# 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:** 30
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/581 "2012-05-21T18:10:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > BZZZT. [Not a true claim](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html). Here’s a link to the subject matter of the 44 prior police assistance calls from Zimmerman. Only five identify black persons as the subjects or involved ini any way in the calls. > > But thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts. What do we have for our contestants, Johnny? > > ```auto > > 8/12/2004 suspicious male in pickup truck > 8/12/2004 repeats cal 1 > 8/20/2004 open garage door > 10/20/2004 drunk pedestrian > 3/17/2005 pot hole > 4/27/2005 open garage door > 9/21/2005 stray dog > 9/23/2005 suspicious person at sister's door > 11/4/2006 speeding car > 6/24/2007 two Hispanic makes, one white male witrh slim jim > 10/14/2007 vandalism > 11/25/2007 while male > 11/25/2007 Ex-roommate disturbance > 1/5/2009 Alarm going off > 3/12/2009 out of town patrol request > 5/4/2009 suspicious car > 6/10/2009 Alarm going off > 6/16/2009 Pool area distrubance > 8/21/2009 Landlord tenant conflict > 8/26/2009 speeding car > 9/7/2009 pot hole > 9/22/2009 reckless speed bike > 10/23/2009 aggressive animals > 11/21/2009 unclear > 11/2/2009 reckless driver > 1/1/2010 reckless driver > 1/12/2010 Open garage door > 2/27/2010 House with lots of suspicious activity > 4/27/2010 While car blocking road > 6/12/2010 Disturbing party > 6/26/2010 Loud party, guests blocking street > 10/2/2010 female disturbing peace > 11/8/2010 trash in roadway > 11/26/2010 Alarm going off > 3/18/2011 Pit bull > 4/22/2011 Black male juvenile > 5/27/2011 Alarm going off > 8/3/2011 Black male > 8/6/2011 Black males > 9/23/2011 Open garage door > 10/1/2011 Black males > 12/10/2011 Worker thought he was going to getr paid > 1/29/2012 Children running and playing in the street > 2/2/2012 Black male > > ``` Read above shitheel. I’ve already stipulated that five years earlier Zimmerman had called in a call on two Hispanics and a white dude. In the few months before however, he seemed to have a completely random run a black dudes. Also, he called the cops for absolute garbage. Look at how many of those are for suspicious persons. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/582 "2012-05-21T18:13:26Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Lol, that’s like asking Count Dracula to go for an afternoon hike in the Mojave Desert. Actually, Dracula, from the novel at least, isn’t damaged by sunlight. Although he is less powerful. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/583 "2012-05-21T18:14:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Read above shitheel. I’ve already stipulated that five years earlier Zimmerman had called in a call on two Hispanics and a white dude. > > In the few months before however, he seemed to have a completely random run a black dudes. > > Also, he called the cops for absolute garbage. Look at how many of those are for suspicious persons. Contrast with: > [@Lobohan](#): > > The other people he called about in the past were all black. Now we see that only five out of forty-four past calls were about blacks. But still, you’re somehow NOT wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/584 "2012-05-21T18:24:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Contrast with: > > Now we see that only five out of forty-four past calls were about blacks. > > But still, you’re somehow NOT wrong? I’ve agreed that he called on a Hispanic and white trio five years earlier. This means that he didn’t call only black people. Do you not understand how my agreement that undercuts my original statement is an admission that my original statement wasn’t correct? If you’ll note, when I backed up by original claim with a cite, I said I was open to another reputable cite. None of this alters the fact that Zimmerman had a habit of finding blacks suspicious more often than any other race, and to the exclusion of any other race for the last several years. Right? Also, will you admit that by saying 5 out of 44 calls were about blacks, that you’re being very, very dishonest? Because most of the calls he made were about things like open garage doors, alarms going off, or personal disputes he had with other people. By saying that 5 out of 44 calls were about blacks, you create the utterly dishonest perception that all of the 44 calls were about suspicious persons. Can we agree that you’re being very, very dishonest? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/585 "2012-05-21T18:34:14Z")
Out of the calls where race is mentioned, there are 5 black and 3 non-black. There’s nearly 40 calls where race isn’t mentioned. I don’t think that proves anything, and the only reason it suggests anything is because of the cluster of calls about black males recently. It’s only profiling if he ignored non-black people acting in the same way as the black people he called the police on. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/586 "2012-05-21T18:56:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I doubt you’ll be able to make a direct, succinct, clear statement about that either. Undoubtedly you’ll have some faux-sarcastic comment to attempt to hide this lack, though. You doubt the sincerity of his sarcasm? It has never appeared less than genuine to me. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/587 "2012-05-21T19:39:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Out of the calls where race is mentioned, there are 5 black and 3 non-black. There’s nearly 40 calls where race isn’t mentioned. I don’t think that proves anything, and the only reason it suggests anything is because of the cluster of calls about black males recently. > > It’s only profiling if he ignored non-black people acting in the same way as the black people he called the police on. It’s also profiling if he thought I’d better check this guy out because he’s black and we’ve had a rash of suspicious black guys AND the only thing the suspicious black guys had in common with Trayvon was skin color.. In the calls where race was identified the Hispanic and white guys had burglary tools. Articulable evidence if you will. ---
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/588 "2012-05-21T19:44:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I’ve said (ever since I fully understood the ramifications of Florida’s version of SYG) that it’s a horrible travesty. > > I think self-defense works best as an affirmative defense. Florida’s decision to change it from an affirmative defense to a complete immunity with probable cause as the immunity threshold is a nightmare. > > I’d say “a nightmare waiting to happen…” but it’s happened. I thought the standard of proof in an immunity hearing was preponderance of evidence. [Clarence Dennis v. State of Florida](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1548575.html) > [@](#): > > Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches. [Peterson v. State of Florida](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4550408100917847020&q=Peterson+v.+State,+983+So.2d+27&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1) > [@](#): > > Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to review an order denying his motion to dismiss based on the statutory immunity established by section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes (2006). We deny the petition and hold that a criminal defendant claiming protection under the statute must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is immunized from prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/589 "2012-05-21T20:18:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’ve agreed that he called on a Hispanic and white trio five years earlier. > > This means that he didn’t call only black people. Do you not understand how my agreement that undercuts my original statement is an admission that my original statement wasn’t correct? Yes, I do. But I also understand how you didn’t actually say “I was wrong,” nor did you acknowledge that the Hispanic and white call was not the only call that failed to meet your original claim. > [@](#): > > If you’ll note, when I backed up by original claim with a cite, I said I was open to another reputable cite. Yes. Although it’s interesting to note that while you were wrong, Time was not – that is, in their piece, they accurately stated that most the calls between August and February were about black males. You misquoted (or misrepresented) Time by saying that ALL calls, period, were about black people. > [@](#): > > None of this alters the fact that Zimmerman had a habit of finding blacks suspicious more often than any other race, and to the exclusion of any other race for the last several years. > > Right? No. No race was specified for the majority of his calls. The female in Oct 2010 is not identified by race. Neither are the people at the disruptive parties, the drivers, or the landlord. Only if you draw an arbitrary line at April 22nd, 2011, going forward, can you make that claim. > [@](#): > > Also, will you admit that by saying 5 out of 44 calls were about blacks, that you’re being very, very dishonest? Because most of the calls he made were about things like open garage doors, alarms going off, or personal disputes he had with other people. By saying that 5 out of 44 calls were about blacks, you create the utterly dishonest perception that all of the 44 calls were about suspicious persons. > > Can we agree that you’re being very, very dishonest? No more so than you: _The other people he called about in the past were all black._ No matter how you slice it, that’s factually incorrect. My statement, in contrast, is factually true, and even if you find yourself confused, I helpfully explained exactly what was in those 44 calls by both linking to my source and providing a listed summary so that every reader could see what those 44 calls were. It’s true I could have culled out the pothole and open garage calls as involving no person at all, but the fact that the 44 calls did not always involve a person was ultra clear without even clicking to follow a link. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/590 "2012-05-21T20:20:46Z")
> [@enomaj](#): > > It’s also profiling if he thought I’d better check this guy out because he’s black and we’ve had a rash of suspicious black guys AND the only thing the suspicious black guys had in common with Trayvon was skin color.. In the calls where race was identified the Hispanic and white guys had burglary tools. Articulable evidence if you will. Yes, but we don’t know if he did that. In the case of the Treyvon Martin call, he initially didn’t even mention race. It was only after the dispatcher asked him about it that he supplied the race. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/591 "2012-05-21T20:21:55Z")
> [@newme](#): > > I thought the standard of proof in an immunity hearing was preponderance of evidence. > > [Clarence Dennis v. State of Florida](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1548575.html) > [Peterson v. State of Florida](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4550408100917847020&q=Peterson+v.+State,+983+So.2d+27&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1) Yes, at a hearing. But that’s the second threshold. The first is the determination by a police agency, and they must be convinced specifically that there is probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful before they can make an arrest. ---
**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:** [May 21, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/592 "2012-05-21T20:40:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but we don’t know if he did that. > > In the case of the Treyvon Martin call, he initially didn’t even mention race. It was only after the dispatcher asked him about it that he supplied the race. I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Martin was black before Zimmermand mentioned it to the operator, you know. We’re trying to figure out if Zimmerman profiled Martin, not whether or not he was johnny-on-the-spot with a description. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/593 "2012-05-21T21:42:23Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Martin was black before Zimmermand mentioned it to the operator, you know. We’re trying to figure out if Zimmerman profiled Martin, not whether or not he was johnny-on-the-spot with a description. Ok, fair enough. The main point remains, though, that you cannot point at Zimmerman’s prior five calls as strong evidence that he was profiling based on race. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/594 "2012-05-21T21:52:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I do. > > But I also understand how you didn’t actually say “I was wrong,” nor did you acknowledge that the Hispanic and white call was not the only call that failed to meet your original claim. > > Yes. Although it’s interesting to note that while you were wrong, Time was not – that is, in their piece, they accurately stated that most the calls between August and February were about black males. You misquoted (or misrepresented) Time by saying that ALL calls, period, were about black people. > > No. No race was specified for the majority of his calls. The female in Oct 2010 is not identified by race. Neither are the people at the disruptive parties, the drivers, or the landlord. Only if you draw an arbitrary line at April 22nd, 2011, going forward, can you make that claim. > > No more so than you: _The other people he called about in the past were all black._ No matter how you slice it, that’s factually incorrect. My statement, in contrast, is factually true, and even if you find yourself confused, I helpfully explained exactly what was in those 44 calls by both linking to my source and providing a listed summary so that every reader could see what those 44 calls were. > > It’s true I could have culled out the pothole and open garage calls as involving no person at all, but the fact that the 44 calls did not always involve a person was ultra clear without even clicking to follow a link. The difference, is I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone. I mis-remembered and was open to opposing cites and accepted it immediately. You outright attempted to make people believe something that isn’t true, that there were 44 calls about people and only five were about blacks. In any case, the last five were about blacks, and that at least weakly suggests that Zimmerman keep a weather-eye out for blacks who were doing strange things… like walking slowly. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/595 "2012-05-21T21:58:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The difference, is I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone. I mis-remembered and was open to opposing cites and accepted it immediately. > > You outright attempted to make people believe something that isn’t true, that there were 44 calls about people and only five were about blacks. > > In any case, the last five were about blacks, and that at least weakly suggests that Zimmerman keep a weather-eye out for blacks who were doing strange things… like walking slowly. Post #576 - that’s “accepting it immediately”? Hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/596 "2012-05-21T22:09:03Z")
Maybe I am missing something - but what difference does it make if Zimmerman did profile Martin? It allows you to huff and puff and get all outraged, but legally, who cares if Martin’s race and age made Zimmerman more suspicious of him? There’s still nothing provably illegal about what he did, from the evidence released so far. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/597 "2012-05-21T22:10:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Post #576 - that’s “accepting it immediately”? Hilarious. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I have no detailed information on this, but Time said: > > You might be right, but until I see a reputable cite, I’ll take Time’s word over yours. This is setting it up. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Wow, one item, from five years ago. This is me realizing that you were correct. And that, in my opinion, it is a small detractor from the overall issue of Zimmerman racial profiling. > [@](#): > > The Time article only makes claim to the “months before”. I’ll stipulate that five years earlier he narced on some Hispanics and a blanko nino. This is me admitting that he called on the three non-black people you mentioned five years ago. I’m stipulating that the calls included (five years ago) some non-black people. I at that point realized that my previous cite was narrowed to the months before the shooting. > [@](#): > > Tell me Terr, are you stupid, or just a suppurating asshole? This is me calling you a suppurating anus. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/598 "2012-05-21T22:11:50Z")
Points to _mens rea_. What motivation would he have for shooting Martin without being attacked? Having a fevered racist mind. Not that there is any evidence he profiled, nor that he shot Martin without being attacked. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/599 "2012-05-21T22:30:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The difference, is I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone. I mis-remembered and was open to opposing cites and accepted it immediately. > > You outright attempted to make people believe something that isn’t true, that there were 44 calls about people and only five were about blacks. That’s what I tried, eh? And then I incompetently placed a list of all 44 call summaries in the same post, tipping off eagle-eyed observers to my perfidy? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/600 "2012-05-21T22:47:19Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Points to _mens rea_. What motivation would he have for shooting Martin without being attacked? Having a fevered racist mind. > > Not that there is any evidence he profiled, nor that he shot Martin without being attacked. Yeah, but even if he got on TV tomorrow and admitted that he was more suspicious of Martin because he was a black teenager, that is a long way from having a “fevered racist mind”. Recognizing that, statistically, a black teenager wearing a hoodie is more likely to commit a crime than, say, a 50 year-old white dude wearing a polo shirt and Chinos, does not mean that you are out to shoot every hoodie-sporting black teenager you see. Profiling is not illegal, or irrational, and pretending to be outraged because Zimmerman may have _gasp_ _thought about race_ is just ridiculous. Everyone who bitches about the TSA strip-searching 85-year-old grandmothers from Omaha because their underwire set off the metal detector is essentially arguing for more profiling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=31)