Where's Zimmerman's blood test?

[senseandsensibility]

Why don't we know what he was possibly ingesting before he shot and killed someone? Where's the blood test on the guy who killed another human being? You know, the guy with the gun?

[Life Long Dem]

1. If he was drunk you could get him for negligent homicide at least.

Unless, they can show, Zimmerman threw the first punch, it looks like Zimmerman will walk free after trial.

[robinlynne]

2. it doesn't look that way from here.

[Life Long Dem]

7. I know

I'm with everyone wanting this wannabe cop put into jail, BUT, we all have rights of defense, and to belittle Zimmerman's rights takes our rights away.

[TheWraith]

12. Those rights don't include being the aggressor in an incident.

There's much more specific restrictions on self-defense for someone who initiated an incident than there are for someone just walking down the street when they're accosted.

[Life Long Dem]

14. Right

And if someone breaks your nose do you defend yourself by killing the nose breaker?

[magical thyme]

20. and if somebody chases you...i.e. runs after you

until you are too out of breath to run any more, so you instead SYG, does that person have a right to kill you? Even if you throw the first punch....that person literally ran you down. Does that person have a right to kill you?

Because it's starting to look like that's what happened, except we don't know who threw the first punch. We only know that if it was Zimmerman, like most bullies, he sucked at it.

[Life Long Dem]

23. I think the jury won't look at anything before the first punch.

They will start the self defense scenario, asking if Zimmerman needed to defend his life after his nose was broken by killing Trayvon?

[magical thyme]

36. I doubt the prosecution will ignore everything leading up to the first punch

Martin had a right to stand his ground, and there is evidence that shows that Zimmerman not only followed, but chased him, which may make him the first aggressor.

Unless there is an eye witness or by chance it was caught on the security video, there is no way to know -- other than Zimmerman's word -- who threw the 1st punch.

And even if he Martin threw the 1st punch, under SYG Zimmerman still must prove he was sufficiently endangered and/or afraid that lethal force was his only option.

I expect 2 key points to be 1. who initiated aggression and 2. was lethal force necessary to defend, or would lesser action have sufficed.

I expect the jury to consider all the evidence presented.

[Life Long Dem]

41. Was lethal force his only option?

The cops seem to believe so.

[magical thyme]

44. no, the cops do NOT believe so

and that is exactly why they wanted to file negligent manslaughter charges against him the night it happened.

Lethal force was clearly not his only option, since he could simply have pointed the gun at Trayvon and stopped any beating right then and there.

If he had yelled I have a gun, he could have stopped Trayvon at any point.

[Life Long Dem]

46. Zimmerman claimed "self defense".

SYG doesn't require another option.

[magical thyme]

55. it does if less than lethal force will enable you to SYG

SYG means you can defend yourself versus running away, and that you can use lethal force *if you fear for your life*. But it puts some burden of proof onto the defendant.

It is not a blanket license to kill, even in Florida. Before his initial hearing, legal experts made it clear he will have to prove he had reasonable cause to fear for his life. They said he will probably need to take the stand to do so, since only he can explain why he feared for his life.

[A Simple Game]

50. I would say that Zimmerman's ground was in his SUV. By leaving it

he showed he was not in fear of his life. As soon as Zimmerman left the SUV, Martin was the one standing his ground.

The fact that he pursued shows he was not in fear for his life, nor did he ever say he was afraid to the 911 operator.

If Zimmerman had stabbed or beaten Trayvon to death no one on DU would be defending him. They are defending the use of the gun not Zimmerman. They just won't say it.

[Cave_Johnson]

62. Your steps are out of order...

He doesn't have to be in fear for his life the entire time.

He was just in fear for his life once Martin initiated the physical attack and thus felt that he needed to use lethal force. (according to his version of events)

[A Simple Game]

63. But once Zimmerman left the SUV Martin was standing his ground.

Martin had every right to initiate a physical attack, which I don't believe he did. You can not be the aggressor and stand your ground. Martin was walking away when Zimmerman went after him. Stand your ground means not fleeing and (I am making an assumption here) not pursuing someone that is.

Doesn't matter, it is all about being able to shoot people you don't like without going to jail. There can be no other reason to defend Zimmerman's actions.

[Cave_Johnson]

66. "Martin had every right to initiate a physical attack"

OK this bit..

Explain it....

In the last few days, the tone of the argument has changed for Martin's advocates, with the release of the medical reports etc...

Does he have a right to attack in all versions of the story?

These scenarios can from range from

-Zimmerman with a calm approach and a question of "Hey, what are you doing here?" to
-Zimmerman with a wild, racist, drug fueled approach with guns visible and screaming obscenities

Does Martin get to physically attack someone who drove by him and walked/jogged/ran after him through the full spectrum of possibilities?

[A Simple Game]

67. That "bit" was in reply to your stating that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

I will state again "Zimmerman's ground was in his SUV", "As soon as Zimmerman left the SUV, Martin was the one standing his ground."

There apparently was a scuffle of some sort, who initiated it we probably will never know.

You can say all you want that Martin had no right to fear for his life and defend himself, but Zimmerman, who was the only one armed, did have a right to fear for his life. You will convince very few people.

[Cave_Johnson]

68. Noted...

You just want to ignore the question. Got it...

It's too bad because it is a really interesting legal and moral topic but everyone seems to have a side and is desperate to show their "proof"

edit: I stated nothing. I gave Zimmerman's account (or a near approximation of it) and did not label it as a statement of fact or as my personal opinion as to what happened.

[A Simple Game]

69. Is this the question you want me to answer?

"Does he have a right to attack in all versions of the story?"

If so the answer is I don't know nor do I care. I have no "versions" of a story, I have stated my position on who I feel was right and who was wrong. Zimmerman gave up his ground when he left the SUV. He showed he had no fear for his life by doing so. He pursued Trayvon in his vehicle and on foot.

Now if I was in Trayvon's position with a suspicious stranger following me in a car, then getting out and pursuing me on foot, I would be very afraid for my life. That is the only scenario we know the facts of, that is enough to justify Trayvon standing his ground. Trayvon was not the aggressor, and was most likely in fear of his life, he had the right to stand his ground. Trayvon and only Trayvon had the right to use deadly force.

Any other reasoning in my opinion is just to justify the use of a gun on an unarmed person that to put it plainly, was hunted down and shot. You can envision all the versions you want to justify the hunting of, and use of a gun, to kill an unarmed person, I will not.

As far as I am concerned this is all just to defend the use of a gun to kill people, I doubt anyone actually cares about Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had stabbed Trayvon to death, no one would be defending him.

[Blue_Tires]

21. Cool...Let's play hypotheticals

You ever been accosted for walking while black? What would YOU have done if being followed by a stranger in a car that night?

[Life Long Dem]

24. Yes

Zimmerman's of the world don't see color. I am white and do get people thinking I'm a suspicious person for whatever reason. But I don't confront them asking them why the fuck they find me suspicious. Yes, i do get looked at in a suspicious manner sometimes. Sometimes may be less than most blacks but my point is your not alone. Just because your black, don't think whites are not also looked at in a suspicious manner.

[Solomon]

30. Way to move the goal post. What Zimmerman did went far beyond "looked at him in a

suspicious manner."

I'll take being "looked at in a suspicious manner" over being followed and accosted any day. And especially over being shot "cause I thought the wallet was a gun" which seems to never happen to white folk.

At every step of the way, the degree off intensity is ratcheted up exponentially when the victim is black. Even after death as the wildest speculation justifying your murder or beating is always entertained.

[Life Long Dem]

33. I agree

Being white, I need to be doing something to look suspicious. Being black in itself could look suspicious to some people. Yes, white people. But I'm sure blacks can also look at other blacks in a suspicious manner just as whites do on whites.

[Blue_Tires]

32. "Zimmerman's of the world don't see color...."

So you're saying definitively that he would have followed a white teenager and called 911 (and made the gun/drugs insuation) that night?

And yes, it's possible for whites to be presumed as criminals on appearance; it's a common complaint of the biker crowd...

Someone being continually followed by a strange, potentially dangerous person will almost always revert to "fight or flee" animal instinct... Martin only had one real choice because he couldn't flee (He probably didn't know the neighborhood well enough to run and hide, and was streetwise enough to not lead a potential threat right to his uncle's doorstep)...

It's impossible to under-state the amount of latent rage that builds up when you are profiled and treated as a criminal on an often enough basis -- It is truly a thief of dignity because you are in essence being accused of a crime you didn't commit, and Martin was old enough to recognize his share from teachers/cops/neighbors/mall security/etc. I'm older and wiser now, but in my hothead teenage years? I would have rained fury on that clown's head, easily...

[Life Long Dem]

35. But the bottom line should be

Do the Zimmerman's of the world piss you off so much to confront them asking them why the hell they are following you? If grandma called the cops on me for standing at a bus stop because she thought I was loitering and looked suspicious do I confront her asking her what her problem is and then breaking their nose? Pf course not. but isn't that what Trayvoin did? He was pissed off someone was profiling him and couldn't handle it.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Does Zimmerman look like anyone's grandma?

Could Martin have been afraid of Zimmerman and which one struck the first blow?

[Blue_Tires]

39. Standing at a bus stop is way different from

Some dude slowly following you in a car while you're on foot in a neighborhood after dark...

There isn't a 17-year-old in existence who wouldn't feel threatened by that...I'll repeat it once more: Zimmerman.is.the.threat! I'll take a blind guess that your grandmother is *slightly* less threatening than Zimmerman, especially once he got out of the car...

And like I said, 99 percent of the time the only way to deal with a threat is to evade it or attack it head on...

And for the record, the "Bottom Line" is Zimmerman should never have followed Martin in the first place..End of story

[Life Long Dem]

43. I agree

Zimmerman was a wannabe cop wanting to arrest anyone walking at night. He would have pissed me off, and wouldn't have had a chance to pull a gun. But then again, I probably would have refrained myself from going on the attack.

[magical thyme]

40. no, that's NOT what Trayvon did

Being looked at as if you are suspicious and being followed are 2 totally different things. Zimmerman followed Martin, first in his car. That means he turned when Martin turned. It means he drove very slowly. That, in itself, is very threatening.

He then parked his car and chased Martin. Martin was running, and Zimmerman ran after him.

Both of those things are far different from somebody looking at you suspiciously.

I write this as a white woman who was followed by somebody in a van, in broad daylight. He passed back and forth yelling things at me as he drove by.

I turned down a side street. He turned down the street and again passed me in each direction, yelling as he drove by.

I turned down the street that led to 3 condo and apartment complexes, and he pulled into the parking lot at the corner and yelled something at me.

At that point, I had the choice of trying to run home...and showing him exactly where I lived. Or confronting him.

I confronted him. I doubled back, walked slowly up to his van, and demanded to know what he wanted.

My situation ended much better than Martin's. My pursuer turned bright red, stammered he had me mixed up with someone else, and gunned his van out of there.

It could very easily have ended differently.

[Rex]

22. But that is a lie.

Why do you support lies?

[robinlynne]

48. I thought they were talking about hate crime prosection. That is FAR far from acquittal.

[spanone]

74. and to belittle martin's rights does exactly the same. now, who had the gun?

[crunch60]

78. Didn't Zimmerman's blood tests reveal that he was on two medications, one

for anxiety?

[Uncle Joe]

3. If Zimmerman had been driving a vehicle and ended up killing someone either

by accident or on purpose, would they require a blood test?

Thanks for the thread, senseandsensibility.

[magical thyme]

42. yes. per Wiki, police can only require an alcohol or drug test for dui

But they should have at least requested one and gotten Zimmerman on record as refusing it.

And since they initially tried to file manslaughter charges, they should have gotten a warrant for drug and alcohol test.

Because Zimmerman uses 2 prescription drugs that are known to affect your mental state and can produce mood swings.

[senseandsensibility]

65. You're welcome.

Thought we could use some balance around here. Amazing the number of posters on a
Dem board that seem to be buying the propaganda.

[ljm2002]

4. Early reports said there was no test performed on Zimmerman...

...only on the dead black kid.

[Hoyt]

5. Good question. No test for drugs, etc., but he was clearly on a power rush.

He was a self-appointed neighborhood policeman and carried a friggin gun when he confronted the unarmed teenager. He was clearly impaired IMO.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. More "magic gun" nonsense out of you

Guns do not inherently impair people as you seem to think...the Eye of Magnus maybe

[Hoyt]

9. Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car without it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. You know this how?

And don't try another variant of your "magic guns" nonsense.

[Hoyt]

15. Shoot, most gun carriers can't venture out of their house without one.

How do you know I am wrong? Just because you are supposedly a responsible/"nice" gun carrier, lots of other folks -- including most right wing gun carriers -- are not so friendly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. So people who carry gun are by definition anti social and not nice

Real broad brush you have their...then again you use it often against other DU members as well.

[Solomon]

31. LOL

Very well played!!! That's the way I see it too.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. It doesn't matter. Trayvon had gold teeth.

It's Zimmerman's smoking gun evidence. Case closed.


( , just in case.....)

[Rex]

10. Why would he be tested? The SPD was looking

for a away to brush this all under the carpet and get back to business as usual. To give Zimmerman a blood test, would have meant they planned on treating this as a fair and balanced case. Which we can see they did not. I hope the FBI throws a lot of people in prison over this one tragedy. I have a feeling that a lot of people are involved.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Could they have forced a blood test under those circumstances in Florida?

Not sure what the law allows. Anyone know?

According to the stuff up at MSNBC they did do a lot of other testing

[Rex]

17. Good question.

.

[Uncle Joe]

18. If the law doesn't allow it, something is wrong with the law.

Apparently they forced a blood test on the kid with only a soft drink, some Skittles and the new owner of a bullet to the chest, but they couldn't bring themselves to force a blood test on the man with the gun that put it there?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Apples and Oranges

Autopsies do blood work as standard. Additional tests if indicated. No warrant needed, no crime required in the case on an unattended death.

Presumptively the cops could have gotten a warrant but would have needed some cause.

Still wondering if the police can demand blood from suspects at will. No indication that they asked for it or not. A DMA swab was taken of Zimerman.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Are both fruit

It seems to me a teenage victim on the way home armed with soda and candy against a killer 10 years older and armed with a gun, purposely leaving his car after being told he didn't need to as the police were already on the way should be plenty of cause.

This wasn't an unattended death, they knew very quickly that his father lived in that neighborhood.

They had Martin's phone as well all the police needed to do was redial his latest call incoming or outgoing and his girlfriend would have told them if they couldn't find out any other way and yet they let his body stay in the morgue for three days without contacting his parents?

Autopsies do blood work to determine cause of death, if one person kills another and obviously the victim can't speak for him/her self then blood work on the killer should be automatic to make sure they weren't under some aggravating influence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. This was answered later

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=702014

My take is that they could have did not. Be good to know why

Autopsies always do some blood work. Some of it feeds the CDC databases and medical research. It may also provide insights into a crime, for example if the victim was also intoxicated on Skooma, he clearly could not have been attacking someone.

[Uncle Joe]

45. My take is they could but did not for the same reason that Zimmerman could

have but did not stay in his truck, race colored their investigation.

Zimmerman was/is an unstable bully, he wanted to find a reason to use his gun and he found it.

I'm glad you enjoy playing Morrowind as well but that has little bearing on this tragedy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Skyrim actually...

Now we have someone in the Gungeon who seems to think that guns cast spells over people and control their actions. Sounds more like the Staff of Magnus to me.

Back to Zimmerman...
His lawyer will present him as a choir boy who mentored black children who was attacked while asking a stranger in the neighborhood why he was there, and while on the ground being hit, he used his weapon in self defense. Prosecution will take the position that if he had followed the 911 operators advice, none of this would have happened.

Regardless of what the legal outcome his, Zimmerman has the moral responsibility for Martin's death.

[Uncle Joe]

49. I haven't played that one yet but I am looking forward to it.

I don't' believe guns cast spells on people but taking the advice given to a young Spiderman from his Uncle Ben "with great power comes great responsibility," I do believe firearms present an extra burden of responsibility on to the holder.

Having said that and taking the adage that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" in to account, I also believe that for some unstable individuals, this increased power from owning a gun would have a conscious or subconscious magnifying effect equivalent to say a casting a "temptation spell" in finding an excuse to use it for nefarious purposes.

I totally agree with your last sentence.

[frylock]

16. it's my understanding that the PD wanted to charge him until the USA stepped in

[Rex]

19. A homicide detective wanted to charge him that night.

But was told to drop the case by the DA.

[frylock]

25. thx

[Rex]

28. NP

At least that was the latest and greatest news, it would be interesting to see if the FBI sees this case from a completely different POV.

[Meiko]

26. Interesting

790.153 Tests for impairment or intoxication; right to refuse.

(1)(a) Any person who uses a firearm within this state shall submit to an approved chemical or physical breath test to determine the alcoholic content of the blood and to a urine test to detect the presence of controlled substances, if there is probable cause to believe that the person was using a firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances or that the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while he or she was using a firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances. The breath test shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the request of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe such person was using the firearm within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The urine test shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at a detention facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such tests at the request of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe such person was using a firearm within this state while under the influence of controlled substances. The urine test shall be administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such tests in a reasonable manner that will ensure the accuracy of the specimen and maintain the privacy of the individual involved. The administration of either test shall not preclude the administration of the other test. The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath or urine test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section shall be admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding. This section shall not hinder the taking of a mandatory blood test as outlined in s. 790.155.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/790.153.html

[Travelman]

51. He still has Fourth Amendment protection ...

... even if he has just shot someone.

The police can't just take your blood/urine/whatever for shits and giggles. They have to have probable cause before they can demand that through a warrant. Unless and until it can be demonstrated that Zimmerman was acting in some way to cause police to think that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then they didn't have probable cause to demand as sample.


Sorry, but that's what the Constitution says. Sometimes the Constitution protects those we think shouldn't be protected. That's sort of why it's there: to protect those that many people think shouldn't be protected.

[Uncle Joe]

52. Killing an unarmed kid on his way home from the store is probable cause, it

damn sure doesn't qualify as being for "shits or giggles."

Apparently Martin was deprived of his Fifth Amendment Right to "life" without due process of law and as Martin can't tell his side of the story, his killer should carry an extra burden in presenting his.

[Travelman]

53. The law doesn't work that way. Sorry.

There is no logical nor legal basis for a reason to believe that someone who shoots someone else is on drugs or drunk. There's probable cause to take his gun and have it examined. There's probable cause to take his clothes (probably; that's going to vary by situation). There's not probable cause to take his body fluids. There has to be something else there. That's the way the law works.


And Martin may have been deprived of his life, but the Constitution refers to what the government may or may not do. State penal law deals with private citizens.

[Uncle Joe]

54. Why is there probable cause to take Zimmerman's clothes and yet not do a blood test?

No state may deprive its' citizens of their Civil Rights, and by preferential treatment to the killer, they De Facto did so.

Why was Martin's blood tested and not that of Zimmerman?

One doesn't have to do a blood test to determine that a bullet killed the victim.

[Travelman]

56. Because his clothes are on the outside of his body and plainly observable ...

... whereas his blood/urine/etc. is inside his body and he thus has an expectation of privacy.

At least that is what I understand that courts have upheld in the past.




In the case of Martin's blood, unfortunately, it's because he's no longer a person once he's dead, and as such does not have civil rights any more.

[Uncle Joe]

58. Gun powder and blood residue are not always observable except under special lighting or microscope.

As for your last sentence, if they want to examine the victim's blood I don't have a problem with that so long they also examine his/her killer's blood to see if they were under any kind of aggravating influence.

That's the only way a fair trial aka; due process can be carried out, otherwise the victim is disadvantaged to the perpetrator, there is no due process.

[Travelman]

60. Whether it takes special light or not is irrelevant under the law.

The question is whether something is in "plain view." Example: the cop sees a joint sitting on the dashboard of the car. It's plainly visible to anyone who looks through the windshield. That's probable cause. Put that joint in the glove compartment where it can't be seen by the casual observer without going inside the car and it's not in plain view and therefore not subject to a plain view search.


As regards your last two sentences, well, the Constitution protects us specifically from that. And for good reason. I'm not interested in violating George Zimmerman's civil rights to legal protections just because he is claiming self defense as opposed to someone who shot someone and then disappeared (where are you going to get their blood to test?). Those Constitutional protections are there for a reason, and I don't want them trampled. Not even in Trayvon Martin's interest.

[Uncle Joe]

61. The cop wouldn't see the joint on your dashboard if it were microscopic as blood or

gunpowder residue can be, they could've still taken Zimmerman's clothes whether they visually saw anything beyond just clothes or not, so the "plain view" business doesn't hold up.

However if you want to go by that superficial aspect they could have taken Zimmerman's blood because they saw it on his head, it was in "plain view," or at least that's what we're being told.

Martin's ultimate 5th Amendment Civil Right of not losing his life without due process is being violated, and don't kid yourself this isn't just about Martin but any murder victim, when the killer is present.

No law is perfect and every killer isn't going to be present at the scene but if their clothes can be taken in search of microscopic evidence and victim's blood and/or urine can be taken in the search and use of perceived incriminating evidence there is no logical or just reason as to why the same can't be applied to the killer when present.

[Travelman]

75. Look, I'm just saying what the courts have upheld

I didn't make the law and I didn't sit on the bench when these things were ruled. But that is what it is, and that's their interpretation of a "plain-view search." Whether any of us like it or not, whether any of us think it's "fair" or not really doesn't matter. It is what it is, and Zimmerman had a Fourth Amendment protection against having his blood, etc. drawn without probable cause. Now, maybe they could have gone ahead and taken a sample, and maybe that sample would even show that Zimmerman was high as a kite on Demerol or something, but it wouldn't matter, because the results would just get thrown out in court anyway. So there's really no sense in people carrying on and on about a test that he didn't get.

[Uncle Joe]

77. I have always believed that the interpretation of the law, continually evolves to suit the times

as technology and society advance.

The issue of "precedence" in Supreme Court deliberations is a semi-solid illusion, every now and then they melt the law and reshape it.

[Rex]

73. But he was a minor, are you sure the law does not

require consent from his parents? Even if dead, I am skeptical about the cops having those rights over a minor.

[FogerRox]

57. Gun shot residue test is SOP

Blood and urine tests are SOP in an autopsy.

I mean gee whiz Joe, ever watch CSI ?

[Uncle Joe]

59. Of course but if blood and urine tests are SOP in an autopsy, the same should

be the case in regards to the killer, if the killer is apparent at the scene of the crime.

See my post #58 for further explanation.

[FogerRox]

70. Unfortunately, the rules say youre wrong.

[Uncle Joe]

76. What specifically do the rules say I'm wrong about?

[FogerRox]

79. ->

blood and urine tests are SOP in an autopsy, the same should be the case in regards to the killer

Its not.

[Uncle Joe]

80. "Should be" are the key words. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Turns out it does in FL

I had the same kind of questions about FL law. In another thread a link to it was posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=702014

I read it as use a firearm and they can test you. It also means the police could have taken a sample of some kind and chose not to.

[Travelman]

71. That specifically says that probable cause has to be present

No probable cause, no test. So if Zimmerman doesn't smell of booze and isn't acting like he's impaired, then they have no probable cause for the test. Right back to square one.

[slackmaster]

72. Square one in this case is "We don't know whether or not Zimmerman was tested for drugs."