George Zimmerman arrested

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

You said the police screwed up by not getting Zimmerman's blood. Now tell me how they screwed up.  Knowing they don't have the authority to require this do you still stand by this belief?

[Hambonee]

You said the police screwed up by not getting Zimmerman's blood. Now tell me how they screwed up.  Knowing they don't have the authority to require this do you still stand by this belief?

"If the prosecutor was notified within several hours of the incident, I think the prosecutor or the state themselves should have absolutely made that decision,"

From the following:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46837155#46837155
>> absolutely. they had the evidence at the time. the fact that they didn't arrest him is really questionable why. we have to look back. sanfordpolice department has a history of problems with the black community. maybe that's why they were reluctant on charging georgezimmerman with killing trayvon

Soo..Yes..I feel he should have initially been taken into custody(and charged) in first place which would have allowed them to then get a subpoena or court order to do so...be it the state or prosecutor according to this...is it directly in the cop's authority to do so? Seems not...but did they make a mistake in not charging the guy then having the prosecutor or state get the subpoena or court order to do so...yes..take it any way you wish..

Anyways, it pointlessly divert attention away from the core point that Zimmerman MAY have been under the influence of perscription drugs which COULD have affected his judgement....do you agree with that? and if arrested he should have then been drug tested? which was possible through hair samples..?

Now in saying that the police aren't the only ones to have botched things as the news media has done their fair share..but as to claims there wasn't enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman after the shooting..that seems pretty thin...

But..If you want to pull the blue line/shield/whatever thing good for you.

to quote the enigmatic bomber..
"Interesting, innit?"

Either way...like I said..why such vilification of this kid? Why is his past seemingly so relevant but Zimmerman's not to the argument? I guess that is what I am curious about...Not just here but on the news, responses to those news stories, etc..

[Dan K]

We have only Zimmermans account that this is what Martin was doing. If there is someone else making a claim this is what they saw Martin doing please point me to it. A man who had all ready had people complain he was too aggressive with the neighborhood watch thing, who thought it funny to make racist jokes at work and bully a coworker, Who had all ready violently resisted arrest and had a restraining order for domestic violence..

perfectly calm..just find it a bit scarey what people find now and days acceptable. There is a huge difference between cowering and grabbing your gun and chasing after someone onto the street. just saying

I listened to the 911 call. No question Zimmerman was following him because of the burglaries that had been occurring in the neighborhood.

[Dan K]

This topic has gotten pretty stupid and pointless but this needs a response.  Please tell me where the police have any right to take someone, not under arrest, for a drug test?  Maybe in your TV world but not in real life.  

He was under arrest, but he was released without charging.

- Dan

[Hambonee]

I listened to the 911 call. No question Zimmerman was following him because of the burglaries that had been occurring in the neighborhood.

Some would say an easy excuse for a power hungry guy with a gun with a history of being over aggressive in his duties...Someone else might have actually called the cops and stayed in the car making sure the kid stayed out of thing while the cops did THEIR job.

Just me..but maybe because I have seen what guns do to people I am less likely to shove one in my pants and go chasing after people knowing I may have to use it..maybe that makes me a wimp..maybe just aware of the real consequence of using one.

[Dan K]

Gun or no gun, he was on watch, following suspicious persons.  That's what neighborhood watch people do.  They watch and call police.

We don't know exactly how the confrontation started, only how it ended, with Zimmerman getting beat up and Martin dead.

Don't think I want that guy walking around my neighborhood with a gun.  But there is no question he called the police to the scene, lessening (at least in my my mind) the probability Zimmerman was looking to start something, no question he was getting a beat down, and people said he was calling for help.  

The time line thing, showing Martin could have been locked in his house eating his skittles long before the confrontation also (to me) increases the likelihood that Martin was looking to confront the guy that was following him.  Doesn't look good for the prosecution.  

-Dan

[Hardware]

And..as I have stated one of the big issues(not like there are not a million) is that the police F'ed up by not giving Zimmerman a drug test...

If the officers at the scene had no reasonable grounds to believe he was under the influence of of a drug, what legal justification would they have had to compel him to submit to drug test?

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

If the officers at the scene had no reasonable grounds to believe he was under the influence of of a drug, what legal justification would they have had to compel him to submit to drug test?

I've asked the same thing but keep getting some answer that really has nothing to do with the question.  

[spd2918]

If the officers at the scene had no reasonable grounds to believe he was under the influence of of a drug, what legal justification would they have had to compel him to submit to drug test?

None.  An invasive search like that would require a warrant.  They didn't have grounds to get one.  But I guess it's easy to blame the cops.

[Hardware]

If the officers at the scene had no reasonable grounds to believe he was under the influence of of a drug, what legal justification would they have had to compel him to submit to drug test?

I've asked the same thing but keep getting some answer that really has nothing to do with the question.  

None.  An invasive search like that would require a warrant.  They didn't have grounds to get one.  But I guess it's easy to blame the cops.

Yeah, I asked because I didn't know if there was some specific Florida statute that gave police such authority (or obligation) in the case of a shooting.

Internet legal eagles seem to know it all and damn to hell the evidence actually at hand.

[Hambonee]

Yeah, I asked because I didn't know if there was some specific Florida statute that gave police such authority (or obligation) in the case of a shooting.

Internet legal eagles seem to know it all and damn to hell the evidence actually at hand.

Funny..everything I read states the following:
"Among other issues, it didn't conduct a drug or alcohol test on Zimmerman, although that's standard practice in homicide probes,"

News agencies, press releases, from local to national etc etc..hell..its even common sense as a piss test or taking a piece of hair isn't very..umm..invasive..and might..umm..be a good idea in the case of a shooting.

There are a lot of procedures in general with anything that are followed grounds or not as it's good practice...suspected or not.  

But hey, its cool..pick at gnats and ignore the point behind the original statment...much easier to do that. And if the above statment is wrong..my bad..but you should correct a LOT of news stories, papers, internet sites, and retired police who are stating as much..

As for evidence at hand..thats debatable on both sides of the argument;)

[FJR1300]

You people are funny!

 

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

You people are funny!

 

Quit being a gnat.  

[CLAY]

Strange that innocent until proven guilty only seems to work in one direction on this one . . ..

I've been watching with interest on how people reacte to this case . . . . most folks have played to type  . . .

That is, folks with a great amount of trust in authority figures {extended to include neighborhood watchc volunteers} very quickly came done on Zimmerman's "side," with or without evidence to support that impression.

On the other hand, folks who think that authority figures are most often wrong seemed to decide (again, with little evidencce) that Zimmerman had assualted and shot an entirely innocent kid.

Interesting, innit?

That it is.  I guess it's just looking more and more that in the end Martin wound up on top of Zimmerman beating him.  

Either way...like I said..why such vilification of this kid? Why is his past seemingly so relevant but Zimmerman's not to the argument? I guess that is what I am curious about...Not just here but on the news, responses to those news stories, etc..

No villification of this kid from me, and I don't care about the past of either of them.  It appears as Martin attacked Zimmerman for following him.   In the end, we have Zimmerman on the ground being beaten by Martin.  Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and shoots.  It's a sad tale, but I have a hard time finding Zimmerman guilty.  

[Tombstone]

5'10" or above

No, sorry, if I ever do the I do thing again she will be 5' 6" or below. Drug test, pre nup, M endorsement, and CCW also required.  

[bomber]

I guess it's just looking more and more that in the end Martin wound up on top of Zimmerman beating him.  

Yes, it is. Of course, the trial hasn't started yet, and folks lined up for Zimmerman before knowledge of his injuries was public.

Shrug if you wish, but I, for one, found the choosing of sides in absence of any knowledge whatsoever, well, I'll stick with "interesting."

Hindsight makes me a genius all the time --- how bout you guys?

;-}

[Hambonee]

Yes, it is. Of course, the trial hasn't started yet, and folks lined up for Zimmerman before knowledge of his injuries was public.

Shrug if you wish, but I, for one, found the choosing of sides in absence of any knowledge whatsoever, well, I'll stick with "interesting."

Hindsight makes me a genius all the time --- how bout you guys?

;-}

Ohhh geee...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816588-newspaper-4-witnesses-change-stories-in-trayvon-martin-shooting?lite

Things are now looking a bit more...doubtful..is that the word? Much more interesting now if not at least so one sided.

[wibornz]

Some would say an easy excuse for a power hungry guy with a gun with a history of being over aggressive in his duties...Someone else might have actually called the cops and stayed in the car making sure the kid stayed out of thing while the cops did THEIR job.

Just me..but maybe because I have seen what guns do to people I am less likely to shove one in my pants and go chasing after people knowing I may have to use it..maybe that makes me a wimp..maybe just aware of the real consequence of using one.

While the cops did THEIR job.... WTF are you saying that you or any citizen has no responsibility in ensuring your neighborhood is safe.    Fuck that, cops jobs are for after the incident. It is everybodies job to ensure that you and your neighbor are safe and free from harm.  

I am feeling dumb again.

[Tombstone]

4 witnesses make significant changes to their testimony in favor of Martin. I guess having 39 million people in a blind rage at me might make me rethink what I saw too.

[sammyseaman]

Yes, it is. Of course, the trial hasn't started yet, and folks lined up for Zimmerman before knowledge of his injuries was public.

Shrug if you wish, but I, for one, found the choosing of sides in absence of any knowledge whatsoever, well, I'll stick with "interesting."

Hindsight makes me a genius all the time --- how bout you guys?

;-}