The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - A Thought Too Long For Twitter
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
A Thought Too Long For Twitter|
|Date:||March 30th, 2012 06:28 pm (UTC)|| |
But...why? Why is it an injustice that he wasn't arrested? If he has broken no laws, wouldn't his arrest be an injustice?
Edited to add: Should he be arrested just so you can feel better?
Edited at 2012-03-30 06:29 pm (UTC)
He shot someone in the back. Clearly despite what the law says, he couldve been arrested. Usually, when you kill someone, you get arrested.
|Date:||March 30th, 2012 07:34 pm (UTC)|| |
Could have been arrested, sure, I agree they can arrest you for anything. It's my perception that they often don't make an arrest in claims of self defense; they wait for the prosecutor to decide whether to charge or not.
|Date:||March 30th, 2012 07:27 pm (UTC)|| |
He should be arrested because he shot someone. I don't believe anyone is suggesting he didn't shoot a kid.
|Date:||March 30th, 2012 07:35 pm (UTC)|| |
Just because he shot someone? Should everyone who ever shot someone have been arrested? Just shooting, that's enough? No judgment used about self-defense, or accident?
Indeed, yes. To arrest is not to place charges. But when a man's dead and someone's clearly shot him, to treat it as though it could be murder and to have at least a brief investigation? Completely reasonable.
|Date:||March 30th, 2012 07:56 pm (UTC)|| |
Well, as a person who shoots for pleasure, and has taken more than one class to qualify for a concealed handgun license, it's only smart to assume you will be arrested. But it doesn't always happen, because sometimes (maybe not this one) it's quite clear that the shooting is not murder.
Police use their judgment all the time-have you ever gotten just a warning instead of a ticket? So do prosecutors. In my opinion that's how it's supposed to work. I don't think the police were wrong not to arrest a man who'd been on the phone with 911 and was cooperating with them.
Once I was involved in an altercation and I called 911. The police arrived and gave me the benefit of the doubt-after all, I had called legal authorities in to resolve the situation. Similarly here, I'm not surprised they gave Zimmerman the same benefit of the doubt.
But it doesn't always happen, because sometimes (maybe not this one) it's quite clear that the shooting is not murder.
The problem comes when the cops are willing to overlook things that are obvious and go, "Oh, well, it's quite clear" when it isn't. Clearly this wasn't that clear, except the cops looked at this scene and for what are possibly very racial reasons went, "Oh, yeah, great, you did good work, go."
In a world where the arrest was mandatory, things would have been different. We would have had mugshots, testimony, more evidence to go with it. Instead, some cops let someone off for something that might well have been murder if media attention hadn't been drawn to it - and how many similar cases have been let go?
If someone wants to let me off with a ticket for speeding, well, I haven't yet done any irreparable damage. When I've taken someone's life, I think a little obligatory pokey-time is not really an unreasonable request, as has been noted elsewhere.
Edited at 2012-03-30 08:06 pm (UTC)
|Date:||March 30th, 2012 09:29 pm (UTC)|| |
Generally speaking, the determination of whether a crime was committed, especially in a disputed situation like this one is left to a jury. Leaving it to the discretion of the police or DA is a terrible idea. Here where it appears they didn't even do the baseline investigation to determine who the victim was, get evidence from the perp, or otherwise follow normal police procedure when a crime is committed.
Also, last I checked self-defense was an affirmative defense that comes up to excuse an admitted commission of what would otherwise be a crime. Something that is a matter for a jury, not a police officer to decide.