Police evaluate statements by themselves all the times to do their jobs. A cop stops in their car while you’re walking down a street carrying some boxes out of an apartment and asks what you’re doing. Your answer to that question in and of itself can entirely determine how much attention the police decide to give to you and that situation.
You get stopped for an expired registration and the cop is going to ask you questions about where you’re going and what you’re doing, your tone and the things you say make the difference between a 10 minute traffic stop and something that could become a bigger thing.
Have you guys ever had an interaction with police? Do you not realize that’s what they do?
Zimmerman was and is not “police”. He is a civilian. He didn’t have a badge to flash or any authority that the kid was obligated to respect.
Being a wannabe cop is not the same as being a cop. And I’m sorry, but being neighborhood watch captain doesn’t give you the right to shoot and ask questions later. If this guy was a cop, I could see giving him the benefit of the doubt since they are specifically trained to deal with suspicious characters and to keep anger out of the equation when restraining someone, especially when they are packing heat. But this guy is not a cop. He’s just a regular dude. I don’t know why I’m supposed to view him as being anymore on the up-and-up than any other random dude. The world is teeming with guys who like to scuffle for no good reason and then lie to cover their asses.
You’ve already said you’d have no problem if the guy was arrested, given the facts we already have. So I don’t know why you’re working so hard providing the defense for this case.
I’m comfortable with waiting for the slow cogs of justice to turn, but all the speculations about this guy’s innocence are driving me up the wall.
Are you really saying there is no compelling physical evidence in this situation? Are you really saying that if Zimmerman had remained silent, but all the other facts had remained the same, the cops would have had no idea whatsoever as to what might have happened? That without Zimmerman’s statement, the state would have no clues suggestive of Zimmerman acting unlawfully?
I don’t buy it either. I may have missed something but I don’t think any one has been arguing that Zimmerman was justified. We are just pointing out that belief and proof are two different things.
He was responding to the statement that police should not take the shooters statement into account at all. I didn’t see how he equated Zimmerman with being a police officer.
The physical evidence has not been revealed. Unless your definition of physical evidence is different than mine.
Have you guys ever had an interaction with police? Do you not realize that’s what they do?
[/QUOTE]
Say a cop pulls me over and a kilo of coke tumbles out of the glove compartment while I search for my registration. If I deliver an Oscar worthy performance while proclaiming innocence, should the cop be swayed by passionate tears and let me go?
Say the same thing happens to a man. He has a tattoo on his face and isnt one for drama, but he proclaims innocence too. Should the cop treat him any different than me? Why or why not? And is this what justice looks like to you?
Martin Hyde made the claim that there was no compelling physical evidence, so maybe you should ask him how he knows this if the physical evidence hasn’t been revealed.
Yes, more times than I’d ever want to count (and not a single ticket, which leads one to believe that the reason for the stop wasn’t never actually my driving).
Not a single one of my 10 minute traffic stops left me feeling that the officer wasn’t trying really, really, hard to find any reason to make it become a bigger thing.
Like the night I got pulled over some reason and after he ran my plate and license and I came back clean, he came back to my car and sought permission to search it, which I refused to give (I had two go-go dancers in the back seat who really just wanted to get to their house, two minutes away, so they could pee). A long pause later it suddenly became time to turn it into a “Terry” stop. Nah, he wasn’t fishing with every bait he had in his tackle box.
The best part was two minutes after the stop he stopped me again, because for some reason, he forgot to give me my paperwork back.
My only crime that night . . . was driving while [del]Black[/del] Indian/cowboy/biker/hippie in a “beater”. :eek:
CMC fnord!
I will get back to your response to me, I really want to read that cite a few more times.
Because I thought this thread was vaguely about why Zimmerman hadn’t been arrested. How would you propose I discuss that issue without talking about the police.
I’m talking about the police because I feel that police use personal judgment when it comes to lots of cases, all the time. If in the personal judgment of the police officer the suspect statement is credible, and it is corroborated by physical evidence I think it not totally unreasonable that they may not arrest the guy. Chief Lee states in yet another news article link that there is evidence to corroborate Zimmerman’s statement.
I’ve never said he did, where did I say that?
I wouldn’t expect you to, you have no access to the suspect’s statements or the physical evidence. You did not take the suspect’s statement. You are not a trained law enforcement officer. What I’m saying is that the trained LEO who interviewed Zimmerman at least seems to have found him credible. Not that he “presumed him credible” but that he found him credible, he exercised his judgment as a law enforcement professional. That is not the same thing as presuming anyone credible from the get go. Additionally, at least according to the Chief, there is evidence to corroborate the suspect’s statement.
I intrinsically dislike when people just assume they know better than the guys who actually are handling the case, and who are investigating it. I think some people just love to bitch about the police and say they are doing a bad job. I’m not saying that is what anyone is doing here, specifically I’m not saying you are doing that. However that is my personal motivation for typically arguing the side of the police in threads like these. I’m going from the presumption that a police officer is a trained, experience law enforcement professional who knows how to take statements, knows how to read a suspect, and knows how to cross reference those statements with physical evidence.
My presumption thus is that the professionals are doing the job they are paid to do, but I could be swayed from that position with actual evidence.
Well you asked why he hadn’t been arrested. From the beginning I have tried to speculate on why the police might consider him to have acted in self-defense, that basically requires we speculate as to his innocence. That’s not the same as people actually saying they feel he is innocent.
I genuinely do not know what I think Zimmerman is. The things I have read make me uneasy, but I think there’s a good reason law enforcement and prosecutors deal with these and not me and you. and everyone on the street.
What do you mean? No physical evidence has been revealed how does what he said differ from that? Maybe there is evidence that hasn’t been revealed, maybe there is no evidence to be revealed those of us speculating from our living rooms can only go by what is currently out there.
I can say this, I know enough about how State government operates to see the political shitstorm this has become. If anything is certain I think it’s that the State’s Attorney is going to be under immense pressure to give this case an extremely thorough review. If there is any sort of impropriety that was done by the police officer (and I’ve found many news articles where people are leaping to that conclusion) I suspect the State’s Attorney will not be showing Zimmerman any inappropriate lenience.
He didnt say no evidence has been revealed. He said there is no compelling physical evidence. Period. He seems to be saying that Zimmermans statement carries weight because the cops have little else to buy. Which is false on its face. Obviously enough is known about the situation to support us talking about for it for 4 pages.
None of what we have been talking about is physical evidence. Probably the only physical evidence will be the autopsy and the injuries to Zimmerman. I am presuming that the autopsy did not reveal any inconsistencies with his statement since charges have not been filed. Since the autopsy has not been released it is purely speculation.
Apparently Martin doesnt have the same self-defense rights as Zimmerman, solely because he is dead.
The only way this logically plays out: Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that “these assholes always get away” and then follows Martin with the intent of illegally restraining him until police arrive. Follows, as in, this confrontation is entirely created by Zimmerman committing a crime.
Who is this guy to Martin? A mugger or rapist or deranged Jehovahs Witness? Doesn’t matter. What isnt credible is the idea that he just turned around and attacked. The only believable scenario is that Zimmerman grabbed him and got punched or elbowed or head-butted. Which would be Martin exercising his right to defend himself. What would happened if he didn’t have a gun? I don’t know but it seems as though the greatest injury was to his pride, which is why we have professional police forces and we don’t condone armed vigilantes.
I’m aware of the legal requirements for conviction, but it seems to me they should at a minimum charge him with some form of manslaughter. This guy took a kids life and created the scenario that ended with 17 year-old, 140lb Trayvon Martin with a bullet in his heart…and he was the crime victim. Twice.
It is a factor to consider, but bear in mind that previous bad acts by an accused normally are not admissible in court. So previous bad acts may help to narrow down suspicion in the police investigation, but by themselves can’t be relied on as probable cause.