Amen and amen. And it’s sad that monstro has resorted to such flimsy evidence as the length of this thread to support her position.
While I feel Lee has very badly represented his city and is responsible for the errors of his officers, it’s impossible for us to know if the commission did this for cause or because they just wanted to throw someone under the bus in an effort to dodge blame for this fiasco.
Any top executive is going to take heat when things look bad, whether they had anything to do with it or not, or whether or not things were actually bad.
Even if the Sanford police conducted a 100% professional investigation, the fact of the matter is they gravely mishandled the PR. PR isn’t in the job description for a beat cop, at least not formally, but if you become a chief without recognizing the PR nature of the job then you’re a fool.
The department has released bits and pieces of evidence that only outrage people more and more. They should have not made any editorial comments on the evidence, they should have said from the very beginning that they were working with prosecutors and that until given the go ahead by them they were not going to arrest, and they should have cited the ongoing investigation as reason not to release any specific evidence. By releasing some evidence and not others they’ve just increased outrage and speculation. By not revealing til late in the game they were told early on by prosecutors their case lacked evidence they put themselves at the forefront of public blame. By editorializing they put themselves on the side of the suspect when they should have been presenting themselves as dispassionate investigators.
We don’t know all the evidence in this case, but we do know what has happened in terms of PR, and it hasn’t been pretty. PR is part of the chief’s job and I think it’s rightful the chief takes a hit over a badly handled case in the court of public opinion.
Unless it’s not going to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Also, the snarky side of me says it can get by because it quite literally a dying declaration.
Shodan, good buddy, I value your opinion 
But I think someone should point out that you appear to be confusing digital/analog time with 12/24 hour time (aka military time).
We don’t even know if Zimmerman knew about SYG or if it crossed his mind. I mean, really, when you are in a stressful sitrep like that you are not thinking “Yeah, well Ok, I can shoot, since there is a SYG law!”. Likely this would happened law or no, and likely the DA would have taken it to the GJ, law or no.
Now, yes, if there is a trial, a NotGuilty verdict, and it seems like SYG was the reason, then DYG can be blamed. But not for the kids death.
I would also rather, because I think hate crime is ridiculous bullshit and it embarrasses me as a liberal that it came from liberals. Bah!
I read Bricker article and it looks to me, that it is a lot easier to get a indictment from a grand jury than a conviction from a regular jury. Grand Juries don’t hear rebuttal evidence and they don’t require a majority.
The Fully Informed Jury Association has a page about Grand Juries.
Any comments about jury nullification looks like it goes double for a Grand Jury.
Somewhere along the way I ran across someone pointing out that the language Zimmerman used was very specific and calculated to set up a SYG defense. I tried to find it this morning but I couldn’t… I’ll keep an eye peeled.
The shooting happened at 1231 Twin Trees Ln. That would be about 300 ft from the nearest street sign. If Zimmerman lived at 1130 Twin Trees Ln, then he lived about 200 ft from where the shooting occurred.
Not arguing, just asking: if the girl had been blind, and walking next to Martin, and had heard exactly the same ambient sounds and conversation from Martin, would that be hearsay?
We have the Horn 911 call to show that that is exactly what guys like this think. He was citing the Texas home defense law to the 911 operator before he ran out and shot the guys in the back.
I think it’s extremely likely that a cop wannabe like Zimmerman daydreamed about this kind of scenario, seeing himself as a hero “standing his ground,” and that’s why he carried a gun on neighborhood watch.
I’m guessing, given the other two questionable cases I’ve read about, that this was just Lee’s third strike. But I’m not at all sure just what blame the commission actually has to dodge here.
There’s a big thing I’m not getting here. From Zimmerman’s 911 call,Zimmerman: … he’s coming towards me.
…
Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. …
…
Zimmerman: … he’s got something in his hands …I am correct that at this point Zimmerman probably had a legitimate claim to use deadly force?
But he didn’t, instead he chose to leave the safety of his vehicle, according to Zimmerman, to check the street sign. It was at this point, according to Zimmerman, that Martin attacked him.
So, how is it that, IIUC, Martin’s body is found near a walkway between the backyards of the “houses” yards and yards away from the street and not within feet of the street sign?
It’s sounding like Florida police have become so obsessed with not running afoul of 776.032 that noticing that, say, 776.041 might have been violated becomes hard to avoid . . . but impossible to excuse.
CMC fnord!
I agree that claiming to not know the name sounds suspicious, but I am going to play Devil’s Advocate here. Zimmerman lived on Retreat View; the shooting occurred on Twin Trees. I believe, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong, most or all of Zimmerman’s call to police occurred on Twin Trees. I think it is noteworthy that ** in a four minute conversation with the dispatcher, he never mentions Twin Trees.** If he knew the name of the street while on the phone with the dispatcher, why didn’t he give it to him? Twice he tried to give the dispatcher his precise location, but he couldn’t come up with a street name.
Hey, here’s some question along a different line …
We know that there’s a massive surge of public opinion calling for Zimmerman’s head. Black leaders (like Sharpton), editorials all over the New York Times, that on-line petition, and on and on . . .
Where are the conservative and right-wing talking heads on this issue? Not that I’ve overtly gone searching for it but . . . I haven’t seen any mention of what they are saying.
Where’s Fox? O’Reilly? Hannity? What does Limbaugh have to say? All the others? I don’t read or listen to any of them… but I haven’t indirectly (through other news stories or op-eds) heard nor heard of a peep out of any of them. Have they said anything about Zimmerman? Martin? The Sanford police investigation? Opined about the SYG laws? Is there a deafening silence from that sector?
Hey, I’ve got that damned search redirect rootkit so my Google-fu is seriously compromised. Could I trouble you to try to figure out which 7-Eleven in the area was the most likely one that Martin was coming back from?
Multiple attempt have left me empty browsered and pissed off at my 'puter!
T’anks in advance.
CMC fnord!
Well, that’s a good argument for not too bright, at the very least.
They require a majority – just not a unanimous vote.
But another point supporting your conclusion – they need to find only probable cause, which is a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” petit juries need for criminal conviction.
Maybe.
I can think of circumstances at trial that might allow the blind girl to testify – it all depends on what her testimony is intended to prove.
Her proposed testimony is, let’s pretend: “Martin said to me, ‘He’s got a gun, he’s pointing it at me right now, and he’s yelling he’s going to kill me for selling drugs in his neighborhood!’”
And the prosecution wants the jury to hear that to prove that Zimmerman had a gun, pointed it at Martin, and threatened to kill him for selling drugs.
That’s hearsay.
Same testimony, but the prosecution wants to introduce it to show why the girl ran away from the scene. In other words, it’s being introduced not to show that the words that were spoken are actually true, but to explain some other action or event.
Not hearsay.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
So why the big difference between “eye-witness” and “ear-witness”, for lack of a better term?