Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 349

Thread: Trayvon Martin Murder

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    ok...i've done some research and apparently i was mistaken. An arrest is made prior to an indictment and is not equivalent to being charged with a crime. This being a open / shut case I could certainly see where one can make a claim that Zimmerman could've if not should've been arrested. I'm not sure if there was enough for an indictment but agree that a grand jury should be the one making that decision after reviewing the facts.

    as no arrest was made...i would think the burden now is on the police dept. to effectively explain to the public what compelling evidence they had which led them to think an indictment wouldn't stick and an arrest shouldn't have been made. Since an arrest isn't an indictment, I will agree with the sentiment in the room that the police have some explaining to do. I won't go as far as saying Zimmerman is guilty as I think it's ridiculous to do so with the evidence we have....but surely I question why the police wouldn't make an arrest. It's been how long now, three weeks? The police have had plenty of time to explain it or rectify it and have failed to do so which is concerning.

    apologize for the confusion. i thought police needed more evidence to make an arrest as I thought that in itself was an indictment.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Savoy, IL
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    maybe the grand jury thing confuses me. I'm saying that he should not be charged with a crime without evidence. By that...i thought meant that he shouldn't be indicted. Maybe the process is something I'm naive to. I don't believe one can be arrested unless they are charged with a crime? Being detained and questioned is not being arrested. People are claiming he should be arrested, which...i thought...was the same as being indicted yet you were calling for an arrest but not an indictment? By Grand Jury...i'm assuming you meant trial. Are you merely saying that a special jury investigate if a crime was committed prior to an arrest? That i'd agree with. I don't see how an arrest can be made however until they have evidence to indict with a crime.
    Ok yeah, time for a HAC lesson in criminal procedure (you guys are lucky, getting this for free. I had to pay like 10 grand for this ****).

    When a person is arrested, all that is required is probable cause, which is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. Within 48 hours, the police have to tell the person the crime they are suspected of committing, but that doesn't actually charge the suspect with anything. When the police arrest George Zimmerman and say "Mr. Zimmerman you are under arrest for the murder of Trayvon Martin," he isn't actually charged with murder at that time. He is just on notice that he is under arrest, and that it is because he is suspected of committing a crime. And yes, the arrest is merely being detained and questioned. Any time someone is detained and questioned, they are considered arrested by the law (under normal due process; apparently for terror suspects this isn't relevant anymore), and they have to be read Miranda rights and all that.

    When a person is arrested for a felony, the case is then turned over to a grand jury. The grand jury is just 15-20 people in a room with a prosecutor and witnesses, and it's only purpose is to see if the government's case, with all evidence considered, could possibly convince a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty. The grand jury is only there to be a fact finding body: there's no defendant, no defenses, not even a judge, and they go through all the evidence already gathered and subpoena the witnesses (other than the defendant) for their testimony.

    The grand jury evaluates that case and, if the jurors feel that the government could prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on that evidence, returns an indictment (or refuse). It's at that point that Zimmerman would actually be charged with a crime, and not any point before that. Then, after the indictment is made, the defendant has an arraignment, where a judge asks him if he understands the charges brought before him, and the defendant submits his guilty or not guilty plea.

    If the defendant pleads not guilty, the actual trial starts.
    Illini.

    Yeah I need a Winn-Dixie grocery bag full of money right next to the VIP section...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    7,395

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    hey, good on you for looking it up and finding the right answer.

    Im just curious how, in this world of 7 Law and Order spinoffs, you didn't know that already.

    I have watched so much procedural drama I know that process better than how many of my bodily functions work

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by haveacigar View Post
    Ok yeah, time for a HAC lesson in criminal procedure (you guys are lucky, getting this for free. I had to pay like 10 grand for this ****).

    When a person is arrested, all that is required is probable cause, which is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. Within 48 hours, the police have to tell the person the crime they are suspected of committing, but that doesn't actually charge the suspect with anything. When the police arrest George Zimmerman and say "Mr. Zimmerman you are under arrest for the murder of Trayvon Martin," he isn't actually charged with murder at that time. He is just on notice that he is under arrest, and that it is because he is suspected of committing a crime. And yes, the arrest is merely being detained and questioned. Any time someone is detained and questioned, they are considered arrested by the law (under normal due process; apparently for terror suspects this isn't relevant anymore), and they have to be read Miranda rights and all that.

    When a person is arrested for a felony, the case is then turned over to a grand jury. The grand jury is just 15-20 people in a room with a prosecutor and witnesses, and it's only purpose is to see if the government's case, with all evidence considered, could possibly convince a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty. The grand jury is only there to be a fact finding body: there's no defendant, no defenses, not even a judge, and they go through all the evidence already gathered and subpoena the witnesses (other than the defendant) for their testimony.

    The grand jury evaluates that case and, if the jurors feel that the government could prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on that evidence, returns an indictment (or refuse). It's at that point that Zimmerman would actually be charged with a crime, and not any point before that. Then, after the indictment is made, the defendant has an arraignment, where a judge asks him if he understands the charges brought before him, and the defendant submits his guilty or not guilty plea.

    If the defendant pleads not guilty, the actual trial starts.
    thanks man.

    curious, i know it likely varies by local but is there a national average on how many arrests turn to actual indictments? I'd like to assume that prosecutors get pretty upset when arrests are made with flimsy evidence and the suspect has to be released. Also, as the suspect never actually went to trial..if a grand jury or prosector decided not to indict the individual, i'd assume, can be arrested again on that same crime if new evidence surfaced. Is that correct?

    you opened the door..so i gotta get all i can

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by Alloutwar View Post
    hey, good on you for looking it up and finding the right answer.

    Im just curious how, in this world of 7 Law and Order spinoffs, you didn't know that already.

    I have watched so much procedural drama I know that process better than how many of my bodily functions work
    never watched much law and order.

    watched too much TV though where they are too concerned about not having enough evidence to make an arrest that I assumed meant that it wouldn't succeed in court. I never realized that an arrest wasn't actually being charged with a crime. "You're being arrested for the Murder of Professor Plum". That statement always seemed like a charge/indictment to me.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Savoy, IL
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    lol, admittedly that may be the case.

    HAC...explain the difference for me please. How can someone be arrested and not indicted. I thought the two go hand in hand. Detaining someone as a person of interest, or even a suspect is not an arrest as far as I understand it. I would think Zimmerman would not object to a reasonable amount of questioning and "detaining" wouldn't even be necessary. Explain please.
    You can request that someone come to the police station for questioning as a person of interest, and have it not be an arrest. The guy difference is whether or not it's voluntary. If the person is free to leave, it's not an arrest. Basically, any time someone is brought to a police station and not allowed to leave, it's an arrest, unless there's some other reason for them to be detained there that isn't related to a criminal offense (like if they're holding a runaway minor waiting for the parents to show up).
    Illini.

    Yeah I need a Winn-Dixie grocery bag full of money right next to the VIP section...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Savoy, IL
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    thanks man.

    curious, i know it likely varies by local but is there a national average on how many arrests turn to actual indictments? I'd like to assume that prosecutors get pretty upset when arrests are made with flimsy evidence and the suspect has to be released. Also, as the suspect never actually went to trial..if a grand jury or prosector decided not to indict the individual, i'd assume, can be arrested again on that same crime if new evidence surfaced. Is that correct?

    you opened the door..so i gotta get all i can
    There's no double jeopardy as applies to grand juries. If an indictment isn't returned, they can keep trying over and over again until they get one. However, if a prosecutor were doing so, there'd be a lot of people wondering wtf he was doing.

    The average is extremely high. There's an old saying that a competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. The standard is literally "could the government prove enough that 12 jurors could reasonably conclude that the guy was guilty, without looking for any mitigating evidence or defenses that could be raised." It's like an NFL kicker attempting a PAT; if you don't get one, people will again wonder wtf you were doing.

    And that is significant. Prosecutors, especially on the local level, are very conscious of their reputation. If they have any ambition at all, they really don't want people thinking they are overzealous, and they REALLY don't want people thinking they are incompetent.
    Illini.

    Yeah I need a Winn-Dixie grocery bag full of money right next to the VIP section...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by haveacigar View Post
    There's no double jeopardy as applies to grand juries. If an indictment isn't returned, they can keep trying over and over again until they get one. However, if a prosecutor were doing so, there'd be a lot of people wondering wtf he was doing.

    The average is extremely high. There's an old saying that a competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. The standard is literally "could the government prove enough that 12 jurors could reasonably conclude that the guy was guilty, without looking for any mitigating evidence or defenses that could be raised." It's like an NFL kicker attempting a PAT; if you don't get one, people will again wonder wtf you were doing.

    And that is significant. Prosecutors, especially on the local level, are very conscious of their reputation. If they have any ambition at all, they really don't want people thinking they are overzealous, and they REALLY don't want people thinking they are incompetent.
    you're so sexist. why does the prosecutor have to be male

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Savoy, IL
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    But yeah, going back to the original case, it's just not ordinary. The only people who fatally shoot someone with people around who don't get arrested are cops and soldiers. If there's a good reason not to arrest him besides "the cops are racist and don't give a ****," I certainly haven't heard it.
    Illini.

    Yeah I need a Winn-Dixie grocery bag full of money right next to the VIP section...

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Savoy, IL
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    you're so sexist. why does the prosecutor have to be male
    You know it's funny, grammar says that you go with the masculine pronoun for hypothetical people in the singular, but in legal materials they almost always use "her" now.
    Illini.

    Yeah I need a Winn-Dixie grocery bag full of money right next to the VIP section...

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    again, differentiating "arrest and indictment"....HAC, you stated a few times something to the effect this guy should go to trial yet also most recently said you don't see yet where's there should be an indictment, based upon the evidence being portrayed as of yet.

    two questions then:

    1. Knowing solely what you've heard, you agree that there shouldn't be an indictment...that said, do you still feel there should have been an arrest? The cops need to take the evidence into account prior to making an arrest and shouldn't they not make an arrest if they don't believe a prosecutor could get an indictment? It's not like they needed to detain Zimmerman for questioning, by all accounts he was working with the police and i'd assume willing to answer any questions they had. Not that I want to sway you, but IMO based solely on the background and racial issues involved I could see where they'd make an arrest just to let a grand jury be the one to throw it out if it didn't have legs. I don't believe the systems supposed to work that way though.

    2. as you currently feel there may not be enough for an indictment...do you not take any issue with the many in here and outside this thread that quickly claim that Zimmerman is guilty, and the kid did nothing wrong? I just dont' understand what they can base that opinion on. The fact that he followed Martin provides no context. How close did he follow? Who confronted who? Who ultimately assaulted who? these are all more important questions which are unanswered for the most part. in fact, the only evidence as to the beginning of the confrontation is that the girlfriend claimed Martin turned and yelled at Zimmerman. Thats how the confrontation begun...which in itself really means little.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cowcrap Town
    Posts
    6,066

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Isn't Zimmerman the same guy, when the media approached him after this he pulled out his gun on them too?

    I mean if that isn't enough to know this guy is bonkers, I don't know what is. The dude has issues, and when you have issues like that, I have a hard time believing he killed someone in self defense.
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonGM View Post
    I'm an idiot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    lern 2 english

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Savoy, IL
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    again, differentiating "arrest and indictment"....HAC, you stated a few times something to the effect this guy should go to trial yet also most recently said you don't see yet where's there's enough for an indictment.
    Where did I say there wasn't enough evidence for an indictment? I certainly think there is enough. If they arrested him and opened a grand jury today, I'm pretty confident they would indict him. But no, you can't indict him yet because he hasn't been arrested and no grand jury has been called. My impression of what we know about the case makes me think that, ultimately, he should be brought to trial. Certainly, the process of arrest and indictment needs to be followed first.


    1. Knowing solely what you've heard, you agree that there shouldn't be an indictment...that said, do you still feel there should have been an arrest? The cops need to take the evidence into account prior to making an arrest and shouldn't they not make an arrest if they don't believe a prosecutor could get an indictment? It's not like they needed to detain Zimmerman for questioning, by all accounts he was working with the police and i'd assume willing to answer any questions they had. Not that I want to sway you, but IMO based solely on the background and racial issues involved I could see where they'd make an arrest just to let a grand jury be the one to throw it out if it didn't have legs. I don't believe the systems supposed to work that way though.
    Prosecutors shouldn't seek indictments just from political pressure, no. And procedurally, they don't actually need to physically arrest him before going to the grand jury. So if you're saying they don't need to arrest him because it's not necessary in this case, I can get on board. But there's more than enough here to get the ball rolling on a grand jury and towards a trial. I have no doubt that they could get an indictment.

    2. as you currently feel there may not be enough for an indictment...do you not take any issue with the many in here and outside this thread that quickly claim that Zimmerman is guilty, and the kid did nothing wrong? I just dont' understand what they can base that opinion on. The fact that he followed Martin provides no context. How close did he follow? Who confronted who? Who ultimately assaulted who? these are all more important questions which are unanswered for the most part. in fact, the only evidence as to the beginning of the confrontation is that the girlfriend claimed Martin turned and yelled at Zimmerman. Thats how the confrontation begun...which in itself really means little.
    Pretty much every time there's a criminal case that gets lots of press, everyone rushes to assume guilt. I don't think that's a good thing, and I'd prefer that people would be more reasoned with their reactions, but that's society for you.

    My personal opinion is that he could be and should be indicted, and that he would probably be found guilty in a trial.
    Illini.

    Yeah I need a Winn-Dixie grocery bag full of money right next to the VIP section...

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Where did I say there wasn't enough evidence for an indictment?
    damn, you quoted it prior to me editing it. you said that at this point there shouldn't be an indictment here:

    And anyway, I'm confused, the process of "being detained and brought in for questioning" is called an arrest. Are you trying to say he shouldn't be indicted yet? That I agree with.
    regardless it's moot. you're talking procedurally...i'm just saying that i'm sure there's more evidence working for or against zimmerman than we know about.




    Pretty much every time there's a criminal case that gets lots of press, everyone rushes to assume guilt. I don't think that's a good thing, and I'd prefer that people would be more reasoned with their reactions, but that's society for you.

    My personal opinion is that he could be and should be indicted, and that he would probably be found guilty in a trial.
    this i'd agree with. i hate having to play devils advocate but it bothers me when people speak as though they have a crystal ball and speak with outrage as if they know that someone is innocent or guilty. The fact that this kid had a soda pop and a candy bar in no way means he didn't assault Zimmerman for following him. The fact that Zimmerman followed him, or is larger than him, in no way means he killed Martin unjustifiably.

    my personal opinion is that zimmerman was following, got rather close and the kid got nervous and in a defensive mindset pushed zimmerman away which led to a scrum. I wouldn't be surprised if the kid was then beating the sh!t out of zimmerman to which he pulled his gun. in that scenario, zimmerman was the aggressor and provoked the altercation. It's all speculation though and i'm not going to act as if i had some crystal ball and knew what took place that day with any certainty.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    45,249

    Re: Trayvon Martin Murder

    Quote Originally Posted by haveacigar View Post
    Where did I say there wasn't enough evidence for an indictment? I certainly think there is enough. If they arrested him and opened a grand jury today, I'm pretty confident they would indict him. But no, you can't indict him yet because he hasn't been arrested and no grand jury has been called. My impression of what we know about the case makes me think that, ultimately, he should be brought to trial. Certainly, the process of arrest and indictment needs to be followed first.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/2...n-martin-case/

    A grand jury will be convened April 10th.

    The public outcry has gotten the ball rolling, thankfully. What's a shame is that this incident, which occurred a month ago, was simply swept under the rug and would have stayed there if not for the public.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •