Do Tell-Do Tell, Inform vs. Insinuate?

It has recently been brought to my attention that I was not to be told and or informed of some recent developments in the news concerning an issue that has garnered national attention. Viewers of my blog know that I strive to present a basis in fact and law on the topics that I write about. Hence, basis in fact: "Shhhhhhh. Don't tell the +Gaming Oracle. LOL," as to the existence of a sarcastic request that I not be told.

The above statement was the follow up of one stating that: "I can see that any view point outside of your sources and particular mindset are to be Media Mattered. More's the pity for you." Seeking not to engage in a back and forth battle of words with this writer I will share with all that I have not presented a bitter nor abusive speech or writing, which should cause me shame, because said speech was based upon my understanding as follows here within.

In discussing the topic at issue, which happens to be the right of citizen's and individual's within the jurisdiction of these United States of America, to have a Constitutional Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. (The Fact)  My sources informed me that said fact held a basis in law according to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and the following decisional case law established further basis in law.

Devenpeck v. Alford, 125 S.Ct. 588, 593, 543 U.S. 146, (U.S. 2004)

[1] [2] The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”  In conformity with the rule at common law, a warrant-less arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.  See United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 414-424, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.  2d 598 (1976); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed.  1879 (1949).  Whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.  Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S. Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.  2d 769 (2003).  In [543 U.S. 153] this case, the Court of Appeals held that the probable-cause inquiry is further confined to the known facts bearing upon the offense actually invoked at the time of arrest, and that (in addition) the offense supported  by these known facts must be “closely related” to the offense that the officer invoked.  333 F.3d, at 976.  We find no basis in precedent or reason for this limitation.

Although there are some that will argue otherwise, but it is this writers understanding that the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States are to be applied by all lower courts.  So, the above tells me that what matters is that the person arresting someone without a warrant should have probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed. Is walking back home with a pack of skittles and an iced tea an offense?

It further appears to this writer that the nation has reason to be concerned about the actual cause of this young man death.  From my understanding they are troubled by the "but for cause" of the shooter leaving his vehicle when he was told by the 911 operator he (the shooter) was talking to, "no we don't need you to follow."  Hence I say and there are several that will say "but for the shooter getting out of his vehicle, contrary to the 911 operator's instruction not to follow the alleged suspect, Trayvon Martin would still be alive to tell us his side of the story. (The Facts Known to Me)

Tose v. Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, 819 F.Supp.1312, at [HN8]

An initial consideration in the “proximate cause” determination is whether defendant’s conduct was a “cause in fact” of plaintiffs’ loss.  Kulas v. Public Service Elec.  And Gas Co., 41 N.J. 311, 317, 196 A.2d 769 (1964).  Plaintiff must show that the particular harmful event at issue would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence.  Id.  As to the necessary degree of causation, “it is generally sufficient if defendant’s negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries.”  Rappaport, 31 N.J. at 203; see also Ettin v. Ava Truck Leasing, Inc., 53 N.J. 463, 483, 251 A.2d 278 (1969).

The decisional case law above seems to state that there is a basis in law for the people's outcry for justice, but the police and the shooter have plainly stated that they have made there own determination and there is no need for a jury to decide that "but for Mr. Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle, Trayvon Martin would not have been shot to death."

Legal minds in the "media" know this, lawyers outside the confines of journalistic reporting know this as well.  I would ask that they "Do Tell-Do Tell" that but for Mr. Zimmerman's acts of ignoring trained law enforcement officials request that he disengage, Trayvon Martin would be alive. But, he is not alive, his mother has acknowledged the screams of her child calling for help, and the father has joined her in telling the rest of the world that they cannot rest until their son's killer is brought to justice. (Fact)

I know that all of you join me in applauding the strength and courage of the family of Trayvon Martin. Please if you have not done so already, show your support of this family in their time of loss by signing their petition for justice at  https://www.change.org/petitions/prosecute-the-killer-of-our-son-17-year-old-trayvon-martin

Thank you,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!