Florida prosecutors will charge Zimmerman, hold trial

[9ball8]

I wasn't talking specifically about the Zimmerman case. If you go back and follow the thread, you would see that I was talking in general about the desire to arrest someone immediately and only release him if we prove he didn't commit a crime. Nowhere in any of what I have posted do I indicate that I refuse to believe Zimmerman may have committed a crime. You drew an incorrect conclusion from something I said.

In addition to CvO's targeting your comment about immediate arrest, I'd like to elaborate (again). Case #1: Somebody claims their watch was stolen, nobody is immediately arrested, and when someone is arrested, he's quickly released on bail. Case #2: Someone kills someone else with a weapon but no witnesses; he's arrested immediately, even if on a basic manslaughter charge. He is released on bail in very short time, once it is confirmed the confrontation was unplanned (not murder one). Case #3: Someone kills someone else with a weapon, wounds a family member and threatens the remaining family members if anyone talks. Witnesses confirm it was aggravated (in commission of a robbery, as well as for revenge). Case #3 suspect is immediately arrested and denied bail. He is incarcerated through the completion of his trial.

Your point is understood, but you should elaborate on that phrase, " ... to arrest someone immediately and only release him if we prove he didn't commit a crime." That doesn't happen in cases like #1 or #2. But with case #3, the suspect has to be found not guilty, before being released. It doesn't even happen only in cases that are similar to #3; it happens with international flight risks for crimes involving lots of money, industrial or political espionage. Someone can be denied bail for good reason, and still preserve their right to a fair trial and right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It also preserves public order, when there is clear & probable cause to believe the suspect is indeed the perp, and he will take revenge (or just take off) if he is set free. That is how it works in our system. If you believe anyone on this thread stated or implied that everyone arrested should be held "until we prove he didn't commit a crime", point it out.

-Still no comment whatsoever from any righties, on whether they think the original law enforcement team botched the Zimmerman arrest.

[Vader]

In addition to CvO's targeting your comment about immediate arrest, I'd like to elaborate (again). Case #1: Somebody claims their watch was stolen, nobody is immediately arrested, and when someone is arrested, he's quickly released on bail. Case #2: Someone kills someone else with a weapon but no witnesses; he's arrested immediately, even if on a basic manslaughter charge. He is released on bail in very short time, once it is confirmed the confrontation was unplanned (not murder one). Case #3: Someone kills someone else with a weapon, wounds a family member and threatens the remaining family members if anyone talks. Witnesses confirm it was aggravated (in commission of a robbery, as well as for revenge). Case #3 suspect is immediately arrested and denied bail. He is incarcerated through the completion of his trial.

Your point is understood, but you should elaborate on that phrase, " ... to arrest someone immediately and only release him if we prove he didn't commit a crime." That doesn't happen in cases like #1 or #2. But with case #3, the suspect has to be found not guilty, before being released. It doesn't even happen only in cases that are similar to #3; it happens with international flight risks for crimes involving lots of money, industrial or political espionage. Someone can be denied bail for good reason, and still preserve their right to a fair trial and right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It also preserves public order, when there is clear & probable cause to believe the suspect is indeed the perp, and he will take revenge (or just take off) if he is set free. That is how it works in our system. If you believe anyone on this thread stated or implied that everyone arrested should be held "until we prove he didn't commit a crime", point it out.

-Still no comment whatsoever from any righties, on whether they think the original law enforcement team botched the Zimmerman arrest.

That's because the racist right-tards cannot speak without their blatant bigotry showing through.

[hadit]

In addition to CvO's targeting your comment about immediate arrest, I'd like to elaborate (again). Case #1: Somebody claims their watch was stolen, nobody is immediately arrested, and when someone is arrested, he's quickly released on bail. Case #2: Someone kills someone else with a weapon but no witnesses; he's arrested immediately, even if on a basic manslaughter charge. He is released on bail in very short time, once it is confirmed the confrontation was unplanned (not murder one). Case #3: Someone kills someone else with a weapon, wounds a family member and threatens the remaining family members if anyone talks. Witnesses confirm it was aggravated (in commission of a robbery, as well as for revenge). Case #3 suspect is immediately arrested and denied bail. He is incarcerated through the completion of his trial.

Your point is understood, but you should elaborate on that phrase, " ... to arrest someone immediately and only release him if we prove he didn't commit a crime." That doesn't happen in cases like #1 or #2. But with case #3, the suspect has to be found not guilty, before being released. It doesn't even happen only in cases that are similar to #3; it happens with international flight risks for crimes involving lots of money, industrial or political espionage. Someone can be denied bail for good reason, and still preserve their right to a fair trial and right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It also preserves public order, when there is clear & probable cause to believe the suspect is indeed the perp, and he will take revenge (or just take off) if he is set free. That is how it works in our system. If you believe anyone on this thread stated or implied that everyone arrested should be held "until we prove he didn't commit a crime", point it out.

-Still no comment whatsoever from any righties, on whether they think the original law enforcement team botched the Zimmerman arrest.

IOW, we already have in place mechanisms to handle these circumstances. Someone can be held for a short period of time, then released if there is not enough evidence to hold him longer. That's different from immediately charging someone with manslaughter, processing him as if he were presumed guilty, then only releasing him if he's proven innocent. Yes, the system is heavily weighted in favor of the defendent. It is so deliberately.

[hadit]

That's because the racist right-tards cannot speak without their blatant bigotry showing through.

Have you been confused by the mirror again?

[Chachma v'Oz]

IOW, we already have in place mechanisms to handle these circumstances. Someone can be held for a short period of time, then released if there is not enough evidence to hold him longer. That's different from immediately charging someone with manslaughter, processing him as if he were presumed guilty, then only releasing him if he's proven innocent. Yes, the system is heavily weighted in favor of the defendent. It is so deliberately.

Not enough evidence to hold him may also imply not enough evidence to make any determination, and arrest is the only way to detain the subject until that necessary determination can be made.

That appears to be the case with Zimmerman. He was released not only because there wasn't enough evidence to hold him, he was released even though there wasn't enough evidence to determine what transpired. That was the error.

[hadit]

Not enough evidence to hold him may also imply not enough evidence to make any determination, and arrest is the only way to detain the subject until that necessary determination can be made.

And that's where we part ways. If there is not enough evidence, he HAS to be released. Yes, it means some guilty will go free, but it also means fewer innocent are wrongfully detained. You have a legitimate opinion, I just disagree with it.

[Malcolm Wright]

And that's where we part ways. If there is not enough evidence, he HAS to be released. Yes, it means some guilty will go free, but it also means fewer innocent are wrongfully detained. You have a legitimate opinion, I just disagree with it.

What you must do however, Hadit, is mitigate your rightful nausea at a process that could detain innocents, with the following strong factors:

a) this would affect very few people, perhaps a handful a year
b) these people are lucky in that they, by their own claim, escaped death by the use of lethal force, and should use that awareness to consider that temporary detainment is by far the lesser of two evils
c) the implementation of a charge of 'indeterminate homicide' would safeguard the rights of the killer. As a temporary charge pending the ability to transform it into manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary, murder two or murder one - or no charges at all if the evidence supports the use of lethal force was justified - it would allow the judicial control of the killer either by holding, or by house arrest with electronic tracking device.

Given these factors and options, I really don't see what the problem would be. This would merely be manner of allowing the system the time to properly seek evidence without having to release the killer into the wild.

M

[9ball8]

Not enough evidence to hold him may also imply not enough evidence to make any determination, and arrest is the only way to detain the subject until that necessary determination can be made.

That appears to be the case with Zimmerman. He was released not only because there wasn't enough evidence to hold him, he was released even though there wasn't enough evidence to determine what transpired. That was the error.

I believe there was enough evidence to hold him, at least on a manslaughter charge. Police and forensics should gather enough evidence within 2-3 days -even if full results have to wait out lab results for a couple of weeks. Does that mean the suspect is held for the entire 2 weeks? No, but being held for 2-3 days before posting bail seems reasonable, as long as it's in a Bubba-free jail cell. But I don't see any post on this thread that implied that Z (or any other manslaughter suspect) should have been arrested and held indefinitely. Perhaps hadit could point out at least one?