The evidence continues to roll in on the Zimmerman case. While the new evidence is not entirely bad for the prosecution, it does contain some evidence that will likely bolster the defense of George Zimmerman in the second degree murder trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the ultimate impact, the evidence again shows (in my opinion) that prosecutor Angela Corey over-charged the case in Florida.
Some of the new evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) in his blood stream and urine. Martin was suspended from school due to a marijuana offense (though it involved an empty marijuana baggie). Another benefit to the defense is that Martin father is shown denying that the voice calling out for help was his son — though he later changed that view when he says he was given a better recording. Other witnesses have indicated that it Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Generally, the existence of drugs in the system of a victim or defendant is admissible. The suspension would appear inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules.
There is also evidence that some neighbors described Zimmerman as a bully and a racist. That would help bolster the reported hate crimes prosecution being considered by the Obama Administration, though I still have reservations based on the evidence as it currently stands. Also the police viewed the shooting as “avoidable” — if Zimmerman had left the matter to the police.
I am not sure how much of the neighbor’s view of Zimmerman as a bully or racist could come into evidence. Such accounts, however, can have the benefit of further discouraging Zimmerman from taking the stand as a witness — always a benefit to the prosecution because (while they are told that a defendant has a right not to testify (jurors expect to hear from defendants).
On the whole, however, I would view the evidence as more positive to the defense. First, I have previously said that I was most interested in the distance of the shot and forensics. It now appears that Martin was shot from an intermediate range (no more than 18 inches and as little as an inch away). That would support the claim of Zimmerman that they were in a wrestling fight when the gun was fired. The greater the distance the stronger the case for the prosecution. The defense will likely present expert testimony to try to reduce the range further on the stand. Also, the report does have people at the scene saying that Zimmerman’s nose appeared broken — supporting the later medical report of the family doctor (though such injuries could occur from Martin defending himself).
Moreover, at least two witnesses appear to support Zimmerman in describing the man in the hoodie at straddling the other man and throwing punches. The report state that the man in the “‘hoodie’ [was] on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.’ He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.” One report also says that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.
While the reports blame Zimmerman for getting out of his vehicle (he says that he was trying to get a house number for the police), that is not itself a crime. Of course, none of this means that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Given the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, this evidence presents an added problem for the prosecution in my view. I have expressed skepticism over the way the case has developed and how it has been charged from the outset. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view this as a strong defense case even on the manslaughter charge, particularly given the poor police work at the scene.
What do you think?
Here is the police report.
Source: ABC and NY Daily News
shano,
Notice that Manny is the one comparing Trayvon Martin to a ferocious wild animal. Sickening is right!
Maybe all wing nuts understand is the Law of the Jungle.
This may be the hurdle of misunderstanding.
Manny O: George, is that you? Did your lawyer give you permission to post?
btw, to use a jungle analogy when discussing a race issue hits a sour note every time. Sickening.
Bigfatmike,
“There seems to be a pattern on this blog where people answer questions with questions. That said, once again I will extend the courtesy of answering your question though you chose to avoid mine. I could respond with Who said Martin gave up his right to self-defense? But that wouldn’t make any sense as Martin clearly did not successfully exercise his right.”
*****
Shame on you for answering David Larry’s question with a question! Didn’t you know that I had already been reprimanded for doing the same thing? Get with the program, will ya?
Ok Top Shot – Peace! 🙂
To be clear, my thoughts on this are:
– Zimmerman is an incompetent Walter Mitty personality – with issues.
– He was extremely foolish and reckless
– That reckless behaviour resulted in a death.
– That should mean manslaughter at least.
– Given that he should have been aware of NW rules that explicitly forbade his actions, that makes it more serious than just manslaughter.
– I don’t see this as a racially motivated killing. Zimmerman was just doing his incompetent fantasy Walter Mitty thing based on a his own profile of housebreakers/punks. That the profile included ‘black’ was incidental.
My problem with gun laws is that they allow incompetent fantasists like Zimmerman not alone to own a gun but also to carry the gun around.
My problem with laws like SYG is that they are a licence for unjustified killing.
Something i have noticed with the Martin defenders/Zimmerman accusers is they essentially treat Martin as if he was a dangerous wild animal that is sub-human and a slave to animal instincts, without really thinking through what they are implying about Martin
So if a tourist approaches a lion or tiger trying to pet it (or whatever) in a jungle or savannah in the wild and the wild animal tears them to shreds, noone is going to blame the wild animal. They say, oh too bad that person wasn’t smart enough to avoid the wild animal.The wild animal is just being an animal and doing what everyone expect it to do.
In this case they pull out this “state of Martin’s mind” as a pass for Martin to attack with violence as if he was a wild lion/tiger that can’t resist violent impulses or instincts.
You may think you are helping vindicate Martin, but I would suggest you are essentially dehumanizing Martin into nothing more than a wild animal
Give the kid some credit, Zimmerman or anyone else should not have to treat Martin as if he was a cougar, leopard, or bear and “give him a wide berth”. He is a human for crying out loud
Bigfatmike,
“When did Martin give up his right to self-defense?”
There seems to be a pattern on this blog where people answer questions with questions. That said, once again I will extend the courtesy of answering your question though you chose to avoid mine. I could respond with Who said Martin gave up his right to self-defense? But that wouldn’t make any sense as Martin clearly did not successfully exercise his right.
“I think those two questions get at the problem some of us have with stand your ground laws.”
I think you’re trying to debate the value of stand your ground laws. Do you live in a state that has such laws on the books? I do. The majority of states have them. If you don’t like them, complain to your representative or move to a state that doesn’t have them.
The right of self-defense goes back to antiquity. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to defend yourself with the minimal force necessary to avoid serious physical harm of death.
Is there any evidence that Zimmerman, prior to shooting Martin, applied any physical force on Martin? Any? The answer is NO. Is there evidence of Martin using physical force on Zimmerman? The answer is YES. –Once you understand that, then, and only then will you understand that Zimmerman could justify the use of force against Martin. (Unless you’re among those who think Zimmerman should have just laid there as took whatever beating Martin wanted to hand out…all because Martin might have been scared, spooked, or whatever you want to call it. –Fact is, you don’t get a license to beat the fuck out of someone because you found them to be scary.)
“I recognize that Zimmerman may have no legal guilt due to Florida’s SYG laws.”
Regardless of Florida’s SYG laws, Zimmerman had a right to defend himself from an attacker. I have asked if some here think he somehow gave up that right, and what actions he took that would have caused him to lose that right, but all I get are questions. That’s probably because these people reading this blog aren’t stupid. To the contrary, they’re smart enough to avoid stepping in their own doo doo. Zimmerman did not perform any action (that we know of) which caused him to become the legally helpless victim of Martin.
“But this tragedy simply did not have to happen. It would not have happened if Zimmerman had remained in his SUV. It is likely that it would not have happened if Zimmerman had only followed from a distance.”
At least you’re willing to let Zimmerman get out of his car to see where the suspicious person was going. (Most here would have us all believe that Zimmerman broke the law by exiting his vehicle to see where the suspicious person was going.)
The reason the dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn’t need him to follow the suspicious person was for Zimmerman’s own safety. Not because he would give up his right to defend himself. —Since you’re willing to let Zimmerman follow Martin at a distance; How far would that distance be? Did Zimmerman follow at a distance closer than that?
“It might not have happened if Zimmerman had introduced himself as neighborhood watch and indicated police were on the way instead of challenging with the question ‘what are you doing here’?”
According to Zimmerman, he didn’t get that chance. He said Martin approached him from behind and after asking “You got a fuckin’ problem?” Punched Zimmerman in the nose. –Though Martin’s girlfriend is providing conflicting testimony, she has just as much of a reason to make sweet little Trayvon look good (especially after Ben Crump coached her). –So, let’s just leave it at, we don’t know if Zimmerman was afforded the opportunity to properly identify himself.
“The fact is that our tragic history of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, racism, and lynching give any African American male a reasonable basis to question and fear the approach of and confrontation with a white male.”
Racism, racism, blah, blah, blah. We don’t have any evidence of race being a factor here.
“Martin had far more to fear from the approach of an unknown Zimmerman than Zimmerman had to fear from Martin.”
And what would that be? What would Martin have to fear from Zimmerman that Zimmerman wouldn’t have to fear from Martin? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was carrying a concealed weapon? Not to our knowledge!
“Martin had a solid reason to alert. In the press of circumstance he may have made a bad decision. Perhaps Zimmerman initiated physical violence. We may never know exactly how it started. A reasonable law might very well have prevented their confrontation from becoming an unnecessary tragedy.”
Blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but you stated nothing there except that you didn’t like the outcome. Guess what? Neither do I. I’m not happy that Martin is dead, and I’m not happy that Zimmerman was beaten up. –If Martin would have just walked home instead of meandering about, Zimmerman probably would not have found him to be suspicious. Why isn’t that included in the “ifs and buts” ways to prevent this tragedy?
“This law is, in effect, the personal equivalent of a national policy to ‘launch on warning’ during the age of nuclear confrontation. This law leads individuals to irrationally escalate hostilities rather than back away when the opportunity exists. This law needs to change.”
More blah, blah, blah. Again, sorry. You might be giving it your best effort, but if you don’t like a law why don’t you try citing the portion of the law that you have a problem with instead of just whining about it. If you did, you might end up with a better understanding of the law itself, and a better understanding of the intent of the SYG law. (which is to prevent the family of a bad guy from suing the person who used deadly force to defend their life. –I do have a problem with using deadly force to defend a piece of property.)
@David Larry
” you chose to avoid mine.”
I just want to take a moment to thank you for reading my comment and giving such attention to your response. In answer to your question I do not believe nor do I have any indication that Zimmerman gave up his right to self defense. I did not answer the question because I thought it was rhetorical. I also consider the question of whether Zimmerman gave up his right to self defense irrelevant to the main issues of this case.
I suppose you must be making an argument along the lines of Zimmerman had a right to self defense, Zimmerman never gave up his right to self defense, therefore his actions are justified. Sorry if I have put words in your mouth. I hope you will correct my guesses if they are far off the mark.
I believe the important question is: did Zimmerman defend himself in accordance with legal standards of Stand Your Ground.
In addition I think there are other interesting questions beyond the basic question of whether Zimmerman acted in accordance of SYG. I also would like to consider if the situation would have been different if Zimmerman had been compelled to act in accordance with a more tradition view of self defense that I will refer to as ‘Back Against the Wall’. And I believe many readers of this blog would like to consider and discuss if Zimmerman’s actions were reasonable regardless of whether they were legal. I believe and make the assumption that there are times when actions that are perfectly are also unreasonable or irrational.
I am sure there are many on this blog who can explain BAW much better that I. But briefly BAW requires that if it is possible to retreat without incurring great risk of death of injury then the defender must retreat till he can retreat no further; his back is against the wall. Only then may the defender use lethal force. As Massad Ayoob has pointed out, if the act of retreat incurs significant risk of death or injury then it is not necessary to retreat. Ayoob claims in that case SYG and BAW collapse to essentially the same conditions and requirements. Briefly, if the defender cannot retreat safely then it makes no difference if SYG or BAW is the law. If I have misstated the essence of BAW or Ayoob’s expressed view then I would appreciate any clarification. So, in accordance with Ayoob, when we talk about the differences between SYG and BAW we are talking specifically about situations where the defender can retreat without being killed or incurring great bodily harm.
” If you don’t like them [refers to SYG laws], complain to your representative or move to a state that doesn’t have them.”
I do agree that individuals ought to have more contact with their representatives. As a practical matter I doubt that many of us have the alternative to move to a different state. Nevertheless I don’t think your suggestions were made with positive intent.
I read them as a bit argumentative with the suggestion that some topics or points of view are not welcome. I would have to disagree. I believe that this board welcomes many different points of view on topics of current interest . In addition it is my observation that the blog even tolerates some limited advocacy for some controversial positions.
If my remarks are out of bounds then the administrators of this blog can let me know by email or simply remove my comments. I think the wonderful thing about this blog is that we all are welcome to give voice to our points of view. Hopefully we can do that in a reasonable manner that directs attention to the issues instead of deprecates the other.
“The right of self-defense goes back to antiquity. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to defend yourself with the minimal force necessary to avoid serious physical harm of death.”
We do not disagree at all to this point. But as SYG and BAW make clear there may be an enormous difference in both the legality and reasonableness of actions. Simply saying that someone has a right to self defense does not get at important issues.
” Is there any evidence that Zimmerman, prior to shooting Martin, applied any physical force on Martin? Any? The answer is NO. Is there evidence of Martin using physical force on Zimmerman? The answer is YES. –”
First I want to point out that there is much that we do not know, and that we may never know exactly what happened.
Second, I want to acknowledge that evidence of a fight may support Zimmerman’s claims.
Third I want to point out that evidence of a fight might lead to legal conclusions. But that evidence by itself may not be sufficient for us to know what actually happened or to reasonably evaluate the situation. To see what I am getting at just consider this example which is not based on evidence in this case: Suppose aggressor points a pistol at the defender and threatens to shoot him, the defender fearing for his life then takes his best chance and attacks the aggressor, the aggressor then shots and kills the defender. Later the aggressor claims self defense because he feared for his life. Would you still claim that evidence of the fight is compelling and that from that evidence you can determine who acted in accordance with the law?
The point I am making is even in the face of physical evidence of a fight, reasonable individuals have to wonder what really happened and to wonder if Zimmerman’s actions really were (1) in accordance with law (2) reasonable and necessary or (3) entirely avoidable.
” I have asked if some here think he somehow gave up that right, and what actions he took that would have caused him to lose that right, but all I get are questions.”
As I said earlier, I believe the question of whether Zimmerman gave up the right to self defense is irrelevant to the question of whether Zimmerman exercised that right in a legal manner, or in a reasonable manner. It is just not a meaningful question in this case.
“Since you’re willing to let Zimmerman follow Martin at a distance; How far would that distance be?”
I don’t believe the distance is measured by physical distance. The point is to keep enough distance so as to avoid a physical confrontation. If you believe that Zimmerman was acting as neighborhood watch, then close enough to keep the subject in view but far enough away that there is little chance of eye contact that might be considered a challenge, a verbal exchange that might be considered argumentative or other interaction that could easily lead to hostile action. If Zimmerman walked up to Marten and confronted him then he went far beyond his commission as neighborhood watch.
BTW, it is my personal prejudice, but I have always felt that Zimmerman’s statement that the officer call Zimmerman when he arrived on site, was a clear indication that Zimmerman intended to follow Martin. If he did not intend to get out of his SUV and follow Martin he would have said something like ‘I will wait for the officer in my SUV in the vicinity of street address XXXX’. He did not say he would wait at the SUV. He did not call a street address. In my opinion he clearly anticipated changing his location. The only reason I can think of that Zimmerman would have changed his location would be to follow Martin.
“According to Zimmerman, he didn’t get that chance. He said Martin approached him from behind and after asking “You got a fuckin’ problem?””
I acknowledge events may have happened exactly that way. But anything Zimmerman says is necessarily self serving and deserves scrutiny rather than unvetted acceptance.
“We don’t have any evidence of race being a factor here… What would Martin have to fear from Zimmerman that Zimmerman wouldn’t have to fear from Martin? ”
I never accused Zimmerman of being a racist. There are however indications to suggest this is a reasonable question regarding Zimmerman.
There are different levels of racist belief. Recently, a few states over, it was discovered that some young white men made sport of hunting African American men. They choose as their victims men they believed to be intoxicated or homeless. They choose those particular victims in the belief that this type of victim would be less able to complain to the authorities. The racist were discovered and prosecuted after they ran over and killed one of their African American victims. I will call that level of racism Type 1 Racism. The Type 1 Racist has made a fundamental decision to treat African Americans as different from or less than human.
I personally do not believe that Zimmerman’s thoughts rise to the level of Type 1 Racism. I do believe that he may be (take your choice) (1) guilty of, or (2) a victim of stereotypical thinking. To me it is very possible, even likely, that Zimmerman believed it was ‘inconceivable that an African American adolescent male could have been in that location and that time for a legitimate reason’. I think it is entirely conceivable that the entire serious of tragic events flow from that one stereotypical perception.
You may disagree with my beliefs regarding Zimmerman’s stereotypical perception. But there is certainly evidence in the record to suggest that he had a specific view of the person he was following and that view was very different from the view he had of those he considered his friends and neighbors. It is hard for me to imagine what the basis of his view could be except stereotypical thinking.
But, when I wrote my previous remarks I must not have expressed myself clearly. I was not referring to Zimmerman’s real or imagined racism or to his stereotypical thought.
I believe that fear goes to how we perceive and evaluate the behavior of others. Much has been made of Zimmerman’s understanding of Martin’s behavior. I just wanted to point out that every African American male carries with him the burden of our common history. I do not see how any African American male could easily accept the approach of a white male who seemed to be following, shadowing or stalking him. With that understanding, it would seem to me that any neighborhood watch would want to immediately clarify the situation and indicate the involvement of police for the safety of everyone. I don’t know if that happened or if there was time for that to happen.
“if you don’t like a law why don’t you try citing the portion of the law that you have a problem with instead of just whining about it. ”
I am flattered and surprise that you would hold me to such a high standard. There are real attorneys who discuss the implications of laws. In my personal experience at this blog it is rare the portions of the actual law are cited. I acknowledge that it does occasionally occur. I think the point I was making is that SYG leads to irrational behavior in situations of uncertainty between two parties who have reason to suspect or fear each other, but who do not initially have the intention to harm each other. SYG laws are bad because they lead naturally to an escalation of force rather then to peaceful resolution. In distinction of SYG laws, I support and advocate for traditional BAW law of self defense. BAW laws, when it is possible, give potential antagonist to opportunity to back away, to gather more information of the threat, to reevaluate, and possibly avoid the use of force and blood shed. I think that is an excellent reason to support BAW laws and repeal SYG laws.
” blah, blah, blah.”
Here I think you unnecessarily demean yourself. When you say ” blah, blah, blah.” you make it sound like you don’t understand my remarks or you have nothing of your own to say. By contrast you make me sound really convincing. And that is so unfair. You really do have some interesting points and sometime it is a challenge to answer you. I know it is unfair, but when you say ” blah, blah, blah.” you make it difficult to take you seriously.
Too bad, I think we both support the right to own firearms and the right to use them in self defense. Our main differences seem to lie in our evaluation of the choice to resort to lethal force.
anon,
You’re welcome.
sling
i thought you said z was breaking the law in some way. my mistake. and i only wanted an honest answer really. of course i would call the police, and i wouldn’t shoot them, you seem to think otherwise. a responsible, sensible, gun owner/carrier doesn’t mean were cowards, or that we are looking for trouble. not at all. i was raised around guns and i was also taught what they are capable of. endless hours of safety and responsibility from my father. i don’t expect you to understand these things. you are clear on your beliefs and i respect them. there is no reason to patronize me bacause of mine. odds are, and there very good odds, that i will never use a gun against another human being. avoidence is always the best thing to do. i know you don’t believe in guns and you probably don’t even own one. i’m not going to make fun or criticize you because i am a gun person and your not. cause i’m a gun person doesn’t mean i’m a bad person.
TopShots Wife,
Here you go…this is actual video of Congresswoman confronting Angela Corey.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/69977019/News/Raw-video-Angela-Corey-Corrine-Brown
Wow is all I can say. Hearing Corey talk in her placating tone just sickens me
Angela Corey – I showed her mercy… by offering her 3 years hard time in prison
GRR!
shano
to be perfectly honest i thought it might come in handy for my sister. she has a little 17 yr.old smarty on her hands. something i thought might be helpful to her without being so obvious to him. i don’t want to be nosy but i asked earlier about you and your family. did everyone come out ok? and did they catch the ppl that done the home invasion? hard to put something like that behind you, if you ever do. and i swear to God, i hope you feel safe in your home.
Elaine, thank you for that link.
shano
I probably shouldn’t have said that, but i watched a program on natl. geo. channel about it. your right, they didn’t specifically say what kind of drugs. but i know they teach cops to look for certain things. pyhsical things. your eyeballs move rapidly back and forth, not obviously, just , more like a quiver, for lack of a better word. and you don’t even realize it. that’s why they want u to follow there finger. like i said, i just got that off of nat. geo. channel. i’m not saying anything about anyone actually. just repeating what i saw on t.v. hell, that’s the worst place. haha
anon,
Regarding the release of information:
Despite huge release of evidence, some questions in Trayvon shooting may never be answered
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/despite-huge-release-of-evidence-some-questions-in-trayvon-shooting-may-never-be-answered/2012/05/18/gIQA9wcFZU_story.html
Excerpt:
In some states, “discovery” like this isn’t released prior to trial — unless it’s by a defense team hoping to score points in the court of public opinion. That is what happened during the infamous 2006 Duke University lacrosse rape case, in which North Carolina officials ultimately determined that the local prosecutor rushed to judgment in charging three students with raping a stripper.
In Florida, evidence is generally considered a public record once the prosecution turns it over to the defense. Among the things prosecutors are prohibited from releasing pretrial: Confessions.
Zimmerman gave several interviews to police, including re-enacting at the scene what he says happened that night. But there is no statement from the 28-year-old shooter among the materials made public this week.
His only public comment so far came during his detention hearing last month, when he apologized to Martin’s parents — but stopped short of admitting any crime.
Top Shot: “what law did z break? just want to make sure in case i a suspoicious stranger in my back yard on a dark rainy night.”
I don’t think that any discussions related to this case will be of any guidance to you in relation to deciding on your response seeing a suspicious stranger in your back yard on a dark rainy night.
However, if you think that at some time in the future you might spot a person walking along a street and they arouse your suspicion for some reason, then you might find some useful ideas here.
I would suggest to you that following such a person away from the street and into the dark behind a row of houses would not be a wise course of action.
This would be particularly unwise if you knew or even suspected that they might be aware of your interest in them.
This would be even more unwise if you thought that their having a hand on their waistband could indicate that they were armed.
Any sensible person would advise you against imagining that you will be invulnerable in any unpredictable situation simply because you are carrying a gun.
I think that in both of the above situations, calling 911 and leaving cop business to cops would be a sensible option.
This is what even Neighborhood Watch instruct all their members to do – and those people actually have training.
@David Larry “When did Zimmerman give up his right of self-defense?”
When did Martin give up his right to self-defense? I think those two questions get at the problem some of us have with stand your ground laws.
I am not anti gun. I have not owned firearms in nearly two decades. But I strongly support an individual right to own firearms and use them for self defense. The problem is that STG laws lead to irrational behavior. These laws lead individuals to escalate misunderstanding rather then resolve peacefully.
I recognize that Zimmerman may have no legal guilt due to Florida’s SYG laws.
But this tragedy simply did not have to happen. It would not have happened if Zimmerman had remained in his SUV. It is likely that it would not have happened if Zimmerman had only followed from a distance. It might not have happened if Zimmerman had introduced himself as neighborhood watch and indicated police were on the way instead of challenging with the question ‘what are you doing here’?
The fact is that our tragic history of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, racism, and lynching give any African American male a reasonable basis to question and fear the approach of and confrontation with a white male.
Martin had far more to fear from the approach of an unknown Zimmerman than Zimmerman had to fear from Martin.
Martin had a solid reason to alert. In the press of circumstance he may have made a bad decision. Perhaps Zimmerman initiated physical violence. We may never know exactly how it started. A reasonable law might very well have prevented their confrontation from becoming an unnecessary tragedy.
This law is, in effect, the personal equivalent of a national policy to ‘launch on warning’ during the age of nuclear confrontation. This law leads individuals to irrationally escalate hostilities rather than back away when the opportunity exists. This law needs to change.
manny o
I wasn’t aware that anyone confronted corey.ALRIGHT.. i cant figure out how they found the opportunity to confront her without pulling her head out of the martoins ass.can you tell me where i can read that. did you read m. tweets yet. you have to. shame they can’t be admitted as evidence. after all, it’s not hearsay. it came from his own mouth.he was a disturbing young man. i’m a light weight when it comes to mj. it makes me totally paranoid, to the delight of my smoker friends.. i prefer a cold beer. what would that trace amount be if you took one hit off a joint, or if you smoked half a joint a couple hours before that. do you no mannyo? i can take one hit and i’m high. It’s nice to see someone on here that is more concerned with facts, and someone that doesn”t resort to putting us down and calling us names. just because we differ in opinions. have you read the investigation that reuters done on z. his great grandfather was black. he and his wife tutored two black kids, i will find the page that the tweets are on. try to anyway. i don’t usually resort to bad mouthing someone, especially the dead. but the way g.z. has been portrayed is not true. just not true. he’s helped more ppl then he’s ever hurt. black, white, whatever. i’m so glad that corey was confronted… she is a criminal herself. she just happens to be a criminal with power.
top shot, seriously, most of the time you cannot tell when people are on drugs. Not by behavior not by physical testing, but only by blood or urine testing.
the fact that he was not tested is seriously troubling in so far as the competence of that police department.
“they spent over five hrs in z. face. they could tell by physical and mental evals that he wasn’t under the influence of drugs. if they had, i’m sure he would have been tested.”
Yep, the Sanford police were on top of things that night! Nothing got by them.
*****
Trayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Excerpt;
An examination of the Sanford Police Department’s handling of the case shows a series of missteps — including sloppy work — and circumstances beyond its control that impeded the investigation and may make it harder to pursue a case that is already difficult enough…
With doubts shadowing the quality and scope of the police work, the prosecution and the defense will be left to tackle critical questions even as they debate the evidence. And ultimately, what happened on the rainy night of Feb. 26 may come to rest on the word of one man, George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who fired the fatal shot.
In interviews over several weeks, law enforcement authorities, witnesses and local elected officials identified problems with the initial investigation:
¶ On the night of the shooting, door-to-door canvassing was not exhaustive enough, said a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation. If officers had been more thorough, they might have determined that Mr. Martin, 17, was a guest — as opposed to an intruder — at a gated community called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. That would have been an important part of the subjective analysis that night by officers sizing up Mr. Zimmerman’s story. Investigators found no witnesses who saw the fight start. Others saw parts of a struggle they could not clearly observe or hear. One witness, though, provided information to the police that corroborated Mr. Zimmerman’s account of the struggle, according to a law enforcement official.
¶ The police took only one photo at the scene of any of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries — a full-face picture of him that showed a bloodied nose — before paramedics tended to him. It was shot on a department cellphone camera and was not downloaded for a few days, an oversight by the officer who took it.
¶ The vehicle that Mr. Zimmerman was driving when he first spotted Mr. Martin was mistakenly not secured by officers as part of the crime scene. The vehicle was an important link in the fatal encounter because it was where Mr. Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious teenager in a hooded sweatshirt roaming through the Retreat. Mr. Zimmerman also said he was walking back to the vehicle when he was confronted by Mr. Martin, who was unarmed, before shooting him.
¶ The police were not able to cover the crime scene to shield evidence from the rain, and any blood from cuts that Mr. Zimmerman suffered when he said Mr. Martin pounded his head into a sidewalk may have been washed away.
¶ The police did not test Mr. Zimmerman for alcohol or drug use that night, and one witness said the lead investigator quickly jumped to a conclusion that it was Mr. Zimmerman, and not Mr. Martin, who cried for help during the struggle.
anon,
Your list would not be so stupid for a parent or teacher to look at if a child were exhibiting a number of those symptoms at home or at school. My list is not stupid. Don’t you think a person taking Adderall and/or other drugs should know the possible side effects of those drugs? I’d definitely want to know the side effects of a drug like Adderall before I allowed my child to take it–or Ritalin.