Absolutely. It would be nearly inconceivable to not autopsy, and if not done it would be a grievous breach.
Agreed.
Of course. It is pretty silly even to suggest it wasn’t performed.
The autopsy on Trayvon Martin was performed by a medical examiner who works for the Volusia County government, and therefore Byron has been in the loop regarding the autopsy, which has not yet been released as the investigation into the killing is ongoing.
“In Florida when a death is being actively investigated by any agency … the autopsy information is shielded under the Florida public records law until the investigation becomes un-active, or inactive,” Byron told the IBTimes via phone Wednesday morning. “So in this case I think we can all agree this is an active death investigation, so what I need to do is refer all calls to the State Attorney’s Office in Jacksonville.”
Truly, Bricker, you are an odd duck. You are about half-way down the road to agreeing that the investigation and conduct of the police in this regard stinks of incompetence. But not for those reasons, only for these reasons! Someone tries to press those reasons, you will fight them tooth and nail, never say die! But for *these *reasons, yeah, sure, (shrug) whatever.
Truly an odd duck.
In my view, the reverse is the puzzling attitude; once we accept that the police may have made an error in one thing, we must agree that they did everything wrong. Failed to interview the girlfriend? Well, then, they must also have burned Zimmerman’s shirt!
What I am doing is what I always do, about everything: start at zero and wait for compelling evidence, and require those making confident proclamations to substantiate them.
Burn the witch!!!
Well, yes, of course, you are the very beacon of unbiased view. Why, I doubt anyone here has the least suspicion what your political views might be, you are so utterly objective, and all. Me too, of course. Der Trish might lean a little lefty, there are hints…
But lets unpack this a bit, shall we? In my human experience, someone who fucks up something fundamental in the procedures they are entrusted to perform, it is a likely indicator. It doesn’t by itself prove incompetence, certainly not. But it is suggestive.
And by the way, who has specifically put forth the proposition that you are so firmly opposed to? Who specifically said “Hey, they fucked this up, that means they fucked everything up”? Was it someone on a yellow brick road, with a bi-polar lion, a Kansas slut, a little dog and Mitt Romney?
Dude, I thought of this within 24 hours of hearing about “Stand Your Ground,” and posted in in this thread, and the other one. And I’m the most gentle, peaceful guy yo’ll ever meet. But write a goddamned Get Out Of A Murder Charge For Free law into the books and ANYONE can at least *think *of someone they’d like to pop.
Want to really cover your tracks? If you don’t want the cops asking about your regrettable history with the victim, all you need is a willing accomplice who doesn’t know the target to do it for you.
If I shot and killed an intruder in my home there are certain things I’d expect the police to do, or at least not be surprised if they did.
- Place me in custody, handcuffs and all. Transport me to the police station and take my statement. Fingerprint me, check me for priors.
2.If I claimed there was a physical altercation before the shooting then I’d expect to be examined for evidence of that, perhaps by a physician. If I’d been injured during that altercation I’d expect to be taken to be treated. I’d expect my injuries to be part of the police report.
-
I’d expect the police to be skeptical of my claim of self-defense at least initially and for them to look for weakness in my statement. I’d expect them to check for any connection between myself and the intruder.
-
I’d expect to be arrested only if these investigations increased the police’s suspicion, but nonetheless all the evidence will have been gathered.
-
I’d expect the body to be autopsied.
None of these things would outrage me as intrusive to my rights, after all I killed a person even if justifiably. No doubt I’d be very upset but mostly because I’d killed a person.
I don’t think we know how many of these things were done in this case either competently or not and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, at least until the investigation is completed.
A self-defense killing in the street should, I think, garner even more suspicion than the case of a home intruder.
If it turns out that the Sanford PD didn’t collect evidence, applied no skepticism to Zimmerman’s claims and shrugged off the killing of an unarmed minor then they’re incompetent at best.
You did:
You’d expect them to do this even if there was a law in your state that said, “Arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant are all forbidden to police, unless they first determine that the force used was unlawful.”
Really?
You’d expect the police to detain you in custody, in the face of a law that forbids them from detaining you in custody until they determine that the force used was unlawful?
Why?
I’ve read through his posts in this thread, and it would appear that Bricker is simply trying to look at the case objectively and with an open mind.
Lol, I guess that makes him an “odd duck.”
As a heart punch.
If Zimmerman and Martin had fought with knives and both combatants were alive when the police arrived, they both could have reasonably been breathalyzed. If it had been a hunting accident and Zimmerman had shot Martin with a dropped shotgun or killed him with a rifle round that passed through foliage, Zimmerman almost certainly would’ve been screened as a matter of course. But you expect a higher standard of cause in order to tox screen after an intentional killing, because, I gather, you believe police discretion to be utterly restricted by Florida law without recourse or laxity. (Please correct me if I have gathered wrongly; this is what you seem to me to be saying to other posters in the thread.)
Here’s the thing - every patrolling member of every police force on the planet knows how to phrase suspicion in a way that suits the legal requirements of their jurisdiction.* There was no jeopardy for the police associated with administering (or even just requesting of Zimmerman) a tox screen. Had Martin not been killed outright, they’d have done a more thorough job of establishing fault. But since the corpse wasn’t exactly asserting his rights, the SPD took the path of least effort afforded by cover of law.
How dare I state this opinion about the police without all the facts at my disposal? Because Trayvon Martin’s family was at home, awake and available the night of his killing and didn’t know about it until they approached the SPD the next day for help finding Trayvon. SPD didn’t canvass or did a cursory job of canvassing the immediate neighborhood to see if any household was missing a young black male. Trayvon’s father’s home is only a few hundred feet further down the trail on which he was killed. Investigators didn’t check Martin’s phone for a “home” number or other contacts who might establish his identity and provide information, or they failed to follow up. -Reportedly the medical examiner found the phone information, but no action was taken by anyone in authority to contact Martin’s relatives.
The Sanford Police Department did not protect Travon Martin’s human rights or the rights of his family to any reasonable minimum standard. I frankly don’t know or care whether this was institutional racism or just some form of depraved indifference in the organization. Fuck the SPD.
elucidator keeps pointing out, Bricker, in the various threads among which you carefully dispense lawyerly apologia of authoritarian misbehavior, that you’re “smarter than this” sort of thing. I think I disagree with 'luc’s focus here. I don’t doubt for a second your intellect, or even your ethics. It’s just that your biases cause a chronic lack or loss of empathetic compunction or control.
*[sub]No cite for this assertion. The earth is roughly spherical; deal with it.[/sub]
You can be objective and still be an odd duck. A never-named odd duck even.
Trayvon’s father and his girlfriend were out on the town at the time. They were not home.
The police say the phone was locked. Apparently they have no means to unlock locked phones.
Yes. Any cop in the country could have said, for example, that Zimmerman was unsteady on his feet, that his speech was confused or disoriented, and thus gotten probable cause to do a breathalyzer. And that determination would have been effectively unreviewable. The cops, in other words, could very safely say this and get their test.
But let’s be clear: are you saying that Zimmerman was in fact unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented?
Or are you saying that to do a competent job, the cops should have lied and said he was, even if he wasn’t?
Or are you saying that IF Zimmerman was in fact unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented, then and only then should the police have gotten a test, and so you’re saying they were incompetent for failing to get the test only if in fact Zimmerman unsteady on his feet, or that his speech was confused or disoriented.
Or are you saying they didn’t ask Zimmerman to voluntarily consent to a blood alcohol test?
Really? But weren’t you making the same argument before I offered that observation? Or did you pivot on my deathless words, and strike out in a wholly new direction in shock and dismay? What was your thesis before I spoke?
I shall make very effort to ensure that my new-found power is used for good. Going to be difficult, I have a strong urge to mischievous fun, especially when confronted with pious claims to pure objectivity.
And while you’re about it, perhaps you’ll explain how incompetent acts do not imply incompetence? To many of us, indeed, most of us, they certainly do. But yours is a special understanding, one that eludes lesser minds.
No. I was evaluating each statement, agreeing or disagreeing that the omission of each would be grossly derelict, and then asking if we knew that the step had in fact been eliminated.
I haven’t heard any confirmed incompetent acts yet. For example, in response to a claim that they did not autopsy martin’s body, I said, “It would be nearly inconceivable to not autopsy, and if not done it would be a grievous breach.”
But the follow-on question is: did they in fact autopsy his body?
I have no idea how he appeared. I do know as established fact that he’d just watched, followed and shot to death an unarmed teenager. This is not a usual sequence of events, and his claim of self defense could not be corroborated by witnesses. Why wouldn’t I check for intoxication if I were empowered to do so? Rather more to the point, what would disincline me from at least testing?
I’m saying the circumstances were sufficient to check for intoxication regardless of Zimmerman’s apparent motor skills. He’d just fought with and shot an unarmed individual for no stated cause other than his uncorroborated claim that the deceased had assaulted him. What would disincline me from testing him for intoxicants?
Repeated for emphasis: I’m saying the circumstances were sufficient to check for intoxication regardless of Zimmerman’s apparent motor skills. He’d just fought with and shot an unarmed individual for no stated cause other than his uncorroborated claim that the deceased had assaulted him. What would disincline me from testing him for intoxicants?
If they did, I have not seen it reported. It was not part of the leaked preliminary and supplemental police reports, in any report citing those reports. Like elucidator, I suspect mention of such a request would have been leaked to the press along with the other information. If you have non-priveleged knowledge that they did so, feel free to share it. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s unfair to state that there’s no indication the SPD requested a blood alcohol test or any other toxicology analysis of Zimmerman.
Says Euphonious. To which you say “Agreed”. Did I miss the part where you challenge that assertion? Or is there a penumbra to the word “Agreed”?
I certainly agree with his assertion.
I am thinking maybe you see more to his assertion than what’s there. He’s saying, " If there is not a very detailed medical report about BOTH parties…" and " there should have been a very thorough report about Zimmerman’s “injuries” by attending medical professionals…"
He is not saying these things don’t exist. He’s saying IF they don’t exist, that’s clear evidence of bungling, and I completely agree.
Now you come along and act as though he’s said they actually don’t exist.