Posted on 08/22/2013 7:32:47 PM PDT by Sopater
Many advise people involved in shootings to say nothing to the police. I’m not among them. I’ve seen too many cases where declining to speak is heard as “I ain’t sayin’ nuttin’ ‘til my mouthpiece gets here,” and only the bad guy’s side of the story gets told or assumed. I do recommend that people caught up in these things tell the responding officers the nature of the attack on them which forced them to fire, and indicate that they’ll sign a complaint on the perpetrator. I also recommend pointing out evidence and witnesses, because both tend to disappear otherwise. From there on, I strongly suggest that they advise the police that they’ll fully cooperate after they’ve spoken with counsel.
Zimmerman did otherwise, answering all questions that night and in the time that followed, and he prevailed at trial. He convinced the investigators that he was telling the truth about being a victim, not a murderer. He even passed a lie detector test (voice stress analysis) administered by the police shortly after the shooting. When defense lawyer Mark O’Mara got lead investigator Chris Serino to say that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth, it was crushingly powerful for his client. Even though the judge ordered the jury to disregard that statement the next morning in court, it was a bell that simply could not be unrung. It turned out that his having done a videotaped walk-through of the scene was also critical to his acquittal: it allowed the jury to see the complicated layout of the scene, all the more important since Judge Nelson denied the defense’s request to have the jury visit that scene.
(Excerpt) Read more at backwoodshome.com ...
I suppose it is debatable whether it was wise for Zimmerman to cooperate as fully as he did with the cops. But I think it is inarguable that he behaved exactly as most of us expect an innocent man would.
Making it much harder for the prosecution, in this case, to portray him as a cold-blooded killer.
In some cases like Zimmerman there is no “other guys” story.
Talking to LEO without benefit of council is a crapshoot at best
and legal sucide in many jurisdictions. LEO are NOT your friend.
They are NOT interested in your rights or in justice....they are only
interested in finding someone to convict for a crime....if that person
is innocent or not is irrelevant. Ayoob is a cop......he has a long
standing bias in that regard and ALL LEO want EVERY person they
encounter to tell them EVERYTHING. That action serves the interests
of the badgemonkey’s....and will frequently work to harm the citizen.
LEO are NOT your friend....never talk to them if avoidable and NEVER
talk to the without benefit of council if there is ANY possibility that you
are being investigated in regards to a crime.
From the moment the police start to focus in on YOU
as a possible suspect, you are in desperate need
of counsel.
TV shows to the contrary, do NOT go downtown for a little
talk unless you are accompanied by an attorney; and say nothing until he gets there. Even if—or especially if—
you are innocent.
There are lots of innocent people who have been charged and/or convicted of crimes they didn’t commmit (the Innocence Project has freed a couple hundred of them;
or which never even happened (think of the Duke lacrosse players).
I agree— LEO wants convictions, as soon and as easy as possible. And they may stretch the bounds to get them.
Piers Morgan is a hate mongering sanctimonious twit. Admittedly if he were a fellow FReeper I could be banned for saying so. If he were a fellow FReeper, however, he would not be a hate mongering sanctimonious twit. He would be a patriot...or a Troll, in which case he might very well be a hate mongering sanctimonious twit.
They should always remember that the police are not your friend, and be aware of the political attitude of the department as a whole and the command staff in particular.
If the police chief serves at the pleasure of the mayor and the leftist mayor wants you guilty, generally no police officer will risk his job or promotion by finding you not guilty by his investigation.
The Zimmerman case is a textbook example of this principle. The politically moderate department and chief efficiently and quickly found Zimmerman had acted within the law and put it in the record BEFORE the mayor found out that he had better want Zimmerman guilty if he knew what was good for him.
The result was the chief and detective paid with their jobs and were replaced with those willing to crucify an innocent man for a political pat on the head from Marxist criminals.
Don’t forget that the Governor of the State of Florida was willing to send an innocent man to prison to further his political career. He thought by appointing a special prosecutor to railroad George Zimmerman he would curry political favor with the lies of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharption. It did not work. But what it is going to do is get a Democrat elected Governor if the Republicans run Scott again. I understand that to some it does not matter that he was willing to sacrifice an innocent man to further his political career as long as he is a Republican.
I just hope I live long enough to see all these criminals in the dock at Nuremberg pleading: "But I was only following orders".
you might be interested in listening to a couple experts in the field - especially the last speaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
He was fortunate to have someone there with a cell to take his picture before he got cleaned up, and the 911 call with the screams loomed large, and amazingly the testimony of Witness 8 who was supposed to sink him turned in his favor proving that Martin had 4 minutes to make it home and actually did make it home.
One of the things that convinced me that Zimmerman was innocent is that he told his story up front without needing to see the evidence first.
First Read my tag line.
Don't take my word for it, how about none other then Alan Morton Dershowitz, a.k.a., Alan Dershowitz.
Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz @ The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, on December 1, 1998.
Alan Dershowitz Reference: "TESTILYING" Testilying http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.htm
See also below http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/slobogin,%20testilying.htm
(Cite as: 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037) University of Colorado Law Review Fall 1996 Reform The Police *1037 TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
Or just maybe someone might want to ask Randy Weaver, you know the Ruby Ridge debacle, that Randy Weaver, who got over I believe 3 million $$$$ dollar's or the daughter did.
The 9th circuit (excuse me 9th Circus) found that the complaining witness (that would be the cops) LOSE IMMUNITY when it is shown that the facts attested to in their WARRANT Application are false.
And they may stretch the bounds to get them."
You think?????
and the back of the head
This is a very interesting article. It counters the oft-heard advice; “Never talk to the police without a lawyer.”
It seems that if GZ had shut up and lawyered up; the cops would have distrusted that action and would have found a reason to arrest him and charge him with something that fateful night.
And if they had - GZ would be in prison today.
Well said. The Sanford police chief and the detective were fired for correctly doing their job. Racist agitators - sent from Holder - quickly inflamed this event and people got fired.
Even worse - people like Australian Chris Lane are being killed over the black racism that Holders people are being sent out to do in direct response to the Trayvon situation.
Eric Holder has blood on his hands.
To a large number of freepers, it did not matter if a candidate wanted to turn the boyscouts over to the homosexuals as long as there was an R on the ticket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.