It may have been on M’s DL.
Well based on the fact that he was only 100 yards from his house and had a head start on Zimmerman. If he had just kept going, he could have been home eating his Skittles before Zimmerman came around the corner.
It also becomes obvious that Zimmerman’s tactics were even stupider than I thought. He should have kept driving down Twin Trees to down near the end where could see between the house and got between Martin and the rear exit. That is on top of getting out of his truck in the first place, which already indicates he isn’t the sharpest tool in the drawer.
He didn’t have a driver’s license. He was booked as an unidentified black male until his father identified his body based on photographs the detectives brought over the next day when Martin’s Father placed a missing person report.
Wasn’t there a thread not too long ago about how kids wait a lot longer to get their driver’s license or maybe I read it in Slate.
I still lean to the eyeball theory. I don’t remember ever seeing them weight the witnesses on Law and Order.
This site was posted in the pit thread, it has cites for a bunch of things we’ve been talking about:
Before the 911 tapes were released, Zimmerman’s father released a statement claiming “[a]t no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin.” Oops.
Also before the release, Zimmerman told the police “he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck.” Oops.
The lead investigator, Chris Serino, “stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman’s version of events.” His recommendation for a manslaughter charge was overruled. Oops.
One of the witnesses who heard the crying said she called a detective repeatedly, but said he was not interested because her account differed from Zimmerman’s. Oo… oh wait. Now it’s starting to look intentional.
It looks like the police did investigate, but they couldn’t match it up with reported stolen jewelry. That makes perfect sense unless it was expensive enough to be reported for insurance purposes. I retract my previous comment about the Miami-Dade police department.
I really think at this point President Obama should call for calm and to let the grand jury do their job. Between the bounty for Zimmerman’s “capture” and Spike Lee tweeting his (wrong( address, things are spinning out of control. Even if Zimmermsn had been charged with manslaughter, he’d probably be free on bail. What’s the difference? I understand the outrage but you can’t condone vigilantism if you are appalled by an act of perceived vigilantism.
President Obama isn’t an ideal choice but I can’t think of anyone else with the necessay credibility. Trayvon Martin’s parents, perhaps.
You’re taking the word “follow” too literally. Zimmerman was certainly keeping an eye on him but that does not mean he was physically tracking him or instigated the fight. This is the crucial part of the entire event.
you neglected to mention the HS kids who ransacked a store. They’re holding a rally in my city which is so far removed from any of this that it defies logic.
From the 911 call:
“Are you following him?”
“Yes.”
The comments on left sites…gawker/atlantic and others have people screaming racist left and right…it doesn’t matter if you bring up valid information, as long as it doesn’t fit their simplistic narrative, they start screaming, its gotten really toxic. Its like they married themselves emotionally to the original narrative, and now are unable to even consider anything different.
It’s possible that some sort of subtle racism was involved in the initial assessment of the event.
But, I think any magician will tell you that it doesn’t take racism for the brain to assembled facts in accordance with a pre-existing narrative. I mean from the PD’s PoV, the initial narrative of the whole affair comes from Zimmerman’s phone call.
Z tries to get the PD interested by saying that M “looks like he’s”
a) up to no good
b) or he’s on drugs
c) or something
Z further notes
d) “He’s got his hands in his waist band.” which, imho, is Z’s concern that M may be armed. Z’s weapon was found in his waistband.
Didn’t read the whole thread, eh?
Normally I’d say something snarky, but since this particular thread is roughly the size of the Matterhorn, I am sincere when I say: I get it.
A blood sample, probably not, unless he volunteered or they had probable cause to believe he was intoxicated, which I haven’t heard. However, he was treated at the scene, and something like a bandage or gauze must have gotten his blood on it. Typically, that’s thrown away, and at that point he loses possessory interest in it. If that kind of sample can determine drug and alcohol content, I don’t know.
I’m not sure what evidentiary value the gun would have: he concedes he fired it. But yes, I’'d say that they could take it if they needed it.
I don’t know. To answer that question, I’d have to know what was in Zimmerman’s statement to the police, and how – if at all-- these later statements contradicted Zimmerman’s statement.
Which has kinda been my point all along: without knowing what Zimmerman told police, and without knowing the details of other evidence that they have, it is impossible to competently judge whether probable cause exists.
Again I don’t know. I believe the only way someone can competently answer that is if they were aware of the state of the police investigation. I’m not, and I don’t believe anyone on this board is.
The latest report from the media claims that the police wanted to charge Zimmerman but were overruled by the prosecutors’ office. Did that mean that they abandoned it or did that mean they were working to secure additional evidence to support their desire? Is it even true?
I don’t know.
Which is why my contribution to this thread has been almost entirely contradicting confident claims made by others, on both sides of the issue.
Here is a sad example of collateral damage happening to a couple with a son named William George Zimmerman.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/28/2718522/elderly-couple-abandons-home-after.html
I think I asked this before, and forgot the answer. Can one say “I’d like that bandage or blood sample back when you are done” and thus retain possessory interest so that the police cannot test for anything else?
You are not my lawyer, I am not your client, void where taxed or prohibited, in loco parentis, e pluribus unum, Gallium in trinite partum divisio est, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you ready? Here it is, here’s the videos of the “looters” at Walgreens, AKA a bunch of students who run into a store, are told to leave, and run out. HuffPo estimated the damage at $150. That’s One Hundred and Fifty Dollars. Here’s the video, where you can see for yourself this “looting”:
And now, here are the racist comments following the video:
Think it’s just youtube comments? The video was posted on a forum for auto enthusiasts:
I could make a day of compiling all the blatantly racist comments about this case, and I’d only capture a tiny percentage. If you don’t think this case is bringing out the racist in people, you’re sticking your head in the sand.
From what I read they actually did that his clothes and his pistol as evidence.
I’m going to say no: I can think of at least one scenario where it would be totally ineffective to demand your stuff back, but you lose it anyway.
In People v. Thomas, the California case I mentioned back about ten pages ago, you could probably successfully demand your mouthpiece back, because the police are the custodians. But if a hospital is involved, they are not an agent of the police, and so if they refuse your demand, it doesn’t amount to a seizure.
This is not an in-depth analysis, mind you.
SYG doesn’t have anything to do with this. The evidence points to Zimmerman getting his butt kicked when he fired the fatal shot. Assuming Martin started the fight, Zimmerman’s actions are justified by self defense everywhere.
Yes.
Except for the key difference: everywhere else, self-defense is an affirmative defense, to be offered up at trial. “The accused shot this victim,” says the prosecution to the jury. “Yes,” says the defense, “But my guy was justified; it was self-defense.”
Here, the claim of self-defense must be overcome by probable cause before an arrest can even be made. The law specifically says that a law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. The law further says that the person is “immune from prosecution,” which includes “arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.”
THAT is why the SYG law makes a difference.
Unless Martin was done kicking Zimmerman’s ass when he was shot.
At least one witness puts M and Z apart after the start of the altercation and before the fatal shot.
Austin Brown, iirc.