# 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:** 47
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/921 "2012-05-26T22:10:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Flashlight? There was a flashlight? Zimmerman had **two** flashlights, one of which didn’t work. The one on his keychain was still on when the police started searching for evidence. I used to carry a flashlight on my keychain. but now I just use by cellphone. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/922 "2012-05-26T22:15:36Z")
> [@enomaj](#): > > At 7:00 p\_m. in a residential neighborhood, staring and following are more likely to be interpreted as stranger danger than gay come-ons. That is my claim. Yet again, so what? This does not contradict my point in the slightest. > [@](#): > > And the fact that Trayvon ran supports my contention a lot more than it does yours. What exactly is my contention in your view? ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/923 "2012-05-26T22:31:20Z")
No it doesn’t contradict. It just has a firmer basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/924 "2012-05-26T22:41:20Z")
> [@enomaj](#): > > No it doesn’t contradict. Ok, then yet again . . . so what? > [@](#): > > It just has a firmer basis in reality. I kinda doubt it. If Martin had had a strong feeling that Zimmerman posed an actual physical threat to him, he had plenty of opportunity to flee or to call the authorities. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/925 "2012-05-27T01:12:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is Zimmerman’s statement not evidence? > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Because it is contradicted by the EMT report. I think you need to review the meaning of the word “evidence.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/926 "2012-05-27T01:16:52Z")
I’m watching you guys. First one to make a move to cut and paste a dictionary definition, I cut the red wire. I’m not bluffing. ---
**Author:** ![scratch\_llll](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@scratch\_llll](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scratch_llll)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/927 "2012-05-27T03:32:11Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > In the real world that doesn’t actually happen. Action always beat reaction. Your best bet is to hope the other guy misses. The last time I looked at the statistics, police miss about 80% of the time and felons at about 90%. Maybe someone has more recent statistics. I recall one study that indicate the average shooting happens at 6 feet. Of course, that includes a lot of shots at contact range. Yeah. I guess it’s been a while since my last gunfight;). Still, the shear number of those who may want to stand their ground with him now may whittle down those odds. He will have to look over his shoulder every place he goes now as a penance. 80% for cops? They practice so much. When somebody can shoot back I guess it makes you miss. Too bad then that Treyvon didn’t have a gun because they both might have missed and called it a day. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/928 "2012-05-27T04:38:52Z")
> [@scratch\_llll](#): > > Yeah. I guess it’s been a while since my last gunfight;). Still, the shear number of those who may want to stand their ground with him now may whittle down those odds. He will have to look over his shoulder every place he goes now as a penance. > > 80% for cops? They practice so much. When somebody can shoot back I guess it makes you miss. Too bad then that Treyvon didn’t have a gun because they both might have missed and called it a day. Most police officers don’t actually practice that much. I actually read that statistic back in the early nineties, I checked for a more recent reference, but there doesn’t seem to have been any improvement. **Officer-Involved Shootings:What We Didn’t Know Has Hurt Us** [http://www.theppsc.org/Staff\_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf](http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf) On page 11 there is a section on Mistake-of-Fact Shootings, which discusses shootings of unarmed suspects. > [@](#): > > For instance, between 1990 and 2001, the Metro-Dade Police Department reportedly had 22 shootings in which suspects were clearly unarmed, and a dozen others in which the officers claimed they saw guns – but no guns were found. All told, Miami officers shot and killed 33 people in that period of years – 11 of which were under questionable circumstances. Apparently shooting unarmed suspects in Miami by the police is so common that it doesn’t make the national news. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/929 "2012-05-27T05:02:47Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I seem to recall a recent case where a defendant was convicted of federal perjury even though the statements weren’t made to a federal agent. I’ll see if I can find a reference. I think it involved evidence collected by state agents that was used in a federal indictment. I actually found the reference. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html) > [@](#): > > In February, the Washington Legal Foundation, a pro-business group, asked the Supreme Court to take a new look at statute 1001 in the case of an Idaho farmer, Cory King, who was convicted federally of lying to a state livestock inspector about where a valve on the property sent some water. Mr. King allegedly said the valve routed the water to the sprinkler system when in fact it sent water to a well, where it was later used for irrigation. The state didn’t pursue criminal charges, opting for a fine. > > At issue: Since Mr. King’s statement was made to a state official—someone with no connection to the federal government, the WLF says in a court filing—should the federal law against lying apply? Letting the conviction stand “would strip the statute of virtually all jurisdictional limitations,” the brief says. > > A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. Justice Department court filings argue that lying to the state inspector interfered with enforcement of federal drinking-water laws. The false statement “need not be made directly” to the federal government, said one Justice Department court filing. Here is more discussion in Findlaw. [http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html](http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html) It looks pretty simple. The FBI charges Zimmerman with a hate crime and uses the evidence from the state indictment. Even if they lose they might put him away on federal perjury charges for inaccurate statements to the Sanford police. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/930 "2012-05-27T05:26:35Z")
I admit I did not foresee this thread detouring into a curiously authoritative breakdown of rest stop cruising practices courtesy of **brazil84**. Wonder what other surprises we’re in store for! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/931 "2012-05-27T05:45:21Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > I admit I did not foresee this thread detouring into a curiously authoritative breakdown of rest stop cruising practices courtesy of **brazil84**. Wonder what other surprises we’re in store for! Wanna see me make a paper towel tube disappear? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/932 "2012-05-27T13:36:27Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’m not sure why you care about the distinction. Most moral codes have sins of omission and commission. Most moral codes hold individuals to a higher responsibility for commission though. This is reinforced by the concept of “mens rea” and the findings of Rebecca Saxe among others. As for infanticide typically being a crime of omission: why contribute unnecessarily to the suffering of children by compounding their starvation with exposure? Provide palliative care or euthnaise them, don’t deliberate. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Morals are cultural standards, not individual standards. Not according to research by Kohlberg, for instance. While it is true that an individual’s morality is often impacted by cultural context, it is more the case for the lower stages of moral reasoning. Individuals at the highest stages of moral reasoning operate independently of the cultural context of their time. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The trouble is that we have a lot of morality that evolved in a agrarian technology and a lot of it doesn’t actually make sense in a post industrial society. I take issue with the repeated use of the term “evolved” with the simultaneous disjunction from evolutionary concepts in order to argue for normative moral relativism. If something evolves, it must have a genetic basis which provides a selection advantage for the individual in possession of those genes. That’s why I discussed evolutionary stable strategies: cultural strictures tend to be based on an encoded form of evolutionary stable strategies. If evolution is being used as a metaphor, it should be applied to the concept rather than the individuals holding the concept. Memes can outlive the individuals spreading them. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I actually think this is a pretty interesting discussion, but it way off topic. If you want to continue the discussion in another thread, feel free to post a new one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/933 "2012-05-27T17:47:12Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I actually found the reference. > > [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html) > > Here is more discussion in Findlaw. > [http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html](http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html) > > It looks pretty simple. The FBI charges Zimmerman with a hate crime and uses the evidence from the state indictment. Even if they lose they might put him away on federal perjury charges for inaccurate statements to the Sanford police. No. In order to get a conviction under that statute, the lie must be on a subject that’s within the jurisdiction of the federals and it must be material – that is, it must have influenced reasonably be capable of influencing the action of the federal actor involved. See \* US v. Gaudin\*, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/934 "2012-05-27T19:07:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. In order to get a conviction under that statute, the lie must be on a subject that’s within the jurisdiction of the federals and it must be material – that is, it must have influenced reasonably be capable of influencing the action of the federal actor involved. See \* US v. Gaudin\*, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). I think you are reading too much into Gaudin. In actual practice, courts have interpreted “reasonably” pretty widely. I think in actual practice almost any statement by Zimmerman could be included in a 1001 charge as part as of a federal hate crime charge. BTW, are you claiming actual experience in prosecuting or defending federal perjury charges? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/935 "2012-05-27T19:41:36Z")
I don’t much hold with rooting around looking for some charge to stick when a guy gets away with something totally gross. Used to bust guys who murdered civil rights workers, my outrage tunes down to a murmur. But I cringe at the prospect of it being used to hound someone who is actually innocent. Give these guys an inch and they’ll take your whole dick. Gotta remember, justice without law ain’t very good, even though law without justice is so much worse. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/936 "2012-05-27T21:23:50Z")
The accused are entitled to be treated fairly, of course, and that’s why even the guilty need lawyers. But the goal for officers of the court should not be winning, but _justice_. The society damaged by the accused is entitled to justice, ya know. There is still something wrong with overzealousness on a defense lawyer’s part if obtaining his client’s acquittal is a violation of the justice that the rest of us in society are entitled to, isn’t there? And if that unjust acquittal is the result of weaselly word games rather than actual reasoning or fact, then it’ should be something for said lawyer to be ashamed rather than proud of, should it not? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/937 "2012-05-28T00:27:28Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I think you are reading too much into Gaudin. In actual practice, courts have interpreted “reasonably” pretty widely. I think in actual practice almost any statement by Zimmerman could be included in a 1001 charge as part as of a federal hate crime charge. Can you point to any case which has actually done so? > [@](#): > > BTW, are you claiming actual experience in prosecuting or defending federal perjury charges? No, although I have federal criminal experience. But the bulk of my federal work was 18 USC 922 et seq, part of a 1990s initiative in Virginia called Project Exile. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/938 "2012-05-28T00:32:39Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I think you are reading too much into Gaudin. In actual practice, courts have interpreted “reasonably” pretty widely. I think in actual practice almost any statement by Zimmerman could be included in a 1001 charge as part as of a federal hate crime charge. And Gaudin stands for precisely the point I said: > [@US v Gaudin](#): > > It is uncontested that conviction under this provision requires that the statements be “material” to the Government inquiry, and that “materiality” is an element of the offense that the Government must prove. The parties also agree on the definition of “materiality”: The statement must have “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U. S. 759, 770 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). So what cases are you citing that supposedly vitiate this standard? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/939 "2012-05-28T21:36:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And Gaudin stands for precisely the point I said: > > So what cases are you citing that supposedly vitiate this standard? All the supreme court said in Gaudin was that materiality wasn’t supposed to be determined by the judge, but by the jury at trial. That doesn’t work in Zimmerman’s favor, since I would think that a jury would be far more likely to decide that Zimmerman should do some jail time even if he didn’t murder Martin. You seem to be under the impression that the Federal Government can’t even prosecute Zimmerman for a 1001 violation. > [@](#): > > After United States v. Gaudin, 115 S.Ct. 2310 (1995), materiality is an issue to be determined by the jury. Gaudin, held that it was error for a trial court to refuse to submit the question of materiality to the jury in a prosecution under the first prong of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, overturning lower court cases holding that materiality was a legal question for the court. [http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia\_reading\_room/usam/title9/crm00911.htm](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00911.htm) [https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=72+Tul.+L.+Rev.+1343&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=46aa1cbe3463286d55a52c536a07bed9](https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=72+Tul.+L.+Rev.+1343&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=46aa1cbe3463286d55a52c536a07bed9) Actually I liked this one about how telling the literal truth isn’t a defense again perjury. [http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/2010/07/limits-of-literal-truth-as-defense-to.html](http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/2010/07/limits-of-literal-truth-as-defense-to.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/940 "2012-05-29T00:28:13Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > All the supreme court said in Gaudin was that materiality wasn’t supposed to be determined by the judge, but by the jury at trial. That doesn’t work in Zimmerman’s favor, since I would think that a jury would be far more likely to decide that Zimmerman should do some jail time even if he didn’t murder Martin. You seem to be under the impression that the Federal Government can’t even prosecute Zimmerman for a 1001 violation. They cannot. Like any question of fact, it must survive a threshold review by a judge. Please state specifically what representation Zimmerman made, and what federal decision maker relied on it. And please cite any case where the statement to federal authorities is as attenuated as it is here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=48)