Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say "OK you can go home and take your gun with you," because they can't contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing. Ridiculous? Yes, but according to CNN: "Police say they have not charged Zimmerman because they have no evidence to contradict his story that he shot in self-defense." Am I missing something here? The only evidence of self-defense comes from the person who shot the victim. Doesn't he have a motive to lie? Isn't his credibility an issue? Aren't there surrounding circumstances that place the claim of self-defense in dispute? What is undisputed is that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Whether or not there is a valid defense to that shooting is not a determination to be made by police -- particularly when based solely on the word of the shooter.
It would be unfair to reach any conclusions about Mr. Zimmerman's guilt at this stage, but it is likewise unfair to Trayvon Martin and his family to find Zimmerman innocent. It sounds as though Mr. Zimmerman admitted the shooting, said it was self-defense, and the police accepted his version and sent him home with the gun used in the shooting! Suppose there is evidence that a man committed a murder and he claims to have an alibi -- and "there is no evidence to contradict the alibi"? Does he go free or is he charged and required to present competent and believable evidence of the alibi. The shooting here is admitted. Charges must be filed and the defense has to be proven -- not accepted based solely upon the version of the perpetrator.
Those demanding that charges be filed certainly seem to be on firm ground. Mr. Zimmerman pursued the victim contrary to instructions not to do so. He was much bigger than Trayvon. He had a gun. Trayvon had Skittles. He was "suspicious" of Trayvon apparently without justification or good cause, and there is evidence that he had some predisposition to reach such a conclusion. There is evidence that someone heard Trayvon whimpering before the shooting and that he was running away. His girlfriend heard him ask Zimmerman why he was following him. There is some question about the use of a racial slur. The ultimate question is whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was in reasonable fear for his life and killed Trayvon solely because of that fear. He ultimately may be found innocent, but no sidewalk judgment by a police officer should suffice. Justice requires so much more. Both Mr. Zimmerman and the statute which shields him should be put on trial.
Mark I. Pinsky: Justice For Trayvon Martin: Where Are Our White Faith Leaders?
Dr. Faheem Younus: How a Christian Hajj Would Save the Next Trayvon Martin
You say unfair then a few word later unfair to find Zimmerman innocent, it cannot be both Judge.
I thought in the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his/her peers ?
Reading this coming from a retired Fed. Judge really does make me concerned for our country.
There is such a rush to judgement, conviction and the death penalty on this shooting incident that it
is truly amazing that this very fact is not the news of day.
What happened to the idea of the state having to prove a case against someone before convicting them?
While the police and the state system may have messed up the investigation that is not Zimmerman fault.
Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, period. How can that be any other way in the USA?
I am surprised at you judge. You can fault the system all you want but you cannot say this man is guilty except by your personal opinion not by your title. No matter how we all feel about this Zimmerman is entitled to a fair and just trial.
A person is supposed to be 'innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. It's up to the state to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.
That's what you're missing, your honor.
Seems pretty remarkable, doesn't it?
This is all getting way out of control.
This is not true. The police kept Zimmerman's weapon.
Another question for you, if it was self-defense then why did Zimmerman go after Martin AFTER the police told him not to? Why do YOU need actually visual proof? It's common sense.
The act of self defense was after that time...namely when M allegedly attacked Z.
"Am I missing something here? The only evidence of self-defense comes from the person who shot the victim."
Yes you are missing something. Zimmerman had wounds to suggest he was being assaulted (the bloody back of his head is especially notable, as it's supporting evidence that Martin was slamming his head into the sidewalk), and one witness has confirmed his story. This doesn't prove he's telling the truth, but it's certainly more evidence then what you claim.
"Whether or not there is a valid defense to that shooting is not a determination to be made by police."
Say what? Police make these determinations all the time. That's the purpose of investigations. Now perhaps they screwed up in this case, but that doesn't mean police don't ever have the right to make such a determination. Of course they do. That's their job.
It is my position based on what I know that Zimmerman should be arrested. He created the incident by pursuing Martin when it wasn't necessary.
However, this is not a clear-cut case, and Sarokin's claims are either dishonest or ignorant in suggesting otherwise.
A low resolution surveillance video is NOT a detailed medical examination.
Think about that again.
That's not true. There is also the physical evidence that Martin was beating his head against the concrete sidewalk (injuries, blood on the sidewalk, grass covering his back, etc.) and, even more convincingly, the one and only eyewitness, even while on the phone to 911, before he knew anything about anyone involved, also reported that Martin was beating Zimmerman's head against the pavement while Zimmerman screamed for help, even after the witness yelled at him to stop and threatened to call he police. So there is a lot of evidence besides Zimmerman's own word (in fact, all the evidence available) that shows that at the moment he shot Martin, Zimmerman was legitimately in fear for his life and was justified in shooting Martin in self-defense. Denying all the evidence doesn't magically make it go away.
No...the police could not find any contrary evidence to produce Probable Cause. There is a huge difference.
No. If you would familiarize yourself with the Florida statute you'd see that the State must prove that is was not self defense in a Stand Your Ground case.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
Nope. 911 operators have no authority to issue such orders or expect to be obeyed.
This doesn't mean that Z's continued tailing was prudent, however.
You don't KNOW that...you PRESUME that on the basis of MSM accounts that are proving to be grossly distorted.