Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

December 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

Does Police Video Contradict Zimmerman’s Lawyer?

ABC News released police station surveillance video of George Zimmerman supposedly showing his lack of injuries — the suggestion being that the original police reports, statements made by the police, etc., and subsequent narrative of events offered by the police and prosecutors office were all either false or, at the very least, embellished.  And this, in turn, would suggest a grand and orchestrated conspiracy that began either before the first officer ever even made it to the scene (first reports noted Zimmerman’s injuries), or took place through revisions to police reports and the coercion of witnesses / solicitation of false witness testimony. And of course, the post-hoc “doctoring” of 911 tapes.

— Either that, or the video footage was filmed after Zimmerman was cleaned up at the scene. And the footage itself isn’t clear enough to show any cuts, scrapes, or bruising (though at one point in the video, an officer does appear to look at Zimmerman’s head). Recall that the police report states “Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head. […] Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD.”

By the way: one of the complaints of the “protesters” has been that Zimmerman was released at the scene. Practically patted on the back by the PoPo for bagging him a hoodied black youth. And yet, here his is, shown being brought in in cuffs. Almost as if proper procedure was followed!

You decide.

— Or better yet, recognize that you weren’t there, the cops and witnesses were, and that the prosecutor’s office, after viewing the evidence and listening to the testimony, decided not to indict on manslaughter because either they didn’t believe the facts warranted it, or else they realized they didn’t have evidence to convict.

23 Replies to “Does Police Video Contradict Zimmerman’s Lawyer?”

  1. bh says:

    The video isn’t even clear enough to read the license plate or squad car number on the back of their car.

  2. Pablo says:

    What nr said. And if you think you can tell anything conclusive from crappy video like that, you might be a progressive.

  3. bh says:

    Here are some photos from before and after professional fights (clearly after a corner man cleaned them up). Would that level of swelling and those marks show up on this quality of video?

  4. geoffb says:

    I downloaded the highest quality copy from Youtube last night and the resolution of the original video is very poor. Looks like 6 hour VHS quality of 160 line horizontal resolution. As bh notes the license plate is not readable. Even the words Sanford Police are hard to make out if you didn’t know in advance what to see.

    The only thing, as I noted last night, is the police officer at 55-56 sec. staring at the back of Zimmermans’ head.

    Why, if nothing is there to be seen?

  5. geoffb says:

    Just make it up and figure no one will call you on it, the progressive way.

    Used to work too.

  6. geoffb says:

    Sorry Jeff, I see you mentioned the officer looking at Zimmermans’ head.

  7. mc4ever59 says:

    That very well could be a gash on the back of his head.

  8. Crawford says:

    The funny/sad thing is that someone will simultaneously argue that the police did not take Zimmerman into custody *and* that this video shows he wasn’t hurt.

  9. mt_molehill says:

    Just a thought that occurred to me after seeing GZ in handcuffs: was he mirandized? None of the reports indicate whether he was arrested, but that would be interesting to know.

  10. mt_molehill says:

    that should be, the reports don’t indicate that he was arrested (on the contrary). Because that video certain looks like he was taken into custody.

  11. B Moe says:

    Well obviously the answer is to wait until your head is split open and you are unconcious before you shoot.

    Just to be safe, I mean.

  12. leigh says:

    They took Zimmerman to the station for questioning. To my knowledge he was not arrested, and therefore would not be Mirandized. The police requested and received his shoes and clothing for testing. I don’t know if this video was shot before or after that exchange. It is evident that he has had his head wounds treated.

    As for his not having blood on his face, has anyone here ever had a broken nose or a black eye? He is a dark complected man and bruising isn’t going to show up as quickly as it would on a cracker like me. I’ve had a black eye and it didn’t truly show until over 10 hours later, but it was quite a shiner. If the paramedics who treated him held an ice pack to his head wounds, it is likely they didn’t swell yet, either. Most injuries will look worse the next day.

  13. LBascom says:

    I’m pretty sure when someone is hauled to the police station in handcuffs, they are under arrest. I’d imagine he was Mirandized before he got in the squad car.

  14. mt_molehill says:

    They would have had to mirandize him before questioning whether he was placed under arrest or not.

  15. leigh says:

    I’m not a cop and I’ve never been arrested so I apologize. The rest of my post, I stand by.

  16. leigh says:

    Do the Police Need to “Read me my Rights” in Order to Question Me?

    No. If you have not been arrested the police do not have to read you your rights. The rights referred to are you Miranda Rights.These rights are intended to inform people of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present if they talk to the police. You only need to be read your Miranda Rights if you are in police custody.

    So, the question is still whether or not Zimmerman was under arrest.

  17. McGehee says:

    has anyone here ever had a broken nose

    Twice. I assure you, my nose bled like a stuck pig the second time. The other guy saw that and me still willing to fight, threw up his hands and backed off.

  18. leigh says:

    Ouch! I bet you look ruggedly handsome, though.

  19. Jeff G. says:

    Miranda.

    Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?

    A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be “in custody” anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.

    Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?

    A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

    Being Handcuffed by the Police Doesn’t Necessarily Mean You’re Under Arrest

  20. leigh says:

    Thanks for the link, Jeff. That was my thought, too.

  21. Crawford says:

    To the counterpoint:

    So what we know is that George Zimmerman was handcuffed and his weapon was taken from him. He was placed in the back of the police car, given first aid, and transported to the interview room of the Sanford Police Department.

    How can anyone spin this as not arrested? He was handcuffed. He was transported away from the scene. He was placed in an interview room, and we know from other sources that he was interrogated interviewed.

    This hits all the elements for a court to decide, if anyone bothered to ask them, that George Zimmerman was arrested. Now the police might want to call it an investigative detention, or some other polite locution, but the fact remains that George Zimmerman was not free to refuse any of this. He was certainly permitted to exercise his right to remain silent, and was almost likely mirandized. I think that it is very unlikely that they looked at Zimmerman and said “George, if it’s all right with you, we’d like to have a chat with you. You totally don’t have to go with us, it’s your free choice. You just say the word and we’ll be more than happy to take you home without asking you any questions at all.” What makes it even more unlikely is the fact that neither officer’s report says anything at all about it being voluntary. Cops are careful to put things like that in their report. It helps them at trial when the defendant tries to claim he was searched without a warrant when the cops want to call it a consent search.

    Why does everyone think Zimmerman wasn’t arrested?

    There may be some more quirks in Florida’s laws, but whether or not he was “arrested”, he was certainly “detained”. The implications by some that he was running around free immediately afterwards, burying evidence and threatening witnesses (yes, I’ve seen this claimed) don’t pan out.

  22. mt_molehill says:

    Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
    A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

    This.

    It’s not that they would have *had* to mirandize him. It’s that if they didn’t do so before questioning him, that could be part of the insufficient evidence situation, besides the lack of evidence we already know about.

Comments are closed.