# 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:** 37
**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/721 "2012-05-23T17:09:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. Yes. Listen, many states have some flavor of “stand your ground.” Some are OK, some a bit hinky. Not one state, apart from Florida, immunizes the killer from arrest or prosecution unless the state can first establish probable cause. Not one state, other than Florida, defines “prosecution” to include even being detained by police for investigation. Not one state, other than Florida, combines such provisions with a requirement that at trial, the state DISprove the self-defense claims beyond a reasonable doubt. On this, Florida has gone farther than any other state. And it creates a truly horrific legal framework. The prosecution always has some cards stacked against it; this set of procedural requirements stacks about six decks against them. ---
**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, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/722 "2012-05-23T17:12:04Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Here are the “best” scenarios for Zimmerman, assuming he can’t pull out proof of some kind that Martin jumped him unprovoked: Ahem. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fl. DCA 2008). Zimmerman doesn’t have to pull out proof. The state has to pull out DISproof. ---
**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, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/723 "2012-05-23T17:15:50Z")
OK, typing that out, I see Bricker’s point. Zimmerman can point to his broken nose and say, “He started it! I was just asking questions!” Hm. But it still leaves the possibility that Zimmerman started it, and that’s where the character witnesses will come in, and…OK, Zimmerman might walk, but I’m still leaning against it. Still, I’m back to thinking this is a perfect case for why we need strong gun laws. ETA: And Florida? Should have its legislature sacked and be placed under federal or foreign mandate for this lunacy. Burden of proof attaches to the state in this case, still? ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/724 "2012-05-23T17:22:29Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > OK, typing that out, I see Bricker’s point. Zimmerman can point to his broken nose and say, “He started it! I was just asking questions!” > > Hm. But it still leaves the possibility that Zimmerman started it, and that’s where the character witnesses will come in, and…OK, Zimmerman might walk, but I’m still leaning against it. > > Still, I’m back to thinking this is a perfect case for why we need strong gun laws. > > ETA: And Florida? Should have its legislature sacked and be placed under federal or foreign mandate for this lunacy. Burden of proof attaches to the state in this case, still? I’m not a disinterested party, but if you made strong gun laws, kept SYG as is, and Zimmerman owns a hunting knife… roughly the same outcome is possible. On the other hand, if you keep the current gun laws, replace SYG with traditonal common-law self-defense, then Zimmerman is punished (or at least correctly bears to burden of showing he acted legally) and law-abiding responsible people may still protect themselves. ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/725 "2012-05-23T17:22:37Z")
(I mean, once we have a shooter, burden of proof falls to the state to prove that the victim didn’t “need killin’.” That just sounds like bullshit to me.) ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/726 "2012-05-23T17:24:54Z")
That’s because you’re sane. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/727 "2012-05-23T17:25:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not a disinterested party, but if you made strong gun laws, kept SYG as is, and Zimmerman owns a hunting knife… roughly the same outcome is possible. > > On the other hand, if you keep the current gun laws, replace SYG with traditonal common-law self-defense, then Zimmerman is punished (or at least correctly bears to burden of showing he acted legally) and law-abiding responsible people may still protect themselves. Well, yeah. I do think there mostly needs to be some legal liability for first provoking and then escalating that situation. It doesn’t have to be gun confiscation, just if you go out looking for trouble with a deadly weapon, and respond to assault with deadly force, you face some kind of criminal penalty. Which is what I expect in the USA, you know? ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/728 "2012-05-23T17:25:23Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > OK, typing that out, I see Bricker’s point. Zimmerman can point to his broken nose and say, “He started it! I was just asking questions!” > > Hm. But it still leaves the possibility that Zimmerman started it, and that’s where the character witnesses will come in, and…OK, Zimmerman might walk, but I’m still leaning against it. I hate to keep harping on this, but character witnesses are not enough here. The state must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that their proof must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. The jury cannot say, “Well, Zimmerman might have started it,” or even “Well, Zimmerman probably started it.” They have to be able to point to a piece of evidence that proves Zimmerman started it, and doesn’t allow for any other reasonable interpretation EXCEPT “Zimmerman started it.” What might that evidence be? ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/729 "2012-05-23T17:30:34Z")
I see your point. I concede. Zimmerman will walk. And so will the guy who kills Zimmerman in the name of just vengeance; and so will the assassins who kill the legislators who wrote this law and refuse to repeal it. Because if two men meet on the road and one dies, Florida law has no way to assign blame. No, wait, I don’t buy it. SYG or not, broken nose -\> deadly force is a leap. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/730 "2012-05-23T17:30:46Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > (I mean, once we have a shooter, burden of proof falls to the state to prove that the victim didn’t “need killin’.” That just sounds like bullshit to me.) Sure. Because you’re so used to the traditional idea of self-defense, which places the burden on the killer to (a) prove his entitlement to self-defense and (b) retreat from danger if he can, because it’s better to retreat safely than to kill someone, even if you were in the right. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > Well, yeah. I do think there mostly needs to be some legal liability for first provoking and then escalating that situation. It doesn’t have to be gun confiscation, just if you go out looking for trouble with a deadly weapon, and respond to assault with deadly force, you face some kind of criminal penalty. Which is what I expect in the USA, you know? Right there with you – but that’s a correct statement regardless of whether the deadly force is a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat, yes? ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/731 "2012-05-23T17:32:56Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I see your point. I concede. Zimmerman will walk. And so will the guy who kills Zimmerman in the name of just vengeance; and so will the assassins who kill the legislators who wrote this law and refuse to repeal it. Because if two men meet on the road and one dies, Florida law has no way to assign blame. > > No, wait, I don’t buy it. Well, that’s not entirely true. If two men meet on the road and one dies, and there are no witnesses, and one can point to injuries he claims he got from the dead man, THEN Florida law has very little way to assign blame. I can’t picture the scenario in which assassins targeting the legislators can leverage this framework to their advantage. ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/732 "2012-05-23T17:40:58Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > SYG or not, broken nose -\> deadly force is a leap. Again, though, I have previously quoted Florida case law that mentions a bloody and broken nose as fitting into the category of “great bodily harm.” And I have previously supplied the exact language of Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (2006), which provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. So why are you saying this? Did you just join the thread and not read any prior posts? ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/733 "2012-05-23T17:49:01Z")
Yup. 'Fraid I did. Bad habit. A broken nose is “great bodily harm,” but the police can’t even detain after you obviously and admittedly kill someone? People think there’s a racist component to this; I hope so, because the alternative is that Florida lawmakers have\* no sense of proportion.\* ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/734 "2012-05-23T17:52:12Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yup. 'Fraid I did. Bad habit. > > A broken nose is “great bodily harm,” but the police can’t even detain after you obviously and admittedly kill someone? Yup. To detain you, the police must have probable cause… not that you committed a crime overall, which is the usual standard, but probable cause to believe that the force you used was unlawful. In other words, they have to be able to prove, right then, that you didn’t reasonably believe you were preventing a forcible felony. You don’t need to get the bloody nose; you just need to be able to say why you were afraid you would get a bloody nose. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/735 "2012-05-23T18:07:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. Apparently you didn’t read the articles that recounted the witnesses changing their testimony. Those articles refer to the witnesses by their numbers. The witness that still maintains that Martin was on top of Zimmerman is referred to as witness #6. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/736 "2012-05-23T18:10:10Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > 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. If Zimmerman at the point that he shot Martin had reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, then whether he was an aggressor (as the law puts it) or not is irrelevant. He would be justified to use deadly force in either case. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/737 "2012-05-23T19:25:37Z")
That there is apparently no “bit off more than you could chew” exception to the law should be highly comforting to belligerent gun-toting pussies across the Sunshine State. ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/738 "2012-05-23T19:32:55Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Apparently you didn’t read the articles that recounted the witnesses changing their testimony. Those articles refer to the witnesses by their numbers. The witness that still maintains that Martin was on top of Zimmerman is referred to as witness #6. Well, you could have just said so. So, boiled down, of the witnesses who’s testimony was, at one time, reliable to the point of Gospel, five now say something different, but you still have one? So, Witness Six, then… > [@](#): > > …This witness lived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man “just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style,” a reference to mixed martial arts. > > He also said the one calling for help was “the one being beat up,” a reference to Zimmerman. > > But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help. > > “I truly can’t tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk,” he said. > > He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said. > > He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top. > > “The black guy was on top,” he said… (emphasis added) And that’s what you got? That’s it? ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/739 "2012-05-23T20:20:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, you could have just said so. So, boiled down, of the witnesses who’s testimony was, at one time, reliable to the point of Gospel, five now say something different, but you still have one? No. ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/740 "2012-05-23T20:25:03Z")
Oh, dear, not even one? Might be time to declare victory and run like hell. Its not number six, as you can readily see, the support that witness offers to your thesis is, well, lacking. To be generous. But I admire your brevity, if all you have is something stupid, its best to keep it as short as possible. Very wise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=38)