I would agree with this in general. I would hope that the police, aside from any medical responsibilities, would photograph wounds on the shooter (that the shooter claimed were the result of an altercation that led to the shooting) simply as a matter of gathering evidence. And we don’t really know if that was done or not; evidence has been leaking out in dribs and drabs.
So another question along these lines. If the police DIDN’T take such photos, is that more likely an indication of incompetence, that they didn’t see any such wounds, or that police don’t typically take such photos?
Lastly, if the shooter claimed damage to the back of his head, and the police didn’t see any, would they likely take photos to show the damage claimed wasn’t visible?
The way I read this, it relates to the police using force, or being accused of using force, against a suspect. The police did not use force against anyone in this incident, except possibly cuffing Zimmerman (which also might have been voluntary).
Nope. Not a single lawyer in this thread has disagreed with that idea.
What Bricker and I have disagreed with is the idea that the cops were incompetent just because they didn’t record something that you believe they should have recorded. It is not the case that someone hasn’t done their job competently simply cause they didn’t do everything that you with the face thinks they should have done.
In Florida and most States you don’t have to believe you are in danger of being punched to death to use self defense. You also don’t have to suffer grievous harm, you just have to believe you are in danger of suffering grievous harm.
In fact, in Florida there are many situations you could shoot and kill someone in legal self defense without them ever physically touching you or closing distance between you and them.
Actually I don’t believe the cops could be that incompetent to not have documented a referral and refusal. I think the absence of this documentation indicates Zimmerman was fine. He wasn’t a medical risk because the EMT had no reason to believe his head had just been severely pounded against concrete.
Since going to the grand jury would be the most conservative position, a course that would ensure a guilty man doesn’t go free based on an erroneous assumption that there isn’t enough cause for plausible doubt, then yes, I would trust a lawyer who believes this.
The alternative–letting one person decide the futility of a case–is a much riskier position than letting a jury make this decision. So no, I wouldn’t trust a lawyer who thinks THIS is the safest course of action. That is why I do not trust the state’s attorney. On the night of the incident, before the police had a chance to collect very much evidence or take witness statements or even scour survelliance footage or look at phone logs, he decided right then and there that there wasn’t enough reason to bring charges against Zimmerman. He’d made this decision even before they had contacted Martin’s father. They didn’t even know if Martin had tried to contact 911, because they hadn’t even looked at his phone.
Maybe this is the fault of the law, but that still doesn’t mean people can’t go WTF?! about this.
In reading over all the posts in this thread I missed in the last week while out of town, this sums up my opinion on the whole “injury” argument.
Nothing in the video really changes anything about Zimmerman’s injuries. People are under the impression Zimmerman has made a claim he was nearly mortally wounded, we have no evidence to support a claim that Zimmerman said that. People are under the impression his mounds actually must be grievous or near-mortal to justify killing someone, that is not the law. The law just states you need to reasonably fear grievous injury, not that you actually must suffer it.
Before I ever left, I basically said in re Zimmerman’s injuries that we have no idea how serious a cut he had to the back of his head or whether or not his nose was broken. We just knew that his lawyer said those things and that he said them with qualifiers, very importantly the lawyer also said Zimmerman received treatment from a physician after the event at some point. Even if it was 24-48 hours later, you can be certain a broken nose would not have healed at that point. You can also be certain that if he did visit a physician, the physician will have records definitively proving whether or not Zimmerman had a broken nose. If Zimmerman is ever put on trial, I am absolutely certain his attorney will use his physician’s records to support his client’s self defense claim, so I don’t know why everyone insists on trying to decide whether or not Zimmerman had a broken nose based on video tape (not a medical diagnosis at all) and by trying to play ill-advised “gotcha” games with a police report when you don’t actually know or understand what is supposed to go in a police report or what normally does.
I think my primary frustration in this thread is that the people wanting an arrest insist on playing Nancy Drew with each new piece of half-complete evidence that gets leaked out. The theory is a bunch of leaks can all be pulled together and you can conduct a private legal analysis and crime investigation based on those leaks. That just isn’t how it works. Ages ago when Loach and I were the earliest people in the thread arguing for rational analysis of this issue we both said we were inclined to not think Zimmerman was doing something we agreed with, but that with incomplete evidence it’s foolish to be so definitively saying anything about the case.
What always happens in threads like these is someone stakes a very reasonable position early on: that in a complicated legal matter with tons of evidence, hours and hours of witness statements, video recorded suspect statements to police, potential medical records, EMT records, various police reports, etc you don’t know enough to say what should happen legally. Not only do most people saying it lack any professional experience in law enforcement or criminal justice, even if they were professionals in those fields they are not informed to a sufficient degree to be making decisions on this case.
As time goes on, more evidence comes out. A very small part of that evidence might go for one side or the other. In this case a few pieces of evidence have come out that I think, by itself, unambiguously casts doubt on the idea that Zimmerman acted in self defense. A few pieces of evidence have come out supporting Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. Almost everything else, could be interpreted either way, and with only having incomplete information we have no idea how it should be interpreted and more importantly we have no idea how it would be handled in court. Some of it probably would never be allowed in court at all.
But that won’t stop people on one side or the other from claiming every new piece of evidence for “their” side. I see no reason to sit here an analyze every new leak to the newspapers, and considering the other fact that every 20 posts someone who has not been participating in this thread whatsoever comes in and posts a bunch of totally debunked stuff about Zimmerman or Martin and then says “Zimmerman should fry” or something, I think this issue is probably beyond meaningful discussion at least until the grand jury makes a decision.
In other words, you trust them when they say what you want to hear, and disbelieve them when they don’t.
I notice you expressed no skepticism when Martin’s family’s lawyers lied about there being two gunshots. Same thing - make up your mind, and then pick and choose what you see depending on whether or not it backs up what you have already decided.
Let’s hope the grand jury can find people who don’t this.
So you won’t accept that his nose was broken even if the EMT and the Clinic and the witness the Fox interviewed last night, who saw Zimmerman the next day and said his nose was badly swollen based on your interpretation of a grainy security camera video.
I think this is strong evidence no one should engage with you again in this thread.
You’ve heard repeated evidence from people expert in this field that it is not standard procedure to document such a refusal.
You’re so desperate to be Nancy Drew and prove “anything” in this case, whether it be Zimmerman’s guilt or the police incompetence that you are immediately latching to every new piece of evidence and making frankly wild and ironclad factual assertions about that evidence.
You’re literally arguing that failure to document a refusal is incompetent simply because you say so, even when people who know better than you, factually, tell you it isn’t normally done. That is the definition of acting irrationally.
I still don’t understand this obsessive need to diagnose Zimmerman from a police report and a video. If he went to a physician, those records will be part of Zimmerman’s defense at trial. If he had a broken nose, there will almost certainly be evidence to that effect in those records. If there is a possibility Zimmerman broke his own nose after the fact I am sure it will be fully tested by the State’s own medical experts.
If no such records are forthcoming, or they show no broken nose, the issue is moot. I don’t understand the reason everyone feels they need to make conclusions now, when if relevant at a trial (if one happens) this issue will be settled factually with little room for doubt.
Have you ever, in your entire life been in a beat down or witnessed a beat down? I have. There isn’t a pool of blood next to the person. What constitutes a deadly encounter in a case like this is trauma to the head. Consider the number of kids who have died in sporting events from head and chest impacts. Not even a scratch. Dead. getting your head banged into a cement surface is as deadly as being run through with a lance. But it’s not necessarily going to produce a lot of blood. And noses get broken all the time without a gushing of blood. Noses bleed because a blood vessel breaks, not the bone. Some people bleed like fire hoses, some very little. Getting your head beaten against concrete is a life threatening situation.
And one other point, Zimmerman could have easily shot Martin in the back while Martin was on top of him depending on where he holstered the gun and where Martin was in relation to his position over Zimmerman. The angle of entry/exit should give some indication of what happened.
If the State attorney actually told Serino not to arrest, and Serino wanted to arrest, does that at all change your opinion of the police in this incident? It would seem to go back to an exchange that happened very early in this thread, in which I stated that the police would be foolish to make an arrest over the objections of the prosecutor. Not because they couldn’t, but because it would get the prosecutor pissed at them, and would probably result in the prosecutor declining to prosecute.
What’s interesting is you’re talking about a hypothetical where a prosecutor asks the police not to make an arrest before much evidence has been collected as though that is a sign of a bad prosecutor. I take the opposition view–it makes sense to me that the prosecutor would want more evidence prior to arrest. If you’re a prosecutor, once an arrest has been made and charges have been filed you are on a time limit. Fairly quickly you have to show up in court to do things like bail hearings and participate in early hearings in which you have to justify to the court the charges themselves. I don’t know the timeline on all that, but if you could freely collect evidence without a timeline before making a charge I can’t see how that isn’t preferable to having to work under a deadline.
Yeah, in some cases with more clear cut initial evidence it’s probably fine. But in a self defense case in the state of Florida? As long as the person isn’t a flight risk I see no reason you would want to tactically harm your efforts by imposing upon yourself various deadlines and court hearings while still trying to collect evidence in the case.
What’s interesting though is according to some news reports (which I notice the anti-police contingent choose to completely ignore), the investigator in this case has said he did not believe Zimmerman’s story and wanted to file charges against him, but was overruled by the State attorney.
I guess that just doesn’t fit at all in the narrative of “evil racist cops giving a white guy a pass” so it gets ignored even many pages after it has been posted here.
Actually that is an open question since the special prosecutor said she is considering indicting him without a grand jury. Personally I think she needs to get her ass in gear, since the grand jury meets a week from Tuesday.
I would favor going directly to trial, since one of my nightmare scenarios is going to a grand jury and not getting an indictment.