No. Because smelling hash gives rise to at least reasonable suspicion. The officer can articulate the specific facts that caused his suspicion, and detain the person. During this detention, he can ask questions that confirm (or dispel) his suspicions.
Okay, he didn’t smell hash, he didn’t even see the person doing anything suspicious, but he says the person he arrested was acting funny and erratic and there’s nobody around to contradict him. He then searches him and “Yippee!” he did have some illicit substance on him.
Tell me how that cop’s deception could ever be exposed, barring some kind of all-intrusive surveillance tech? The suggestion that there was absolutely NOTHING that they could have found on the first night that wouldn’t give them probable cause, seems unlikely, had they put the necessary effort in to incorporating even the limited information they had that first night.
He certainly shouldn’t have been taken to the station and treated like a wounded hero who’d been through a traumatic experience, on what they could see right before their very eyes, ie. a guy who was as fit as a fiddle and looking remarkably unscathed, 30 minutes after a life and death struggle and the use of a wet cloth.
So your advice would be for the officer to lie, ultimately lie under oath, in order to effect the immediate arrest?
The problem is that in this day and age, conduct like that has a fair chance of being caught. These officers thought they were safe in doing what they did, but of course they weren’t. In fact, the officers in this case were also caught unaware by the presence of an onlooker with a video phone.
Not to mention that it’s a wrong thing to do, a fact that doesn’t seem to impinge on your conscience one bit. But from a purely practical standpoint, that deception you urge the officer to engage in, if exposed, could ultimately lead to Zimmerman being unprosecutable. If the defense could show that the arrest was false, all the evidence that arose from it would be inadmissible.
And, as I said before, you’d be in this thread complaining about the unprofessional conduct of officers that would lie to justify an arrest and thus cause a murderer to go free.
I’m not condoning it, I’m declaring it as being general police procedure on the whole, and wondering why it hasn’t applied here. Go on, insist that police always do everything by the book without deviation and they haven’t developed certain ploys to get around the breaking of rules.
Again you are offering up the fallacy of the excluded middle. It’s not general police procedure to fabricate probable cause where none exists – but at the same time, it’s not the case that “police always do everything by the book.” In my experience, a police officer lying on the stand was very rare. But it happened. Regardless, I don’t agree with your implicit suggestion that the police should do so, or that they should have done so in this case.
Like your experience in courtrooms is representative of behaviour on the streets beyond the scrutiny of objective minds.
The smart ones never get caught, the dumber ones get a smack on the wrist, or if they’ve made a serious boo boo and arrested the wrong person with clout, they might be in a bit more bother, but my guess is most cops treat laws and rules as things civilians need to worry about, and don’t really apply to them.
You’re welcome to point me in the direction of the extensive list containing all cases of police being tried and convicted of anything and the police force not dragging their heels when doing so.
And my guess is that your guess is wrong.
I don’t believe there’s a single repository of all such cases.
I can certainly produce five, ten, fifteen, or twenty cases of police being prosecuted without dragging of feet. But yet again, if you insist that a list containing “all cases” is necessary, you are back to fallacy of the excluded middle.
Yeah, the blue wall of silence is just a Hollywood myth.
There certainly wont be one provided by the cops official reps.
As many as you’ll find, I’m sure an extensive search would see those numbers pale into insignificance compared to all the cop corruption cases that are quietly brushed beneath a very mucky carpet.
And, in turn, those cop corruption case numbers pale into insignificance compared to all the incidents in which cops do their job honestly.
Cops are expected to be honest and do the right thing, and shouldn’t be congratulated for doing it; they should be castigated for every bad cop they allow to flourish in their ranks.
Who said anything about running? 5mph is an average fast walking speed. He is taller than average and an athlete according to his parents, so it is more reasonable to believe he walked faster than average.
And fyi, world class race walkers walk much faster, even without crack. Even a ten year old with much shorter legs can walk well over 7mph.
Timothy Seaman holds the US record for men in the 20km Race Walk at 1:22:02, for an average of 6 minutes 36 seconds per mile or 9.1 miles per hour for 12.4 miles.
Tristan Ruoss holds the US record for boys age 10 and under in the 1500m Race Walk 7:13.01, for an average of 7 minutes 44 seconds per mile or 7.8 miles per hour.
I agree.
But it seems to me that just a little while ago, you were complaining because the Sanford police failed to falsify probable cause.
If the reenactment had been worth the effort of carrying it out, they’d have first told Z to drive the route at as near to the speed on the night as he could recall(shouldn’t be too difficult to remember) without any interference and only stopping at the moments he actually did the night before. Then they’d do it again with the nen call running to see if Z’s demeanor changed. They’d have asked Z to point out exactly where Trayvon was when Z drove onto TTL and they’d have asked Z to point at the place where Trayvon had begun running.
From the moment he got out of the vehicle, he should have been expected to demonstrate anything that the cops asked him to do, and if he was as innocent as he claims, he’d be glad to do it to help clear the mess up.
I wasn’t complaining about it, I was remarking on how surprising it was that it hadn’t happened here and subtly criticising the SPD’s friendly approach to seeing that Z had as trouble-free a ride as could be imagined when he was finally required to do a bit of explaining.
Are you referring to British law and English Peelers?
Are you allowed to defend yourself against home invaders in England?
Case in point - Recently, Joshua O’Gorman and Daniel Mansell broke into the home of Mr and Mrs Ferrie. Mr Ferrie shot both intruders with his leaglly owned shotgun. O’Gorman, Mansell, Mr Ferrie AND MRS FERRIE were arrested. Mr Ferrie was arrested for DEFENDING himself, his wife, and his home. Mrs Ferrie seems to have been arrested for simply being married to Mr Ferrie.
Judge Pert said the arrest of Mr and Mrs Ferrie on suspicion of grievous bodily harm could be considered just as disturbing. He said: “Some might argue that being arrested and locked up for 40 hours is a trauma.” Mr Ferrie, 35, and his wife Tracey, 43, were held in custody for nearly two days after Mr Ferrie called police to tell them he fired his shotgun at the intruders.
Those numbers are no more relevant to a discussion of normal walking than race walking is like normal walking.
Which is to say not very much.
As should be plainly obvious from the context, I was just pointing out the folly of claiming only an olympic athlete on crack could walk 5 mph.
The reality is we do not know Martin’s walking speed or Zimmerman’s driving speed. Nobody knows the exact distance covered or Martin’s exact position when Zimmeran’s call began recording. Asserting that Zimmeran’s version is ‘impossible’ based on speculation about these unknowns is ridiculous. Especially considering SPD investigators had all this information and still concluded that the evidence was in line with Zimmerman’s version of events.
What is your source that Zimmerman stated Trayon circled 3 times? I can’t find a primary source for this claim.
He should not have been expected to do the reenactment at all. The only reason for him to do it was to demonstrate his innocence. He is not expected to do anything that might incriminate him, or help the police find evidence against him.
In other words, the police can ask him to do all those things, but he has full right to refuse, and no conclusion may be drawn from his refusal.
I’m pretty certain that is what was claimed at one of his bond hearings. I am looking for transcripts.