All George Zimmerman Threads

[jussi]

I haven't checked out any of the other threads but I agree it's getting excessive. This is supposed to be a woodworking forum but there seems to be fewer and fewer of woodworking threads. I know that's the main reason I first came here and suspect the same for others.

[Black wallnut]

All George Zimmerman Threads

All threads spawned by the GZ trial go here.

[LinuxRandal]

I haven't even read the threads, as I can't seem to get AWAY from the discussion, which is why I come to places like here.

[Ed62]

While I haven't responded to any of those threads, I am in complete agreement with the above posts.

Ed

[Black wallnut]

I completely agree with CWS! There are plenty of other places online to discuss such things. BT3Central is not one of them. We are a community that draws an international audience of folks that have a passion for woodworking. Topics that have been discussed lately in Around the Coffee Pot are not advancing the goals of the site and in fact may drive new membership away. We the forum staff nearly shut down the GZ thread for these reasons. I would prefer to not have to close threads but this has gone on too long. Just like cycling forums have placed a limit on new Lance Armstrong threads we will have a no more GZ case inspired threads. Current threads may be merged into one thread.

[cwsmith]

While I realize you have strong feelings about the TM/GZ case, don't you think you're going a bit overboard with the number of posts you are making about it?

This is now political in nature and that particular post is also racist, IMHO.

I think you have made your point, and while I don't agree 100%, I'm not about to dig up every possible case that I can find to support either side of the issue.

CWS

[annunaki]

Who was joshua chellew and why was he less important that travon martin?

WHO WAS JOSHUA CHELLEW AND WHY WAS HE LESS IMPORTANT THAT TRAVON MARTIN? -

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_33602.php

[alpha]

Many, many police departments are now using special cameras in their cars. The cameras are recording the license plates of vehicles. Here is a link to what is happening in our area. Read the comments after the story and you'll understand some of the pros and cons of this technology.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/200...es-police-new/

The LEO will already know where you have been when he pulls you over.

[cabinetman]

Profiling

Some of the GZ's case included the subject of profiling. I respect LEO's and their job. They have quite a bit of responsibility, and have to make split second decisions. What I do see, watching cop shows is the cop following a vehicle, and saying something about the area, and a suspicious looking car or people in it, and pulls the car over on a "flickering tailight", or "not a complete stop", or "not using directional signals".

When the car is approached, he asks for a DL, insurance card, and registration. Then he asks where they are coming from, or where they are going. What does that have to do with why the car was pulled over? He might also say "What drugs are in the car?", or "When was the last time you did drugs?", or "Why are you so nervous?"

The DUI roadside tests can be very conclusive. If they give enough of them out there next to the road, it's likely they will find one test that can prove worthwhile enough to arrest the individual. Then it's up to the individual to prove and pay for his defense of the charges. That can be a long drawn out expensive affair.

Questions like that not related to the PC of the stop...my book says profiling. This is America, and does it matter where we drive our cars? Or is it any business of the officer to know where someone came from, or where they are headed?

I will say that not answering those questions is a right that we have, but can also infer some guilt. There is some intimidation because of cars with blue flashing lights, a siren, a badge, a gun, and a handy nightstick, not to say a 5 cell flashlight couldn't be a weapon.

So, maybe LEO's see the necessity to profile, because sooner or later it works.

.

[cabinetman]

One of the reasons I don't believe bringing in a lawyer immediately and always is the right answer is I think we have an obligation to help the police. If we really didn't do anything but can help the police move on to whoever did, it helps justice be done. They have a job to do and everybody being uncooperative doesn't help.

It's apparent that GZ's cooperation and "help", didn't help him.

.

[JimD]

One of the reasons I don't believe bringing in a lawyer immediately and always is the right answer is I think we have an obligation to help the police. If we really didn't do anything but can help the police move on to whoever did, it helps justice be done. They have a job to do and everybody being uncooperative doesn't help.

[annunaki]

Having worked as a Detective in New York City, I had occasion to interview people in all types of situations and their respective parts in the human drama at hand.
In all walks and professions of life, there exists a broad spectrum of ethical range.
That said, some of my most gratifying cases were those of which I was able to obtain incriminating statements before the individual "Lawyer-ed up", even though I gave them their Miranda Rights.
One thing to keep in mind - it is not always apparent that someone being interviewed will evolve into a suspect.
One of the Darkest Places I ever had to go involved a call from the local hospital emergency room hospital regarding a 6yr old female with a Gonorrhea
infection. (it is standard procedure for something like that to immediately be notified to the local Detectives).
To cut to the chase, while interviewing the father, I had to pretend to understand how enticing little girls can be BLa Bla Bla to the father in order to seem sympathetic and get him to talk freely. He not only admitted his part in the molestation but implicated his brother as well in what had been on going for three years. Since there was no DNA evidence, only an infection that can be transmitted other than by sexual contact within a close contact family, who knows what a good defense lawyer might have pulled off?

That visit to a dark place creep-ed me out, and it took a long hot shower followed by several stiff drinks to rinse away the specter of where I had to go in that interview. I remember it vividly along with so many other moments in time.

In cases as the fore mentioned, the psychological affect can effect the performance behavior of LEO's, in a negative manner if they are unable to compartmentalize those incidents, and not let them overwhelm their day to day interactions "on the Job".
Unfortunately there are those few that cross the line/use short cuts that many times become the undoing of a good apprehension as well as their careers.
My policy was, once I gave them their Miranda Rights, if they still kept talking, I was going to become their favorite listener and conversationalist.

I put one Baby Faced (looked like a choir boy) Killer away for life on only two words he used- "Easy Geese", - but that's another story.....

[vaking]

About a year ago I was a juror on a case of "attempted armed robbery". The case was a mockery of judicial system. The "victim" walked over to a policeman, pointed at another man and claimed that the man demanded money from the victim. According to the victim the defendant said that he had "a gun and a knife". Police arrested the man and found no weapons whatsoever. The only things he had was a plastic bottle with water and spare tee-shirt he was carrying home from work. The prosecution tried to present it as "plastic bottle wrapped in tee-shirt to appear as a weapon". Defendant maintained all the time he had never seen the victim before and never had any conversations.
The story told by the "victim" was full of inconsistencies. It was obvious from the very beginning that there was no evidence the crime even took place at all. It should have been a closed-and-shut case, the police should have dropped all charges within a day for lack of evidence.
The reality was very different. The defendant was arrested and spent 15 months in jail waiting for the trial. When the case came in front of the judge - both prosecution and defense knew that prosecution had no real case and it would be a non-guilty verdict. Prosecution and defense cooperated to make it as short as possible. This was probably the shortest armed robbery case in history.
Overall it took 2 days for jury selection, 1 day to hear all the evidence and one hour for the jury to acquit the defendant.
The defendant was black, victim was Hispanic, the jury was mixed. I believe that the only reason the case made it to court was because police needed to justify holding the man in jail for 15 months for nothing.

Overall my opinion - if there is any chance you can be accused of any violent or drug-related crime - overprotect yourself. Presume that you shall be accused even if you believe you are innocent. If you are accused - you will need a lawyer even if you are lawyer yourself. Never believe what investigator tells you. You are not allowed to lie but investigator is. His job is to make you say something you will regret later and he will not hesitate to lie to make you say it. And if you are going to get lawyer involved anyway - the faster you do it - the better.

[cabinetman]

Is what you don't say an indication of guilt? It may be difficult for some to have an attorney immediately. You would think with all the cop shows on TV, that it's evident how overt law enforcement can be. It's almost a joke to watch real questioning that leads to a desired answer.

.

[JimD]

Maybe it depends some on your experience. Most of us get pretty comfortable doing things others would pay for working with wood. There are good reasons others pay people to make things of wood but that doesn't mean we need to pay instead of doing it ourselves.

In my paying job, I get orders in the form of 100-200 page contracts. I work with lawyers a lot. They are helpful and know things I don't. But just as a "professional" woodworker may be better or worse than I am making some things out of wood, a lawyers input may or may not help me if I have to talk to the police. The only times I have talked to police has been social or traffic situations. I have seen a range of individuals in that limited exposure. I had one attempt to get me to incriminate myself after a wreck where a young lady turned left in front of me (she wanted me to say I was speeding). So I know it happens. But with my experience, I would not call a lawyer before talking to police in a situation where I know I had done nothing wrong. But in George Z's case, where somebody died, I think I would limit how much talking I did as the lawyer suggests. It isn't a property dispute or a traffic matter. It would pay to be careful.

I continue to reject a "don't talk to police without a lawyer" as a general good idea for all people and circumstances. But if you are involved in the death of another person, I would agree it is probably a good idea. Emotions are going to be an issue for any normal person and that is another reason to have somebody else helping.

Jim