Better to have been arrested?

[unitron]

If there were no immunity clause in Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law to prevent the SPD from arresting on the spot, would Zimmerman have been better off in the long run?

(perhaps lawyered up immediately, etc.)

Or is this too speculative a discussion to post here?

[nomatter_nevermind]

If there were no immunity clause in Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law to prevent the SPD from arresting on the spot, would Zimmerman have been better off in the long run?

The SPD probably would have held off arresting him until they were done questioning him (2/29). That was well before the story went national (3/7).

[FromBelow]

If there were no immunity clause in Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law to prevent the SPD from arresting on the spot, would Zimmerman have been better off in the long run?

(perhaps lawyered up immediately, etc.)

Or is this too speculative a discussion to post here?

Interesting question. It's almost on the level of if GZ had stayed in his truck would he have been better off in the long run.

There is nothing in the statutes (AFAIK & IANAL) that prevent LE from arresting anyone if there is probable cause. SPD found that the evidence and witnesses supported GZ's claim of having acted in self-defense.

A better question might be: Should LE have realized how much more a victim was going to end up suffering as the result of his act of self-defense and arrested him to lessen his suffering?

[nomatter_nevermind]

SPD found that the evidence and witnesses supported GZ's claim of having acted in self-defense.

Is there an official document showing the SPD made such a finding?

Serino filed an affidavit saying there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, without addressing the justification claim.

[DebFrmHell]

Is there an official document showing the SPD made such a finding?

Serino filed an affidavit saying there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, without addressing the justification claim.

So what was their evidence?  Wasn't the APC filed on the 15th?  If so...They didn't even have W8 when Serino filed that affidavit.  They didn't have Sybrina Fulton until the 17th, IIRC.

[nomatter_nevermind]

So what was their evidence? 

Mainly Zimmerman's statements.

The capias is on 2-3/29.

[cboldt]

Is there an official document showing the SPD made such a finding?

Serino filed an affidavit saying there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, without addressing the justification claim.

Serino had to invent a hitherto unknown legal standard, to wit, "Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome" (by staying in his vehicle or by apprising Martin of his concern), in order to justify the conclusion that the state attorney could/should charge Zimmerman.  If the standard for prosecution is "Zimmerman got out of his truck," then yes, there is plenty of evidence.  But that is NOT the standard, and I have not seen any document that sets for the evidence vs. the legal standard, that justifies charging Zimmerman.

It isn't an official document, per se, but Chief Lee explained, and the explanation was published to the community, that the police lacked probable cause to arrest, and the city did not arrest.  The only difference between the state's evidence and the SPD's evidence is Witness 8, and Sybrina Fulton.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Serino had to invent a hitherto unknown legal standard, to wit, "Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome"

True. Irrelevant.

Chief Lee explained, and the explanation was published to the community, that the police lacked probable cause to arrest

That was before SPD had completed their investigation.

[cboldt]

True. Irrelevant.

That was before SPD had completed their investigation.

Irrelevant?  You can't claim that Serino had sufficient evidence to prosecute Zimmerman, when he didn't.  Unless you are arguing that having sufficient evidence to prosecute an imaginary criminal offense counts as having sufficient evidence to prosecute.

And as for the timing of an "official finding" by the SPD, you didn't limit it to timing.

Separately, you are a bit of a crank when it comes to argument, and if you find yourself on my twitlist (RJ is there now), it's your own fault.  The world is no worse off if you and I do not interact.

[annoyedbeyond]

True. Irrelevant.

That was before SPD had completed their investigation.

How is Serino inventing a legal standard (quote unquote) irrelevant?

[nomatter_nevermind]

How is Serino inventing a legal standard (quote unquote) irrelevant?

I was talking about what findings SPD did or did not make, not whether those findings were justified.

[annoyedbeyond]

I was talking about what findings SPD did or did not make, not whether those findings were justified.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

[hexx]

Serino had to invent a hitherto unknown legal standard, to wit, "Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome" (by staying in his vehicle or by apprising Martin of his concern), in order to justify the conclusion that the state attorney could/should charge Zimmerman.  If the standard for prosecution is "Zimmerman got out of his truck," then yes, there is plenty of evidence.  But that is NOT the standard, and I have not seen any document that sets for the evidence vs. the legal standard, that justifies charging Zimmerman.

Isn't it considered to be bad taste to blame a rape victim " she should not have get in to that car, its her own fault" - whats the difference?

A rape victim should have profiled the driver as a potential rapist. (suppose she prevents the rape by shooting the attacker)

Zimmerman should have profiled Trayvon Martin as a potentially violent thug, and staid in his car.

[DebFrmHell]

Opinion only.

I have always held that both of those two individuals had a legal right to be where they were at the time.  The legal question is in the matter of the assault.   The State (Gilbreath) has admitted that they have no evidence as to who started the fight.  They (BDLR) also admitted that at some point Martin had struck Zimmerman.

They never said that Zimmerman struck him at any time because there is no evidence to support that.

[RickyJim]

There is a dormant thread under Evidence Discussion on "How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?".  The best anybody came up with is a description of how the prosecution could argue at the Immunity Hearing that it is 50-50 that Zimmerman shot in self defense so there is no preponderance of evidence so the case should go to a jury.  I would be pretty desperate now if I were the prosecution.  The vibes I get from O'Mara is that Zimmerman will not take the stand at the trial, thus demolishing the prosecution's only chance.  That is, unless that prosecution has something that has escaped the Florida sunshine laws.