The FINAL word on Zimmerman..until the next final word...

2seaoat wrote:The courts have affirmed the absolute right for a blood draw after an arrest.  If the proper questions had been asked, they could have charged him with Assault with a deadly weapon and booked him that night.   They then could have upgraded the charges to manslaughter or murder by indictment or grand jury.  None of the standard procedures were followed.  He was let go.   None of the standard questions were asked.  Not once was he asked to demonstrate the position and how he shot the victim.

George Zimmerman got a fair trial.   It is questionable if the police department did a standard investigation.  I think the simple words self defense have chilled police from doing what they have done for 2 centuries in this country since stand your ground.

Zimmerman was never arrested due to probable cause so they couldn't take his blood.

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The courts have affirmed the absolute right for a blood draw after an arrest.  If the proper questions had been asked, they could have charged him with Assault with a deadly weapon and booked him that night.   They then could have upgraded the charges to manslaughter or murder by indictment or grand jury.  None of the standard procedures were followed.  He was let go.   None of the standard questions were asked.  Not once was he asked to demonstrate the position and how he shot the victim.

George Zimmerman got a fair trial.   It is questionable if the police department did a standard investigation.  I think the simple words self defense have chilled police from doing what they have done for 2 centuries in this country since stand your ground.

Zimmerman was never arrested due to probable cause so they couldn't take his blood.

Dreams, they would still have to have a specific reason to draw blood even if he had been arrested.....“clear indication” that incriminating evidence will be found. There was none.

Zimmerman was never arrested due to probable cause so they couldn't take his blood.



Exactly!

Joanimaroni wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The courts have affirmed the absolute right for a blood draw after an arrest.  If the proper questions had been asked, they could have charged him with Assault with a deadly weapon and booked him that night.   They then could have upgraded the charges to manslaughter or murder by indictment or grand jury.  None of the standard procedures were followed.  He was let go.   None of the standard questions were asked.  Not once was he asked to demonstrate the position and how he shot the victim.

George Zimmerman got a fair trial.   It is questionable if the police department did a standard investigation.  I think the simple words self defense have chilled police from doing what they have done for 2 centuries in this country since stand your ground.

Zimmerman was never arrested due to probable cause so they couldn't take his blood.

Dreams, they would still have to have a specific reason to draw blood even if he had been arrested.....“clear indication” that incriminating evidence will be found. There was none.

That's true.

2seaoat wrote:Zimmerman was never arrested due to probable cause so they couldn't take his blood.



Exactly!

 Heh. 

Dreams, they would still have to have a specific reason to draw blood.....“clear indication” that incriminating evidence will be found. There was none.


Wrongamondo......for five years lower courts have allowed blood draw screenings including DNA from blood or swab which the Supreme Court just affirmed. No probable cause needed once a person is arrested, and the courts logic is the small inconvenience justifies the benefits, and allows jails to know the health status of their arrestees who will be staying in the jail, and the Supremes argued it was much like fingerprinting and not a violation of the person under arrest fourth and fifth amendment rights. They are taking blood, and they have been doing swabs under 20 plus state laws mostly for felony arrest. The example I gave you was just three weeks ago where a court ordered a blood draw. The driver had no alcohol on his breath and simply said he did not feel good and asked the officers to call an ambulance. The officers knew this person was not drunk, and he clearly was having a mental health melt down with no indication of impairment, but arrested him and got the blood draw warrant. An officer does not have to lie, and the Courts have made this easier and easier. Zimmerman should have been arrested on a Felony that night on Assault with a deadly weapon, and a whole series of questions should have been asked which were not asked. If the police are going to be chilled to the point they are not going to do normal investigatory procedures and charge accordingly, then relevant evidence will not be collected and folks who shoot people will walk out of jail.

Again, historically a person claiming self defense had the burden at the time of charging to shift the presumption. Currently with Stand your ground the State is in the odd position of having to rebut the self defense before charging. Some self defense cases are clear and the presumption with or without stand your ground does not matter. This was not one of those cases. The delay and sloppy investigative procedures from the officers interviewing to collection of evidence bordered on gross negligence. The Jury spoke and had reasonable doubt.......there should have been no hesitation charging Zimmerman with assault with a deadly weapon immediately, and upgrading the charges later.

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The courts have affirmed the absolute right for a blood draw after an arrest.  If the proper questions had been asked, they could have charged him with Assault with a deadly weapon and booked him that night.   They then could have upgraded the charges to manslaughter or murder by indictment or grand jury.  None of the standard procedures were followed.  He was let go.   None of the standard questions were asked.  Not once was he asked to demonstrate the position and how he shot the victim.

George Zimmerman got a fair trial.   It is questionable if the police department did a standard investigation.  I think the simple words self defense have chilled police from doing what they have done for 2 centuries in this country since stand your ground.

Zimmerman was never arrested due to probable cause so they couldn't take his blood.

Wrong. They can obtain DNA/blood on folks who are victims if it is supposedly necessary to eliminate them from suspicion. And once the investigation is complete, that DNA is STILL retained in the system, even if the people have been vindicated.

Your ignorance is astounding, considering your job and a pathological need to be right about every fucking thing that's ever discussed.

2seaoat wrote:Dreams, they would still have to have a specific reason to draw blood.....“clear indication” that incriminating evidence will be found. There was none.


Wrongamondo......for five years lower courts have allowed blood draw screenings including DNA from blood or swab which the Supreme Court just affirmed.  No probable cause needed once a person is arrested, and the courts logic is the small inconvenience justifies the benefits, and allows jails to know the health status of their arrestees who will be staying in the jail, and the Supremes argued it was much like fingerprinting and not a violation of the person under arrest fourth and fifth amendment rights.   They are taking blood, and they have been doing swabs under 20 plus state laws mostly for felony arrest.  The example I gave you was just three weeks ago where a court ordered a blood draw.  The driver had no alcohol on his breath and simply said he did not feel good and asked the officers to call an ambulance.  The officers knew this person was not drunk, and he clearly was having a mental health melt down with no indication of impairment, but arrested him and got the blood draw warrant.  An officer does not have to lie, and the Courts have made this easier and easier.   Zimmerman should have been arrested on a Felony that night on Assault with a deadly weapon, and a whole series of questions should have been asked which were not asked.   If the police are going to be chilled to the point they are not going to do normal investigatory procedures and charge accordingly, then relevant evidence will not be collected and folks who shoot people will walk out of jail.  

Again, historically a person claiming self defense had the burden at the time of charging to shift the presumption.  Currently with Stand your ground the State is in the odd position of having to rebut the self defense before charging.   Some self defense cases are clear and the presumption with or without stand your ground does not matter.  This was not one of those cases.   The delay and sloppy investigative procedures from the officers interviewing to collection of evidence bordered on gross negligence.  The Jury spoke and had reasonable doubt.......there should have been no hesitation charging Zimmerman with assault with a deadly weapon immediately, and upgrading the charges later.

DNA yes they can. Blood I really don't think they can unless it is a suspected DUI. I will check with my source on Monday.




The police may take DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Justice Scalia said from the bench.


All 50 states require the collection of DNA from people convicted of felonies. After Mr. King was convicted of assault, there would have been no Fourth Amendment violation had his DNA been collected and tested, Justice Scalia wrote.

Blood I really don't think they can unless it is a suspected DUI.

That is completely a reasonable belief.....I held it too, until I heard my daughter talking about the appellate cases which have virtually given a green light to collection of blood and DNA swabs. It is not even probable cause anymore, the Supreme Court has dropped it down to a reasonable suspicion. If I am the officer in charge of the investigation, I am going to ask the proper questions. Suspect, are you taking any prescription drugs or illegal drugs. Have you ingested any drug or alcohol today? If I have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect did not follow the dispatcher's command not to follow Martin, and seemed to have made some bad decisions, I would have asked for the warrant. It is not big deal to get the warrant as a SA or Police officer. The big deal is justifying the same on a Defendant's lawyer filing a motion to suppress that evidence. Our constitution protects defendant's with the safeguard of a suppression hearing, and police officers are going to do their investigation and collect evidence, and if the court agrees that the reasonable suspicion did not meet the case law.....Zimmerman's tox report will not get into evidence. The system works if police do their jobs and lawyers do their job.....it does not work if the investigation is sloppy and evidence collection is half asz/

2seaoat wrote:Blood I really don't think they can unless it is a suspected DUI.

That is completely a reasonable belief.....I held it too, until I heard my daughter talking about the appellate cases which have virtually given a green light to collection of blood and DNA swabs.  It is not even probable cause anymore, the Supreme Court has dropped it down to a reasonable suspicion.  If I am the officer in charge of the investigation, I am going to ask the proper questions.   Suspect, are you taking any prescription drugs or illegal drugs.  Have you ingested any drug or alcohol today?  If I have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect did not follow the dispatcher's command not to follow Martin, and seemed to have made some bad decisions, I would have asked for the warrant.   It is not big deal to get the warrant as a SA or Police officer.   The big deal is justifying the same on a Defendant's lawyer filing a motion to suppress that evidence.  Our constitution protects defendant's with the safeguard of a suppression hearing, and police officers are going to do their investigation and collect evidence, and if the court agrees that the reasonable suspicion did not meet the case law.....Zimmerman's tox report will not get into evidence.  The system works if police do their jobs and lawyers do their job.....it does not work if the investigation is sloppy and evidence collection is half asz/

Hold on 00Seaoat.....

If I have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect did not follow the dispatcher's command not to follow Martin.

The dispatcher holds no, zero, zip, nada ounce of authority to give commands.

The dispatcher holds no, zero, zip, nada ounce of authority to give commands.

Wrong. The prior 911 calls, the disregard for the rules of neighborhood watch requiring participants not being armed, the judgment to disregard the dispatcher, the decision to shoot an unarmed teenager, the prior bar incident where Zimmerman attacked a police officer and got pretrial diversion(where he had been drinking), his prior domestics, were all circumstantial evidence that the defendant reasonably displayed poor judgment and erratic behavior that an officer could have the reasonable suspicion that Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs. Of course you cannot weigh that circumstantial evidence to form a reasonable belief until you start with the most fundamental question a police officer will ask almost any suspect......Have you today ingested any drugs or alcohol? Ooops!

2seaoat wrote:The dispatcher holds no, zero, zip, nada ounce of authority to give commands.

Wrong.  The prior 911 calls, the disregard for the rules of neighborhood watch requiring participants not being armed, the judgment to disregard the dispatcher, the decision to shoot an unarmed teenager, the prior bar incident where Zimmerman attacked a police officer and got pretrial diversion(where he had been drinking), his prior domestics, were all circumstantial evidence that the defendant reasonably displayed poor judgment and erratic behavior  that an officer could have the reasonable suspicion that Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs.  Of course you cannot weigh that circumstantial evidence to form a reasonable belief until you start with the most fundamental question a police officer will ask almost any suspect......Have you today ingested any drugs or alcohol?  Ooops!

You are wandering off track.

Reasonable suspicion he was under the influence of drugs, is the only evidence that could be used. In this situation......it did not fit the evidence.

None of the other stuff matters.