# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/421 "2012-04-12T21:52:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes, they bought Sharpton’s rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Good luck proving that in court. I had no idea Al Sharpton had that much clout! But if you say that’s what happened, by golly, good enough for me! ---
**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 13, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/422 "2012-04-13T00:45:10Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because that’s what people with functioning brains do. That’s why I have so much trouble believing you don’t do it. Every time you see something, your brain instantly tries to explain what it is seeing. There is no way around this. > > If you weren’t constantly reading these threads, I might be able to believe that you hadn’t formed an opinion, as you wouldn’t have any evidence. But you’ve clearly been looking at all the evidence we have, and it is not reasonable that you have not formed some sort of opinion. You may be unsure of your opinion, but there is no way your brain did not try to make sense of what you read. > > I can buy you saying that you don’t think people should voice opinions that they are unsure of. It’s silly, but at least it makes sense as a position. But to demand that they not form that opinion at all makes no sense to me. > > Oh, and you are a tax lawyer. Don’t act like you know shit about criminal law. Well, first, I do believe that I can simply not form an opinion. I wasn’t there, I haven’t seen the best evidence available of what happened, so there is nothing to move me from the position of “I don’t know.” Second, even if I did form an opinion, I would be aware that my opinion means absolutely nothing. I wouldn’t trumpet it from the rooftops, demanding that the world is all screwed up if other people don’t share my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/423 "2012-04-13T01:15:09Z")
Well, really, who could doubt you, given the calm indifference and modesty with which you express your thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/424 "2012-04-13T02:15:56Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I don’t believe the Stand Your Ground law should legally apply if YOU are the pursuer, if YOU instigated or were the original cause of the confrontation. I also don’t believe it should have been written the way it was, in that it pretty much requires the police to simply accept your word about what happened - especially if you killed the other guy. > > It is too easy to abuse. Some bully or psycho or “superhero wannabe” starts a fight and then when he thinks he will lose, he yells self defense and starts blasting. As long as he makes sure of the kill, he is home free. That is fucked up. > > This is not someone reacting to a robbery attempt or to a home invasion. This is someone who INSTIGATED the situation. He stated, as heard in the tape, “assholes get away” and decided that his “target” was high on drugs. He decided his “target” was up to no good … ALL with NO evidence at all. Against the advice of the 911 operator. He was a shooting looking for a place to happen. AND he shot someone who was unarmed. he should have kept his dumb ass in his car and at a distance. He FUCKED UP. Now someone is dead because he is a FUCK UP. > > I think the law was badly written and Zimmerman misused it deliberately. In short, I still think he is guilty as hell. Excellent. Nothing to add. ‘cept, fuck the openly racist, gun-totin’ a-holes who keep trying to defend this scumbag. Thanx. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/425 "2012-04-13T10:15:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes, they bought Sharpton’s rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Good luck proving that in court. Hmmmm. I thought and said the very same, even before I ever heard a single word on the topic from Sharpton. I also find your reaction above pathetic, like that of a giant brainless conservative puss. Al Sharpton! Al Sharpton! Al Sharpton is coming to get us! ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/426 "2012-04-13T13:55:08Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Second, even if I did form an opinion, I would be aware that my opinion means absolutely nothing. I wouldn’t trumpet it from the rooftops, demanding that the world is all screwed up if other people don’t share my opinion. Why’s that? You’re never shy about playing us your downstairs trumpet. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/427 "2012-04-14T08:19:02Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Do you therefore allege that you have never stated that speculating about your own motivations is something you can ban someone for? I am happy to answer this question, but first please answer my question (which I asked you first): Do you think I have been suggesting that according to **gamerununknown,** Zimmerman should go to jail even if he is acquitted? > [@](#): > > This doesn’t make sense. Proving that one part of a story is true does not in any way make the rest of it true. I’m not sure what you mean by “make the rest of it true.” In some situations, evidence that part of a story is true makes it more likely that the rest of it is true. > [@](#): > > If I tell you that my Aunt Kay is a Jehovah’s Witness and that she walks on water, you going and asking her if she’s is a JW and her saying yes does not somehow prove that she also walks on water. This is just a pure logical fallacy. There is a difference between proving something to be true and making it more likely. For example, suppose a stranger tells you that that he has a briefcase with $100,000 in it – one hundred packets of bills, each packet containing $1000. Depending on the circumstances, a reasonable person would be skeptical of this claim. Now, suppose you opened the briefcase, and found that there were 100 packets of what appear to be money in the briefcase. You choose 95 at random, bring them to a bank, and the bank verifies that each of the 95 packets contains exactly $1000 in bills. Does this conclusively prove that the briefcase contained $100,000? Of course not, it proves only that the briefcase contained $95,000. But any reasonable person would conclude it’s very likely that the original claim – that the briefcase contained $100,000 – is correct. Of course, the amount by which a reasonable person will adjust his probabilities depends on the context. The claim that a person can walk on water is so unlikely as to be pretty much zero. Even if the most honest person you knew swore on a stack of bibles that he could walk on water, you probably still would not believe him. In the case of George Zimmerman, he (apparently) told a coherent story about what happened on the night in question; did so right after the event without a lot of time to cook up a story; did so while under a huge amount of stress; presumably did so without having the benefit of knowing what other evidence the police had; and had to be grilled by police about it for quite a while. If his story is corroborated in significant respects, it’s reasonable to conclude that he’s probably telling the truth – it’s just really hard to lie in circumstances like that. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/428 "2012-04-14T11:23:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Do you think I have been suggesting that according to gamerununknown, Zimmerman should go to jail even if he is acquitted? Well, you did write this on the last page: > [@brazil84](#): > > It’s reasonable to interpret this as him saying that all that matters is that an armed adult shot and killed an unarmed teenager whom he had previously followed. That in such a situation, the shooter should go to jail. It’s reasonable to interpret this as saying Zimmerman’s claims of being threatened and attacked are irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/429 "2012-04-14T11:33:25Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Well, you did write this on the last page: I did. To you, is it the same thing? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/430 "2012-04-14T14:58:36Z")
Some of us are unwilling to give the attention necessary to parse the precise meanings of your posts, given that you are such a complex and intricate thinker. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/431 "2012-04-14T15:06:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Some of us are unwilling to give the attention necessary to parse the precise meanings of your posts, given that you are such a complex and intricate thinker. :shrug: If it turns out you have mischaracterized, misinterpreted or misunderstood my post, it should be easy enough to just admit it and apologize. As I did with **gamerunknown** a few posts back. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/432 "2012-04-14T15:11:18Z")
As you may have noticed, oftimes the subtle nuances of your thought elude us lesser minds. With all due awe. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/433 "2012-04-14T15:29:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > As you may have noticed, oftimes the subtle nuances of your thought elude us lesser minds. Yes, I’ve noticed. To paraphrase George Orwell, figuring out my position usually requires constant struggle – at a minimum. For lesser minds such as yours, of course. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/434 "2012-04-14T18:00:35Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I did. To you, is it the same thing? Well, you claimed that a reasonable person could infer from my post that “Zimmerman’s claims of being threatened and attacked are irrelevant” and that “the shooter should go to jail”. So I posit you’re suggesting that’s a reasonable interpretation of my post, which to me fits the criteria of “suggesting that according to gamerununknown, Zimmerman should go to jail even if he is acquitted?”. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/435 "2012-04-14T18:12:48Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Well, you claimed that a reasonable person could infer from my post that “Zimmerman’s claims of being threatened and attacked are irrelevant” and that “the shooter should go to jail”. So I posit you’re suggesting that’s a reasonable interpretation of my post, which to me fits the criteria of “suggesting that according to gamerununknown, Zimmerman should go to jail even if he is acquitted?”. It doesn’t seem like a fit to me. And the fact that you are having such a hard time giving a simple yes or no answer to my question suggests to me that you know it at some level. Consider the following two statements: 1. Just based on the undisputed facts that Zimmerman pursued and ultimately shot an unarmed teenager, he should go to jail. 2. Even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he should go to jail because of what he has admitted to doing. Are they equivalent? It seems to me the answer is clearly “no.” I happen to disagree with the first, but it’s not an outrageous position to take. One can argue with a straight face that the holder of a concealed weapons permit should not do anything to provoke another person, even if it is otherwise legal conduct. And that the law should provide that such provocation waives the right to use one’s weapon in self-defense. The second position is clearly ridiculous. It’s one thing to say that a certain course of conduct should be treated by the system as a crime. It’s another thing to say that the system should simply ignore a jury’s decision to acquit a defendant and punish him anyway. I asked you if you had taken the first position, which was a reasonable question. It turns out it was not your position, just a position others may have taken. Fine, I got the answer to my question. **Jack Batty** pretended that I suggested you had taken the second position. That’s how he strawmanned me and why he is now on my ignore list. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/436 "2012-04-14T21:50:46Z")
Thank god for small favors. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/437 "2012-04-20T21:07:49Z")
Nevermind ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/438 "2012-04-20T21:11:31Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I will wait to see the actual photos (if they exist) before making up my mind. Based on [this photo](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/new_photo_shows_zimmerman_bloody_H0OsgAUdCP4CdBfZhpcM2K) I am reasonably confident that Zimmerman was indeed injured. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/439 "2012-04-20T21:12:54Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Only to people inclined to believe Zimmerman’s account. There is nothing abnormal looking about that man’s head, at least physically. What do think the red substance is in [this picture](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/new_photo_shows_zimmerman_bloody_H0OsgAUdCP4CdBfZhpcM2K)? It looks like blood to me. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/440 "2012-04-20T21:14:51Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No, there really isn’t. The guy looks fine. Well what about [this picture](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/new_photo_shows_zimmerman_bloody_H0OsgAUdCP4CdBfZhpcM2K)? He doesn’t look fine to me. > [@](#): > > but the back of his head, which unfortunately for him is shaven, is free of injury, from what we can see. Still think so? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=23)