Question 5 is not particularly relevant.
This is not correct. Zimmerman is absolutely entitled to take the Fifth if the grand jury calls him, unless he gets use immunity either by law or by arrangement.
A lot of people including the investigating police have stated many times that whatever a 911 dispatcher tells you to do has virtually no legal weight; I even doubt it would have much weight at trial unless you think you could convince 12 people that just because they dial 911 they have to follow the directions of that dispatcher to a tee, even if they hear a criminal raping their young daughter in the next room.
I actually found an interview with the kid mentioned here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-killing-yo_n_1355795.html
What is interesting is that the Huffington Post doesn’t address the Sentinel’s statement that the person lying on the ground was Zimmerman. They seem to be giving the strong impression that it was Martin lying on the ground.
This pretty important, since it looks like Austin McLendon is the closest thing we have to an eye witness.
Forgive us for absorbing only what’s on the radiograms, teebee machines, and interwabs.
Seriously, if the police know more than what is being revealed, dontcha think it would be wise on their part to show more of their hand? Especially with the chief catching flack and people accusing them of being inept? Especially since they are already on record saying that they believe Zimmerman’s story and that they do not have cause to arrest him? And if Zimmerman’s claim is not consistent with the way it is being reported in the papers, shouldn’t someone correct the errors before they get promulgated any further?
I’m really trying to keep my tone from sounding “shrill”. But it seems like whatever I say, my questions are portrayed as unreasonable attacks instead of attempts to understand the facts we have on the table. And we do have facts. This is not the black box of unknowable mysteriousness that some posters are painting this situation out to be.
It’s not up to the police in this case to accept or reject anything. It’s up to a Grand Jury.
In the context of an immediate arrest by police Zimmerman wasn’t considered a suspect in a premeditated murder case nor did he pose any threat.
Sure;y the police can conduct searchez and seizures to further their investigation when they find a man standing over a dead body holding the smoking gun? That’s not probable cause to conduct a search?
I mean, I understand there’s self-defense law at play here, but surely the cops can conduct some sort of investigation? You can’t avoid a reasonable search just by saying “self defense,” can you? Are the police not entitled to investigate the claim?
Note that Zimmerman’s battery charge and domestic abuse complaint are irrelevant, though.
Some in this thread have asserted that Zimmerman can’t be tried because what he did was legal, and yet those two wacky liberals, Dennis Baxley and Durell Peadon (co-authors of Floridas Stand Your Ground law) don’t believe Zimmerman can claim self-defense under SYG.
And is that a crime?
To go back to an earlier point I made, I think the PR has been bungled and the police answered too many questions. That’s how we got where we are now. Basically the police started to get some heat because they had not made an arrest and they weren’t saying much about it. So they start releasing information, this information is more incendiary than just being quiet. From a PR perspective I don’t think the information release was a good move.
I think if they have compelling evidence that would support Zimmerman’s story Bricker has brought up very good points as to why they should not release it.
I think all the police have hurt through their foolishness in the handling of the PR is the reputation of their department and the career of the police chief. If they release even more material information on the case, they could actually create a scenario like Bricker mentioned where, if Zimmerman was lying, they have removed opportunities to catch him in his lies, which would be strong evidence against him in a trial. So I think the police need to boil in the pot for awhile, no matter how angry people get.
This is a high profile case, so I think if no charges end up being filed they should do a big data dump on the public. I don’t see a compelling reason to put proper police procedure and the investigation itself at risk just to allay people’s concerns.
If there is some opportunity to demonstrate Zimmerman’s guilt, that is destroyed by doing something like releasing a transcript of his statement, do you think Martin’s parents will be happy that their son’s killer never gets convicted? I think they’d be happier if the police were able to catch Zimmerman in a lie and end up seeing him convicted than the will be just because the police decide to give them more information to make them feel better.
Oh, one more point. If they arrest, charge, and try him early, and he’s found not guilty that’s pretty much it. If they wait for enough evidence to make a strong case there is more chance of a guilty verdict. Waiting for more evidence does not mean that I’m hoping he’s factually innocent (although I stand by my statement earlier that his factual innocence would probably be the least worst scenario), so much as I’m hoping for the most correct outcome of the case.
As far as the police releasing more evidence, I’d say absolutely not. I think the biggest problem is that they’ve released too much already. Releasing more runs the risk of hampering the investigation, and any potential trial. I consider that more important than the desire of random people on the internet (myself included) to know.
I think Bricker is probably as close to a board expert (in fact not close to, but in fact is an expert) on this as we’ll find (having been involved in criminal law), so I’d defer to him but I don’t know of many scenarios offhand where police can just forcibly do a blood draw.
While some States criminalize the refusal, even in DUI homicide cases I don’t believe they can actually take breath or blood samples without consent.
Of course. Because they stand to take a political hit otherwise.
Neither Baxley nor Peadon have any more idea of the factual circumstances than anyone else here.
Baxley is not even a lawyer.
Oh God no. Revealing information on a potential trial is the worst thing they can do for the success of the case. If you’re asking could they do a better job explaining the situation then yes.
Unfortunately, police are people too. Public relations skills are part art form and part training. What you get out of a city the size of NY is not the same as a small town.
Well, yes, sorry. My bad.
Right. All they did was get a quick poll, poll sez PO is running against their pet law because of Zimmerman, so they say Zimmerman isn;t covered under it. Which they can’t know as they haven’t seen/heard the evidence either.
Exactly. The more they release the better Zimmermans chances get.
If you all want Zimmerman convicted the best thing to do is let the GJ do their job. Those dudes organizing the “million hoodie march” are helping Zimmerman.
History realistically shows that people who sponsor legislation aren’t really experts on how a court should properly apply that legislation. Politicians often won’t understand the legal ramifications of specific wording in their statutes, if they were perfect at this we wouldn’t have so many laws getting turned upside down by courts and sponsors of those legislative acts coming out against their own laws (which happens often enough at State and Federal levels to not be a remarkable thing.)
Can’t they force the sample by a warrant?
From my limited law classes I would say yes. The prosecutor would have to prove he created a situation based on poor judgement that led to Martin’s death.
Martin’s girlfriend can testify that she advised him to get away from Zimmerman and by all accounts, including Zimmerman’s, it appears that was the case. From a jury’s perspective, Zimmerman is going to look like a stalker to Martin and he tried to evade him. On the flip side, Zimmerman shows himself to project (in his own mind) that Martin is messed up and possibly armed. He chose to pursue him.
Martin’s actions are reasoned, Zimmerman’s were not. One of them is dead.
They certainly have the right to pat him down for weapons.
But the intrusiveness of a blood test requires a court order, or consent. There is an implied consent law for drivers, but even that must be based on probable cause to believe the accused was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
And even then, the driver may refuse, suffering the automatic suspension of his license as a penalty.
A needle in the arm cannot generally be done absent consent or a court order.
Someone above made the comment that Martin was tested. A moment’s thought will reveal the difference between the cases and why Martin’s body could be tested without offending the Fourth Amendment.