Florida legalizes murder: Trayvon Martin

[tgace]

Has the "special prosecutor" taken Zimmerman into custody yet???

[It is Fake]

Bullshit, they could have kept Zimmerman in jail at least a few days while they sorted things out. They took an easy way out and now the public is angry (and rightly so).

LOL. If the State attorney's office says kick him they have to kick him. I know you are a dumbass, but that is simple logic.

Lord knows, police have kept people in jail for YEARS while building a case against them.

Were they charged? Simple answer not your bullshit conjecture.

[Devil]

Great, so rather than give the Sanford PD time to collect statements and evidence and maybe even interrogate the suspect for a day, the DA showed up same night and said "bah, cut him loose, we have don't have the evidence against him".

What, you mean you need evidence of a crime other than a dead body and admission of guilt to at least keep someone in lockup for more than 24 hours???

Zimmerman's presumption of innocence overrides the right to life that Martin was deprived of for no reason that can be determined?

Bullshit, they could have kept Zimmerman in jail at least a few days while they sorted things out. They took an easy way out and now the public is angry (and rightly so).

Lord knows, police have kept people in jail for YEARS while building a case against them.

What is soooo special about George Zimmerman that he gets the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT regarding a homicide?

Again, this is one of the reasons why we have special prosecutors....when the standard ones botch things.

Why you never hesitate to debate someone who is clearly more knowledgeable than you on the subject matter is beyond me. And it's not like you just want to have a philosophical debate. Unh-uh. You want to debate arrest, booking and investigative procedure with a cop. This is why you're a joke.

[Res Judicata]

What part about police investigations do you not understand? The time to collect all of that evidence properly is likely exactly why the DA said not to arrest that night.

What exactly do you think an arrest means? What would the advantage of an arrest the night of the shooting have been?



What??? Only if they had that person convicted on a separate charge. Once you have a person arrested all sorts of rights and restrictions attach.

Why don't you just stop with the "Law and Order" stuff while you can?

Arrest is not punitive, something Rabbit is not understanding. In fairness, I'm an attorney (although I do not practice criminal law) so I've had the benefit of criminal law classes.

Sometimes arrest is made so that they can do a search incident to the arrest (e.g. vehicle) or more easily obtain a search warrant.

And, as you noted, many rights and restrictions apply when they arrest. He would have been Mirandized and could have (and perhaps should have) invoked his right to counsel. Had he not agreed to come to the station for a statement, they very well may have arrested him.

Pro tip: never say anything to the police if you've been involved anything. Sorry, tgace, I know you're in law enforcement and it makes your job harder, but that's just how it is for civilians in our society.

[submessenger]

I would hope so.

Thing is...why should any PD release evidence to the media pre grand jury/arrest/trial?

Its this mindset that I find most disturbing....the idea that we are all entitled some sort of "reality tv" public trial....call in (or text) your verdict.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Exactly - the video has pretty much zero relevance to the case.

Knowing that the police have photos (regardless of what the photos show) trumps the "video shows no blood," argument, imo, which is why I asked. But, you're right, such knowledge does nothing more than settle an internet argument.

Man, I hope this crap dies down after the grand jury. It won't, but I hope it does.

[tgace]

Arrest is not punitive, something Rabbit is not understanding. In fairness, I'm an attorney (although I do not practice criminal law) so I've had the benefit of criminal law classes.

Sometimes arrest is made so that they can do a search incident to the arrest (e.g. vehicle) or more easily obtain a search warrant.

And, as you noted, many rights and restrictions apply when they arrest. He would have been Mirandized and could have (and perhaps should have) invoked his right to counsel. Had he not agreed to come to the station for a statement, they very well may have arrested him.

Pro tip: never say anything to the police if you've been involved anything. Sorry, tgace, I know you're in law enforcement and it makes your job harder, but that's just how it is for civilians in our society.

No offense taken. No matter how often that advice is given you would be (but maybe not) surprised how many people decide to talk anyway. :)

Your point about arrests is exactly what I think the issue is here. People seem to believe that an arrest is some sort of official statement or punishment. All it means is that proceedings have begun. If you are not ready to proceed...especially on a felony case...many times it's wiser to hold off on arrest till you have what you need.

The DA is the official who will be trying the case so you (LE) do your best to give them what they say they need. If they say "hold off on charges" till you can gather the statements/evidence they want...thats what you do.

If Zimmerman HAD been arrested that night, he spends maybe a day or two in lockup and then hes out on bond. Big deal, is he a flight risk?

Even with an arrest, we would be right where we are today and all that would have changed would be LE having a more difficult time collecting what they needed because the offender would be under counsel.

People think an arrest MEANS something. A conviction is the only thing that MEANS anything.

[It is Fake]

People think an arrest MEANS something. A conviction is the only thing that MEANS anything.

I know. Ask OJ, first trial, and Casey Anthony what arrest means.

[W. Rabbit]

Why you never hesitate to debate someone who is clearly more knowledgeable than you on the subject matter is beyond me. And it's not like you just want to have a philosophical debate. Unh-uh. You want to debate arrest, booking and investigative procedure with a cop. This is why you're a joke.

Irony troll much? Lol coming from the walking, debate poisoning, no-style-field troll you are, your entire statement is a compliment to you.

I'm not the only one who doesn't think Florida LEF processed things correctly.

Plenty of people in authority DO and ARE going through a big review of that right now, so whatever.

[It is Fake]

Irony troll.

Yes that's what you've been doing this entire thread.

Oh and to answer you on a serious point, you and bobby are not more knowledgeable than anyone about this subject.

[bobyclumsyninja]

For anyone interested.
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/badd5b4fce22d788852569cb004cc254!OpenDocument

Traditionally, grand juries served as a shield between unjust prosecution by the state and the individual. Grand juries serve dual functions. The grand jury's primary role is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to justify indicting an accused individual.

1 To make such determinations, a grand jury also serves as an investigating body with subpoena powers.2 In Florida, a grand jury indictment is required only to try a person for a capital offense; i.e., one where the death penalty may be given.3 Otherwise, the state attorney has concurrent authority to file a formal accusation of the commission of a crime (an "information").4 The information is used routinely to charge individuals in Florida. In addition to capital cases, grand juries often are utilized for controversial cases such as those involving alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

Unlike the trial jury, however, the grand jury simply makes a predicate determination of whether there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person accused committed the crime. In contrast to the trial jury's strict standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,11 this probable cause standard has been defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances strong enough in themselves to warrant a cautious person in the belief that the named suspect is guilty of the offense charged."12 In essence, the grand jury merely initiates a criminal prosecution.