Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Another update:

[qimg]http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/292/img/photos/2012/04/12/6e/23/Zimmerman_profile.JPG[/qimg]
FBI seeks to charge George Zimmerman with hate crime

WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.


http://www.wftv.com/

Really - they have been questioning people for 6 plus weeks ?

Far be it from me to question how to do an investigation, but it seems like a rather lengthy time.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...artin-case-begins-parallel-investigation?lite


ETA: still waiting on a direct link to the DOJ that states they are investigating the entire SPD (or any link that doesn't quote the same http://www.palmbeachpost.com). I won't hold my breath....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Again, the DA is clearly going with evidence to prove that Zimmerman's story just doesn't add up.

Because going with evidence that corroborates Zimmermans story seemed like a bad idea ?

 

[Rare Truth]

...

ETA: still waiting on a direct link to the DOJ that states they are investigating the entire SPD (or any link that doesn't quote the same http://www.palmbeachpost.com). I won't hold my breath....

Maybe you should contact the Palm Beach Post.

Not my concern. It's your issue, not mine.

 

[LTC8K6]

It sounds they are going to battle over different interpretations of the same evidence.

Theoretically, that should benefit GZ.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And yes, the Dept. of Justice IS investigating the SPD.
Trayvon Martin Case: Department of Justice to investigate entire Sanford police


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/s...rtment-of-justice-to-investigate-2266580.html

Does that change your mind?

Maybe you should contact the Palm Beach Post.

Not my concern. It's your issue, not mine.

If you choose not to back up your statements, it is my concern, correct. It should be the concern of all who read your posts.

I'm glad to know backing up your claims isn't your concern. I'll keep that in mind when reading your posts.

 

[Dancing David]

OK if the police did a thorough investigation, then why did the Police Chief resign? What were his reasons?

(Also, I mean the first time he tried to resign (mid to late March), not a month later when they accepted it (mid to late April).)

I remember possibly he was ashamed of his remarks or something...

ETA: It appears the first time was after a no confidence vote:

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...-Evidence-Testimony-Chief-Says-143712316.html

I'm still not sure about the exact reasons.

Now the resignation was an off one, it may have to do with some of the other incidents over the last couple of years.

Like a homeless man breaking up a fight and is sent to the hospital by the son of a police officer:
http://www.ktre.com/story/13759437/homeless-man-attacked-by-police-officers-son

 

[Unabogie]

Because going with evidence that corroborates Zimmermans story seemed like a bad idea ?

My point is, as you should be able to understand, that they aren't saying that "if the facts as told by Zimmerman are true, it's still murder". They are saying "Zimmerman is lying, and here's why". Don't you find it interesting that they are going to talk about fingerprints?

 

[Rare Truth]

If you choose not to back up your statements, it is my concern, correct. It should be the concern of all who read your posts.

I'm glad to know backing up your claims isn't your concern. I'll keep that in mind when reading your posts.

I did.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Deleted.

 

[WildCat]

Interesting that they're listing fingerprint experts as witnesses. I wonder if Zimmerman claimed at some point that Martin had his hands on the gun, but none of Martin's fingerprints could be found?

Which wouldn't be surprising, since only about 10% of handguns recovered by police have fingerprints on them.

For whatever reason handguns just don't retain fingerprints very well.

 

[Unabogie]

Which wouldn't be surprising, since only about 10% of handguns recovered by police have fingerprints on them.

For whatever reason handguns just don't retain fingerprints very well.

What about leather holsters?

Fleshing that out: Zimmerman claimed Martin went for his gun. If that's true, then does this mean Zimmerman already had his gun out? If not, then the gun would have been in the holster and grabbing a holster should leave fingerprints. If there are none of the gun (and your source is correct) but also none on the holster, this would undercut Zimmerman's story.

If Zimmerman already had his gun out and THAT'S when Martin tried to grab it, then I don't think this helps George very much.

 

[LTC8K6]

It was a waistband holster, for a small pistol, so I wouldn't expect any prints on it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm the "word police"? That's rich.

You obviously missed that part about use of loaded words. Thorough is not one, pursued, stalked, chased, all are. Quibbling over "thorough" is silly, getting loaded non-neutral words out of the discussion isn't.

The bottom line is that none of us know if the Sanford PD investigation was thorough or not. There is certainly reason to believe it might not have been. And it's ridiculous to merely assume that it was thorough, as indicated by the logic-defying, internally inconsistent argument I've already pointed out.

Except that your argument relies totally on a) the media reporting what peoople said correctly, and b) people actually saying what they really meant. For instance, when the SA said the SDP send their report, was that a report complied by the detectives including everything they had, or was it just their initial report and others in the SPD were still working on things? We don't know, and since one story specifically says "detectives" it may be just their reports based on the scene exam, witness, and suspect statments. From that SA's POV that'd still be a report from the SPD though. You are reading a huge amount into something of very little substance.

You are also doing the whole, it's possible, so it's probable, so it happened thing. We have no idea that they didn't do a good job, that is right, but there is no reason to assume that they didn't either. Being told to review their work under the pressure of public outcry is not reason to suspect it was poorly done in the first place.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, I was way out of line. Clearly, when someone turns the name "Crump" into "Crumb", it would be completely unreasonable to interpret that statement as derogatory.

I didn't even notice it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Another update:

[qimg]http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/292/img/photos/2012/04/12/6e/23/Zimmerman_profile.JPG[/qimg]
FBI seeks to charge George Zimmerman with hate crime

WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.


http://www.wftv.com/

If true, I'd suggest they are trying to push that barrow uphill and won't like it when the load comes back to hit them.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, thank you.

From the start, my point was that statements like this:


Are in contradiction to statements like this:


On one hand, the Sanford PD are above reproach. How dare anyone criticize their adequate and thorough investigation.

On the other hand, the case was unfairly taken way from them before they could finish the investigation.

You can't have it both ways. Either the case was thoroughly investigated or it wasn't. And thorough investigations - by definition - don't require further investigation.

And no one is saying the initial investigation has to be perfect. All I'm arguing for is the possibility that it wasn't perfect, and perhaps it was warranted to have another agency take it over.

For some reason, this seems to be a highly controversial position.

Once again, I did not say anything contradictory about the investigations.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What about leather holsters?

Fleshing that out: Zimmerman claimed Martin went for his gun. If that's true, then does this mean Zimmerman already had his gun out? If not, then the gun would have been in the holster and grabbing a holster should leave fingerprints. If there are none of the gun (and your source is correct) but also none on the holster, this would undercut Zimmerman's story.

If Zimmerman already had his gun out and THAT'S when Martin tried to grab it, then I don't think this helps George very much.

I think you have been watching too much CSI, leather is not a easy thing to get figerprints off of, especially if textured, and during a fight, any print would likely be created during motion, so smudged beyond recognition.

 

[LTC8K6]

The police report says the gun and holster were inside GZ's waistband. You can barely see the gun or holster with some inside the waistband rigs, even without a shirt on.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Maybe the fingerprint experts are going to do a surprise nose inspection on George Zimmerman's in the courtroom, to confirm the brilliant theory held by some here that he broke it himself. Maybe they suspect he held his nose between his thumb and forefinger and broke it by twisting it viciously and they are hoping to find a big thumbprint on the side of his nose. If the nose print does not fit, you must acquit.

 

[crimresearch]

What about leather holsters?

Fleshing that out: Zimmerman claimed Martin went for his gun. If that's true, then does this mean Zimmerman already had his gun out? If not, then the gun would have been in the holster and grabbing a holster should leave fingerprints. If there are none of the gun (and your source is correct) but also none on the holster, this would undercut Zimmerman's story.

If Zimmerman already had his gun out and THAT'S when Martin tried to grab it, then I don't think this helps George very much.

What?????

Grabbed the holster and left fingerprints? Inside Zimmerman's pants? Where in the world does this come from?