I hate it when idiots agree with me.
It’s quite possible he has been ordered to not leave the jurisdiction and asked to surrender his passport.
Can you share some of the links saying they got separated?
Didn’t another witness report to 911 that they saw someone with a white tee shirt on, standing over the body right after the shot was fired? I wonder who that was.
According to the initial police report, Zimmerman had a red jacket.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf
Post #1363. Sorry. Should have noted that in my last post.
See also JoelUpchurch’s post #1373.
Bolding mine.
Under Florida’s SYG law, there is no legal compulsion to retreat.
That’s the whole point of the SYG law.
DNA test can be done by buccal swab of the cheek. No blood draw needed.
If Zimmerman is the aggressor, he does.
enomaj, I have seen the interview with the boy. ABC says the boy said they were separated. I don’t recall hearing the boy say they were separated. I heard the boy say
They were fighting.
I went to chase my dog.
I heard a shot.
I came back and one was lying on the ground.
I never heard the boy saw they were separated before the shot.
If they did do a blood draw for some reason, say to match the blood type, could they test the blood for alcohol or drugs as well, without mentioning it in the search warrant? Assuming Zimmerman did not consent.
Regards,
Shodan
Let me guess - “it depends”. 
Can probable cause, once it exists, magically vanish? Sure.
Thought experiment:
A police officer is strolling through a park when he hears a couple arguing. The woman screams, “I can’t believe you slept with my sister!”
The man replies, “If you weren’t such a a cold fish in bed, I wouldn’t have had to!”
She screams, “That’s it! You’re never gonna insult me again!”
As the officer turns a corner and can view the couple, she pulls out a knife and stabs the man, who falls motionless to the ground.
At that point, the officer draws his weapon and orders the woman to drop the knife. Does he have probable cause to arrest her?
Now, continuing the story, the woman drops her knife and the officer hears a voice say, “Cut! Cut!” Several people emerge into view – a man holding a boom mike, a man with a camera, and a man holding a script. They explain they were students doing a graduate film project, and no one was injured – indeed, our stabbing victim is standing up and walking around, and the knife is obviously rubber.
NOW does the officer have probable cause to arrest the woman?
Probable cause exists when the totality of facts known to the officer, together with all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, warrant a man of reasonable caution and prudence to believe a crime has been committed.
Probable cause did exist, I agree, when we simply have a guy standing over a dead guy and saying “I shot him.” But if he adds information that negates the criminality of the act, and if that information is believed, then probable cause vanishes.
Right, and they did take his gun away, handcuffed him, and took him to the police station where he gave a statement.
I don’t think the situations are comparable. In the case of the movie set, you have dozens of witnesses, and you have the fact that no one is actually dead.
In this case, you have only the word of the shooter, and you know that he has every motive to lie about his culpability. That is also part of the totality of the circumstances.
I simply don’t believe that it passes the straight-face test, given the facts that we know in this particular case, for probable cause to simply vanish based on the shooter’s claim that it was in self defense.
Now what happens in front of a jury is another thing. I can see how a jury might find there to be reasonable doubt regarding the shooter’s culpability, but it seems almost astonishing for the cops to claim that there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause in this particular case.
And, while I have no cases at hand and I’m no specialist in criminal law, I have a notion that it is very common for arrests and preliminary charges to occur with this much or even less evidence, not to mention convictions, sentencing, and capital punishment.
Most probably they could – typically blood samples are considered discarded by the person once taken, and they lose the right to assert a Fourth Amendment interest in the blood. After all, they aren’t seeking its return, right? The blood will be tested and then thrown away.
Like any other trash you discard, then, it can be seized, searched, and analyzed without offending the Fourth Amendment.
In People v. Thomas, 200 Cal.App.4th 338 (2011), the California Court of Appeals dealt with an analogous issue. The accused was a suspect in a series of burglaries. The police had DNA from the crime scenes but no way to match that DNA to their suspect.
After following him, they developed reasonable suspicion to believe he was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. They effected a traffic stop and the suspect submitted to a breath analysis test, which did not show an illegal alcohol content.
However, rather than throwing away the mouthpiece used in the breath test, police kept it and extracted samples of DNA, which they were then able to match to the samples found at the crime scene. This match supplied probable cause for the arrest of the accused.
But you’ve hit the problem: the facts we know are not the facts the police know.
The police, for example, presumably took a statement from Zimmerman. Does that statement match the physical evidence? I don’t know. But they do.
Does that statement explain the timeline? I don’t know. But they do.
You don’t know everything the police know, but you want the police to act based on your set of knowledge and not theirs. Why?
They can ask a medical licensee, if they will do it, and it requires no warrant, but again
PC is required, Shermber v. California. As a search, it is more invaise then the Terry requirement.
I do know voice exemplars do not incriminate, so by subpeona or warrant, no one can assert the 5th.
Some states were at the initial stage, or in force, to have police themselves draw blood at the scene. The ACLU was not happy about that.
I want to do no such thing. What I want to do is have a discussion about this case based on what we seem to know about it. We are not the police, the prosecutor, the judge, or the jury, so we don’t have to limit our discussion to the standards that would apply to such actors.
A discussion that is terminated by the bounds described by the stipulation “we don’t know what the police know” is a very short conversation. After we’ve reached that limit, it seems to me entirely appropriate and legitimate to abandon that boundary and talk about what we think based on what we do think we know.
Given that freedom, what do you think, Bricker? It’s not like discussing hypotheticals is an anathema to you. Knowing what we know and disregarding what we don’t, does it seem logical for there to be no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seek to collect further evidence in the form of searches or seizures, such as testing the shooter for influence of drugs or alcohol, or maybe other kinds of evidence gathering? I’m not even suggesting that the shooter should definitely have been arrested, jailed, and charged immediately.
Because, as I said before, as it stands, the circumstances as presented do not seem to be the kind of circumstances in which a claim of self-defense would entirely dispel reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Where do you the idea that there has been no “collect further evidence in the form of searches or seizures, such as testing the shooter for influence of drugs or alcohol, or maybe other kinds of evidence gathering” ? Why do you think that the police haven’t been checking his story, doing ballistics, that the ME hasn’t been doing his job, that CSI has not collected evidence, etc? In fact, since a GJ has been called for 4/10, and they need enough evidence to ask for a Indictment then, it seems almost certain they have been investigating like crazy.
But police also took the statements of independent witnesses immediately after the shooting. Witnesses say Martin was on top of Zimmerman, who was yelling for help. These statements would tend to corroborate Zimmerman’s story, no?
Where do you the idea that there has been no “collect further evidence in the form of searches or seizures, such as testing the shooter for influence of drugs or alcohol, or maybe other kinds of evidence gathering” ? Why do you think that the police haven’t been checking his story, doing ballistics, that the ME hasn’t been doing his job, that CSI has not collected evidence, etc? In fact, since a GJ has been called for 4/10, and they need enough evidence to ask for a Indictment then, it seems almost certain they have been investigating like crazy.