesses a shooting and the survivor claims self-defense, the police will not investigate - under Florida law? That's what it "looks like?"

While the accused in a court of law is assumed innocent until proven guilty, the threshold for having a case to answer in the first place is quite different. Person A pursues, confronts and shoots dead person B, and the police "investigation" is seemingly limited to a few perfunctory questions to person A about the circumstances.

One, we don't know, yet, if indeed the investigation was limited to a mere few perfunctory questions. So "seemingly" is an apt modifier there.

Two, it may be that the police acted improperly, and failed to do a reasonable investigation. However, nobody is claiming that FLORIDA LAW is that no investigations are to be done if a chap claims self defense and there are no witnesses.

[MrJonno]

Not being a forensic science expert but surely you can examine the wound, the gun, power spray , clothes of the victim and suspect. Give the suspect in depth questioning to see if his contradicts himself. Keeping someone in jail for 24 hours while this happens seems the minimum any sane police force would do ?

[Clinton Huxley]

By shooting someone, you are just taking your freedom of expression to its logical extreme. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution and prior restraint has been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court.

Something along those lines.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not being a forensic science expert but surely you can examine the wound, the gun, power spray , clothes of the victim and suspect.

there has been no indication that said activities were not done. However, certainly, if they did not undertake basic forensic analysis of a murder scene, then that would raise an eyebrow.

Give the suspect in depth questioning to see if his contradicts himself. Keeping someone in jail for 24 hours while this happens seems the minimum any sane police force would do ?

I'm not even sure you're correct on British law on this point.

But, I wouldn't think throwing a person in jail for 24 hours is necessarily the minimum any "sane" police force would do. I don't see as how a day of a person's life, spent imprisoned (and even a nice jail sucks ass) is something to be so trifled with.

[Coito ergo sum]

By shooting someone, you are just taking your freedom of expression to its logical extreme. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution and prior restraint has been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court.

Something along those lines.

The logical extreme of "freedom of expression" is shooting someone?

Gotta gits me sum o' dat Yerpeein logic!

[Clinton Huxley]

By shooting someone, you are just taking your freedom of expression to its logical extreme. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution and prior restraint has been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court.

Something along those lines.

The logical extreme of "freedom of expression" is shooting someone?

Gotta gits me sum o' dat Yerpeein logic!

The only way to respect some people is to shoot them, as Phar-Q said....