Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[ati87]

el oh el, most racist people I have encountered where British. Well a lot of Europe's way of dealing with immigration could be perceived, but shhh don't talk about it. Only America can be racist.....

West Europeans are racist, they may deny it themselves but a bully would rarely call himself a bully.

But

No mater what a person in Europe says, or whatever he does, what his religion is, what his background his or what motive he has
If you kill a person in a European country don't expect and the police know you killed him don't expect to sit at home. Zimmerman should have been arrested even if the kid he shot beat him up to a pulp, the police should not act like a judge and determine if Zimmerman is innocent or not.

Edit:

About the whole discussion of the police and what they did....

Their is a really good reason why the local officials have been replaced, it isn't because they where doing their job to well.

from what I heard they didn't question Zimmerman but had a interview;
they led the witnesses to certain answers in favour of Zimmerman, so a witness says A but cop says no it is B
Also when they where on the scene the cops didn't test Zimmerman for any alcohol, they did test the child who had tea and candy with him

Again the cops don't get replaced when they excel at their job

[Acewipe]

Zimmerman should have been arrested even if the kid he shot beat him up to a pulp, the police should not act like a judge and determine if Zimmerman is innocent or not.

Not to disagree with you, but a cop cannot arrest you if they feel like they do not have probable cause, you can't just arrest someone because someone gets killed (not saying that that should not have happened here though)

[Jodah]

In related news Zimmerman completely misused the stand your ground law in Florida. The law is good, people that completely misunderstand it are bad.

[braeldiil]

So never in your life have you seen people jump on the racism bandwagon and change their story because of race? See the Duke Lacross case and all the African American leaders that came out and defended her and claimed racism even though her story didn't match with what happen. So yes people do change their stories and stances on things just because of the race of a accuser/victim.

I've never seen a cop, two unrelated white women, and a black girl none of them knew existed all coordinate a change in stories, no. I have seen a police department close ranks to defend themselves, however.

I never once said that she wasn't on the phone with him. I simply said that the whole conversation they had seems suspect. I mean ask yourself this question. If you were on the phone with somebody who was murdered as everybody claims. Would you wait a month to come forward with what you two talked about and come forward through the attorney of the "murdered" boys family? Personally I would be at the police station ASAP talking about what happened.

She didn't come forward through the Martin family attorney. Please stop making things up. According to the attorney her family retained, she spent some time in the hospital after she found out he was dead. Her family then hired the attorney to protect her as best they could - both for her privacy and legally. He took a deposition, so her testimony is under oath. He then waited for the police to contact the family. They were incompetent, so ABC news beat them to the punch, 3 weeks after the attack.

The Police Chief came right out and said what the people are telling media isn't what they told the police on the night of the shooting at all.

And the people who actually said it strongly disagree.

That said, I'm pretty sure the statements the police have don't match what the witnesses are now saying. That's not because the witnesses changed their stories - it's because the cops wrote down what they wanted to hear. Again, the actual witnesses (and a cop) reported witness tampering on the night of the shooting. So Chief Lee isn't lying - he just got sandbagged by the investigating officers.

So a person getting shot in the chest means they were facing them. You have Zimmerman with a busted face and the back of his head is bleeding. So what physical evidence do you have that isn't out there.

Please provide a single shred of evidence that Zimmerman suffered a serious injury, such as a "busted face". Hell, please provide any evidence other than the police report from that night that Zimmerman was injured at all. I believe he was knocked down, but for something so central to the case there's a remarkable lack of evidence that he was ever injured. Surely one of the 6 eyewitnesses would have noticed a serious injury, yet I've never seen one of them mention it.

Guess what you need a warrant to search things even if the person is dead. You still have to subpoena phone records even if a person is dead. Just because a person is dead doesn't mean that the police are allowed to go through all their things. If they did and didn't get a warrant for it during evidentiary hearings the defense could raise that as a motion that was obtained with out a warrant and a judge could through that out. If that's how you think the judicial system should work then write to your local people and get them to change the laws.

The cops don't need a search warrent to search your phone - unless you have a password, anything on it is considered to be in plain sight. Same reason that a cop needs a search warrent to enter your house without your permission, but if you let him in for any reason he can use anything he sees, even for a second. Lots of civil rights groups are up in arms about it, but that's how the law currently works. Google something like "police cell phone search" if you doubt me.

More importantly, the lack of a search warrent would just mean they couldn't use it against Treyvon in a trial. Since he was dead, that's not really a concern, now is it. At the time, they weren't even looking for evidence against Zimmerman.

And the cops never tried to obtain the phone records. It wasn't a paperwork problem, it was a motivation problem.

[PACOX]

In related news Zimmerman completely misused the stand your ground law in Florida. The law is good, people that completely misunderstand it are bad.

Its not the law, it the interpration of it. The law is meant to protect good people in bad situations.

There is another recent case in FL where the law was called into question. A man killed a club bouncer and claimed self defense. The bouncers made the first blow but it was after the man displayed violent tendacies and was told to leave. I dont have all the details but he was completly in the wrong (he had a knife or something) but FL law at least allowed him to claim self defense under the law.

---------- Post added 2012-03-22 at 06:58 PM ----------

As with Casey Anthony, maybe we just have shitty prosecutors

[Jodah]

Its not the law, it the interpration of it. The law is meant to protect good people in bad situations.

There is another recent case in FL where the law was called into question. A man killed a club bouncer and claimed self defense. The bouncers made the first blow but it was after the man displayed violent tendacies and was told to leave. I dont have all the details but he was completly in the wrong (he had a knife or something) but FL law at least allowed him to claim self defense under the law.

---------- Post added 2012-03-22 at 06:58 PM ----------

As with Casey Anthony, maybe we just have shitty prosecutors

Aye, I would love to have SYG laws. I live in New York where I'm supposed to run from my house and call the cops if some jackass breaks in.

Then again New York is the state that made it illegal to possess pepper spray until recently.

[ati87]

Not to disagree with you, but a cop cannot arrest you if they feel like they do not have probable cause, you can't just arrest someone because someone gets killed (not saying that that should not have happened here though)

When you have killed somebody the police has a probable cause.

Cops aren't legal experts who can determine if a person has followed the law, so yes they should arrest anybody that committed a crime. The judge should determine if the circumstances justified the actions taken by the killer.

[Isotope]

The cops don't need a search warrent to search your phone - unless you have a password, anything on it is considered to be in plain sight.

See this is the problem with people and that sentence sums it up. Do you know that his phone didn't have a password on it? Everybody assumes that the police within 5 minutes are going to know everything or have all the warrants they need. As others have said this isn't CSI or Law and Order, this is real life. In real life these things take time to get.

If people think that the police did anything to cover it up I suggest you watch one or two episodes of The First 48. As for taking sides, of course I (along with anybody else in the court of law) am going to take the word of a police officer over a random citizen who is on the news trying to get their 15min of fame. This goes for people giving both sides of their stories to the news media.

As for the police closing ranks as a sign of them trying to do a cover up. Couldn't the same be said about everybody else closing ranks making this a race issue?

The police haven't done anything wrong. When the DoJ and FBI reports come what will the campaign be next if they find the same thing that the Sanford police department found. People seem to forget that murder has no statute of limitations. Would you rather them take their time and then make an arrest knowing everything or rush to an arrest and make major mistakes.

Just look at the last BIG case in Florida. They rushed to arrest and in the end she walked free. Because of all the rushing they didn't have any real evidence. Have patience in the legal and don't make them rush. They are humans just like us and when we rush we make mistakes. When we take our time our best work gets done.

[Todgruppe]

West Europeans are racist, they may deny it themselves but a bully would rarely call himself a bully.

But

No mater what a person in Europe says, or whatever he does, what his religion is, what his background his or what motive he has
If you kill a person in a European country don't expect and the police know you killed him don't expect to sit at home. Zimmerman should have been arrested even if the kid he shot beat him up to a pulp, the police should not act like a judge and determine if Zimmerman is innocent or not.

Cops can only arrest and hold for 24 hours, DA has to press charges. People aren't attacking the DA office, but the more public police officer's, who are no more than enforcers; they don't make laws, write them, or decide who to charge, that's the DA. Cops gather evidence and arrest, they can gather all the evidence in the universe and if the DA doesn't issue arrest warrant nothing happens.

[Purlina]

The Police Chief came right out and said what the people are telling media isn't what they told the police on the night of the shooting at all.

No he didn't, or at lest I didn't see it in any of the articles....

Unless you have a source?

Also remember that at lest 1 witness claims that the police officers "corrected" them when they first described what happened.

[Jodah]

No he didn't, or at lest I didn't see it in any of the articles....

Unless you have a source?

Also remember that at lest 1 witness claims that the police officers "corrected" them when they first described what happened.

Scroll up a few posts. I linked to a statement by the police. Here is the quote: "When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony"

[Purlina]

Scroll up a few posts. I linked to a statement by the police. Here is the quote: "When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony"

As I said at lest 1 witness claims that the police officers "corrected" them when they first described what happened. So how do we know the witnesses changed their story? How much of the testimony has been "corrected"?

[Jodah]

As I said at lest 1 witness claims that the police officers "corrected" them when they first described what happened. So how do we know the witnesses changed their story? How much of the testimony has been "corrected"?

The point is that the police followed the law in question by letting Zimmerman go. They have to make an arrest in good faith, clearly they didn't believe it was anything besides self defense. Yes it was sloppy work on their part with leading questions and such but that, to me, is a different issue.

[Purlina]

The point is that the police followed the law in question by letting Zimmerman go. They have to make an arrest in good faith, clearly they didn't believe it was anything besides self defense. Yes it was sloppy work on their part with leading questions and such but that, to me, is a different issue.

As long as we can agree that there is no proof that the witnesses changed their story we are good

[Isotope]

No he didn't, or at lest I didn't see it in any of the articles....

Unless you have a source?

Also remember that at lest 1 witness claims that the police officers "corrected" them when they first described what happened.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...0,559932.story

Police spokesman Sgt. Dave Morgenstern on Thursday issued a statement disputing Cutcher's version of events, calling her statements to WFTV "inconsistent with her sworn testimony to police."

Most of this case and story is a he said she said. Like I stated I'm more apt to believe a police officer over somebody who is making media rounds. Especially when they have sworn statements. What are they going to say next, that isn't their signature?


EDIT:

As for the people saying he used a racial slur on the phone call. Quit trying to make something that isn't there into something that is there.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justic...ing/index.html

A top CNN audio engineer enhanced the sound of the 911 call, and several members of CNN's editorial staff repeatedly reviewed the tape but could reach no consensus on whether Zimmerman used a racial slur.

So I guess not only is the Police trying to do a cover up CNN is also in on it.

[Purlina]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...0,559932.story




Most of this case and story is a he said she said. Like I stated I'm more apt to believe a police officer over somebody who is making media rounds. Especially when they have sworn statements. What are they going to say next, that isn't their signature?


EDIT:

As for the people saying he used a racial slur on the phone call. Quit trying to make something that isn't there into something that is there.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justic...ing/index.html



So I guess not only is the Police trying to do a cover up CNN is also in on it.

I see motivation for both sides to lie..

For her - Media attention
For the Police - Avoid getting into hot water for "correcting" testimonies


Well at lest we get some good out of all this...

"Lee's decision to step aside came a day after the city commission voted 3-2 in favor of a nonbinding measure of no confidence."

[Roose]

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/23/149204...er-teens-death

Still think people need to put the fair share of this guilt on the shoulders of those that made the laws allowing such behavior. Zimmerman was wrong, but he is also the scapegoat here. He is the easy target for peoples' hate.

They say now that the law does not cover this event because the law is so ridiculous. You can't pick and choose which cases the law protects. Of course the politicians behind the "stand your ground" laws are trying to exclude Zimmerman from their intended coverage. He is their worst nightmare now. Like the number of justified shootings had not already tripled because of it!

[Traejun]

As I said at lest 1 witness claims that the police officers "corrected" them when they first described what happened. So how do we know the witnesses changed their story? How much of the testimony has been "corrected"?

This. If the police "doctored" the statement by essentially testifying for the "witness", then we have a serious problem. The shooter should be charged with murder 2, and the police should be charged with obstruction.

[Roose]

This. If the police "doctored" the statement by essentially testifying for the "witness", then we have a serious problem. The shooter should be charged with murder 2, and the police should be charged with obstruction.

Witnesses must sign off on their statements. I do not see how they could be doctored. They are written in ink, in their own writing, and then signed off on. At least that is how I have seen the process go. That is what helps cut down on witnesses changing stories.

[Borzo]

Witnesses must sign off on their statements. I do not see how they could be doctored. They are written in ink, in their own writing, and then signed off on. At least that is how I have seen the process go. That is what helps cut down on witnesses changing stories.

That signature is meaningless if the cop is the one that told her what to say. It won't stand up in court.