I don’t know. I was referring to the toxicology test done as part of the autopsy.
I have no idea if police did a tox screen on Zimmerman. And since the police have not released their full report, I don’t understand how any news organization could claim they know.
A Google of “toxicology Zimmerman” reveals several sources, as I noted early on. Are you suggesting that we should ignore those reports? Did they make it up, then? I can cite them if you insist, though I have every confidence in your skills.
Apropos of nothing, yesterday for the first time I saw a full-face color pic of Trayvon Martin in a newspaper, and the first thing I thought was, “My Og, that’s Denzel Washington!” Looks just like a young Denzel.
Yes, please. My search results all go to blogs, not news sources. The one exception is some news stories that quote police expert Rod Wheeler, who does not say how he knows this was not done.
In both those cites they say “possible.”
I agree it’s possible.
You said:
I said in reply:
I don’t know.
Since I don’t know, I agree that it’s possible they weren’t done. I don’t agree it’s certain they weren’t done.
Certainty is not given to flesh such as ours. Which you already knew. I very much doubt that you are suggesting we abandon all reasonable conclusions therefore. So, please, Counselor, let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. Barring an affidavit from God Almighty countersigned by the Angel Gabriel, you can dart out of this trapdoor whenever you choose.
I hope you agree that it is a reasonable stipulation a toxology exam is needful when one person, for whatever reason, has gunned down another. And its absence would be strong testimony for Something Wrong. If the suggestion is false, why wouldn’t they say so? They would not even have to reveal any results, they could simply say “Yes, we did, and you will get the results in due course.” Nothing prejudicial about that.
So why didn’t they? Especially when refusing to do so when give credence to an accusation they must have been anxious to nullify.
My conclusion, based on a preponderance of evidence in despair of certainty: they did no such test.
I think you’re misunderstanding the sentence, Bricker. They are possible missteps, not things that were possibly not done.
There are a lot of things about this case that have taken me to the same conclusion. But I am always hastened by the scolding chorus not to jump to conclusions and be patient for the cogs of justice to do whatever it is it’s supposed to do.
Because I am ignorant of the law and I don’t know how long it takes for criminal cases to come together, I have stopped fighting with the chorus . Maybe I am being impatient and everyone is smarter and more objective than I am? But I do wonder how long a person has to wait for it to become reasonable to form a basic conclusion. How much doubt do we need before it becomes perfectly okay to say, “You know what? His ass needs to be booked and released out on bail before he flies right on out of here.”
I don’t get it. He won’t either, says two bits.
The Grand Jury starts in a week, and I get the impression the hearing will last a couple of weeks (but I’m by no means certain of that), so I’d say waiting 3 weeks or so is reasonable.
I also suspect that, should he not be charged after the Grand Jury, there will be a thorough investigation of the police department, and any possible incompetence or cover-ups.
As to the recurring question of the toxicology tests on Zimmerman, in the other thread on this it was mentioned that, if there is no probable cause to arrest him, there is no probable cause to insist on a blood test. I also understand that carrying a firearm whilst drunk is illegal, so if the police suspected he was intoxicated, they could have arrested him for that. I’m willing to be corrected on this.
I know they are not doing an investigation because the SPD basically admitted to it. While you might nitpick the following, to me, its pretty clear when they said that the “Stand Your Ground” law prevents an arrest. It seems that had there been some wiggle room, the SPD would have said that while they could not arrest him now, an arrest may happen in the future pending further investigation. That’s all they had to say, no leaking of what they’re doing, just an admission to perhaps quiet the firestorm by saying that they are investigating.
However, the nation saw a police department do nothing in the way of investigating (or else they would have admitted as such, if only to get the press off their backs), a police chief who claimed no crime was committed, and most everyone in authority just throw up their hands and say essentially “that’s the law, sorry”
Does it make sense, counselor, that in your estimation, if an investigation had been going on when this news broke, they would have admitted as much, if only to stem the anger without providing any details? The reason why I and a lot of people believe that there was no investigation until it went national is because there is no good reason not to simply admit one is there. It absolutely does not benefit the town or the SPD to remain silent on this issue. They have everything to gain by simply uttering a few words to the effect that the Zimmerman case was being looked at. But they didn’t. And that’s why I can say with 99% certainty that there was no investigation until things got heated
And the response to that of course is: if that’s what he thought, why didn’t he simply open an investigation? Or, if he was sure of the law, remain steadfast?
Now there is an investigation, not only by the local authorities, but by the FBI, as reported today. All this because they wouldn’t want to jeopardize the case, as you claim, by showing their hand before Zimmerman should show his? It doesn’t make sense.
I was referring to the report of the medical examination at the scene. If the only medical report is from the next day, then yes, it will lose some value, but I would expect there to be one from the scene. If there are two reports which agree, I would say it strengthens their value.
If the reports disagree, the fact that the relatively poor quality video suggest no obvious major injury comes into play.
If they both say he’s uninjured, then he’s lying, and both him and the police have some extremely tough questions to answer.
Okay, I’ll elaborate in an effort to elucidate.
The things listed in the sentence were not done. Zimmerman was NOT given a toxicology test. Zimmerman’s car was NOT impounded. Key witnesses were NOT interviewed. Those were possible missteps in the investigation, to have NOT done those things.
That’s the way I read the sentence in question.
But if there was no probable cause to arrest him, why was he in handcuffs? I believe that the police cannot detain someone without arresting them. He didn’t look like he was “free to go.”
Yes, they can.
Also, without backtracking too much. The cops potentially contaminated evidence by searching Z’s jacket with their bare hands instead of wearing surgical gloves. They had to have intentionally filed an inaccurate report.
The OP has been attacked as prejudicial but I think there is enough clear evidence that the SPD acted incompetently. That’s why they were Pitted in the first place.
I agree, but I don’t agree it was a misstep.
If Zimmerman was asked to voluntarily submit to a blood test and refused, I don’t see where their probable cause to get a warrant is.
However, if they never asked at all, I would agree that was a major screwup.
Well, he drove a car to the scene, which is surely a regulated activity in Florida, even if blowing away black kids isn’t.
[Aside]
Can’t get this scenario out of my head, so I’ll try to stick it yours and then feel better.
Lets just say you know somebody you would prefer were dead. A brother in law, whatever. Helps if they are aggressive and crude with a bad temper.
So you get a concealed carry permit, and conceal and carry. Good solid pistol with ammunition suitable for a man of his caliber. You sit down, maybe have a couple drinks, wait until you are out of earshot, and then start making casual small talk. Maybe about how wrassling is fixed, NASCAR is for gay fags (hmmmm…I seem to be thinking about my cousin Wesley outside Amarillo…) or maybe ask if his grandma had lasting health benefits from swimming out to meet the troopships. Bonus points if theres a plausible reason for a golf club or baseball bat to be close at hand.
Anyway, he loses it, goes for you, and adios, motherfucker.
Someone’s gonna do this. Its gonna happen, if it hasn’t already. I have perhaps an unusual mind, but not a unique one, if I can think of this, somebody else already has. This law is a ready made Ronco Justifiable Stand Your Ground Homicide Kit.
Or course, this works best with the belligerent and aggressive, which may lend some small and happy effect on the gene pool. Hippy dreams of a more peaceful species brought closer to realization. Just not quite what we had in mind…
[/Aside]