They would need probable cause to administer such a test. There is no indication that Zimmerman’s speech was slurred on the phone call or that he was acting in a manner that indicated he was under the influence.
That you don’t understand this and think it’s a joke just reinforces your lack of understanding of the case.
But on what grounds? Did GZ “appear” to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Did he “smell” or “act” like he had been drinking? The FLA police are not allowed to randomly select someone to test anyone for intoxicationg substances without a “compelling reason” and the subjects expressly stated permission.
In this particular case, the “compelling reason” to test TM for drugs or alcohol would have been FLA regulations requiring the pathologist to determine the cause of death. The SA office would need to know what actually killed TM before they could prosecute someone for his death. The prosecutor would need to know that TM die of an overdose. Or heart failure. Choking? Gunshot wound? State law does allow/permit/require a complete autopsy.
The state can require that you take a “drug” test if it believes that you were “driving under the influence”. You don’t have to submit to the testing but state law allows the state to suspend/revoke your driving privilage if you refuse to submit to testing.
I can see that someone might be more likely to mistakenly think the could use lethal force if they were intoxicated, but I don’t see that there’s a situation where a sober person would be allowed to do so, but not an intoxicated one. The standard is whether the fear was reasonable, not whether the killer thought the force was reasonable.
I would certainly accept that the value of his statements would be reduced if he were intoxicated, but if there’s evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn’t in reasonable fear, it would have to disprove his statement anyway.
Unless it’s specifically illegal for an intoxicated person to carry or use a gun, even in self defence. Is that the case in Florida?
On the same grounds that led the cops to put handcuffs on the guy, interrogate him for several hours, and administer a quasi-lie detector test to him. On what grounds did they do all of that?
He consented to it. You’ve been told this numerous times in this thread, and it’s not that complicated a concept.
Again, why should he have been tested, even if he would have consented?
There is no FLA law that states that any and all persons in police custody can be or must be tested for drug use. Current FLA state law still requires a compelling reason for requesting testing plus there are 4th Amendment considerations which have already been addressed by prior courts.
You’re objecting to FLA law as it exists today. FLA can’t force GZ or you to submit to drug testing. Witnesses can still be produced in court, to swear under oath, that based on their experience and your actions/speech, you were drunk as a lord (or words to that effect) when they arrested you.
So, in essence, you support the dead person being tested for drugs that might have had an effect on their behaviour, but you don’t think a killer should face the same treatment?
Even mentioning that Trayvon had THC in his system of any amount is shitting in the well, because it wasn’t the pot smoking that killed him.
Handcuffs are procedural as is the questioning of those involved or who witnessed it. That Zimmerman chose to extend the questioning period is a sign of cooperation as is the voluntary lie-detector test. I’m not sure what a quasi-lie detector test is but there you go.
There are literally an infinite number of things the police can investigate in relation to an event. It’s a function of observable evidence (cause) that drives the investigation. There is no indication that Zimmerman was under the influence.
The tests performed by a coroner are as prescribed by law. The same applies to how citizens are treated by police.
If Zimmerman was running around naked waving a gun and screaming he was Jesus returning for judgment day then a drug test would be warranted.
But if he was meticulously taking out customers in a shopping mall, you wouldn’t suspect he might be on an amphetamine binge comedown?
In Z’s case, the importance of drug testing him would be to see if he was taking the medication he was supposed to be taking, which had a 1 in 10 chance of causing him behavioural problems, even if he was following his treatment to the letter.
It’s for the proponent of any claim to provide proof of their claim.
Saying, “For all you know, this could be true…” is an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, or “appeal to ignorance” (where “ignorance” stands for: “lack of evidence to the contrary”).
Testing is illegal UNLESS consent is given. Consent is a positive, affirmative step. You do not presume its existence. You presume its lack, and need proof of its existence.
Do these kinds of things really puzzle you?
No. The standard is both: the fear must be objectively reasonable AND the person must have subjectively actually felt the fear.
It’s not specifically illegal, that I know of – but it’s certainly reckless enough to make manslaughter a lock.
If I had genuinely acted in self-defence and killed someone and had nothing to hide, unless the system designed to deal with this problem is fucked up somehow, there is nothing reasonable that I wouldn’t do to try and clear up my problem.
If that included having blood tests, recreating my fight with an actor, being asked to scream for help, or any other thing investigators could think of that might establish my innocence - which is far more important than getting a “not guilty” because the police had done a shitty job - I’d do it at a moments notice.
If the system works, you shouldn’t have fuck all to worry about if you are really innocent.
You would be a nightmare client to a criminal defense lawyer.
Bricker, you must have a fair idea of what the miscarriage of justice rate is like in the USA, and can probably find out what it is in individual states - do you think the average innocent Floridan going into a courtroom needs to be overly worried about becoming an addition to those statistics?
Florida law (do you understand that concept?) requires that the state’s pathologist discover the cause of death. TM was dead and the State of Florida wants a definitive answer as to why he is dead. The legislature (parlement?) and state agencies wrote the rules. The police, SA office, and coroner’s office follow the rules.
The pathologist found drugs in TM because TM put them there. Now it’s a part of the public record. Was TM’s death a result of ingesting those drugs? No.
Since you believe so strongly in speculation, IF it had been discovered that TM had died of heart attack BEFORE he had been shot, the state would have a difficult time convicting GZ of killing a dead man. There is no FLA law against killing a dead man. The autopsy proved that TM died of the gunshot wound.
Proving that GZ deliberately hunted TM down with the intent of killing him is another issue all together.
As far as your “shitting in the well”, you have certainly done your part to introduce speculative and bizarre possibilites as to what would have happend if things had happened differently or FLA had been written to suit you.
I meant to say he felt the fear was reasonable, and to imply that he did feel it. Thanks for the clarification though.
Agreed.
Charging this mass murderer with illegal drug use would certainly insure a conviction.
So, is it your recommendation then that even if you are innocent, you should not cooperate with the police in any way?
If Z had said as soon as the cops turned up “It was self-defence… that’s all I’m telling you!”, what would be the response of the police? Would they have been a bit more thorough with their canvassing to try and get a better insight, or would they have just gone “Well, he does have few cuts and bruises… looks like a wrap to me.”?
You’re talking to me about stupid speculation and you’re suggesting the possibility of a healthy 17 yr old maybe having a heart attack before he had it blown out.
MY speculation is all based on the available evidence and the implications thereof.
As an exercise in showing you know what you are talking about, quote back a few of my more outrageous speculations, and we’ll see if they’re as stupid as the Trayvon heart attack analogy.