You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
You realize that higher-ups in the police department count as "police" too, right? And you realize that the DA's office does not perform the investigation of the crime - the police do? It's not as though the Sanford police department did an a by-the-book investigation and then got cockblocked by the prosecutor.
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
And, again, it's been stated time and time again by multiple sources that the Sanford PD did not perform any toxicology tests on Zimmerman, did not perform a criminal background check while he was in custody, delayed talking to witnesses and didn't bother to check Martin's cell-phone records for weeks. They refused to release 911 records until there was national attention on the case. Some witnesses stated that they were pressured to change their stories and told that their version of events was wrong.
Seriously? If you want to come across as credible and having points, shrieking like a goose doesn't help. Every time you go on about what a railroad job Zimmerman's getting, I don't think "man, he makes some good points", as I do with some other posts. I think "is he related to this guy or what"?
Thank you for this. I thought I was the only wondering why people seemingly forgot how botched the initial investigation was.
You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
You realize that higher-ups in the police department count as "police" too, right? And you realize that the DA's office does not perform the investigation of the crime - the police do? It's not as though the Sanford police department did an a by-the-book investigation and then got cockblocked by the prosecutor.
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
And, again, it's been stated time and time again by multiple sources that the Sanford PD did not perform any toxicology tests on Zimmerman, did not perform a criminal background check while he was in custody, delayed talking to witnesses and didn't bother to check Martin's cell-phone records for weeks. They refused to release 911 records until there was national attention on the case. Some witnesses stated that they were pressured to change their stories and told that their version of events was wrong.
Seriously? If you want to come across as credible and having points, shrieking like a goose doesn't help. Every time you go on about what a railroad job Zimmerman's getting, I don't think "man, he makes some good points", as I do with some other posts. I think "is he related to this guy or what"?
Thank you for this. I thought I was the only wondering why people seemingly forgot how botched the initial investigation was.
Hoo boy let's go over this then.
Toxicology: no probable cause. No arrest. No in house CSI. No toxicologists on staff to even do a proper collection. Police don't even regularly do toxicology for homicide.
Which leads in to: no arrest. When you claim self-defense you are not immediately arrested if you cooperate and willingly submit to be taken to the station for questioning. This is where, again, probable cause comes into play. Zimmerman was bleeding, wet and cooperated.
They probably ran a check on him from the cruiser initially. Let me point out that I know for a fact that this system won't draw up records that weren't actually properly prosecuted. Hence he can concealed carry. The restraining order would be the only thing that would come up, both sides of it. They would have to actually send in a request from the station for more detailed records. Which wouldn't come in til the next day at the earliest if they weren't local. (which us when they stated they found it about the dropped assault charge.)
Ya, the witness, cutcher. The one that's made a big noise, except she's on record as saying a black man was standing over another man when trayvon was already dead. Her credibility is questionable. Then you have the 13 year old, who supposedly said one thing then his mother denied it later once the case blew up. But they have a recording so we'll know once that evidence comes up. Then Cutchers room mate who only went out to look after the shooting. The rest is pretty much anonymous stories that don't match up with each other.
aaaand the phone. Is yours locked? mine is. I'm sure most people on these boards have a lock on theirs. Those locks don't exactly just open. On top of that, its illegal! You can't even pop the back off to check the esn without this little thing called a subpoena. Which, let me point out, isn't something that just blinks into existence from the ether after a commercial break. They sometimes take days or Weeks. Sucks when police work according to law, huh?
If you want I can link sources for this when I get home, its a bit of a pain from a phone.
You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
You realize that higher-ups in the police department count as "police" too, right? And you realize that the DA's office does not perform the investigation of the crime - the police do? It's not as though the Sanford police department did an a by-the-book investigation and then got cockblocked by the prosecutor.
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
And, again, it's been stated time and time again by multiple sources that the Sanford PD did not perform any toxicology tests on Zimmerman, did not perform a criminal background check while he was in custody, delayed talking to witnesses and didn't bother to check Martin's cell-phone records for weeks. They refused to release 911 records until there was national attention on the case. Some witnesses stated that they were pressured to change their stories and told that their version of events was wrong.
Seriously? If you want to come across as credible and having points, shrieking like a goose doesn't help. Every time you go on about what a railroad job Zimmerman's getting, I don't think "man, he makes some good points", as I do with some other posts. I think "is he related to this guy or what"?
Thank you for this. I thought I was the only wondering why people seemingly forgot how botched the initial investigation was.
Hoo boy let's go over this then.
Toxicology: no probable cause. No arrest. No in house CSI. No toxicologists on staff to even do a proper collection. Police don't even regularly do toxicology for homicide.
I'm going to stop you right there. No probable cause!? He shot and killed someone well away from his property, someone unarmed on top of that, and didn't even dispute that fact that he did. If that is not probable cause for a full on investigation into unlawful homicide, then we are living in crazyland.
And cops sure are capable of testing for substances that would cause mental impairment, what the hell do you think that they do when they have suspected drunk drivers?
I've been waiting this story out to see what happens in the trial, but to say that the PD did a tip top job investigating sure sounds completely out of whack from what information has come forward so far.
Edit: and before you say it, yes I consider whether Zimmerman was impaired by substances relevant, since quite a bit of what is at stake in his trial goes back to his state of mind and whether his fear of death or great harm was rational and whether he was telling the truth about how the altercation transpired or was just creating a story for himself after the fact.
I'm quite curious how you can say that Martin starting a verbal altercation is "unrealistic."
So, first you claim that Martin is on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground, and now we've backpedaled to him starting a verbal altercation.
And this is justification for shooting him too, I guess?
Yeah, regardless of whether it applies in this specific instance, far too many people are killed or maimed by unarmed attackers for me to buy that as a blanket statement.
Citation needed.
I agree with Yar's post.
I agree with pretty much all of his posts in this thread, really.
Can I get a citation for Florida/Sanford homicide investigation not including a toxicology report? All you need to do is have someone on staff that has taken a 1 day phlebotomy course and have a refrigerator that can store the blood sample at the proper temperature so that it can be tested next day.
And when someone admits to killing someone, you have probable cause to begin a homicide investigation.
Can I get a citation for Florida/Sanford homicide investigation not including a toxicology report?
Can you provide evidence that that molemen don't secretly control the U.S. congress?
Will you provide the shovel? I think a back hoe would make it go faster (if you could get me one of those giant tunnel digging machines that would be super awesome, but I cant promise Id use it solely for digging straight to Moletopia (not to be confused with Moltopia, where everyone is really good at determining the precise amounts of things), but its a tough economy.
But a news article stating that Sanford homicide investigations do not typically include a toxicology report would be fine, although a pdf of their SOP would be nice (and Im sure hard to find so totally not necessary).
I'm quite curious how you can say that Martin starting a verbal altercation is "unrealistic."
So, first you claim that Martin is on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground...
I do?
...and now we've backpedaled to him starting a verbal altercation.
Actually, I don't know what happened. But HamHamJ seems to know what didn't happen, and I was just curious how.
And this is justification for shooting him too, I guess?
If a verbal altercation started by Martin escalated to a physical confrontation (particularly if that physical confrontation was also started by Martin) then yes, yes it could be.
Do I need to include a disclaimer here that I am not claiming this to be what happened? Because you seem to be getting confused. So I will. I do not know what happened that night. As such, nothing I wrote in the block above is intended as a statement of fact as to what happened that night. No animals were harmed in the making of this post, either.
Yeah, regardless of whether it applies in this specific instance, far too many people are killed or maimed by unarmed attackers for me to buy that as a blanket statement.
Citation needed.
Um...are you actually arguing that death or permanent injury resulting from unarmed* attackers isn't a thing that happens? We can argue as to the frequency, particularly as a portion of total unarmed assaults...but clearly there do exist instances in which an unarmed attacker is intent on inflicting great bodily harm and/or death, and manages to do so without the aid of a weapon. In those situations, yes the victim could indeed be justified in using a weapon in self-defense. Well, unless you're a silly goose or an extreme pacifist, or both. Blanket statements are often pretty stupid, really. They're best avoided.
* - To include attackers who begin unarmed and then arm themselves with some nearby object that is not obviously a weapon (or use some non-weapon object they already had on their person).
I agree with Yar's post.
I agree with pretty much all of his posts in this thread, really.
If you want to posit that a toxicology report exists, you ned to provide evidence for it, not the other way around.
Im well aware of how that works, but I wasnt arguing that toxicology reports are standard operating procedure I was merely inquiring as to where he heard that they werent.
Regardless, a 5 second Google search turns up this via Mother Jones:
ABC News reports that he had wanted to be a police officer, and Sanford police didn't test him for drugs or alcohol after the shooting (such tests are standard practice in homicide investigations)
EDIT: Seriously though, about that tunnel digging equipment, Id really like to get my less-sexy-than The Core on.
Yes, that is what I wanted the citation for, given that you claimed a large number of people every year are killed/maimed by unarmed attackers.
I don't think so (not in the United States, anyway).
Well, before I could even be bothered to try to compile that data for you, we'd obviously need to settle on a standard as to how many killings/maimings need to occur absent weapons for there to ever be a justified use of a firearm against an unarmed attacker.
I can tell you pretty quickly (using Table 8 of the FBI's Unified Crime Report) that about 6% of homicides in the U.S. in 2010 were committed with hands, fists, feet, etc. That's not including strangulation and asphyxiation (another 2%, presumably many unarmed). That's also not including whatever portion of those involving blunt objects (another 5% or so) involved some nearby or carried object, which is to say an attacker that was unarmed then, you know, picked something up.
But yeah, unarmed homicide is hardly some freak occurance.
And that's just homicide. Finding numbers on permanent injury would be quite a bit more difficult, and I doubt we'd agree on a standard anyway so I'm not bothering.
Oh yeah, those hand-to-hand murders are so very prolific. Especially in comparison in firearm murders.
At least 5-6% on average.
See, that's what I'm getting at. Your response seems to be "bah, only like 6% of murders are committed by unarmed attackers."
Whereas I see that as at least 6% of homicides are committed by unarmed attackers, and thus unarmed attackers can quite obviously be dangerous. We're looking at the same numbers, but you obviously don't think it's an issue. Yes, I get it, more murders happen with firearms. Duh. That's not what we're arguing here...we're arguing whether it's every justified to use a firearm against somebody who is unarmed.
Not speaking to a specific case, let alone the Zimmerman case, but clearly a firearm can be justified against unarmed attackers in at least some cases.
EDIT: Roughly a thousand bodies in 2010 to prove it, even.
No it isn't. In the case of an exam, getting 6% of the answers correct and trying to emphasize that 6% while ignoring the 94% that you got wrong is disingenuous, just like emphasizing the 6% of this population sample while ignoring / marginalizing the rest.
It is much, much easier to kill someone with a weapon than kill someone with your bare hands, and people have a much greater tendency to do the former than the latter.
No it isn't. In the case of an exam, getting 6% of the answers correct and trying to emphasize that 6% while ignoring the 94% that you got wrong is disingenuous, just like emphasizing the 6% of this population sample while ignoring / marginalizing the rest.
It is much, much easier to kill someone with a weapon than kill someone with your bare hands, and people have a much greater tendency to do the former than the latter.
Nobody's ignoring or marginalizing the 94%.
I'm certainly not; have I at any point stated that using a firearm to defend yourself against an armed attacker is unjustified, or more to the point (getting back to the context of this line of discussion) can never ever ever be justified?
How about this: how many of those thousand or so people killed in 2010 would you consider to have had adequate justification to use a firearm in self-defense?
Do you think this number would at least be non-zero?
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2012
You are equating the 6% who manage to end a life without the assistance of implements to scoring 6% on a test and you don't see a problem with that?
You can't get any more apples/oranges.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It is much, much easier to kill someone with a weapon than kill someone with your bare hands, and people have a much greater tendency to do the former than the latter.
Also, "What are 'things nobody here is arguing?' Alex!"
I'm certainly not; have I at any point stated that using a firearm to defend yourself against an armed attacker is unjustified, or more to the point (getting back to the context of this line of discussion) can never ever ever be justified?
No you didn't. But you did suggest that a very large number of people are killed/maimed by unarmed attackers each year, and then tried to dance around the matter when I asked for a citation, and then insisted that 6-13% is SO HUGE.
I'm certainly not; have I at any point stated that using a firearm to defend yourself against an armed attacker is unjustified, or more to the point (getting back to the context of this line of discussion) can never ever ever be justified?
No you didn't. But you did suggest that a very large number of people are killed/maimed by unarmed attackers each year, and then tried to dance around the matter when I asked for a citation, and then insisted that 6-13% is SO HUGE.
It's not huge. It is, in fact, very small.
"Very" small?
So are we arguing that seven or so times "very small" is somehow excessively large? Because I'm assuming you consider firearm homicides to be an issue.
And at no point did I try to dance around the matter. I went straight ahead and cited the same numbers you found. We were, like, typing our posts at the same darn time.
And I don't recall claiming that a very large number of people were killed or maimed by unarmed attackers yearly. I merely said that "far too many are killed or maimed for me to accept that a firearm can never ever ever ever no not even once no not even that time be justified to defend against an unarmed attacker."
These are different things. Like, if one dude ever had been killed via fisticuffs, I'd agree...there can't really be any justification for bringing a gun into play. But a thousand people in a year? And that's just deaths, ignoring those maimed or otherwise severely and/or permanently injured.
Though if you consider the number of homicides in the United States to be unacceptably large (though maybe you don't?), I still don't see how about 10% of that unacceptably large number is suddenly small enough to be ignored.
How about this: how many of those thousand or so people killed in 2010 would you consider to have had adequate justification to use a firearm in self-defense?
Do you think this number would at least be non-zero?
All of them (I don't personally carry a firearm around, I think that personal firearms should be extremely restricted and I think it is stupid to consider a well-armed public conducive to an objective of low violence. But if you shoot someone who was going to kill you, I don't really care what their means were going to be: you have a right to protect yourself, even if I disagree with you being armed in the first place).
How about this: how many of those thousand or so people killed in 2010 would you consider to have had adequate justification to use a firearm in self-defense?
Do you think this number would at least be non-zero?
All of them (I don't personally carry a firearm around, I think that personal firearms should be extremely restricted and I think it is stupid to consider a well-armed public conducive to an objective of low violence. But if you shoot someone who was going to kill you, I don't really care what their means were going to be: you have a right to protect yourself, even if I disagree with you being armed in the first place).
Okay, but if the only way you can know if an unarmed attacker is going to kill you is to be dead..........
Basically what I'm getting is that everybody ever killed by an unarmed attacker would have been justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.
But, like, nobody who lived would have been.
That makes sense. EDIT: This was sarcasm, BTW.
Unless you want to agree with me that the previous statement, the one which started this line of discussion, that a gun can never be used in self defense against an unarmed person was silly goosery of the highest order.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Okay, but if the only way you can know if an unarmed attacker is going to kill you is to be dead..........
No, but we can make pretty accurate judgements on the matter most of the time (I mean, technically, a 12 year old could attack and kill me with, say, a rear naked choke in about 10~ seconds given appropriate circumstances - but it's probably not reasonable to blow away every 12 year old who tries to pick a fight, or accept the word at face value of a man who shot a 12 year old and claims the child was trying to choke him to death).
If Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and giving him the thrashing he so badly wants people to believe he got, that would be grounds for opening fire. Of course, I don't believe him, so it's a moot point.
Unless you want to agree with me that the previous statement, the one which started this line of discussion, that a gun can never be used in self defense against an unarmed person was silly goosery of the highest order.
Yes, a gun can be used in self defense against an unarmed attacker, assuming the attacker poses a legitimate threat (as in during the actual confrontation, not whether or not outside observers can argue a plausible case after the fact).
With Love and Courage
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Are we finished comparing the color of my shirt to the air displacement of my car in here?
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Are we finished comparing the color of my shirt to the air displacement of my car in here?
Whatever. I'm tired of anti-science crap today. Assholes on the news presenting 'the other side' on issues that are not contentious among experts, people fucking around with the burden of proof in order to try and get people to prove a negative, people ignoring or marginalizing or misrepresenting data or, as in this thread, people like @mcdermott & @so it goes insisting that science does not belong in the courtroom, that the truth is not as important as a defendant's rights, that it doesn't matter how deductive logic is used to get real, applicable results - there needs to be special rules in the legal arena.
I guess we may as well just start sewing fucking Voo Doo dolls and consulting Astrological charts to figure things out, since apparently science is just so damn shitty.
...that the truth is not as important as a defendant's rights...
I'll just highlight this bit because I want to go ahead and say that yes, this is absolutely my position. Hence, you know, rights.
I mean, "knowing" The truth is obviously a good thing and all. But in a courtroom? Yes, the rights of the accused trump the truth. Because no individual case, or individual victim, is worth sacrificing our individual rights over.
That's, like, an "in general" thing. I'm not sure in what specific context it came up regarding this case.
I guess we may as well just start sewing fucking Voo Doo dolls and consulting Astrological charts to figure things out, since apparently science is just so damn shitty.
Can I get a citation for Florida/Sanford homicide investigation not including a toxicology report?
Can you provide evidence that that molemen don't secretly control the U.S. congress?
Will you provide the shovel? I think a back hoe would make it go faster (if you could get me one of those giant tunnel digging machines that would be super awesome, but I cant promise Id use it solely for digging straight to Moletopia (not to be confused with Moltopia, where everyone is really good at determining the precise amounts of things), but its a tough economy.
But a news article stating that Sanford homicide investigations do not typically include a toxicology report would be fine, although a pdf of their SOP would be nice (and Im sure hard to find so totally not necessary).
Morgenstern dismissed lawyers’ criticism that a drug test was conducted on Trayvon’s body but not on Zimmerman, saying toxicology tests are routine for a medical examiner conducting an autopsy, but uncommon for detectives conducting a homicide investigation.
In fact, find me any Procedural manual that claims toxicology is used in any cases but DUI, postmortem or in cases where there is sufficient belief that the suspect is intoxicated/on drugs.
Because I just spent an hour looking for any cases at all, homicide or otherwise, wherein the suspect was given a toxicology exam. I can't find a single one. Now, the dead people? All the time. DUI? Right as rain. Drug busts? Yep. Work fraud? You betcha.
Which are amusing notices from toxicology labs (CSC being sex crimes, by the way.) Again, no listing for any homicides.
Same with the actual Toxicology kits they give out to stations without CSI. They have SAFE kits and DUI kits and postmorten kits. Never any mention of 'Violent crimes' kits or anything else. (Which, if they send different kits for SAFE and DUI, and they have almost the exact same contents, one would think they would send a separate kit for non-dui, non-kit testing, non?)
So, ya, maybe someone with better google-fu then me can find someplace wherein toxicology is actually stated as even a function of homicide investigation, because I sure can't find it. Ballistics? Psych? Sure. Tox? Nope.
Can I get a citation for Florida/Sanford homicide investigation not including a toxicology report?
Can you provide evidence that that molemen don't secretly control the U.S. congress?
Will you provide the shovel? I think a back hoe would make it go faster (if you could get me one of those giant tunnel digging machines that would be super awesome, but I cant promise Id use it solely for digging straight to Moletopia (not to be confused with Moltopia, where everyone is really good at determining the precise amounts of things), but its a tough economy.
But a news article stating that Sanford homicide investigations do not typically include a toxicology report would be fine, although a pdf of their SOP would be nice (and Im sure hard to find so totally not necessary).
Morgenstern dismissed lawyers’ criticism that a drug test was conducted on Trayvon’s body but not on Zimmerman, saying toxicology tests are routine for a medical examiner conducting an autopsy, but uncommon for detectives conducting a homicide investigation.
In fact, find me any Procedural manual that claims toxicology is used in any cases but DUI, postmortem or in cases where there is sufficient belief that the suspect is intoxicated/on drugs.
Because I just spent an hour looking for any cases at all, homicide or otherwise, wherein the suspect was given a toxicology exam. I can't find a single one. Now, the dead people? All the time. DUI? Right as rain. Drug busts? Yep. Work fraud? You betcha.
Which are amusing notices from toxicology labs (CSC being sex crimes, by the way.) Again, no listing for any homicides.
Same with the actual Toxicology kits they give out to stations without CSI. They have SAFE kits and DUI kits and postmorten kits. Never any mention of 'Violent crimes' kits or anything else. (Which, if they send different kits for SAFE and DUI, and they have almost the exact same contents, one would think they would send a separate kit for non-dui, non-kit testing, non?)
So, ya, maybe someone with better google-fu then me can find someplace wherein toxicology is actually stated as even a function of homicide investigation, because I sure can't find it. Ballistics? Psych? Sure. Tox? Nope.
Weird, I can totally see why tox tests arent a part of normal procedures when youre dealing with most homicides since in most homicides the shooter isnt going to be on scene turning him/herself in, but youd think in a situation where the killer is present they would conduct those tests since it would go to the shooter's state of mind/reasonableness test at trial.
Guess its time to update SOP.
Although, Im curious as to who these lawyers are that Morgenstern is referring to and why they seem to think its odd that Zimmerman wasnt tested.
You're missing the point, 6% means it is not a non-zero number, you have a chance to die if someone attacks you with just their hands. That is what he is saying.
If it were 0%, and no one ever died to hand-to-hand combat, then yes, you would be correct in saying "it is never okay to use a gun in a fist fight, there is no way this could be in self defense."
If I was properly motivated and pissed off enough I could murderdeathkill someone with my hands, it's surprisingly easy assuming you don't go for the whole "hur hur imma snap your neck" routine. Like bashing someone's head against the ground, or asphalt (allegedly).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
Thank you for this. I thought I was the only wondering why people seemingly forgot how botched the initial investigation was.
Hoo boy let's go over this then.
Toxicology: no probable cause. No arrest. No in house CSI. No toxicologists on staff to even do a proper collection. Police don't even regularly do toxicology for homicide.
Which leads in to: no arrest. When you claim self-defense you are not immediately arrested if you cooperate and willingly submit to be taken to the station for questioning. This is where, again, probable cause comes into play. Zimmerman was bleeding, wet and cooperated.
They probably ran a check on him from the cruiser initially. Let me point out that I know for a fact that this system won't draw up records that weren't actually properly prosecuted. Hence he can concealed carry. The restraining order would be the only thing that would come up, both sides of it. They would have to actually send in a request from the station for more detailed records. Which wouldn't come in til the next day at the earliest if they weren't local. (which us when they stated they found it about the dropped assault charge.)
Ya, the witness, cutcher. The one that's made a big noise, except she's on record as saying a black man was standing over another man when trayvon was already dead. Her credibility is questionable. Then you have the 13 year old, who supposedly said one thing then his mother denied it later once the case blew up. But they have a recording so we'll know once that evidence comes up. Then Cutchers room mate who only went out to look after the shooting. The rest is pretty much anonymous stories that don't match up with each other.
aaaand the phone. Is yours locked? mine is. I'm sure most people on these boards have a lock on theirs. Those locks don't exactly just open. On top of that, its illegal! You can't even pop the back off to check the esn without this little thing called a subpoena. Which, let me point out, isn't something that just blinks into existence from the ether after a commercial break. They sometimes take days or Weeks. Sucks when police work according to law, huh?
If you want I can link sources for this when I get home, its a bit of a pain from a phone.
http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/a-different-look-at-the-trayvon-martin-case/
Is a fun read though, from the pov of an ex cop. Nothing much important but interesting.
I'm going to stop you right there. No probable cause!? He shot and killed someone well away from his property, someone unarmed on top of that, and didn't even dispute that fact that he did. If that is not probable cause for a full on investigation into unlawful homicide, then we are living in crazyland.
And cops sure are capable of testing for substances that would cause mental impairment, what the hell do you think that they do when they have suspected drunk drivers?
I've been waiting this story out to see what happens in the trial, but to say that the PD did a tip top job investigating sure sounds completely out of whack from what information has come forward so far.
Edit: and before you say it, yes I consider whether Zimmerman was impaired by substances relevant, since quite a bit of what is at stake in his trial goes back to his state of mind and whether his fear of death or great harm was rational and whether he was telling the truth about how the altercation transpired or was just creating a story for himself after the fact.
So, first you claim that Martin is on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground, and now we've backpedaled to him starting a verbal altercation.
And this is justification for shooting him too, I guess?
Citation needed.
Yup, and there it is.
And when someone admits to killing someone, you have probable cause to begin a homicide investigation.
Can you provide evidence that that molemen don't secretly control the U.S. congress?
Will you provide the shovel? I think a back hoe would make it go faster (if you could get me one of those giant tunnel digging machines that would be super awesome, but I cant promise Id use it solely for digging straight to Moletopia (not to be confused with Moltopia, where everyone is really good at determining the precise amounts of things), but its a tough economy.
But a news article stating that Sanford homicide investigations do not typically include a toxicology report would be fine, although a pdf of their SOP would be nice (and Im sure hard to find so totally not necessary).
I do?
Actually, I don't know what happened. But HamHamJ seems to know what didn't happen, and I was just curious how.
If a verbal altercation started by Martin escalated to a physical confrontation (particularly if that physical confrontation was also started by Martin) then yes, yes it could be.
Do I need to include a disclaimer here that I am not claiming this to be what happened? Because you seem to be getting confused. So I will. I do not know what happened that night. As such, nothing I wrote in the block above is intended as a statement of fact as to what happened that night. No animals were harmed in the making of this post, either.
Um...are you actually arguing that death or permanent injury resulting from unarmed* attackers isn't a thing that happens? We can argue as to the frequency, particularly as a portion of total unarmed assaults...but clearly there do exist instances in which an unarmed attacker is intent on inflicting great bodily harm and/or death, and manages to do so without the aid of a weapon. In those situations, yes the victim could indeed be justified in using a weapon in self-defense. Well, unless you're a silly goose or an extreme pacifist, or both. Blanket statements are often pretty stupid, really. They're best avoided.
* - To include attackers who begin unarmed and then arm themselves with some nearby object that is not obviously a weapon (or use some non-weapon object they already had on their person).
Um...yeah?
Im well aware of how that works, but I wasnt arguing that toxicology reports are standard operating procedure I was merely inquiring as to where he heard that they werent.
Regardless, a 5 second Google search turns up this via Mother Jones:
EDIT: Seriously though, about that tunnel digging equipment, Id really like to get my less-sexy-than The Core on.
Yes, that is what I wanted the citation for, given that you claimed a large number of people every year are killed/maimed by unarmed attackers.
I don't think so (not in the United States, anyway).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
Oh yeah, those hand-to-hand murders are so very prolific. Especially in comparison in firearm murders.
At least 5-6% on average.
Well, before I could even be bothered to try to compile that data for you, we'd obviously need to settle on a standard as to how many killings/maimings need to occur absent weapons for there to ever be a justified use of a firearm against an unarmed attacker.
I can tell you pretty quickly (using Table 8 of the FBI's Unified Crime Report) that about 6% of homicides in the U.S. in 2010 were committed with hands, fists, feet, etc. That's not including strangulation and asphyxiation (another 2%, presumably many unarmed). That's also not including whatever portion of those involving blunt objects (another 5% or so) involved some nearby or carried object, which is to say an attacker that was unarmed then, you know, picked something up.
But yeah, unarmed homicide is hardly some freak occurance.
And that's just homicide. Finding numbers on permanent injury would be quite a bit more difficult, and I doubt we'd agree on a standard anyway so I'm not bothering.
Why is Florida the only state missing from that list?
Also, despite having all those guns Texas' numbers are surprisingly similar to California's despite having only 68% of California's population.
See, that's what I'm getting at. Your response seems to be "bah, only like 6% of murders are committed by unarmed attackers."
Whereas I see that as at least 6% of homicides are committed by unarmed attackers, and thus unarmed attackers can quite obviously be dangerous. We're looking at the same numbers, but you obviously don't think it's an issue. Yes, I get it, more murders happen with firearms. Duh. That's not what we're arguing here...we're arguing whether it's every justified to use a firearm against somebody who is unarmed.
Not speaking to a specific case, let alone the Zimmerman case, but clearly a firearm can be justified against unarmed attackers in at least some cases.
EDIT: Roughly a thousand bodies in 2010 to prove it, even.
Or, in other words, 87% of all homicides in the U.S. involved a weapon being deployed, and the majority of those weapons were firearms.
So if you score 6% on an exam, that is a mind-blowingly good score to you?
EDIT: It doesn't mean that we just have different perspectives, by the way. It means that you've lost all sense of perspective.
Yeah, that's not how it works.
Edit: I.E. critically flawed analogy.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It is much, much easier to kill someone with a weapon than kill someone with your bare hands, and people have a much greater tendency to do the former than the latter.
Nobody's ignoring or marginalizing the 94%.
I'm certainly not; have I at any point stated that using a firearm to defend yourself against an armed attacker is unjustified, or more to the point (getting back to the context of this line of discussion) can never ever ever be justified?
Do you think this number would at least be non-zero?
You can't get any more apples/oranges.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Also, "What are 'things nobody here is arguing?' Alex!"
No you didn't. But you did suggest that a very large number of people are killed/maimed by unarmed attackers each year, and then tried to dance around the matter when I asked for a citation, and then insisted that 6-13% is SO HUGE.
It's not huge. It is, in fact, very small.
"Very" small?
So are we arguing that seven or so times "very small" is somehow excessively large? Because I'm assuming you consider firearm homicides to be an issue.
And at no point did I try to dance around the matter. I went straight ahead and cited the same numbers you found. We were, like, typing our posts at the same darn time.
And I don't recall claiming that a very large number of people were killed or maimed by unarmed attackers yearly. I merely said that "far too many are killed or maimed for me to accept that a firearm can never ever ever ever no not even once no not even that time be justified to defend against an unarmed attacker."
These are different things. Like, if one dude ever had been killed via fisticuffs, I'd agree...there can't really be any justification for bringing a gun into play. But a thousand people in a year? And that's just deaths, ignoring those maimed or otherwise severely and/or permanently injured.
Though if you consider the number of homicides in the United States to be unacceptably large (though maybe you don't?), I still don't see how about 10% of that unacceptably large number is suddenly small enough to be ignored.
All of them (I don't personally carry a firearm around, I think that personal firearms should be extremely restricted and I think it is stupid to consider a well-armed public conducive to an objective of low violence. But if you shoot someone who was going to kill you, I don't really care what their means were going to be: you have a right to protect yourself, even if I disagree with you being armed in the first place).
Okay, but if the only way you can know if an unarmed attacker is going to kill you is to be dead..........
But, like, nobody who lived would have been.
That makes sense. EDIT: This was sarcasm, BTW.
Unless you want to agree with me that the previous statement, the one which started this line of discussion, that a gun can never be used in self defense against an unarmed person was silly goosery of the highest order.
Agree or disagree?
EDIT: Though I'm less willing than you to say what didn't happen.
No, but we can make pretty accurate judgements on the matter most of the time (I mean, technically, a 12 year old could attack and kill me with, say, a rear naked choke in about 10~ seconds given appropriate circumstances - but it's probably not reasonable to blow away every 12 year old who tries to pick a fight, or accept the word at face value of a man who shot a 12 year old and claims the child was trying to choke him to death).
If Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and giving him the thrashing he so badly wants people to believe he got, that would be grounds for opening fire. Of course, I don't believe him, so it's a moot point.
Yes, a gun can be used in self defense against an unarmed attacker, assuming the attacker poses a legitimate threat (as in during the actual confrontation, not whether or not outside observers can argue a plausible case after the fact).
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Whatever. I'm tired of anti-science crap today. Assholes on the news presenting 'the other side' on issues that are not contentious among experts, people fucking around with the burden of proof in order to try and get people to prove a negative, people ignoring or marginalizing or misrepresenting data or, as in this thread, people like @mcdermott & @so it goes insisting that science does not belong in the courtroom, that the truth is not as important as a defendant's rights, that it doesn't matter how deductive logic is used to get real, applicable results - there needs to be special rules in the legal arena.
I guess we may as well just start sewing fucking Voo Doo dolls and consulting Astrological charts to figure things out, since apparently science is just so damn shitty.
I'll just highlight this bit because I want to go ahead and say that yes, this is absolutely my position. Hence, you know, rights.
I mean, "knowing" The truth is obviously a good thing and all. But in a courtroom? Yes, the rights of the accused trump the truth. Because no individual case, or individual victim, is worth sacrificing our individual rights over.
That's, like, an "in general" thing. I'm not sure in what specific context it came up regarding this case.
Also, hyperbole FTW.
How about straight from the horses mouth?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876_p3/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html
In fact, find me any Procedural manual that claims toxicology is used in any cases but DUI, postmortem or in cases where there is sufficient belief that the suspect is intoxicated/on drugs.
Because I just spent an hour looking for any cases at all, homicide or otherwise, wherein the suspect was given a toxicology exam. I can't find a single one. Now, the dead people? All the time. DUI? Right as rain. Drug busts? Yep. Work fraud? You betcha.
Now there is things like this:
http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/iLAB/Important Toxicology Information.pdf
Which are amusing notices from toxicology labs (CSC being sex crimes, by the way.) Again, no listing for any homicides.
Same with the actual Toxicology kits they give out to stations without CSI. They have SAFE kits and DUI kits and postmorten kits. Never any mention of 'Violent crimes' kits or anything else. (Which, if they send different kits for SAFE and DUI, and they have almost the exact same contents, one would think they would send a separate kit for non-dui, non-kit testing, non?)
So, ya, maybe someone with better google-fu then me can find someplace wherein toxicology is actually stated as even a function of homicide investigation, because I sure can't find it. Ballistics? Psych? Sure. Tox? Nope.
Weird, I can totally see why tox tests arent a part of normal procedures when youre dealing with most homicides since in most homicides the shooter isnt going to be on scene turning him/herself in, but youd think in a situation where the killer is present they would conduct those tests since it would go to the shooter's state of mind/reasonableness test at trial.
Guess its time to update SOP.
Although, Im curious as to who these lawyers are that Morgenstern is referring to and why they seem to think its odd that Zimmerman wasnt tested.
If it were 0%, and no one ever died to hand-to-hand combat, then yes, you would be correct in saying "it is never okay to use a gun in a fist fight, there is no way this could be in self defense."
If I was properly motivated and pissed off enough I could murderdeathkill someone with my hands, it's surprisingly easy assuming you don't go for the whole "hur hur imma snap your neck" routine. Like bashing someone's head against the ground, or asphalt (allegedly).