And a detailed medical report would not include toxicology?
No, I cannot, and this is where you and I differ. For things you don’t agree with, outside the sphere of a courtroom, you try to apply courtroom logic. Sorry, but that just won’t work. The article mentioned voice analysis. There was no contrary statement from the police. I am 99% confident assuming that in the absence of many of the other things they didn’t do, this voice analysis wasn’t done.
After all, if you’re not even going to arrest the guy and stand behind the law and say your hands are tied, why would the police analyze the voice recording? It logically doesn’t make sense. The article didn’t have to say “and the police said there was no analysis made by them” in order to present that front. If the police did or are going to do it, they would say so, because one has already been done. If they were still trying to trap Zimmerman like you said, well, its been so long already, they can’t bring him in for a statement? Face it, there was no investigation and none was happening before the story went national
Yes and no. The autopsy can provide medical details that the funeral director wouldn’t have, but that would also be one part of the whole story. If the cause of death was a gunshot wound and the police weren’t going to investigate it, an autopsy need not include every malady and scrape suffered by Travyon. The funeral director, however, was asked specifically about a certain issue. He is presumably a non-biased third party. He’s just as qualified as any of us, maybe more so, to simply report on what he had seen upon preparation of the body.
You want to say that if we have the medical examiner’s report, then that’s all we need to know about the body, but that’s only part of the story. The lawyers for the Martin family can and should get another side of the story from the funeral director to cast doubt if the ME’s report state there was evidence of fighting. So no, I don’t think the ME’s report would necessarily be better overall, maybe in the narrow range of exactly how he was killed, but there is certainly more parts to the story
The article said they haven’t even asked. Why would they? The police was ready to write off the shooting as self-defense.
That last part is a bit murky. Were they prepared to do so, and were “overuled”?
Of the murder victim, yes.
Of the shooter, not necessarily.
The shooter couldn’t be compelled to give up blood for a blood sample unless there was a warrant. And there can’t be a warrant unless you can lay out probable cause to believe he was intoxicated. You cannot just say to a judge, “We’re doing a thorough investigation and we want to rule out intoxication.” That’s not probable cause.
Of course, he could be asked to voluntarily submit a sample. In fact, he should have been asked. If he refused, then i don’t see how the police get his blood (one exception, discussed dozens of pages ago: the police could, sans warrant, get the gauze or bandages, if any, used to treat him. But I don’t believe that’s enough to get a full tox screen. Open to correction on that point.)
So to summarize: was there probable cause to believe he was intoxicated? I don’t see it. Was he asked? He should have been, but I don’t know. If he was not, that’s incompetence. But if he was asked and refused, then no, I see no incompetence.
Forget it. If you can reach 99% confidence because police don’t respond to release details of an on-going investigation, then your standards are so off-kilter I will now regard anything you present as “fact” as being similarly based.
But i will keep calling you on it, because other people are reading this thread and may miss this explanation of how you arrive at factual conclusions.
So: you said it hadn’t happened, I asked for a cite, you present an article that doesn’t say, anywhere, that it hasn’t happened, and nonetheless want that to be your evidence that it hasn’t happened.
Needless to say, I reject that.
Your hands are tied as far as arrest, not as far as investigation.
No, that’s not how we arrive at conclusions… except, I guess, in IMHO.
Yes, I suppose so. But a medical examiner is even BETTER qualified than any of us.
For this case and for this amount of scrutiny, yes. Think about how much has already gone down. Repeated marches and demonstrations. National attention. The mayor and police chief responding to questions in the media. The police chief stepping down. The FBI in town asking questions. The president weighing in
If this was a mundane case, the local authorities would of course be empowered to handle it. But such intense pressure from the country is not good for their investigation. Do you think the SPD is happy having to answer questions on TV, have their every word and move looked at by a cadre of reporters and broadcast to a nation?
You and I both know that doesn’t help their investigation. If there was something they could say, even a little bit, to quell the flames, you bet they would. Its not like its without precedent. Their police chief stepped down. Do you think that’s a normal move? Of course not! The fact is, they are feeling the pressure and it makes no logical sense for them not to release any information. The SPD even released the 9-11 tapes over the objections of the DA (or someone). Such moves tell me that they can and would tell the assembled media if there was an investigation, and give details, if there was one. The fact that they haven’t done so is all the assurances anyone needs to be fairly certain that there is no voice analysis pending, or, if there is now, its only because of the pressures from an independent study already conducted. That you still cling to semantics and nitpicks without realizing that shows how desperate you are to seem objective when all evidence points to the SPD bungling this to an epic level
They admitted that they couldn’t even get him on anything, using the Stand Your Ground law as an excuse. That’s why they didn’t arrest him, that’s why they haven’t charged him, that’s why there was no investigation until the country took notice. And I’m still not sure if there is an investigation
Only if he was looking specifically for that. If Travyon had a pimple on his toe, I doubt it would be in the report, but if someone specifically asked the funeral director if he remembers that pimple, I would certainly heed his testimony.
You may well be right, depending on who “they” are. There are reports on that, not so much contradictory as incomplete.
One plausible scenerio, to which I am currently leaning, is that the cops made the assumption at the scene that Z. was not culpable, and conducted their investigation accordingly. Then someone back at headquarters looked at what they had and thought differently, passing the case along to the state attorney.
That self same attorney might very well have been reluctant to take on this case. Figuring even a half-assed lawyer could tie knots in his tail with the SYG defense. Not to mention pissing off the NRA.
The same article goes on to suggest that something lit a fire under his ass, because he was in the process of doing what he should have done weeks earlier, but was intercepted.
Further, if this case were to simply wander away and die, the States Attorney would not be in the icky position of exposing the lame approach taken to the case by the police.
Well, I don’t live in Florida, though I can’t imagine Oklahoma being far behind them in passing such a boneheaded law, so I may very well live under simular circumstances.
What I was expressing was my expectations of how an investigation of a gunshot death would take place.
Your point is well taken that the case under discussion is in Florida and under that law.
Does the law really say that? That a shooter can’t even be detained until the police determine that a law was broken.? Can they detain him at the scene of the crime? What’s stopping the police from applying that to every death by gunshot? Where’s the dividing line for the police investigators that deternines who is detained and who isn’t? The testimony of the shooter?
“Pack it up Lou, he says it’s self-defense.”
I stick to my original expectations of how such a death should be investigated.
- Apply skepticism.
- a. If there’s no crime don’t pursue charges.
b. If there’s a crime charge the shooter.
If the Florida law prevents or hinders the police from properly investigating such a death then it’s a bad law.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Of course, he could be asked to voluntarily submit a sample. In fact, he should have been asked. If he refused, then i don’t see how the police get his blood (one exception, discussed dozens of pages ago: the police could, sans warrant, get the gauze or bandages, if any, used to treat him. But I don’t believe that’s enough to get a full tox screen. Open to correction on that point.)
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a tech, but I used to work in a toxicology department. I think there would be chain of custody issues and possible contamination concerns. I don’t think you could get a big enough sample unless the guy was bleeding profusely enough to soak bandages - you test on serum, generally, so you have to get the sample and then spin it in a centrifuge to separate serum from the RBCs, etc. so not all the blood is “useable” if that makes sense. Now if you were doing DNA that’s a different animal because you can amplify and replicate what you’re testing, but with tox it’s there or it isn’t, and since the dose makes the poison the amount matters too.
That’s exactly what Florida law says:
And the Florida courts have agreed that this law takes the question away from the jury. A person who asserts a claim of self-defense needs to show by preponderance of the evidence that his claim is true and is then entitled to a dismissal before trial. See Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, (Fl 2010).
To whom do they show this “preponderance of evidence”, if not to a jury?
And probable cause is whatever the police say it is. My point to Elucidator earlier in the thread was that they would find probable cause when it suited them. Apparently it didn’t suit them in this instance.
I hope the Martin’s sue the bejeezus out of Zimmerman. And when the case is dismissed based on this law that they appeal until they find a court of sensible judges or justices that will overturn it.
But then, I’d like to see a unicorn someday too.
The stupid law aside can anyone put forward a scenario where an unarmed teenager the size of Martin could physically threaten a man the size of Zimmerman to the point where he feared for his life?
Can anyone read the 911 transcript where Zimmerman says he’s getting out of his vehicle and still believe that Martin initiated the confrontation?
He doesn’t need to be in fear for his life to be entitled to use lethal force in self defence.
As well, I have to wonder if the fact that one is armed has any bearing on how much one might legitimately be “in fear”. Add to that the circumstances Bricker points out above, that Zimmerman initiated the very confrontation he now wishes to use to excuse his actions. He had no basis for fear so long as he minded his own damned business.
Keep in mind, the night of the shooting, when the State’s Attorney made the decision, against the advice of the lead detective to not charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, they did not know who Trayvon Martin was. They didn’t find out till the next day.
At the time, they probably believed that Martin was a burglar up to no good and that almost certainly made them A)more likely to believe Zimmerman’s lies and B)more likely to believe that prosecuting this nice neighborhood watch guy who was the son of a retired judge who’d shot an intruder to death would have been a difficult case to prosecute.
It wasn’t until the next day that the police knew who Martin was and it’s yet another example of their incompetence and stupidity that no one canvassed the area to find out if anyone knew who Trayvon was, considering that he was just 70 yards from his father’s home.
One thing I think is interesting that hasn’t gotten that much publicity is that even though this shooting occurred on a Sunday night, the Police Chief of Sanford visited the crime scene and the State’s Attorney was called in to get involved.
That strikes me as really unusual and also some reporters covering the case. Sanford has it’s share of murders and it has to be a really special one, I.E. the killing of a police officer or something involving a prominent citizen to merit that kind of response.
I’m wondering if George Zimmerman’s father may have been responsible for this and really wish in all the interviews he’s conducted with hand-picked media outlets, someone asked him exactly when he heard about the case and who, if anybody he called.
Yes, he does, unless you’re being pedantic and saying he just has to be in fear of serious physical injury.
Note that the law says that if Martin’s “sue the bejeezus out of Zimmerman” and lose, they will have to pay court costs, Zimmerman’s attorney fees, compensation for Zimmerman’s lost employment and a host of other penalties.
New York Times reported that Zimmerman was “5 foot 9 and 170 pounds” while Martin was “6 foot 1 and 150 [pounds]”. Is that a huge discrepancy in size?
Likely I’m suffering from misinformation from the early media reports. I’ll bow out, I usually don’t indulge myself in these sorts of arguments, apparently for good reason.
The judge, before the trial even starts.