# Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 29, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108 "2012-03-29T01:38:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/221 "2012-04-02T13:04:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You knew what the topic of this thread was when you joined in, _so why the hell are you still posting in it if you don’t plan on voicing an opinion on the subject this thread is about?_ I don’t agree with this criticism. The subject of the thread is, “Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up.” It certainly seems to me that an appropriate response is – especially in the Pit – “No, it isn’t time yet.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/222 "2012-04-02T13:20:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree with this criticism. The subject of the thread is, “Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up.” > > It certainly seems to me that an appropriate response is – especially in the Pit – “No, it isn’t time yet.” That response I have no problem with, but saying that one shouldn’t form opinions based on the evidence provided goes too far, because you could add that threadshit into any and all threads where people are stating their opinions. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/223 "2012-04-02T13:24:10Z")
> [@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? Surely if the guy’s nose was broken one day it’s still broken the next. I suppose you could argue he could go out and break his nose in the meantime. That seems unlikely, since it means he would have had to inform the police the night before that his nose was punched in, knowing it wasn’t, planning to go out and whonk himself in the nose later. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/224 "2012-04-02T13:25:07Z")
> [@pikey\_pete](#): > > And before you say ‘maybe they let him change clothes before taking him in for questioning,’ that isn’t the way it works. When my youngest brother got murdered, I wasn’t allowed to change out of my blood soaked clothes until I had given my statement at the police station. If cops won’t let a crime VICTIM who is literally coated in blood change clothes before giving his statement, then they aren’t going to extend that courtesy to someone being questioned on a homicide, even if they had determined that it was justified. so I’m not going to say innocent or guilty when it comes to zimmy, but i will say that a lot of things don’t add up. Were you under arrest? If not, then the police seized you in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In _Dunaway v. New York_, 442 U.S. 200 (1979), a Rochester police detective who conceded he did not have probable cause to arrest the accused nonetheless ordered other detectives to bring him to the station. The Supreme Court said: > [@442 US 200](#): > > We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation. > . > . > . > In contrast to the brief and narrowly circumscribed intrusions involved in those cases, the detention of petitioner was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest. Petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found. Instead, he was taken from a neighbor’s home to a police car, transported to a police station, and placed in an interrogation room. He was never informed that he was “free to go”; indeed, he would have been physically restrained if he had refused to accompany the officers or had tried to escape their custody. The application of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause does not depend on whether an intrusion of this magnitude is termed an “arrest” under state law. The mere facts that petitioner was not told he was under arrest, was not “booked,” and would not have had an arrest record if the interrogation had proved fruitless, while not insignificant for all purposes, see Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291 (1973), obviously do not make petitioner’s seizure even roughly analogous to the narrowly defined intrusions involved in Terry and its progeny. Indeed, any “exception” that could cover a seizure as intrusive as that in this case would threaten to swallow the general rule that Fourth Amendment seizures are “reasonable” only if based on probable cause. So which is it? Shall we assume he was going voluntarily, in which case the police could strong express their desire that he didn’t change clothes, but couldn’t prohibit it… or he was arrested without probable cause in violation of Florida law, which makes any statements he made and any physical evidence taken from him post arrest likely inadmissible … or the police had probable cause, did arrest him, and then chose to conceal that fact for some as-yet-unrevealed reason. Please, tell me how it works. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/225 "2012-04-02T13:27:41Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Surely if the guy’s nose was broken one day it’s still broken the next. > > I suppose you could argue he could go out and break his nose in the meantime. That seems unlikely, since it means he would have had to inform the police the night before that his nose was punched in, knowing it wasn’t, planning to go out and whonk himself in the nose later. Facing a manslaughter charge, why is this impossible or even improbable? I’d rather slam myself with a door than spend years in prison. I’m not saying he did it, mind you – I’m just pointing out that medical reports the next day are not as probative as medical reports that night if he wasn’t in custody the whole time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/226 "2012-04-02T13:32:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That response I have no problem with, but saying that one shouldn’t form opinions based on the evidence provided goes too far, because you could add that threadshit into any and all threads where people are stating their opinions. Yes, you could, and as here, when a thread declares it’s time to Pit the police, the underlying assumption is that we have enough uncontradicted evidence to say the cops fucked up. Denying that claim is appropriate and requires pointing out that people’s opinions may be based on incomplete evidence, and evidence from less than ideal sources. I have gotten trapped in the IMHO thread myself, growling at people for posting their unsupported opinions, before realizing that that’s exactly the forum where they should be doing it. Here, though, I think it’s a valid counter to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/227 "2012-04-02T13:54:30Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Surely if the guy’s nose was broken one day it’s still broken the next. But if the EMTs don’t note that he had a broken nose but the ER does the next day, there is a discrepancy that needs to be accounted for. Especially if an ER x-ray shows a prominent break that would likely have not been missed by EMT, or would have caused so much pain and bleeding that delaying medical care would have been implausible. So the question is, which record would you put most weight in? I would go with the EMT. > [@](#): > > I suppose you could argue he could go out and break his nose in the meantime. That seems unlikely, since it means he would have had to inform the police the night before that his nose was punched in, knowing it wasn’t, planning to go out and whonk himself in the nose later. All of this assumes that there were no shenanigans by the cops when they took Zimmerman’s statement. I’m a bit too cynical not to make that assumption. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/228 "2012-04-02T15:05:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So which is it? Shall we assume he was going voluntarily, in which case the police could strong express their desire that he didn’t change clothes, but couldn’t prohibit it… or he was arrested without probable cause in violation of Florida law, which makes any statements he made and any physical evidence taken from him post arrest likely inadmissible … or the police had probable cause, did arrest him, and then chose to conceal that fact for some as-yet-unrevealed reason. > > Please, tell me how it works. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know. But he was in handcuffs, which would suggest that he was being compelled to come to the station. In any case, the fact that the police didn’t take pictures of Zimmerman, which they could use without his permission or a warrant, is reason enough to pit them, considering Zimmerman’s story. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/229 "2012-04-02T15:30:12Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know. But he was in handcuffs, which would suggest that he was being compelled to come to the station. In any case, the fact that the police didn’t take pictures of Zimmerman, which they could use without his permission or a warrant, is reason enough to pit them, considering Zimmerman’s story. Yes, I agree. If the police didn’t take pictures, that would indeed be reason to Pit them. Um… did the police take pictures? I am asking because I have no clue if they did or not. Your statement would seem to suggest you know they didn’t. If you do… how? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/230 "2012-04-02T15:34:53Z")
Do we assume a natural state of affairs, a set of opinions that we are expected to presume that must be overcome by evidence? Certainly we do in court of law, to assure that the defendant not suffer the force of law without solid proof. We intentionally set that bar high, and for good reason. That is why OJ walked, because the jury was not convinced to that level. But OJ is guilty. That is my opinion, and valid if I am not under the constraints of jury duty. Outside of the special and formal situation, I am under no such obligation, I can consider that the pattern of things reveals a scenario that is plausible. If I am to be sworn to jury duty in this instance, I am likely to be asked if I have formed any opinion in this regard, and I would have to say “Yes, yes, I have.” Insisting that I am not justified in forming such an opinion buggers the question, there is ample evidence of a massive failure. At this point it appears, barring any further evidence, that somewhere along the line, a decision was made to give this “investigation” (if that is even the word…) little more than a cursory glance, and then to pretend that such was sufficient. But the circumstances were inflammatory, a black youth gunned down by a white vigilante. Our fellow citizens who are black have every reason to be suspicious, and their lives are made more difficult under the burden of that suspicion. Simply pretending that all cases are equal doesn’t cut it, they are not, we know they are not, and we have an obligation to respond to reality. Not only that justice be done, but that it can be _seen_ to be done. Certainly if a further investigation can answer all of that mass of evidence, each and every point therein, no one would be happier than I, I would love to believe that those dark days are gone, never to return. I do not, and they do not. The authorities should have been mindful of that concern, and clearly were not. At this point, it is very unclear where the responsibility lies, with the police themselves, or with the legal authority they report to, or some proportion to each. For those colored parents who live in fear in Florida, the distinction is petty. It would be fair to say that the law is so poorly written that it is a reasonable assumption that Z. was going to “beat the rap” regardless. All the defense need do is implant a doubt, that maybe, just maybe, a “reasonable” possibility of self-defense exists. That is not a bar to be leaped over, but to fall over. (It often seems to be that a great deal of mischief is concealed under that single word, “reasonable”.) Hence, it follows that the investigating authorities were under a special set of obligations, in recognition of the racial reality of the situation. They did not meet those obligations, for whatever reason. Even if it were clear that Z. would walk under any circumstances, that obligation would remain. And does still remain. And has not been met. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/231 "2012-04-02T15:35:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Facing a manslaughter charge, why is this impossible or even improbable? > > I’d rather slam myself with a door than spend years in prison. Good point. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/232 "2012-04-02T16:42:42Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > My personal standard for feeling like I know what happened is apparently a hell of a lot higher than the standards of Team Trayvon. And I realize that my opinion about the matter doesn’t matter to even a foothill of beans, so it’s useless to formulate one. I’ll just wait for our society’s truth-finding organizations to operate. In your superhero role as the Undecider, how much time, roughly, would you say you’ve spend recently on conservative-leaning message boards admonishing people who opine that Trayvon Martin was up to no good, a thug-in-training who got what was coming to him? Or on _this_ board, for that matter? Give or take? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/233 "2012-04-02T16:48:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hence, it follows that the investigating authorities were under a special set of obligations, in recognition of the racial reality of the situation. They did not meet those obligations, for whatever reason. Even if it were clear that Z. would walk under any circumstances, that obligation would remain. And does still remain. And has not been met. What did they need to do to meet those special obligations, in your view? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/234 "2012-04-02T17:00:41Z")
You are far more qualified than I to offer such, and do not. May we therefore presume that you are content that all needful procedures have been met? That justice has not only been served, but can clearly be seen to be served? To put it another way, I can see the gleam of your nitpicking tweezers from here, and ‘\*\*luc’\*\*s Mamma didn’t raise no fools. You gonna set a trap, you’re gonna need to cover it a bit better than that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/235 "2012-04-02T17:49:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You are far more qualified than I to offer such, and do not. May we therefore presume that you are content that all needful procedures have been met? That justice has not only been served, but can clearly be seen to be served? I have no idea. More specifically, here’s what I mean: we, the general public, obviously have huge gaps in our knowledge of what happened. All the facts have not been released. Certain reports have been dribbled out, but even those are of uncertain provenance or completeness. So, no: we can’t clearly see at this moment that everything was done right. But here’s the thing: I wouldn’t necessarily expect to, especially given the weirdness of the SYG “immune from arrest” provisions of Florida law. What an investigation normally does is nail down a statement from the accused, then meticulously gather evidence and start looking for contradictions. And then start hitting the defendant with those, bit by bit, seeing how much he changes his story. For this reason, you typically don’t want to start releasing volumes and volumes of your evidence to the public, because your suspect is a member of the public and thus privvy to what you’re learning. You lose the ability to bring him down for another interview and say, “Now, George, we just have a couple of details we’d like to clear up. You told us, the night of the shooting, that you stepped out of your car; was it at this intersection?” You lose that because George has already read that there’s a witness that saw him outside of his car a block away, so he can say, “No, no, I was over on such-and-so corner.” It would be foolish, in my view, to demand total visibility into the investigation if the result is to hinder the investigation, especially if your apparent goal in demanding visibility is to ensure a vigorous investigation in the first place. But then, I hear you ask, what to do about the case of a lackluster or outright corrupt police force? How can the community demand accountability and at the same time not skewer the very results they seek? One answer is to ensure professionalism and thoroughness on a more on-going and less incident-specific basis. When the plane loses an engine, that’s not the time for the public demand that the pilot explain each step he’s taking to bring the plane down safely. But the public can, and should, demand transparency and review after the incident is over, and should react to poorly-handled incidents with demands for changes. If the police in Sanford have created an atmosphere where they cannot be trusted, then the time to address that is not in the middle of an investigation. Instead, the incidents that caused the suspicion in the first place should have been explained, again not while each was happening, but after the police acted, and any deficiencies in their handling should have been addressed then. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/236 "2012-04-02T18:11:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For this reason, you typically don’t want to start releasing volumes and volumes of your evidence to the public, because your suspect is a member of the public and thus privvy to what you’re learning. You lose the ability to bring him down for another interview and say, “Now, George, we just have a couple of details we’d like to clear up. You told us, the night of the shooting, that you stepped out of your car; was it at this intersection?” > > You lose that because George has already read that there’s a witness that saw him outside of his car a block away, so he can say, “No, no, I was over on such-and-so corner.” > > It would be foolish, in my view, to demand total visibility into the investigation if the result is to hinder the investigation, especially if your apparent goal in demanding visibility is to ensure a vigorous investigation in the first place. What investigation? What steps were taken by the SPD to investigate this before the outcries of a nation forced them into the spotlight? Why did their police chief step down if there was an investigation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/237 "2012-04-02T18:24:01Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What investigation? What steps were taken by the SPD to investigate this before the outcries of a nation forced them into the spotlight? 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? > [@](#): > > Why did their police chief step down if there was an investigation? 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? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/238 "2012-04-02T18:43:02Z")
> [@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… My understanding from news sources is that toxicology was not performed on Zimmerman, hence, there are no results to await relative to him. Am I mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/239 "2012-04-02T18:48:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You knew what the topic of this thread was when you joined in, _so why the hell are you still posting in it if you don’t plan on voicing an opinion on the subject this thread is about?_ Just fighting ignorance, broseph. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/240 "2012-04-02T18:53:19Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > In your superhero role as the Undecider, how much time, roughly, would you say you’ve spend recently on conservative-leaning message boards admonishing people who opine that Trayvon Martin was up to no good, a thug-in-training who got what was coming to him? Or on _this_ board, for that matter? Give or take? This is the only board I spend time on. If you can fond me an example of such a person here, id be glad to admonish him or her. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=13)