Trayvon

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Presumption of innocence has a bearing on the final outcome, not necessarily the charge...You could be charged with manslaughter, you're still presumed innocent until found guilty.


I would think that had he told an accurate story to the police they would have known he was on the neighborhood watch and set out on foot to presume someone he had identified as suspicious. This was later confirmed by the 911 recording. This alone should have given the police pause and it would seem as though the lead investigator wasn't convinced his story was consistent.

This is the nut of the whole case, why the State would rush to release someone under such circumstances. Some clearly think it was racism...

-spence

Spence, you said the burden should have been to prove that he didn't commit a crime. That's not the way he works. The presumption of innocence does not begin at trial, it exists all along.

"why the State would rush to release someone under such circumstances."

Someone who knows a bit more than you thought it was premature to arrest. Let's see how it plays out.

"Some clearly think it was racism..."

Yes. Some of the same folks who cried racism in the first days of the Duke lacrosse case. How did that work out for the race-baiters?? Not so well, as I recall.

We need to stop crying "racism" every single time something like this happens, before we know what happened. It may have been racially motivated. Let's see before we pin that label on the guy. Is that unreasonable?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you said the burden should have been to prove that he didn't commit a crime. That's not the way he works. The presumption of innocence does not begin at trial, it exists all along.

In RI had the same situation occurred the shooter would have probably been detained and charged with at least manslaughter. They would still be presumed innocent mind you.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

In RI had the same situation occurred the shooter would have probably been detained and charged with at least manslaughter. They would still be presumed innocent mind you.

-spence

Twio key words that make your point moot Spence. You said "if" and "probably".

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Twio key words that make your point moot Spence. You said "if" and "probably".

Never said if and no it's not moot, time to think critically Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In RI had the same situation occurred the shooter would have probably been detained and charged with at least manslaughter. They would still be presumed innocent mind you.

-spence

Don't know about RI, but in most states criminal charges are filed by prosecutors (not police) after thorough investigation reveals enough evidence to win the case at trial. Also, in most cases, there is a short time period that a defendant can be held or released if no charge is made. So it is prudent to not arrest a person too quickly if not enough evidence has been revealed. It's better, in serious crimes, to get your ducks in a row. If you charge someone with a crime, that begins the criminal process which can include a grand jury or prelliminary hearing and that quickly leads to a trial. If you postpone the arrest and charges, you have more time to gather enough evidence to be successful at trial.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you charge someone with a crime, that begins the criminal process which can include a grand jury or prelliminary hearing and that quickly leads to a trial. If you postpone the arrest and charges, you have more time to gather enough evidence to be successful at trial.

Agree, and that is a good enough reason to delay an arrest. However, I think the problem with the whole story is that I believe the family wasn't explained that and enough kept informed of what was going on in the investigation. I haven't seen the police come out and say those things. Thus, the family and public seem to think the investigation was screwed up. The police should have taken blood/alchohol tests of Zimmerman but didn't.

Also, it is my understanding that the way the law is written, once Zimmerman claimed self defense, the police had to prove it wasn't. The burden of proof may be different???