Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[maiforpeace]

...It's perfectly obvious, if the races were reversed, this guy would be in custody, and there is NO WAY his claim of self defence would not be tested in court.

This may or may not be true. Your evidence to support this claim is?

There's tons of reports and stats that support Mistermack's claims. Sad to say, racial profiling is still alive and kicking in the US. Since this thread's topic is US centric, it's a legitimate claim, but it should also be noted that the same thing happens in the UK. (we have Lozzer as proof )

[FBM]

...It's perfectly obvious, if the races were reversed, this guy would be in custody, and there is NO WAY his claim of self defence would not be tested in court.

This may or may not be true. Your evidence to support this claim is?

There's tons of reports and stats that support Mistermack's claims. Sad to say, racial profiling is still alive and kicking in the US. Since this thread's topic is US centric, it's a legitimate claim, but it should also be noted that the same thing happens in the UK.

How do these reports and stats shed light on what actually happened on that particular night between those two particular people?

[maiforpeace]

...It's perfectly obvious, if the races were reversed, this guy would be in custody, and there is NO WAY his claim of self defence would not be tested in court.

This may or may not be true. Your evidence to support this claim is?

There's tons of reports and stats that support Mistermack's claims. Sad to say, racial profiling is still alive and kicking in the US. Since this thread's topic is US centric, it's a legitimate claim, but it should also be noted that the same thing happens in the UK.

How do these reports and stats shed light on what actually happened on that particular night between those two particular people?

Nothing.

As you have already said, we'll have to see what they come up with in court. I guess the big question now is, will Zimmerman be tried fairly?

[mistermack]

Inference from anecdotal evidence is inherently faulty (Pyrrho, Hume, et al). I have no bias driving me to desire to either prove or disprove any claims. My only aim is to point out sloppy reasoning and the foolishness of clinging to opinions based on emotionally or politically (not that there's a difference) charged biases. I'm not saying you're right; I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that you don't really know, just as I don't really know. When someone who doesn't really know makes claims to knowledge, s/he can be said to be talking out of his/her ass, no?

Well, the reasoning that I find sloppy is that this guy's story of being in fear of his life should be accepted, unless there is evidence at the scene to contradict it.
That story should have been vigorously tested by the police, and in court. It might be true. It might be lies. People often lie after killing an unarmed kid. Strange but true !!!

Of course people claiming that they know something they don't is sloppy reasoning. But it's just an outraged response to phenomenally sloppy reasoning by the police. And they are the ones with the power and responsibility.

[FBM]

Inference from anecdotal evidence is inherently faulty (Pyrrho, Hume, et al). I have no bias driving me to desire to either prove or disprove any claims. My only aim is to point out sloppy reasoning and the foolishness of clinging to opinions based on emotionally or politically (not that there's a difference) charged biases. I'm not saying you're right; I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that you don't really know, just as I don't really know. When someone who doesn't really know makes claims to knowledge, s/he can be said to be talking out of his/her ass, no?

Well, the reasoning that I find sloppy is that this guy's story of being in fear of his life should be accepted, unless there is evidence at the scene to contradict it.

So he should be assumed guilty until proven innocent based on statistical and anecdotal (non)evidence collected from other places at other times...

That story should have been vigorously tested by the police, and in court. It might be true. It might be lies. People often lie after killing an unarmed kid. Strange but true !!!

Of course people claiming that they know something they don't is sloppy reasoning. But it's just an outraged response to phenomenally sloppy reasoning by the police. And they are the ones with the power and responsibility.

It's sloppy reasoning and evidence of ignorance. If you're outraged at something that you don't know is either true or false, you're just looking for any venue to grind your axe, wave your flag, toot your own horn. (Generic "you" here) You're just another Al Sharpton or Kim Jong Il, trying to stir up shit whether there was actually anything to stir it up about or not.

[Warren Dew]

If it was a black man, and a white kid, he would have been arrested on the spot. Especially in a poorer area. Even IF there was no evidence at the scene to contradict his account.

If the white "kid" were a six foot three football player and had "white pride worldwide" on his Facebook page, and the black man was known to the police as someone who was (over)zealous about helping the police keep the neighborhood free of suspicious persons, who was bleeding from the face when he made a claim to self defense, I think there would be a good chance that the black man would not be arrested. There might be an investigation, but the fact is, the police department in question says they are doing an investigation now, which they may well be doing.

Anyway, where are you getting these details, Ty? They're not in any of the accounts I've read.

That Zimmerman was bleeding from the face when the police got there was in the newspaper article I linked to earlier in the thread. That Martin was a 6'3" football player is reported here:

http://www.vpr.net/npr/149206896/

I'm still looking for a source on the stitches to the back of Zimmerman's head, but so far Tyrannical hasn't been wrong on the factual details, despite sometimes outrageous generalizations.

[mistermack]

So he should be assumed guilty until proven innocent based on statistical and anecdotal (non)evidence collected from other places at other times...

If someone is charged, that doesn't mean that they are assumed guilty. They are presumed innocent by the jury, unless the prosecution proves it's case beyond reasonable doubt.

If the police don't charge the guy, don't even test his story vigorously, they are effectively prejudging the case, and finding him innocent. Not their job.

The whole crux is that this guy has a case to answer.
In court.

[mistermack]

Warren, you're missing the point by a mile.

There are tens of thousands of fights every night in the US. Getting the worst of it doesn't entitle you to pull out a gun and kill the person you're fighting. Especially if you initiated the fight.

And that's if his story is true.

And I would say that most US kids play football. Calling him a 6 ft 3 football player is ludicrous.
It's just like calling him a 140 pound 17 year old kid, which he also was.

How tall was his killer? I thought he was 6ft 3 as well, but I'm not sure where I read that.

[FBM]

So he should be assumed guilty until proven innocent based on statistical and anecdotal (non)evidence collected from other places at other times...

If someone is charged, that doesn't mean that they are assumed guilty. They are presumed innocent by the jury, unless the prosecution proves it's case beyond reasonable doubt.

If the police don't charge the guy, don't even test his story vigorously, they are effectively prejudging the case, and finding him innocent. Not their job.

The whole crux is that this guy has a case to answer.
In court.

They were not effectively prejudging the entire case; they were only acting on an evaluation of the evidence present at the scene at the time as per the legal protocol that instructs their behavior in all such cases. Had they done otherwise, Zimmerman would have a case to sue them, instead.

I would like to see the law revised such that anyone killing anyone would at least be detained without charges until a reasonably thorough investigation of the scene were conducted. However, until this revision takes place, the police should obey their legally mandated protocols. Neither you nor I nor anyone else not at the scene knows what they saw and experienced. Until dispassionate experts have evaluated the evidence, I don't see a place for keyboard quarterbacks in judging Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

[mistermack]

They were not effectively prejudging the entire case; they were only acting on an evaluation of the evidence present at the scene at the time as per the legal protocol that instructs their behavior in all such cases. Had they done otherwise, Zimmerman would have a case to sue them, instead.

I would like to see the law revised such that anyone killing anyone would at least be detained without charges until a reasonably thorough investigation of the scene were conducted. However, until this revision takes place, the police should obey their legally mandated protocols. Neither you nor I nor anyone else not at the scene knows what they saw and experienced. Until dispassionate experts have evaluated the evidence, I don't see a place for keyboard quarterbacks in judging Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

Sue them for what? Unlawful arrest?
I would like to see that in court. Armed man kills unarmed kid. Unlawful arrest? What planet ........ ?

I would just like to see equality, at the least. Reverse the races, and he would be in jail awaiting trial. Quite rightly.

[Coito ergo sum]

He should be held until a proper investigation is conducted, and everybody else,

I don't know why that would be the case. Suspects or "persons of interest" are not held while it is determined if there is cause to arrest them. You are either arrested, or you're not arrested. Investigations can continue without him being in custody.

They could always arrest him, and start the process. Let him out on bail, and then he'll hire a defense attorney and the police can investigate up until trial. If they think there is probable cause, then they ought to do that. If not, then they shouldn't.

I think there is paralysis on the part of the town involved and the police department involved in responding to this. Someone should explain why the officers took the action they did at the time, and if it is because "we showed up on the scene - Zimmerman was there and had not tried to flee. He cooperated in our review of the situation, answered questions freely, and turned over his gun to us. He explained that he was attacked and a fight ensued. We examined Zimmerman and he had grass stains on his clothing, including back, and had cuts on his head, and was apparently beaten in the face and bleeding. We packed up the gun for evidence. Mr. Martin was sent to the coroner's office for an autopsy, and analysis will be done of the wound to determine if it is consistent with Zimmerman's story. A witness at the scene corroborated Zimmerman's story. Based on this on-scene initial investigation, we chose not to arrest Mr. Zimmerman at that time, but the investigation continues."

For some reason, as soon as fucksticks like Al Sharptan (no stranger to advancing false positions - example - Tawanna Brawley) start hollering their fat heads off, everyone runs and hides.

On the other hand, maybe the police are racist assholes there in that town, and they really did side with the Latino perpetrator over the black victim. If they really should have arrested the guy immediately, then I am certainly willing to stand by a fair determination to that effect. What I am not willing to do is simply accept without question the complaints of Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and every other "Reverend" screaming for blood over this.

[maiforpeace]

It's not just Al Sharpton anymore though...it's the entire black community. Whatever happened, this is A BIG FUCKING DEAL now.

Any trivialization of either side is a big mistake at this point in my view.

[FBM]

They were not effectively prejudging the entire case; they were only acting on an evaluation of the evidence present at the scene at the time as per the legal protocol that instructs their behavior in all such cases. Had they done otherwise, Zimmerman would have a case to sue them, instead.

I would like to see the law revised such that anyone killing anyone would at least be detained without charges until a reasonably thorough investigation of the scene were conducted. However, until this revision takes place, the police should obey their legally mandated protocols. Neither you nor I nor anyone else not at the scene knows what they saw and experienced. Until dispassionate experts have evaluated the evidence, I don't see a place for keyboard quarterbacks in judging Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

Sue them for what? Unlawful arrest?
I would like to see that in court. Armed man kills unarmed kid. Unlawful arrest? What planet ........ ?

I would just like to see equality, at the least. Reverse the races, and he would be in jail awaiting trial. Quite rightly.

When a police officer breaches protocol, the police force is potentially legally liable. If the law says that a person is such a situation cannot be arrested, and the police arrest him anyway, that's unlawful arrest. What's difficult about that?

[FBM]

He should be held until a proper investigation is conducted, and everybody else,

I don't know why that would be the case...

Because somebody died and it's worth one person's brief inconvenience to make sure it wasn't a crime.

[maiforpeace]

He should be held until a proper investigation is conducted, and everybody else,

I don't know why that would be the case...

Because somebody died and it's worth one person's brief inconvenience to make sure it wasn't a crime.

And maybe he'll be safer there?