The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Black Friend Defends Zimmerman||Date: 3/26/2012 11:39 AM|
|Author: Colovion||Number: 1762081 of 1987587|
Crap, hit "submit" too soon, continuing:
You can say he has a previous arrest for assaulting a cop.
You can say that the police lied to the victim's family about Zimmerman's squeaky clean record.
Seems someone spoke out of line when they didn't have all the information. Technically they lied, but I don't think it was with the intent of covering anything up. Making a mountain out of a molehill on this one.
You can say that the police tried to instruct a witness what to say.
Possibly, though it doesn't seem likely IMHO. No need with the rest of the evidence piling up.
You can say that the police took no pictures of the crime scene, the supposed grass stains on Zimmerman;s back or his supposed injuries.
No, you can't say that at all. Not until the full report is released. They very well could have, but they aren't going to release the full report for an open investigation. This is like the "they didn't even confiscate the gun!" lie that first came out when right there in the very last line of the partial report that was released it says that the gun was placed into evidence. So I don't believe this for a second until it is proved by the full report.
You can say that the police failed to test the shooter for drugs or alcohol.
Same as the above. They very well could have, but that part of the report hasn't been released and won't be until it comes up in court.
You can say that the police noted no injuries to the shooter and added that in later.
Considering those injuries are noted in the original narrative from the report I'd say this is 100% false based on the evidence we do have.
You can say that the police failed to call for medical attention for the shooter's supposed injuries.
From the partial report released paramedics were summoned. It was a paramedic on the scene that declared him deceased. So, 100% wrong on this score.
You can say that the police made no effort to identify the dead kid.
Something about this still bothers me. A 17-year-old kid with NO ID on him? I've had ID on me 24/7/365 since I turned 15, in my experience the only people walking around without ID do so for a reason. That's conjecture, but it's a red flag in my experience. As for the phone, I still want to know if it was locked or damaged (it was dropped apparently.) So, again, I'm not conceeding this point until the report comes out and clears it up.
Plus he was shot pretty damn close to the house he was visiting... how did THEY not know what had gone down mere yards from their back door the night before?!? Talk about oblivous!
You can say that the police failed to notice that the kid was on the phone at the time of the shooting and possibly there was a witness that heard the whole thing.
Again, that assumes the phone was in working order and not locked when the cops got it. I get phones turned in all of the time at work, almost all of them are locked when we get them so they're useless as far as finding the owners. That's the POINT of locking them, to hide your contacts from someone who shouldn't be snooping in there. So, again, I'm waiting for the report on this one.
You can say that the Sanford police have a history of failing to arrest an obvious perp when that's what suits them.
One incident I know of (not counting this one, per Florida law they couldn't arrest Zimmerman for self-defense.) Irrelevant really.
You can say that the previous event, where the son of a policeman beat up a homeless man but managed not to get arrested merited the replacement of the police chief but the current circumstances where an innocent person was killed apparently do not.
Well, the cops didn't kill Trayvon, so what's your point? If someone is killed in their jurisdiction they are responsible? Hah, doesn't work that way. At all. And there's no proof of a cover-up besides your conspiracy theory, which is nice and all but hardly rises to the level of what is needed to revamp the department.
The department, as far as I can tell, isn't CALEA accredited. That's a shame for them. Having that accreditation would protect them from a lot of these attacks on their integrity. I still don't think they did anything wrong in this case until proven otherwise (and I'm certainly not going to take the word of a bunch of cop haters in this regard) but perhaps this will show them the benefit of accreditation. Thankfully my department IS accredited, it's a very good thing for all involved when that can be said.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|