Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by monstro

Because I am ignorant of the law and I don't know how long it takes for criminal cases to come together, I have stopped fighting with the chorus . Maybe I am being impatient and everyone is smarter and more objective than I am? But I do wonder how long a person has to wait for it to become reasonable to form a basic conclusion. How much doubt do we need before it becomes perfectly okay to say, "You know what? His ass needs to be booked and released out on bail before he flies right on out of here."

The Grand Jury starts in a week, and I get the impression the hearing will last a couple of weeks (but I'm by no means certain of that), so I'd say waiting 3 weeks or so is reasonable.

I also suspect that, should he not be charged after the Grand Jury, there will be a thorough investigation of the police department, and any possible incompetence or cover-ups.

As to the recurring question of the toxicology tests on Zimmerman, in the other thread on this it was mentioned that, if there is no probable cause to arrest him, there is no probable cause to insist on a blood test. I also understand that carrying a firearm whilst drunk is illegal, so if the police suspected he was intoxicated, they could have arrested him for that. I'm willing to be corrected on this.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't know. I can point to a few things, like the tox screen, that were in progress but not yet back from the lab. But I certainly can't list and don't know every other investigatory lead that the police were following.

Do you?

I know they are not doing an investigation because the SPD basically admitted to it. While you might nitpick the following, to me, its pretty clear when they said that the "Stand Your Ground" law prevents an arrest. It seems that had there been some wiggle room, the SPD would have said that while they could not arrest him now, an arrest may happen in the future pending further investigation. That's all they had to say, no leaking of what they're doing, just an admission to perhaps quiet the firestorm by saying that they are investigating.

However, the nation saw a police department do nothing in the way of investigating (or else they would have admitted as such, if only to get the press off their backs), a police chief who claimed no crime was committed, and most everyone in authority just throw up their hands and say essentially "that's the law, sorry"

Does it make sense, counselor, that in your estimation, if an investigation had been going on when this news broke, they would have admitted as much, if only to stem the anger without providing any details? The reason why I and a lot of people believe that there was no investigation until it went national is because there is no good reason not to simply admit one is there. It absolutely does not benefit the town or the SPD to remain silent on this issue. They have everything to gain by simply uttering a few words to the effect that the Zimmerman case was being looked at. But they didn't. And that's why I can say with 99% certainty that there was no investigation until things got heated

Originally Posted by Bricker

I imagine because people reacted to the perceived lack of an investigation. What I don't know is whether that perception was accurate.

Do you?

And the response to that of course is: if that's what he thought, why didn't he simply open an investigation? Or, if he was sure of the law, remain steadfast?

Now there is an investigation, not only by the local authorities, but by the FBI, as reported today. All this because they wouldn't want to jeopardize the case, as you claim, by showing their hand before Zimmerman should show his? It doesn't make sense.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But what about the delay between his seeking treatment -- that is, I agree with you that the EMT report is the gold standard, but a visit to the ER the next day loses some evidentiary value. Doesn't it?

I was referring to the report of the medical examination at the scene. If the only medical report is from the next day, then yes, it will lose some value, but I would expect there to be one from the scene. If there are two reports which agree, I would say it strengthens their value.

If the reports disagree, the fact that the relatively poor quality video suggest no obvious major injury comes into play.

If they both say he's uninjured, then he's lying, and both him and the police have some extremely tough questions to answer.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I don't get it. He won't either, says two bits.

Okay, I'll elaborate in an effort to elucidate.

The things listed in the sentence were not done. Zimmerman was NOT given a toxicology test. Zimmerman's car was NOT impounded. Key witnesses were NOT interviewed. Those were possible missteps in the investigation, to have NOT done those things.

That's the way I read the sentence in question.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Steophan

As to the recurring question of the toxicology tests on Zimmerman, in the other thread on this it was mentioned that, if there is no probable cause to arrest him, there is no probable cause to insist on a blood test. I also understand that carrying a firearm whilst drunk is illegal, so if the police suspected he was intoxicated, they could have arrested him for that. I'm willing to be corrected on this.

But if there was no probable cause to arrest him, why was he in handcuffs? I believe that the police cannot detain someone without arresting them. He didn't look like he was "free to go."

[Terr]

Originally Posted by saoirse

But if there was no probable cause to arrest him, why was he in handcuffs? I believe that the police cannot detain someone without arresting them.

Yes, they can.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Okay, I'll elaborate in an effort to elucidate.

The things listed in the sentence were not done. Zimmerman was NOT given a toxicology test. Zimmerman's car was NOT impounded. Key witnesses were NOT interviewed. Those were possible missteps in the investigation, to have NOT done those things.

That's the way I read the sentence in question.

Also, without backtracking too much. The cops potentially contaminated evidence by searching Z's jacket with their bare hands instead of wearing surgical gloves. They had to have intentionally filed an inaccurate report.

The OP has been attacked as prejudicial but I think there is enough clear evidence that the SPD acted incompetently. That's why they were Pitted in the first place.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Certainty is not given to flesh such as ours. Which you already knew. I very much doubt that you are suggesting we abandon all reasonable conclusions therefore. So, please, Counselor, let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. Barring an affidavit from God Almighty countersigned by the Angel Gabriel, you can dart out of this trapdoor whenever you choose.

I hope you agree that it is a reasonable stipulation a toxology exam is needful when one person, for whatever reason, has gunned down another. And its absence would be strong testimony for Something Wrong. If the suggestion is false, why wouldn't they say so? They would not even have to reveal any results, they could simply say "Yes, we did, and you will get the results in due course." Nothing prejudicial about that.

So why didn't they? Especially when refusing to do so when give credence to an accusation they must have been anxious to nullify.

My conclusion, based on a preponderance of evidence in despair of certainty: they did no such test.

I agree, but I don't agree it was a misstep.

If Zimmerman was asked to voluntarily submit to a blood test and refused, I don't see where their probable cause to get a warrant is.

However, if they never asked at all, I would agree that was a major screwup.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

...I don't see where their probable cause to get a warrant is. ....

Well, he drove a car to the scene, which is surely a regulated activity in Florida, even if blowing away black kids isn't.

[elucidator]

[Aside]

Can't get this scenario out of my head, so I'll try to stick it yours and then feel better.

Lets just say you know somebody you would prefer were dead. A brother in law, whatever. Helps if they are aggressive and crude with a bad temper.

So you get a concealed carry permit, and conceal and carry. Good solid pistol with ammunition suitable for a man of his caliber. You sit down, maybe have a couple drinks, wait until you are out of earshot, and then start making casual small talk. Maybe about how wrassling is fixed, NASCAR is for gay fags (hmmmm...I seem to be thinking about my cousin Wesley outside Amarillo...) or maybe ask if his grandma had lasting health benefits from swimming out to meet the troopships. Bonus points if theres a plausible reason for a golf club or baseball bat to be close at hand.

Anyway, he loses it, goes for you, and adios, motherfucker.

Someone's gonna do this. Its gonna happen, if it hasn't already. I have perhaps an unusual mind, but not a unique one, if I can think of this, somebody else already has. This law is a ready made Ronco Justifiable Stand Your Ground Homicide Kit.

Or course, this works best with the belligerent and aggressive, which may lend some small and happy effect on the gene pool. Hippy dreams of a more peaceful species brought closer to realization. Just not quite what we had in mind....

[/Aside]

[monstro]

elucidator, the fight wouldn't have to happen outside of earshot. Talking about someone's mama isn't against the law. So under SYG, you could start a verbal argument and as long as the other person got violent enough to convince the witnesses around you that you had good reason to fear for your life, you'd be off the hook.

So just make sure all the witnesses hate your brother-in-law too, and you're golden.

[elucidator]

That cocksucker? You kidding, everybody fucking hates.....oh, you mean, like, hypothetically.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by saoirse

But if there was no probable cause to arrest him, why was he in handcuffs? I believe that the police cannot detain someone without arresting them. He didn't look like he was "free to go."

This was mentioned in the other thread, and it appears that the police can cuff someone without arresting them if they agree to it. It would be interesting to know how common that is, though, and what the usual reasons for it happening are.

I'd be inclined to say that the fact that he was handcuffed suggests against him being given special treatment by the police.

[Batfish]

Originally Posted by elucidator

[Aside]

Can't get this scenario out of my head, so I'll try to stick it yours and then feel better.

Lets just say you know somebody you would prefer were dead. A brother in law, whatever. Helps if they are aggressive and crude with a bad temper.

So you get a concealed carry permit, and conceal and carry. Good solid pistol with ammunition suitable for a man of his caliber. You sit down, maybe have a couple drinks, wait until you are out of earshot, and then start making casual small talk. Maybe about how wrassling is fixed, NASCAR is for gay fags (hmmmm...I seem to be thinking about my cousin Wesley outside Amarillo...) or maybe ask if his grandma had lasting health benefits from swimming out to meet the troopships. Bonus points if theres a plausible reason for a golf club or baseball bat to be close at hand.

Anyway, he loses it, goes for you, and adios, motherfucker.

Someone's gonna do this. Its gonna happen, if it hasn't already. I have perhaps an unusual mind, but not a unique one, if I can think of this, somebody else already has. This law is a ready made Ronco Justifiable Stand Your Ground Homicide Kit.

Or course, this works best with the belligerent and aggressive, which may lend some small and happy effect on the gene pool. Hippy dreams of a more peaceful species brought closer to realization. Just not quite what we had in mind....

[/Aside]

Bull. The same cops that gave Zimmerman all the benefit of the doubt they could possibly come up with would arrest you in a second in that scenario.

The stand-your-ground law is an after-the-fact excuse for their behavior in this particular case not a policy.

But perhaps I'm too cynical.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Well, he drove a car to the scene, which is surely a regulated activity in Florida, even if blowing away black kids isn't.

Yes, but driving a car is not probable cause to get a blood test.

Even the implied consent law is of no help here, since you need reasonable suspicion of intoxication to get him to in front of a breathalyzer.

And I haven't heard anything reliable about any specific, articulable facts that would support reasonable suspicion of intoxication or impairment. Have you?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by saoirse

But if there was no probable cause to arrest him, why was he in handcuffs? I believe that the police cannot detain someone without arresting them. He didn't look like he was "free to go."

Yes, they can.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, but driving a car is not probable cause to get a blood test.

Even the implied consent law is of no help here, since you need reasonable suspicion of intoxication to get him to in front of a breathalyzer.

And I haven't heard anything reliable about any specific, articulable facts that would support reasonable suspicion of intoxication or impairment. Have you?

Rick, the man had just shot and killed an unarmed teenager. If he'd backed into a parked vehicle on the street, it would've been probable cause for a breathalyzer; you're saying youth-shooting doesn't rise to at least the same level?



ETA: It may not have mandated a tox screen, but you can't seriously believe any court would have denied there was probable cause if one had been administered.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Batfish

Bull. The same cops that gave Zimmerman all the benefit of the doubt they could possibly come up with would arrest you in a second in that scenario.

The stand-your-ground law is an after-the-fact excuse for their behavior in this particular case not a policy.

But perhaps I'm too cynical.

This is one of those moments, when I'm kidding, but I'm not. Besides, being arrested doesn't matter all that much, what matters is being convicted. And to prevent that, all you need do is convince some number of jury members that your client had a "reasonable" fear of severe bodily injury. In many places, that's only one, don't know about Florida, but evidence indicates that Florida adheres to whichever standard is the most retarded. So, I'm guessing one.

Secondly, you may be right, but so what? Who says that only sophisticated legal thinkers are likely to crave murder? Sure as shootin', some Ricky Retardo is going to see this as a free pass.

Submitted for your horror:

...Justifiable homicides are increasing, especially in states with “stand your ground” laws, even as the overall U.S. homicide rate is falling.

From 2000 to 2010, justifiable homicides rose from 176 to 326, an 85 percent increase, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports. The category includes killings categorized as justifiable by police and prosecutors, and those in which defendants win at trial based on the claim.

Among all homicides, when races differ, the victim is more often white. In justifiable homicides, when races differ, the victim is more often black....

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...r_ground_laws/

Odds are good that my scenario not only could happen, but already has. But if it hasn't happened, it will. And the killer will walk. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm a pessimist, and it doesn't happen often enough.

PS: as you may already know, this sort of "stand your ground" law is a result of the efforts of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). ALEC is enough material for ten Pit threads, so I'll just leave that there, for now.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, they can.

Then perhaps you could clarify your earlier post about Dunaway v. New York? That seemed to say that they couldn't, or at least that any evidence they gather from doing so would be inadmissable.

[YogSosoth]

This article in Slate.com this morning talks about if Zimmerman's arrested, what the trial could look like. I post it here because there are apparently still a lot of unforgivable missteps that most reasonable people would point to as a serious oversight, enough to cast suspicion on the Sanford Police Department on their horrible bungling of the case.

Bricker, you first responded to me saying that its possible the police are keeping the investigation under wraps, if only to better catch Zimmerman. But according to the article, they haven't yet:

1) Analyzed the 9-11 voice recording. Before you respond to all of these issue that its not their job, realize that I'm not saying what will and will not get into court. But a full, thorough investigation by the police would surely try to capture as much evidence as possible and let the prosecutor argue with the judge what can and cannot be admissible in court. The police don't do that. So even if there is a small chance the tapes won't be admissible, in the scope of an investigation, such an analysis has to be done. Why hasn't that happened?

2) Talk to the funeral director. He would have to dress and prepare Trayvon's body. There may be some evidence on him of a scuffle, if he was really on top of Zimmerman pummeling him

3) Talked with the girlfriend. They haven't even done that, and she's the last person other than Zimmerman who talked to him.

Some conservatives, not you Brick, seem to think that liberals just automatically side with the black kid because of some racial thing. But those people need to understand that with each piece of evidence we hear that leaks out, it knocks Zimmerman's story on its ass. Each single piece of information we get may or may not convict him, but all together they paint a pretty damning portrait.

[Algher]

elucidator - I checked your link, then read the comments, then went to the FBI for more data. It appears that the ABA might have some problems with their report.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...10shrtbl15.xls

If we take handguns - the type of firearm most likely to be carried concealed and resulting in a shooting (similar to the death of Mr. Martin):

2006: 154
2007: 161
2008: 171
2009: 167
2010: 170

I also don't see the 326 Justifiable Homicides in 2010 that the ABA listed - Total for 2010 is 278.

[elucidator]

I believe that to be a member of the ABA, you have to be a lawyer. I resent your insinuation, sir, and demand an apology!

OK, all kidding aside, what is the point you are trying to make? That there was no rise in "justifiable homicide" where "Stand your ground" laws have been enacted? In that case, you've got a lot more work to do. Start by googling "justifiable homicide rates", and you will be very, very busy. At any rate, your FBI statistics don't reflect any such analysis. Which is needful, yes?

At any rate, the question only arise in this particular, un-hijacked context if the State Attorney decided not to pursue charges because he thought he couldn't make it stick due to the SYG law. Such a suggestion has been bandied about, but not confirmed, so far as I know.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Rick, the man had just shot and killed an unarmed teenager. If he'd backed into a parked vehicle on the street, it would've been probable cause for a breathalyzer; you're saying youth-shooting doesn't rise to at least the same level?



ETA: It may not have mandated a tox screen, but you can't seriously believe any court would have denied there was probable cause if one had been administered.

Of course I can.

Backing into a parked car implies a loss or lack of physical coordination or control. The car you hit wasn't moving. And even then, that alone won't support a blood test. You need something more.

Shooting and killing an unarmed teenager doesn't imply any such thing. I can absolutely believe a court would deny a warrant for a blood test if the only fact adduced to support probable cause was, "He shot and killed an unarmed teenager." where are the specific facts that show a probability of intoxication?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by saoirse

But if there was no probable cause to arrest him, why was he in handcuffs? I believe that the police cannot detain someone without arresting them. He didn't look like he was "free to go."

Originally Posted by saoirse

Then perhaps you could clarify your earlier post about Dunaway v. New York? That seemed to say that they couldn't, or at least that any evidence they gather from doing so would be inadmissable.

Sure.

The police may briefly detain someone, and handcuff them, without probable cause. This brief detention period allows them to investigate their reasonable suspicion, and either confirm or dispel it. Reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, but higher than a mere hunch, guess, or unparticularized suspicion. It requires that the officer point to specific, articulable facts that taken together would warrant a man of reasonable caution to entertain a suspicion of criminal activity. During this detention, a person may be handcuffed.

Dunaway v. New York concerns the extension of this sort of detention by transport to the police station. This cannot be done without either consent or probable cause. In fact, there's such a thing as a Dunaway warning:

We would like for you to come down to the precinct with us to discuss (current crime). You are not under arrest, and you don't have to go with us. You are free to walk away at this time without saying anything more if you wish to do so.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

But according to the article, they haven't yet:

1) Analyzed the 9-11 voice recording.

Can you quote the article's claim that this hasn't happened yet?

2) Talk to the funeral director. He would have to dress and prepare Trayvon's body. There may be some evidence on him of a scuffle, if he was really on top of Zimmerman pummeling him

Wasn't Trayvon autopsied? Wouldn't the medical examiner's report be better evidence than the funeral director's impression?

3) Talked with the girlfriend. They haven't even done that, and she's the last person other than Zimmerman who talked to him.

Have they tried? Has she been willing to talk to them?

[xenophon41]

Fact: Suspect has just admittedly shot and killed an unidentified youth, claiming self defense.
Fact: Slain youth has been found with no weapon, and suspect has not claimed he was attacked with a weapon.
Fact: Witnesses corroborate that a physical altercation occured between suspect and victim.
Fact: No witness has been found to corroborate how the altercation was initiated.
Fact: Suspect has complained of head injuries, making simple observation of his behavior unreliable as a test for intoxication.


But you're right that Zimmerman exercised superior aiming and trigger pulling motor skills, Bricker. But note that his exercise of those skills resulted in the death of another human, for which no verified justification has been provided. To some law enforcement professionals, this might indicate a "loss or lack" of emotional "coordination or control."

I suppose we can blame the 13th Amendment for the lack of interest by SPD. After all, no one's property was damaged in this incident.


And yes, that last bit was deliberately hyperbolic. Sue me.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Dunaway v. New York concerns the extension of this sort of detention by transport to the police station. This cannot be done without either consent or probable cause. In fact, there's such a thing as a Dunaway warning:

We would like for you to come down to the precinct with us to discuss (current crime). You are not under arrest, and you don't have to go with us. You are free to walk away at this time without saying anything more if you wish to do so.

Learn something new every day. I'm curious as to whether handcuffing the person of interest is SOP after said person has volunteered to come down to the station.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Wasn't Trayvon autopsied? Wouldn't the medical examiner's report be better evidence than the funeral director's impression?

I was wondering this too. I have not heard anything about whether or not an autopsy was done.

If Trayvon's body was NOT seen/autopsied by a medical examiner, this would be another reason to pit the authorities for bungling the case from the very beginning.

Likewise, there should have been a very thorough report about Zimmerman's "injuries" by attending medical professionals. This report would be the main (if not conclusive) evidence of the extent of the injuries. if the injuries were minor, this should have clued the police in that Zimmerman's story was not exactly 100% truthful. If there is not a very detailed medical report about BOTH parties in the police file then the investigation was bungled from the beginning.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Fact: Suspect has just admittedly shot and killed an unidentified youth, claiming self defense.
Fact: Slain youth has been found with no weapon, and suspect has not claimed he was attacked with a weapon.
Fact: Witnesses corroborate that a physical altercation occured between suspect and victim.
Fact: No witness has been found to corroborate how the altercation was initiated.
Fact: Suspect has complained of head injuries, making simple observation of his behavior unreliable as a test for intoxication.


But you're right that Zimmerman exercised superior aiming and trigger pulling motor skills, Bricker. But note that his exercise of those skills resulted in the death of another human, for which no verified justification has been provided. To some law enforcement professionals, this might indicate a "loss or lack" of emotional "coordination or control."

I suppose we can blame the 13th Amendment for the lack of interest by SPD. After all, no one's property was damaged in this incident.


And yes, that last bit was deliberately hyperbolic. Sue me.

Are you serious?

The answer is no. Nothing here supports probable cause for intoxication. Death may mean lots of things, but general outrage about an unjustified death does not translate into specific reason to suspect intoxication.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Learn something new every day. I'm curious as to whether handcuffing the person of interest is SOP after said person has volunteered to come down to the station.

I would guess 'yes' for officer safety. But I would also want to actually see the department SOP.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I was wondering this too. I have not heard anything about whether or not an autopsy was done.

If Trayvon's body was NOT seen/autopsied by a medical examiner, this would be another reason to pit the authorities for bungling the case from the very beginning.

Absolutely. It would be nearly inconceivable to not autopsy, and if not done it would be a grievous breach.

Likewise, there should have been a very thorough report about Zimmerman's "injuries" by attending medical professionals. This report would be the main (if not conclusive) evidence of the extent of the injuries. if the injuries were minor, this should have clued the police in that Zimmerman's story was not exactly 100% truthful. If there is not a very detailed medical report about BOTH parties in the police file then the investigation was bungled from the beginning.

Agreed.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Absolutely. It would be nearly inconceivable to not autopsy, and if not done it would be a grievous breach.

Of course. It is pretty silly even to suggest it wasn't performed.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3208...-zimmerman.htm

The autopsy on Trayvon Martin was performed by a medical examiner who works for the Volusia County government, and therefore Byron has been in the loop regarding the autopsy, which has not yet been released as the investigation into the killing is ongoing.

"In Florida when a death is being actively investigated by any agency ... the autopsy information is shielded under the Florida public records law until the investigation becomes un-active, or inactive," Byron told the IBTimes via phone Wednesday morning. "So in this case I think we can all agree this is an active death investigation, so what I need to do is refer all calls to the State Attorney's Office in Jacksonville."

[elucidator]

Truly, Bricker, you are an odd duck. You are about half-way down the road to agreeing that the investigation and conduct of the police in this regard stinks of incompetence. But not for those reasons, only for these reasons! Someone tries to press those reasons, you will fight them tooth and nail, never say die! But for these reasons, yeah, sure, (shrug) whatever.

Truly an odd duck.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Truly, Bricker, you are an odd duck. You are about half-way down the road to agreeing that the investigation and conduct of the police in this regard stinks of incompetence. But not for those reasons, only for these reasons! Someone tries to press those reasons, you will fight them tooth and nail, never say die! But for these reasons, yeah, sure, (shrug) whatever.

Truly an odd duck.

In my view, the reverse is the puzzling attitude; once we accept that the police may have made an error in one thing, we must agree that they did everything wrong. Failed to interview the girlfriend? Well, then, they must also have burned Zimmerman's shirt!

What I am doing is what I always do, about everything: start at zero and wait for compelling evidence, and require those making confident proclamations to substantiate them.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Bricker

What I am doing is what I always do, about everything: start at zero and wait for compelling evidence, and require those making confident proclamations to substantiate them.

Burn the witch!!!

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

In my view, the reverse is the puzzling attitude; once we accept that the police may have made an error in one thing, we must agree that they did everything wrong. Failed to interview the girlfriend? Well, then, they must also have burned Zimmerman's shirt!

What I am doing is what I always do, about everything: start at zero and wait for compelling evidence, and require those making confident proclamations to substantiate them.

Well, yes, of course, you are the very beacon of unbiased view. Why, I doubt anyone here has the least suspicion what your political views might be, you are so utterly objective, and all. Me too, of course. Der Trish might lean a little lefty, there are hints....

But lets unpack this a bit, shall we? In my human experience, someone who fucks up something fundamental in the procedures they are entrusted to perform, it is a likely indicator. It doesn't by itself prove incompetence, certainly not. But it is suggestive.

And by the way, who has specifically put forth the proposition that you are so firmly opposed to? Who specifically said "Hey, they fucked this up, that means they fucked everything up"? Was it someone on a yellow brick road, with a bi-polar lion, a Kansas slut, a little dog and Mitt Romney?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Someone's gonna do this. Its gonna happen, if it hasn't already. I have perhaps an unusual mind, but not a unique one, if I can think of this, somebody else already has. This law is a ready made Ronco Justifiable Stand Your Ground Homicide Kit.

Dude, I thought of this within 24 hours of hearing about "Stand Your Ground," and posted in in this thread, and the other one. And I'm the most gentle, peaceful guy yo'll ever meet. But write a goddamned Get Out Of A Murder Charge For Free law into the books and ANYONE can at least think of someone they'd like to pop.

Want to really cover your tracks? If you don't want the cops asking about your regrettable history with the victim, all you need is a willing accomplice who doesn't know the target to do it for you.

[Batfish]

If I shot and killed an intruder in my home there are certain things I'd expect the police to do, or at least not be surprised if they did.

1. Place me in custody, handcuffs and all. Transport me to the police station and take my statement. Fingerprint me, check me for priors.

2.If I claimed there was a physical altercation before the shooting then I'd expect to be examined for evidence of that, perhaps by a physician. If I'd been injured during that altercation I'd expect to be taken to be treated. I'd expect my injuries to be part of the police report.

3. I'd expect the police to be skeptical of my claim of self-defense at least initially and for them to look for weakness in my statement. I'd expect them to check for any connection between myself and the intruder.

4. I'd expect to be arrested only if these investigations increased the police's suspicion, but nonetheless all the evidence will have been gathered.

5. I'd expect the body to be autopsied.

None of these things would outrage me as intrusive to my rights, after all I killed a person even if justifiably. No doubt I'd be very upset but mostly because I'd killed a person.

I don't think we know how many of these things were done in this case either competently or not and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, at least until the investigation is completed.

A self-defense killing in the street should, I think, garner even more suspicion than the case of a home intruder.

If it turns out that the Sanford PD didn't collect evidence, applied no skepticism to Zimmerman's claims and shrugged off the killing of an unarmed minor then they're incompetent at best.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

And by the way, who has specifically put forth the proposition that you are so firmly opposed to? Who specifically said "Hey, they fucked this up, that means they fucked everything up"? Was it someone on a yellow brick road, with a bi-polar lion, a Kansas slut, a little dog and Mitt Romney?

You did:

Originally Posted by elucidator

Truly, Bricker, you are an odd duck. You are about half-way down the road to agreeing that the investigation and conduct of the police in this regard stinks of incompetence. But not for those reasons, only for these reasons! Someone tries to press those reasons, you will fight them tooth and nail, never say die! But for these reasons, yeah, sure, (shrug) whatever.

Truly an odd duck.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Batfish

If I shot and killed an intruder in my home there are certain things I'd expect the police to do, or at least not be surprised if they did.

1. Place me in custody, handcuffs and all. Transport me to the police station and take my statement. Fingerprint me, check me for priors.

You'd expect them to do this even if there was a law in your state that said, "Arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant are all forbidden to police, unless they first determine that the force used was unlawful."

Really?

You'd expect the police to detain you in custody, in the face of a law that forbids them from detaining you in custody until they determine that the force used was unlawful?

Why?

[brazil84]

I've read through his posts in this thread, and it would appear that Bricker is simply trying to look at the case objectively and with an open mind.

Lol, I guess that makes him an "odd duck."

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Are you serious?

As a heart punch.

The answer is no. Nothing here supports probable cause for intoxication. Death may mean lots of things, but general outrage about an unjustified death does not translate into specific reason to suspect intoxication.

If Zimmerman and Martin had fought with knives and both combatants were alive when the police arrived, they both could have reasonably been breathalyzed. If it had been a hunting accident and Zimmerman had shot Martin with a dropped shotgun or killed him with a rifle round that passed through foliage, Zimmerman almost certainly would've been screened as a matter of course. But you expect a higher standard of cause in order to tox screen after an intentional killing, because, I gather, you believe police discretion to be utterly restricted by Florida law without recourse or laxity. (Please correct me if I have gathered wrongly; this is what you seem to me to be saying to other posters in the thread.)

Here's the thing - every patrolling member of every police force on the planet knows how to phrase suspicion in a way that suits the legal requirements of their jurisdiction.* There was no jeopardy for the police associated with administering (or even just requesting of Zimmerman) a tox screen. Had Martin not been killed outright, they'd have done a more thorough job of establishing fault. But since the corpse wasn't exactly asserting his rights, the SPD took the path of least effort afforded by cover of law.

How dare I state this opinion about the police without all the facts at my disposal? Because Trayvon Martin's family was at home, awake and available the night of his killing and didn't know about it until they approached the SPD the next day for help finding Trayvon. SPD didn't canvass or did a cursory job of canvassing the immediate neighborhood to see if any household was missing a young black male. Trayvon's father's home is only a few hundred feet further down the trail on which he was killed. Investigators didn't check Martin's phone for a "home" number or other contacts who might establish his identity and provide information, or they failed to follow up. -Reportedly the medical examiner found the phone information, but no action was taken by anyone in authority to contact Martin's relatives.

The Sanford Police Department did not protect Travon Martin's human rights or the rights of his family to any reasonable minimum standard. I frankly don't know or care whether this was institutional racism or just some form of depraved indifference in the organization. Fuck the SPD.



elucidator keeps pointing out, Bricker, in the various threads among which you carefully dispense lawyerly apologia of authoritarian misbehavior, that you're "smarter than this" sort of thing. I think I disagree with 'luc's focus here. I don't doubt for a second your intellect, or even your ethics. It's just that your biases cause a chronic lack or loss of empathetic compunction or control.




*_{No cite for this assertion. The earth is roughly spherical; deal with it.}

[Blank Slate]

You can be objective and still be an odd duck. A never-named odd duck even.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Because Trayvon Martin's family was at home, awake and available the night of his killing and didn't know about it until they approached the SPD the next day for help finding Trayvon. SPD didn't canvass or did a cursory job of canvassing the immediate neighborhood to see if any household was missing a young black male.

Trayvon's father and his girlfriend were out on the town at the time. They were not home.

Investigators didn't check Martin's phone for a "home" number or other contacts who might establish his identity and provide information, or they failed to follow up.

The police say the phone was locked. Apparently they have no means to unlock locked phones.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Here's the thing - every patrolling member of every police force on the planet knows how to phrase suspicion in a way that suits the legal requirements of their jurisdiction.*

Yes. Any cop in the country could have said, for example, that Zimmerman was unsteady on his feet, that his speech was confused or disoriented, and thus gotten probable cause to do a breathalyzer. And that determination would have been effectively unreviewable. The cops, in other words, could very safely say this and get their test.

But let's be clear: are you saying that Zimmerman was in fact unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented?

Or are you saying that to do a competent job, the cops should have lied and said he was, even if he wasn't?

Or are you saying that IF Zimmerman was in fact unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented, then and only then should the police have gotten a test, and so you're saying they were incompetent for failing to get the test only if in fact Zimmerman unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented.

Or are you saying they didn't ask Zimmerman to voluntarily consent to a blood alcohol test?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

You did:

Really? But weren't you making the same argument before I offered that observation? Or did you pivot on my deathless words, and strike out in a wholly new direction in shock and dismay? What was your thesis before I spoke?

I shall make very effort to ensure that my new-found power is used for good. Going to be difficult, I have a strong urge to mischievous fun, especially when confronted with pious claims to pure objectivity.

And while you're about it, perhaps you'll explain how incompetent acts do not imply incompetence? To many of us, indeed, most of us, they certainly do. But yours is a special understanding, one that eludes lesser minds.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Really? But weren't you making the same argument before I offered that observation? Or did you pivot on my deathless words, and strike out in a wholly new direction in shock and dismay? What was your thesis before I spoke?

No. I was evaluating each statement, agreeing or disagreeing that the omission of each would be grossly derelict, and then asking if we knew that the step had in fact been eliminated.

And while you're about it, perhaps you'll explain how incompetent acts do not imply incompetence? To many of us, indeed, most of us, they certainly do. But yours is a special understanding, one that eludes lesser minds.

I haven't heard any confirmed incompetent acts yet. For example, in response to a claim that they did not autopsy martin's body, I said, "It would be nearly inconceivable to not autopsy, and if not done it would be a grievous breach."

But the follow-on question is: did they in fact autopsy his body?

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But let's be clear: are you saying that Zimmerman was in fact unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented?

I have no idea how he appeared. I do know as established fact that he'd just watched, followed and shot to death an unarmed teenager. This is not a usual sequence of events, and his claim of self defense could not be corroborated by witnesses. Why wouldn't I check for intoxication if I were empowered to do so? Rather more to the point, what would disincline me from at least testing?

Or are you saying that to do a competent job, the cops should have lied and said he was, even if he wasn't?

I'm saying the circumstances were sufficient to check for intoxication regardless of Zimmerman's apparent motor skills. He'd just fought with and shot an unarmed individual for no stated cause other than his uncorroborated claim that the deceased had assaulted him. What would disincline me from testing him for intoxicants?

Or are you saying that IF Zimmerman was in fact unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented, then and only then should the police have gotten a test, and so you're saying they were incompetent for failing to get the test only if in fact Zimmerman unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented.

Repeated for emphasis: I'm saying the circumstances were sufficient to check for intoxication regardless of Zimmerman's apparent motor skills. He'd just fought with and shot an unarmed individual for no stated cause other than his uncorroborated claim that the deceased had assaulted him. What would disincline me from testing him for intoxicants?

Or are you saying they didn't ask Zimmerman to voluntarily consent to a blood alcohol test?

If they did, I have not seen it reported. It was not part of the leaked preliminary and supplemental police reports, in any report citing those reports. Like elucidator, I suspect mention of such a request would have been leaked to the press along with the other information. If you have non-priveleged knowledge that they did so, feel free to share it. Otherwise, I don't think it's unfair to state that there's no indication the SPD requested a blood alcohol test or any other toxicology analysis of Zimmerman.

[elucidator]

Likewise, there should have been a very thorough report about Zimmerman's "injuries" by attending medical professionals. This report would be the main (if not conclusive) evidence of the extent of the injuries. if the injuries were minor, this should have clued the police in that Zimmerman's story was not exactly 100% truthful. If there is not a very detailed medical report about BOTH parties in the police file then the investigation was bungled from the beginning.

Says Euphonious. To which you say "Agreed". Did I miss the part where you challenge that assertion? Or is there a penumbra to the word "Agreed"?

[Bricker]

Likewise, there should have been a very thorough report about Zimmerman's "injuries" by attending medical professionals. This report would be the main (if not conclusive) evidence of the extent of the injuries. if the injuries were minor, this should have clued the police in that Zimmerman's story was not exactly 100% truthful. If there is not a very detailed medical report about BOTH parties in the police file then the investigation was bungled from the beginning.

Originally Posted by elucidator

Says Euphonious. To which you say "Agreed". Did I miss the part where you challenge that assertion? Or is there a penumbra to the word "Agreed"?

I certainly agree with his assertion.

I am thinking maybe you see more to his assertion than what's there. He's saying, " If there is not a very detailed medical report about BOTH parties..." and " there should have been a very thorough report about Zimmerman's "injuries" by attending medical professionals..."

He is not saying these things don't exist. He's saying IF they don't exist, that's clear evidence of bungling, and I completely agree.

Now you come along and act as though he's said they actually don't exist.