"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
It's not exactly useful to have someone who can "tell" if someone is drunk or high when it comes to matters that concern a courtroom. What would have been actually useful would be factual proof of his intoxication (or not) from the administering of a test. So I really don't see what good comes out of calling in someone from the drug squad. On the other hand, I would think that having someone who specializes in the real important part of this case, the homicide, would be of top importance.
That's something that n my opinion needs to be changed. If you shoot someone and claim self defense, the government has an obligation to determine if that claim is reasonable as part of making that determination. That might also help deter carrying when using drugs or alcohol, reducing the number of unnecessary shootings. Deadly force and intentional impairment aren't a good mix.Homer,
I can see that the fact Z was not drug tested really bothers you.
A day or so ago someone posted a link, IIRC, to page put by Sanford addressing some FAQs. The drug test issue was addressed. (I cannot search thru all these posts to find it.)
They said that by law they could not drug test Z unless:
1. He consented to it. Or
2. They got a court order.
This tragic event took place on a Sunday night making a court order difficult. (I suppose it is theoretically possible they could have troubled a judge at his home. Even so, they would have needed a good reason to get a judge to sign off on something that supersedes 4th amendment rights. I tend to believe that just being involved in the situation is insufficient. I think an officer would have to submit a sworn statement that he had reason to believe Z was intoxicated. But that's my guess INAL.)
In thinking about this, it strikes me as correct because even when you are arrested for DUI they cannot force you to submit to breathalyzer test. In most states I have lived in, including FL and now NC, you must sign a statement before receiving your drivers license that you agree in the event you decline the test your license will automatically be suspended for a year. I.e., it's not easy to test someone because of the 4th amendment protection.
Fern
This is sad, a great cop and person screwed by the politics of situation. I only hope that this temporary, but I suspect it will not be.
That has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of Z. With all the attention on this case you can bet they have their best guys on it now. So you complain that him being questioned by a narcotics DETECTIVE wasn't good enough and then go on to complain that they didn't test him for drugs and alcohol. Don't you think a narcotics DETECTIVE could tell if he was drunk or hiogh during the questioning? You seem to be prejudiced against Z Perhbaps you're a racist who doesn't like Hispanics??
Why examine the car if he doesn't smell of drugs or alcohol and doesn't act drunk of high? I'm curious, how do you know they didn't give the car a once over?
As far as the "fucking coons" remark, I've hear the tape and he appears to have said "fucking ?????". I'm not sure what he said and even if he said coons, that is no reason in and of itself to prosecute him for cold blooded murder.
Good link, thanks. The narc detective seems to have done a good job, but as a limited part of the investigation.Police report, in case it hasn't been shared yet - Link
Good points. I think they should have pressed for a blood test, although Fern makes a good point that it might have been in vain.It's not exactly useful to have someone who can "tell" if someone is drunk or high when it comes to matters that concern a courtroom. What would have been actually useful would be factual proof of his intoxication (or not) from the administering of a test. So I really don't see what good comes out of calling in someone from the drug squad. On the other hand, I would think that having someone who specializes in the real important part of this case, the homicide, would be of top importance.
That's something that n my opinion needs to be changed. If you shoot someone and claim self defense, the government has an obligation to determine if that claim is reasonable as part of making that determination. That might also help deter carrying when using drugs or alcohol, reducing the number of unnecessary shootings. Deadly force and intentional impairment aren't a good mix.
I don't watch much Hannity, but I do know his show about politics, usually soley about politics.
The Sanford incident is big, that's likely why it was on, but it ain't politics.
Tom Hanks is in the news now because he just narrated a big Obama campaign infomercial that's in all the political news.
Fern
That's something that n my opinion needs to be changed. If you shoot someone and claim self defense, the government has an obligation to determine if that claim is reasonable as part of making that determination. That might also help deter carrying when using drugs or alcohol, reducing the number of unnecessary shootings. Deadly force and intentional impairment aren't a good mix.
Asa I said earlier in the thread, this is more about gun grabbers trying to force/embarass Florida ionto changing it's law thwenh it is the tragedy of a young man being killed. Screw the facts, they have an ax to grind.
Neither are the murders in France yet it got a prime spot.
My point wasn't that it would automatically make one guilty, but rather that it would indicate impaired judgement which should lead the investigating officers to look more deeply into the shooting. Someone drunk might well need to defend himself, but would also be less able to accurately judge whether or not he is in that situation. Being drunk also reduces one's inhibitions - not a good thing when carrying deadly force.Yes, because drunk people don't ever need to defend themselves.
Homer,
I can see that the fact Z was not drug tested really bothers you.
A day or so ago someone posted a link, IIRC, to page put by Sanford addressing some FAQs. The drug test issue was addressed. (I cannot search thru all these posts to find it.)
They said that by law they could not drug test Z unless:
1. He consented to it. Or
2. They got a court order.
This tragic event took place on a Sunday night making a court order difficult. (I suppose it is theoretically possible they could have troubled a judge at his home. Even so, they would have needed a good reason to get a judge to sign off on something that supersedes 4th amendment rights. I tend to believe that just being involved in the situation is insufficient. I think an officer would have to submit a sworn statement that he had reason to believe Z was intoxicated. But that's my guess INAL.)
In thinking about this, it strikes me as correct because even when you are arrested for DUI they cannot force you to submit to breathalyzer test. In most states I have lived in, including FL and now NC, you must sign a statement before receiving your drivers license that you agree in the event you decline the test your license will automatically be suspended for a year. I.e., it's not easy to test someone because of the 4th amendment protection.
Fern
They would need a court order for that, at least if they wanted to get something in evidence.
Again, this took place on a Sunday night.
If I were the police my primary thought about the cell phone would be to help determine the victim's ID. But they had that Monday some time anyway.
Fern
I'd make agreement to waive a requirement for a Concealed Carry permit. Not being a lawyer I don't know if it would fly, but it's my preference. And considering that (at least in most states) you can't carry if you are or have been drinking, I don't think it's outside common sense to demand proof of compliance if you shoot someone - although obviously the law doesn't necessarily follow what the rest of us see as common sense.How would you change that?
It's 4th amendment issue. State law cannot trump the Constitution.
You're going to have to get a judge to sign off it. Maybe Don Vito can tell us what requirements a judge would demand to issue a warrant etc.
Edit: In my state you cannot concealed carry if you've been drinking etc.
Fern
You don't know if they did a quick look over of the casr or not. As far as the drug tersxt goes, if you were in his position would you tazke one? What if the test came back with a false positive for some drug? It happens so why risk it.The reason to ask him to consent to giving breath and blood is that he had just shot someone and was claiming self-defense. How would it hurt to gather that information? I do not necessarily think a narcotics detective would identify that information in an interview and if anything it would help Zimmerman if he was not drunk or high. Same thing with the car.
Nothing is obvious. Anybody can claim any heritage on the internet. Anyway my point was that you were rashly jumping to conclusions, so I jumped to one of my own and you didn't like it, did you. Now imagine your very life is on the line and people all over the country are jumping to conclusions and people getting/giving misleading and false information. As you're a lawyer I expected better from you. :hmm:I am amused that you would somehow claim that my interest in taking a drug or alcohol sample would somehow relate to bias against Hispanic people. My mother is 100% Spanish and her parents were Spanish immigrants. It should be obvious you are grasping for straws with that speculation, not to mention obviously hypocritical in that you implicitly have no problem with Zimmerman saying "coons" to refer to black people.
By the way, I am certainly not calling for Zimmerman to be prosecuted for "cold blooded murder," because that doesn't appear to be what happened. I think the matter should be thoroughly investigated before any prosecution decisions are made. That said, my feeling is that this case is probably appropriately charged as voluntary manslaughter.
INMO. there was a good discussion of this very issue om NBC news. As the local police authorities have finally stepped aside.
But still, the issue is and remains, a somewhat NRA inspirit local Florida law on the books. Nor is Florida unique, as other states have similar laws.
Without such a local law, the Zimmeran action would be totally illegal, but the Florida law greatly expand the concept of my home is my castle concept at anyone's whim. And extends to concept of your castle to your neighborhood and beyond. And legalizes murder to anyone concept of a threat, be it rational or not. Such is the concept of the law on the books or Florida and other states.Will it take a ruling by SCOTUS that such laws are all unconstitutional before Zimmerman can be charged with murder or not?
Or will we embrace a new Jim Crow crime, walking while black is punishable by death? That will fix them darkies or even white folk who wear hoodies.
My point wasn't that it would automatically make one guilty, but rather that it would indicate impaired judgement which should lead the investigating officers to look more deeply into the shooting. Someone drunk might well need to defend himself, but would also be less able to accurately judge whether or not he is in that situation. Being drunk also reduces one's inhibitions - not a good thing when carrying deadly force.
Look, I share your convictions about the right to armed self defense and your concerns that anti-gun people will use this incident to push for disarmament. They will. They always do. But I don't think allowing shootings to slip by largely at face value on declaration of self defense is an acceptable compromise to preserve our Second Amendment rights.
It's part of a standard autopsy, to determine exact cause of death and contributory factors.That is insane. How is a self defense claim supposed to be adjudicated if evidence can't be gathered?
If this is true despite the utter insanity of that part of law why did they drug/alcohol test T? Did they get a court order? Did they get permission from the family?
Personally I'd say no detectable blood alcohol. If you want to carry, don't drink. But I'd be happy to defer to medical experts to determine limits of typical judgement impairment.So then what is the limit for carrying while intoxicated? 1 beer? 2?
That is insane. How is a self defense claim supposed to be adjudicated if evidence can't be gathered?
If this is true despite the utter insanity of that part of law why did they drug/alcohol test T? Did they get a court order? Did they get permission from the family?
I didn't say that they could not gather it.
I said you would need a court order.
And again, it was Sunday night.
That was explained too.
1. Because M was deceased there is no 4th amendment issue. No court order needed.
2. It is standard practice in a death to drug test to rule drugs out as a cause, or contributing factor in the death.
I.e., the didn't drug test M because they he was a druggie, or because they wanted some 'dirt' on him. It standard practice.
If they didn't have that practice I can imagine every defense attorney going after that angle to get their client off.
Fern