# 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:** 36
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/701 "2012-05-23T15:53:27Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **Elucidator** was ranting about what counted as suspicious, so I was clearing that up for him. > > Neither calling the police or following him was necessary. The various questions being asked are whether it was legal, moral, or sensible for him to follow Martin, and whether he killed Martin in legitimate self defence. > > My opinion is that it was legal, moral, and stupid to follow him, and that it _may_ have been legitimate self defence. In the absence of convincing evidence that it wasn’t, I’m content to presume him innocent. Is there no moral obligation to be intelligent, when you’re the guy with the gun? This whole case screams, “We need gun control,” to me. There should be some kind of penalty for going out of your house on a hunt for “suspicious youths” carrying a firearm, so you don’t end up killing a suspicious youth (both suspicious to you and suspicious of you) when he understandably knocks you down in self-defense because in his eyes you’re a crazy guy accosting him. Given what little we know, a defense of Zimmerman’s disproportionate use of deadly force to repay an assault is also in principle a defense of Martin’s disproportionate use of assault to defend himself from the man who was threatening toward him–I want to say molested him, but that has the wrong implications in English; or maybe not–with the difference that Martin is dead, and Zimmerman suffered no permanent damage. Since Zimmerman started this confrontation, given Martin was not even on Zimmerman’s property; and since Zimmerman alone resorted to extreme sanction; and since the other guy is now unable to give his side; I expect Zimmerman to be convicted of some kind of felony homicide. “Presumption of innocence” is gone. We know who the shooter was. At this point Zimmerman has to offer an affirmative defense for why shooting some kid was OK. “He knocked me down,” ain’t it, and I don’t expect any credible justification to be forthcoming. Ball’s in Zimmerman’s court, and I don’t think he even has a racquet. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/702 "2012-05-23T16:04:07Z")
Don’t think so. TG, IANAL, but it seems from here almost as if the SYG law was custom made to give Zimmerman’s lawyer enough wiggle room for a marching band and a parade of elephants. That one word, “reasonable” can be inflated to Hindenburg size. He walks. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/703 "2012-05-23T16:07:33Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > This whole case screams, “We need gun control,” to me. There should be some kind of penalty for going out of your house on a hunt for “suspicious youths” carrying a firearm, so you don’t end up killing a suspicious youth (both suspicious to you and suspicious of you) when he understandably knocks you down in self-defense because in his eyes you’re a crazy guy accosting him. I love this “understandably knocks you down”. So assault and battery is “understandable” to you. Is that the general liberal view or just you? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/704 "2012-05-23T16:15:27Z")
**Terr**? Your “eyewitness accounts”? _Poof_. Gone. ---
**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:** [May 23, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/705 "2012-05-23T16:18:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t think so. TG, IANAL, but it seems from here almost as if the SYG law was custom made to give Zimmerman’s lawyer enough wiggle room for a marching band and a parade of elephants. That one word, “reasonable” can be inflated to Hindenburg size. He walks. I don’t think so. If this thing makes it past pre-trial, it’s my understanding that SYG ceases to change the arithmetic. We’re basically left with a good ole fashion self-defense case. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/706 "2012-05-23T16:19:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Terr**? Your “eyewitness accounts”? _Poof_. Gone. 1. The eyewitness still says Martin was on top of Zimmerman. 2. There is a reason why early eyewitness reports are taken as more credible than their later “corrections”. The pressure on these eyewitnesses to modify their testimony was incredible the last few weeks, both from prosecution and, I am sure, from their peers. No wonder some buckled. But I am still willing to make a money bet that Zimmerman will walk. Wanna do it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/707 "2012-05-23T16:26:20Z")
And which eyewitness would that be? Honest question, no snark intended or implied. And the prosecution and “their peers” pressured the witnesses to change their story? Have you any evidence, beyond your fervent wish that it be true? It _may_ be true, I have no evidence one way or the other. But then, neither do you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/708 "2012-05-23T16:28:17Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > …But I am still willing to make a money bet that Zimmerman will walk. Wanna do it? Probably. As I said in post #702. Read much? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/709 "2012-05-23T16:28:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And which eyewitness would that be? Honest question, no snark intended or implied. ? #6 ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/710 "2012-05-23T16:34:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The eyewitness still says Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Perhaps they were having a quick game of cribbage before they resumed their boisterous antics? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/711 "2012-05-23T16:41:05Z")
**Gamer** , number six! Its all right there, full and complete, number six! ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/712 "2012-05-23T16:42:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Gamer** , number six! Its all right there, full and complete, number six! You asked which eyewitness. I told you which one. Was that “no snark” thing a lie? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/713 "2012-05-23T16:49:55Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Since Zimmerman started this confrontation, given Martin was not even on Zimmerman’s property; and since Zimmerman alone resorted to extreme sanction; and since the other guy is now unable to give his side; I expect Zimmerman to be convicted of some kind of felony homicide. > > “Presumption of innocence” is gone. We know who the shooter was. At this point Zimmerman has to offer an affirmative defense for why shooting some kid was OK. “He knocked me down,” ain’t it, and I don’t expect any credible justification to be forthcoming. Ball’s in Zimmerman’s court, and I don’t think he even has a racquet. That’s not what the law says. Seriously – we’ve had so many posts about this issue it isn’t funny. The law in Florida does not place the burden on Zimmerman to come up with an affirmative defense. The law requires the State of Florida to disprove self-defense, and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. So what in the world possesses you to come along and announce that Zimmerman has to offer an affirmative defense? That’s not the process. The law is laid out in crystal clarity in _Dennis v. State_, 51 So. 3d 456, (Fl 2010): > [@](#): > > The wording selected by our Legislature makes clear that it intended to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. (Quoting State v. Peterson.) Now, I know this isn’t fair to say, out of the blue, “How could you not know this?” But this isn’t out of the blue. There are a zillion threads on the subject and the point has been made a zillion times. I can’t imagine how you could possibly miss it. The State must prove the lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is not gone. Your other claim, about how to analyze the start of the confrontation, is also whack. But not whack to this degree. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/714 "2012-05-23T16:50:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Your statement was “the entire incident is predicated on this one fact [Zimmerman thinking that Martin was acting suspiciously]”. I responded that you could also say that the entire incident is predicated on Martin going to 7-11. That’s factually correct. It is also correct to say that the entire incident is predicated on Martin getting suspended from school, on Zimmerman moving into this neighborhood, and on both parties being born. Do you have a problem with factual correctness of any of these statements? I’m sure Bricker remembers the legal term for the difference between a proximate cause and things which are just background information in a scenario. You’re comparing apples and Kalashnikovs here. At this point, it seems there was a fight because Zimmerman either started or provoked one. > [@Absolute](#): > > By carrying a gun, he was reckless to the possibility that one of these people might totally reasonably attempt to defend themselves, and that he might be forced to use the gun against an innocent person. I agree with Absolute’s whole post of which this is an excerpt. > [@Bricker](#): > > Zimmerman’s conduct does not rise to [criminally reckless]. > > … > > I hesitate to carry this conversation on to the next step, because it’s more bad news. But either we’re dedicated to fighting ignorance here or we’re not. > > Zimmerman isn’t likely to be civilly liable under the theory you mention either. > > Now, this is not normally a true. Under ordinary standards, everything you just said COULD be used in a civil trial to show he was reckless – it would be up to the jury in that lawsuit to determine if his carrying a gun and not having a flashing light was negligent. Normally, then, what you’ve said could allow Martin’s family to recover for wrongful death, even with no criminal conviction. > > But we have this law in Florida that says a person who uses force as laid out in the law is immune not only from arrest, but also from civil suit…AND that the the persons suing him will have to pay his court and lawyers fees if they try to sue him anyway. > > So… no. I get why it seems that he should be judged reckless, I do. But as a matter of criminal law, no, not based on those facts. Then this becomes a test case for Stand Your Ground, and if the system of common law can’t work its magic to find a way Zimmerman gets convicted anyway, SYG probably goes away. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/715 "2012-05-23T16:55:14Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You asked which eyewitness. I told you which one. Was that “no snark” thing a lie? Well, perhaps, but you speak in code. Who is “#6”? What is the citation for the testimony of “#6”? Number six of how many? Perhaps a bit more explanation would be in order, beyond a rather cryptic reference. Who is “number six”? What did “number six” say, and when? Have you some explanation why “number six” did not buckle under the extreme peer pressure and prosecution intimidation of which you speak? Perhaps you are awfully busy. Does anyone else know what **Terr** means by “number six”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/716 "2012-05-23T16:59:16Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Then this becomes a test case for Stand Your Ground, and if the system of common law can’t work its magic to find a way Zimmerman gets convicted anyway, SYG probably goes away. I agree that this case exposes the fatal - no humor intended - flaws in Florida’s version of SYG. However, I do not agree at all with the hint that the courts should find a way to convict Zimmerman anyway. Criminal law is always construed strictly against the state. The law must describe precisely what acts are prohibited. And it must do so ahead of time. I would rather have ten thousand Zimmermans patrolling the land than see that principle upended. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/717 "2012-05-23T17:02:54Z")
Its Wednesday, which is Anything Can Happen Day. So lets make it Be Fair to **Bricker** Day. He’s telling you the truth. The law is a travesty and a horror to shock any reasonable mind. But they did pass it, it was signed, and it is the law. To my mind, the law itself is the true core of this, and the gibbering baboons who crafted it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/718 "2012-05-23T17:04:56Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > At this point, it seems there was a fight because Zimmerman either started or provoked one. That’s certainly possible. But to convict Zimmerman, a jury would have to be able to point to evidence that proves he did, beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not aware of any piece of evidence right now that meets this standard for this element. Especially when “provoke” is actually not part of the legal standard. The legal standard is that Zimmerman must have been the aggressor. And, again, that means more than simply approaching and speaking to Martin. It must involve some threat of violence, or actual violence. With that in mind, what evidence do you believe establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor for the fight? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/719 "2012-05-23T17:05:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that this case exposes the fatal - no humor intended - flaws in Florida’s version of SYG. > > However, I do not agree at all with the hint that the courts should find a way to convict Zimmerman anyway. > > Criminal law is always construed strictly against the state. The law must describe precisely what acts are prohibited. And it must do so ahead of time. > > I would rather have ten thousand Zimmermans patrolling the land than see that principle upended. Enough to make Baby Jesus puke His little guts out. But you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/720 "2012-05-23T17:07:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I love this “understandably knocks you down”. So assault and battery is “understandable” to you. Is that the general liberal view or just you? Dude, the whole argument is whether Zimmerman is legally justified to commit assault with a deadly weapon in an altercation\* he started.\* Don’t come at me like some anti-violence schoolmarm (and you call\* me\* a liberal? :rolleyes:) and say “battery is bad.” You’re defending deadly force. The same defense that Zimmerman is relying on to avoid a Murder One rap applies even more strongly to Martin. One of the best scenarios Zimmerman can hope for (most likely; see below) is a finding that both men “stood their ground” under the law, and it’s a shame, but neither broke the law. But we’ll still know Zimmerman started the fight, and we’ll still know he killed Martin, and the “Stand Your Ground” law will be voided one way or another. But I still think, SYG or no, that Zimmerman will be convicted of _something_, and in most states, he would be. Here are the “best” scenarios for Zimmerman, assuming he can’t pull out proof of some kind that Martin jumped him unprovoked: 1. Jury nullification for no real clear reason. _Could happen, but not terribly illuminating to our argument._ 2. The jury finds that most likely Zimmerman just stopped and asked the kid some questions, and Martin attacked him unprovoked. _Possible, but I’m not convinced yet._ 1a) The jury finds that, while we know that Zimmerman using deadly force in an altercation he instigated, we don’t know for certain that Martin didn’t respond to a peaceful questioning with violence, so Zimmerman skates on reasonable doubt. _Problematic. This kind of approach would make it hard to convict murderers in general._ 3. The USA finally remembers it’s a racist nation at core, and niggers no longer have rights. Zimmerman gets a medal. _Unlikely._ 2a) The jury decides to let Zimmerman off because, you know, Martin was just a darkie. _Still unlikely._ 4. Both sides acted consistent with “Stand Your Ground,” and no liability attaches. _What next? Legalized dueling, or the repeal of SYG? I have my suspicions…_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=37)