The only part of your quote that applies is:

Which has the same reasonable standard clause in its language.

The DA can tell the police not to make an arrest because they don't plan on prosecuting. This in fact was what happened in this case. The lead investigator wanted Zimmerman arrested for manslaughter, the prosecutor said no not enough evidence.

Why do you say the investigation was cursory?

I've seen the argument Fly's making a couple times ITT, and the logical failure of it astounds me.

It's quite simple. Individuals are arrested for the purpose of prosecution. To put it simply, I firmly believe any LEO who with full knowledge that the DA's office refuses to prosecute, executes an arrest should be charged with False Imprisonment and Kidnapping.

I'm not arguing that there wasn't probable cause for an arrest. But the police aren't obligated to make an arrest simply because there is probable cause for it. If the DA thinks that there will for sure be enough reasonable doubt at trial for an acquittal and does not wish to move forward with the case then there is no reason for the police to arrest the suspect.

Interesting. This was news to me:

Yeah, based on that article, I think there's a very good chance that Zimmerman gets off, but that that chance is quite a bit larger than the chance that he'd be found completely innocent if the whole event were captured on video tape. The police blew it. I'll also grant that the chances of him being in the right look better than they were when this thread started, but at the same time, the story he told the police is so fraught with what looks to be obvious embellishment that the chances things went down exactly as he described look vanishingly small.

You guys know that everyone has the right to a speedy trial... Arresting someone before you have enough evidence to convict is not smart.

Well it's a certainty that things did not go down exactly as he told police. Every person would make mistakes -- often even substantial mistakes -- even if he was trying to be completely honest. But it seems like there is a reasonable chance that Zimmerman was trying to be honest and the story he told mostly jives with the other evidence.

You don't have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to get arrested.

I know. My point is you want to have enough evidence where you think someone can be convicted before you arrest and charge. You only have 90 days in most states to prove your case.

My point is arresting then gathering evidence is not the smartest way to do things.

Annnnnnnnd if the police aren't obligated to arrest someone just because they have probable cause. If they have probable cause but cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no reason to make an arrest, unless they are expecting to get more evidence later on and/or the suspect is a flight risk.

And fwiw, Zimmerman likely WOULD have been arrested had he not been so cooperative with the police. He was handcuffed, read his rights, and taken into "investigative detention". Had he said "I want a lawyer and I'm not answering any of your questions" chances are he would have been arrested. NOT arresting him at the outset was an investigative tactic. If he is arrested and arraigned he is way way more likely to clam up and not let investigators question him more. As long as he's talking and the cops have questions they want to ask him arresting him is really really dumb and counterproductive.

Excluding police I'm sure.

From the NYT article:

And the big thing we learned from that article is that the police didn't know Z had a car that night and it looks like the car was moved by Z's girlfriend before they found out about it.

We may never know where his car was and that is huge.

What a wait? You were laughing at the people wearing hoodies. Those people were wearing hoodies BECAUSE of the brief right-wing fascination with labeling hooded sweatshirts as thuggish.

And what? WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO YOU THAT NOBODY EVER GET CALLED RACIST?

To many many people, that the responding LEOs believed Zimmerman to the extent that they let him go had a lot to do with race.

Wat? Who has said that it's all about the hoodie and not race?

No, under normal circumstances the purpose of a bail hearing is not to establish guilt. It is to show whether the accused is likely to flee or re-offend while out on bail, and if the answer to those questions is no, then bail is granted.


I agree they screwed up if they had evidence which decisively answers the question of whether to grant bail and didn't present it. I don't think that was the situation; I personally don't suppose he's likely to re-offend or flee the country, so as much as it would have pleased me to have him denied bail there wasn't justification for it.

But that side will never be recognized by the gun wielding vigilante side. IF TM was to be considered engaging an unlawfull activity, then he should have been arrested and then tried in a court of law. That is the basis of the US Constitution. There is nothing in that document, nor the intent of the framers, to allow vigilante violence. That would be to enshrine the oppression they sought to specifically disallow.

Once GZ chose to stalk, how can he still be in accordance with the document he then chooses to wrap around his activities and intent? He was an overzealous thug type, all the spin in the world can't unring that bell.

I'm confused.

From the time the police video came out you have maintained that the wound on the back of the head was completely insignificant and doesn't mean anything. But now you are saying that his head was "busted open" and that you've hit your head on the ground plenty of times without a wound that serious. Sounds like GZ hit the ground hard.

And as far as the only possible evidence being Zimmerman's statement; well, we also have a "busted open" head as you say, and the back of Zimmerman's clothes being wet and grass stained. Sounds reasonable to think those two things might be relevant.

Irregardless of the head being "busted open" my point with the head all along has been that the pain and disorientation you feel when you hit your head/have your head slammed into the ground, is absolutely real and wouldn't necessarily manifest itself into a physical wound. So if that's what happened, it gives a ton of credence to GZ legitimately fearing for his life.

Good article, really summarizes everything well.

This was new to me:

LOL that is exactly what did and is happening. How bad are you going to freak after the aquital?

Ps how did you get out of your ban this time?

That's utterly ****ing meaningless. I'm not down with bernies "Forensics are meaningless" line all the time, but CVSA is bull****.

Heh, my wife got to play with a lie detector for a school project and beat it. She's cheating on me ldo.

Busted open just means bleeding in some way. We know his bleeding stopped virtually straight away though and he needed no medical attention. The whole point is we dont know what happened in the fight as there are no independent witnesses so all we can do is see he had a minor laceration to the back of his head which he wouldnt have felt and he seems to have been punched in the face a couple of times.

What we can do is objectively look at the injuries he had and see he wasnt hurt to the level that a reasonable person would justify lethal force. Basically the only way he walks free is if the police botched the investigation as badly as it seems they did due to their racial bias to believe the white guy who shot dead the mystery black male teen who was carrying a cylindrical metal weapon and a makeshift blackjack cosh.