Who is the “we” in this sentence?
It seems that among the people who agree with you about Zimmerman’s obvious guilt, “we” have agreed to much more than this, and to those who have counseled that making a judgement before all the facts are known is unwise, it’s not correct to say an agreement about probable cause has been reached.
Who is “we?”
Thank you, and I agree that it is a good approach when it matters. Ideal, in fact: you don’t know what you don’t know! But in casual, entirely meaningless and impact-free conversation between people who are in no way whatsoever connected to the issues being discussed? Nah, that’s no fun.
Yeah, I was taken aback by his appearance after the old photo and the description. He looks like he’s been spending time getting in shape, doesn’t look at all pudgy.
That’s why it should be documented. As a lawyer, you should know this. There’s a saying in the government: “If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen”.
If EMT thought Zimmerman had head trauma, don’t you think it would have been negligent of them not to have communicated this to the cops? If this very important conversation happened and it wasn’t noted in the police report, then that should lead us to wonder: what other very important things went unnoted? “If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen.”
If this very important conversation did not happen, why not? Do we have any reason to believe the paramedics are massively incompetent? No, we don’t have any reason to believe this, even though anything is possible.
But then there’s this: Do we have a reason to believe the EMTs didn’t think Zimmerman had head trauma or broken nose? Yes, we do have reason to believe this. The surveillance video supports the absence of head trauma or broken nose.
In this case, the simplest explanation is probably the right one.
… but you still cannot know until you see the EMT report.
The cops didn’t note any advice from EMT that Zimmerman needed further medical attention for a potential concussion. Regardless of what’s in the EMT report, that is compelling evidence that he didn’t need it.
Since cops don’t need to note any advice from the EMT in their report, no, it isn’t.
You seem to hung up on your semantic reaction to the word ‘teenager’. The fact of the matter is that teenagers are very violent. According to the FBI 800 homicides were committed by minors. Over 10% of the homicides in the United States are committed by people from 17 to 19.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl03.xls
I think Zimmerman was stupid to get out of his truck, but doesn’t mean that it is okay for Martin to beat him up., it just means that he was taking an unnecessary stupid risk. If we accept Zimmerman’s story, then he never had a chance to retreat. The first thing he knows he is on the ground getting his head pounded against the concrete and he doesn’t know how much longer he will be conscious.
Under the circumstances.
Of course, if you assume that Zimmerman and the witness ‘John’ are lying, then it is a different story, but you should state that as your assumption.
By that logic, that don’t need to note anything in their report.
Why do we think Zimmerman needed to go to the hospital?
The cops don’t do the EMT’s job, they don’t note what the EMT decisions are. The EMTs would note these *in their own report, which we have not seen. *
Ooh,* snap!*
Actually SPD did make a note. Look at Officer’s Smith report.
Because his apologists would have us believe Martin was seen sitting on his chest, viciously bashing Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk, again and again.
Civil attorney checking in. I am not familiar with Florida law, but for a respondeat superior argument, the personal errand mention is probably a defense on paper. But, if the HOA was aware that Zimmerman consistently acted as Neighborhood Watch during times he was not actually on watch there would be a waiver argument or an after-the-fact ratification on an agency argument.
Also, putting myself in a Plaintiff attorney’s shoes, I would include claims against the HOA such as agency and direct negligence for breaching duties owed to the general public. I would also, as Ascenray says, dredge up the bylaws, and probably have a freaking field day inventing causes of action and duties out of that.
More interesting than a suit against the HOA re Zimmerman will be any coverage action the HOA’s insurer institutes to avoid any duty to defend the lawsuit against the HOA. That’s probably where you’ll see the personal errand issue litigated although I’m not at all convinced that respondeat superior necessarily applies errand or no errand–it’ll probably be an issue as to some other theory of agency.
No, as Bricker quoted, the duty is on the Fire Department (EMT/EMS) to document the request by Zimmerman to not receive additional medical care. Note the term “provider” in Bricker’s cite.
Based on the police report, the Sanford Fire Department responded to the scene as a first responder and rendered care to Zimmerman. I assume this means they had an EMT, but maybe not. They should have records/a report that hasn’t been release for at least HIPAA reasons. If they deemed transport to the hospital was a good thing, they should have documented Zimmerman’s refusal. But, if it was just some cuts and bruises, they may have treated him and decided they were not of an emergent nature requiring immediate follow up, therefore there would be no refusal to follow-up. That would be telling as to the severity of the injuries.
But, I think we’ll eventually see the report from the SFD, let’s see…
A legal requirement is different from competent police work.
What you’re saying is that because the law doesn’t mandate that the cops note what the EMT tells them about the medical status of an individual in their custody, the cops don’t to have note it in their report.
And what I’m saying is that this is kind of a stuff that cops should be noting in their reports to do their jobs competently and correctly. If the EMT told them that Z needed medical attention and they didn’t document this, that would be as egregious of an oversight as not noting that CPR was performed at the scene.
Are cops legally required to note whether CPR was performed on a unconscious subject? Probably not. But if you came across a police report and didn’t see such an important detail mentioned, it’s safe to assume that it didn’t happen.
You’ve got a lot of “if’s” there to support your position. you with the face, I don’t think the lack of this note is a boon to your “side.” Hell, I don’t even know if that Patient’s Bill can be enforced criminally. I am looking at it from a civil duty angle. If it is the duty of the SFD to document it, no, there is no reason I would also expect it to be in the police report. As an aside, I read about 10 police reports a month where there are injuries. I almost never see a notation about refusal to go to the hospital–even when I know that’s the case and well documented in the EMS report.
If you want to continue arguing, great, but the lack of documentation of this issue doesn’t mean anything re the police report.
And, since I think Zimmerman had a cop next to him from the moment the police got there, I think the police had a fairly good idea if 1. there was a refused recommendation to go to the hospital and 2. if it was documented by the SFD. The police would have been standing right there during treatment…if not, then the police were derelict in their duties.
Never said that it did.
Look, what I’m saying is not that radical. The purpose of the police report is to get an accurate picture of what the cops saw when they arrived on the scene and how they responded to the incident. Do you dispute this?
So when key information that would tell us that the subject had a major injury is not there, it’s reasonable to conclude that the subject didn’t have a major injury. Do you dispute this?
Yes, as that key information is contained in another report, which they have access to, but currently we have not. Your conclusion is invalid. But no one claimed Zimmerman had a “major injury”.