Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[maiforpeace]

It's just a matter of time before people of color outnumber whites. They already do in San Jose, for example. It would be interesting to see how that has translated into our system of justice.

By San Jose standards, Zimmerman was a "person of color." Racist cops tend not to be fans of Latinos.

Sorry, I just saw this, but I was wondering about that...how come reports have called him white? And where did he get a last name like Zimmerman?

Jorge Zimmerman?

[mistermack]

And the evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race is...?

There are a couple of his recorded comments that support that view.
Firstly, he makes a point of the kid being black to the police operator. Later he says "these asseholes always get away", again it's on the tape.

More pointing to a pre-judging bias than an outright racist motive. But it's there nonetheless.

[FBM]

Late here, so I'll have to respond to some of the points above briefly:

@ Mai: I doubt Zimmerman asked the kid's age right off the bat. In the dark, with someone wearing a hoodie, I doubt the age difference would've been immediately obvious.

@ CES: I would support holding the guy until a reasonable amount of evidence had been collected and analyzed. It's contextual. If it's somebody suspected of stealing a candy bar, just a few minutes. If it's somebody suspected of assassinating the president, probably a bit longer.

[mistermack]

Sorry, I just saw this, but I was wondering about that...how come reports have called him white? And where did he get a last name like Zimmerman?

Jorge Zimmerman?

Perhaps his daddy was a Dylan fan.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, the police chief of Sanford has stepped down. Who takes over now? The city council?

The interim appointed police chief. Someone is filling in for the guy. But the ball is actually with the State Attorney's office.

Now, of course, the shit is totally hitting the fan and I heard the matter is being referred to the Seminole County Grand Jury, and Rick Scott is appointing a special task force to investigate the matter. Everybody's ass is now in the process of being covered.

But, the fact remains - a few days ago, only the cops on the scene knew the facts, and they chose not to arrest Zimmerman at that time. Now, they know, their supervisor's know, the chief of police knows, the interim chief of police knows, the city council knows, the Mayor knows, the State Attorney's Office knows, and the Governor knows. They all have access to the reports of what the cops based their decision on. An arrest warrant can be sworn and signed by a judge in an hour.

Zimmerman remains free. He hasn't gone anywhere. Some officer just needs to drive over there and arrest him.

[Coito ergo sum]

@ CES: I would support holding the guy until a reasonable amount of evidence had been collected and analyzed. It's contextual. If it's somebody suspected of stealing a candy bar, just a few minutes. If it's somebody suspected of assassinating the president, probably a bit longer.

I would never want us to become a country where the cops just arrest people and throw them in jail while investigations continue to determine whether there was actually probable cause to arrest them in the first place.

[maiforpeace]

Well, the police chief of Sanford has stepped down. Who takes over now? The city council?

The interim appointed police chief. Someone is filling in for the guy. But the ball is actually with the State Attorney's office.

Now, of course, the shit is totally hitting the fan and I heard the matter is being referred to the Seminole County Grand Jury, and Rick Scott is appointing a special task force to investigate the matter. Everybody's ass is now in the process of being covered.

But, the fact remains - a few days ago, only the cops on the scene knew the facts, and they chose not to arrest Zimmerman at that time. Now, they know, their supervisor's know, the chief of police knows, the interim chief of police knows, the city council knows, the Mayor knows, the State Attorney's Office knows, and the Governor knows. They all have access to the reports of what the cops based their decision on. An arrest warrant can be sworn and signed by a judge in an hour.

Zimmerman remains free. He hasn't gone anywhere. Some officer just needs to drive over there and arrest him.

At this point for his safety. And for everyone's safety...sad to say, there is lynch mob out there. Stuff like this starts riots.

[FBM]

And the evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race is...?

There are a couple of his recorded comments that support that view.
Firstly, he makes a point of the kid being black to the police operator. Later he says "these asseholes always get away", again it's on the tape.

More pointing to a pre-judging bias than an outright racist motive. But it's there nonetheless.

And you consider this to be conclusive of his racial motivation? In one sentence he refers to the suspect as being black. In another he says "these assholes". In the second, does he intend to refer to blacks specifically or to theives in general? Most thieves do get away, also.

My point is that it's always best to say, "I don't really know, therefore I suspend judgement" rather than, "I don't really know, but I say he's guilty, anyway".

[FBM]

@ CES: I would support holding the guy until a reasonable amount of evidence had been collected and analyzed. It's contextual. If it's somebody suspected of stealing a candy bar, just a few minutes. If it's somebody suspected of assassinating the president, probably a bit longer.

I would never want us to become a country where the cops just arrest people and throw them in jail while investigations continue to determine whether there was actually probable cause to arrest them in the first place.

Non sequitur/strawman argument. Brief detention without arrest is what I described, and only in cases that involve a person's death.

[MrJonno]

Except what does probably cause mean?, 51% chance you did it, 99% , 1%.
I'm more than happy for someone to be arrested for say murder on a 10% chance they commited it on the basis of how serious the crime is. What % of homicides are considered to be justified in the US or anywhere else. I doubt it its more than a few % so on the balance of probabilities if you created a corpse you did it illegally. Thats all the probable cause you need

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, the police chief of Sanford has stepped down. Who takes over now? The city council?

The interim appointed police chief. Someone is filling in for the guy. But the ball is actually with the State Attorney's office.

Now, of course, the shit is totally hitting the fan and I heard the matter is being referred to the Seminole County Grand Jury, and Rick Scott is appointing a special task force to investigate the matter. Everybody's ass is now in the process of being covered.

But, the fact remains - a few days ago, only the cops on the scene knew the facts, and they chose not to arrest Zimmerman at that time. Now, they know, their supervisor's know, the chief of police knows, the interim chief of police knows, the city council knows, the Mayor knows, the State Attorney's Office knows, and the Governor knows. They all have access to the reports of what the cops based their decision on. An arrest warrant can be sworn and signed by a judge in an hour.

Zimmerman remains free. He hasn't gone anywhere. Some officer just needs to drive over there and arrest him.

At this point for his safety. And for everyone's safety...sad to say, there is lynch mob out there. Stuff like this starts riots.

That is never a reason to arrest someone. "Up against the wall! You're under arrest!"

"Officer, on what charge?"

"No charge. It's your own safety, and we haven't figured out if we have enough evidence to arrest you yet. So we have to arrest you until we know if we can arrest you."

"Officer, I am not afraid for my safety. I don't need your protection."

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...."

"Am I under arrest?"

"...you have the right to an attorney....if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you..."

"Am I under arrest?"

"No. You're being detained for your own safety."

"Well, am I free to leave?"

"No."

"Then I'm under arrest?"

"No. We need to put you in jail until we know if we have probable cause to arrest you. Then you'll be under arrest."

"It feels like I'm under arrest."

"Shut up."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And, you don't arrest people to protect them from people committing crimes against them. That would be ridiculous.

[maiforpeace]

Well then, I'm sure the state of Florida, or the FBI will be glad to pay for his security. I wonder how HE'S feeling right about now...pretty scared I would guess.

[Coito ergo sum]

@ CES: I would support holding the guy until a reasonable amount of evidence had been collected and analyzed. It's contextual. If it's somebody suspected of stealing a candy bar, just a few minutes. If it's somebody suspected of assassinating the president, probably a bit longer.

I would never want us to become a country where the cops just arrest people and throw them in jail while investigations continue to determine whether there was actually probable cause to arrest them in the first place.

Non sequitur/strawman argument. Brief detention without arrest is what I described, and only in cases that involve a person's death.

It's not a strawman. I would never want us to become a country where cops just arrest people for homicide crimes and throw them in jail while investigations continue to determine whether there was actually probable cause to arrest them in the first place.

I mean - remember the Madeline McCann case? Or, the Jon Benet Ramsey case? Why weren't the parents "detained" while investigations ensued as to the deaths of their children?

How long is brief?

Under US law, a police officer can "briefly" detain a person for a "stop and frisk" if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is committing a crime of some kind. Or, a cop can detain you "briefly" to write you a ticket, or stop your car on suspicion of some shenanigans going on in the car or that you may be a suspect or something. But, they can't throw you in jail for days pending investigation. That would be nuts.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well then, I'm sure the state of Florida, or the FBI will be glad to pay for his security. I wonder how HE'S feeling right about now...pretty scared I would guess.

Pay for what security?

The police and FBI won't pay for his security. The police might, if he received some threats, have a car temporarily do some drive-bys or keep an eye out, as part of their norm.

We don't live in a society - yet - thankfully - where it would be the kind of police state you and others are describing. The result of giving law enforcement the power to arrest people "for their own safety" and "pending investigation" is a recipe for arbitrary arrest and detention. Nothing good can come of it.

Incidentally, I am surprised that so many people are saying both of the following things:

The police are racists and failed to arrest Zimmerman because he is "white" (or at least "not black") and they are willing to allow murder or manslaughter to go unpunished or even unexamined, for their on sinister reasons.

And,

Give the police the power to arrest us for our own safety, and also give them the power to arrest us "investigatorily" just to determine if there even is probable cause to arrest us.

If you recognize a reason to be distrustful of the police in the first instance, why in the world would you want to increase their power in the second instance?

[FBM]

@ CES: I would support holding the guy until a reasonable amount of evidence had been collected and analyzed. It's contextual. If it's somebody suspected of stealing a candy bar, just a few minutes. If it's somebody suspected of assassinating the president, probably a bit longer.

I would never want us to become a country where the cops just arrest people and throw them in jail while investigations continue to determine whether there was actually probable cause to arrest them in the first place.

Non sequitur/strawman argument. Brief detention without arrest is what I described, and only in cases that involve a person's death.

It's not a strawman. I would never want us to become a country where cops just arrest people for homicide crimes and throw them in jail while investigations continue to determine whether there was actually probable cause to arrest them in the first place.

I mean - remember the Madeline McCann case? Or, the Jon Benet Ramsey case? Why weren't the parents "detained" while investigations ensued as to the deaths of their children?

How long is brief?

Under US law, a police officer can "briefly" detain a person for a "stop and frisk" if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is committing a crime of some kind. Or, a cop can detain you "briefly" to write you a ticket, or stop your car on suspicion of some shenanigans going on in the car or that you may be a suspect or something. But, they can't throw you in jail for days pending investigation. That would be nuts.

It's a stawman because you're trying to apply general principles to a specific case in which it is not clear that those principles apply.

Wrt detention sans arrest: Again, context is crucial. If it's a candy bar, just a few minutes. If it's someone's life, longer. How long? Again, context. If someone is standing over a 5-year-old child with a bloody hatchet in hand, raving bloody murder, a few seconds should be enough. In the actual case at hand, 24 hours should have been sufficient for any police force that works around the clock.