For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MaryT777 said:
LOL…the ole angel Zimmerman prevails…
I beg to differ.

Now let’s justify the girlfriend assault issue…oh that’s right…
The police assault issue…with alcohol awareness as a “sentence” he was gently putting his hand on the friend while the police hauled him away for underage drinking.
Sure.

🤣

I’ve never said the police were inefficient; must have been someone else.
Click to expand...
Mary- I’m not saying he was an angel. ETA: to be clear, he put his hand on the plain clothes officer’s shoulder- hence the change. However, given the circumstances I would not describe it as a violent assault. If he and his friend were both lying/wrong about the police identifying themselves (I don’t know if there were other witnesses), than he did assault a police officer. But I wouldn’t agree he was ‘lucky the police officer didn’t shoot him.’ I would call into question an officer shooting under these circumstances.

But the circumstances do give some insight to what both the DA and the defense attorney in that case may have been thinking in doing the Alcohol Rehab. If there were no witnesses, it would come down to a he-said, he-said case for the prosecutor. Not a guarantee at all, particularly for someone with no record. If there are any witnesses confirming the police didn’t identify themselves, it’s a loser. With deferral, its something to hold over Zimmerman in the event of a future problem. And he closes a case quickly.

If your’e Zimmerman’s attorney, here’s the deal (assuming $300/hr for an ok, but not great attorney). If Zimmerman decides to fight it in court:

If you fight it, and you could lose:
  • Initial meeting 1 hr 300
  • Court representation prep 1 hr 300
  • Court time initial hearing 2 hrs 600 (1 hr in court, 1hr travel time)
  • Phone calls for preps 1 hr 300
  • initial filing docs 100
  • Preps for depositions 2hrs 600
  • Depose Zs friend 2 hrs 600
  • Depose two officers 4 hrs 1200
  • secretary for deposition 300 (transcribe and write up)
  • Private investigator locate witnesses 500
  • Depose witnesses (assume 1) 600
  • secretary for deposition 100
  • Discovery analysis 4 hrs 1200
  • Research precedent 1 hr 300
  • Prepare motion to dismiss 300
  • File motion 100
  • Calls with client on case 2 hrs 600
  • Analyse/respond to prosecution
    opposition to dismissal 2 hrs 600
  • Court hearing on motions 2 hrs 600
  • Prep witnesses for court 4 hrs 1200
  • Jury selection/court time
    to hear case assume 8 hrs 2400
  • In court for verdict 2 hrs 600
Total est to defend himself 14,400 (I’m not a lawyer, so anybody who is, feel free to chime in)

Now. Regardless of who’s telling the truth. (and they probably both are, maybe cops Id’d themselves but Z and friend didn’t hear it- not expecting it and focused on other things-- and attention capability impaired by alcohol).

So, you’re Z. The lawyer says- hey, DA has offered rehab and deferment, and will drop the charges. 1,200 for my time and no record. OR

you can fight it, ~14,400, with no guarantee on how the jury will see it.

What would you do?
 
MaryT777 said:
Charitable and just (and more intelligent) would be to let the police handle the situation.
Don’t get out of your vehicle with your gun that someone saw and reached for and scare them so much they have no alternative but try to grab the gun or fight for their life.

Not only that it seems illogical to follow around in your vehicle and on foot someone you Perceive is a thug, up to no good, and on drugs. That’s simply dangerous and not prudent.
Click to expand...
You keep posting that he saw a gun without providing a source for this information. :rolleyes:
 
MaryT777 said:
What did he expect to happen if he got out of his vehicle after following someone in his vehicle and on foot who saw his weapon?
Click to expand...
The prudent thing to do when you have lost the person following you to go to the place you are staying. It is not prudent to hit someone with a gun. Again I ask where it the documentation that he saw a gun?
 
adrift said:
You keep posting that he saw a gun without providing a source for this information. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I listened to the statements he gave to the police.

He doesn’t say the TM saw the gun. What he said is that TM’s hand slid toward his gun and he thought he might be going for it. Thought but not certain. It is incorrect to say that TM saw the gun or reached for it. Z was already on his back when this happened so the fiction that TM was defending himself is wrong.
 
adrift said:
I listened to the statements he gave to the police.

He doesn’t say the TM saw the gun. What he said is that TM’s hand slid toward his gun and he thought he might be going for it. Thought but not certain. It is incorrect to say that TM saw the gun or reached for it. Z was already on his back when this happened so the fiction that TM was defending himself is wrong.
Click to expand...
Then Z’s statements are incorrect?
I wouldn’t doubt it as he’s not the most credible man on the planet.
 
adrift said:
The prudent thing to do when you have lost the person following you to go to the place you are staying. It is not prudent to hit someone with a gun. Again I ask where it the documentation that he saw a gun?
Click to expand...
Do police truly recommend if you are being followed by some overzealous “creep” you go home so they now know where you live and can follow you yet there?
:eek:

It’s prudent to hit anyone to defend your life. Too bad TM didn’t get the gun and have more restraint than GZ just shooting someone. Then the police could have handled it.
Hopefully then GZ wouldn’t assault that police officer though and has learned his lesson.
 
MaryT777 said:
Then Z’s statements are incorrect?
I wouldn’t doubt it as he’s not the most credible man on the planet.
Click to expand...
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Your statements are incorrect. You keep saying that TM saw the gun and was defending himself. If he saw the gun, it would have been while Z was on the ground that is after TM had hit him. No matter how you cut it TM was not defending himself. You attack Z without credible evidence.
 
MaryT777 said:
Do police truly recommend if you are being followed by some overzealous “creep” you go home so they now know where you live and can follow you yet there?
:eek:

It’s prudent to hit anyone to defend your life. Too bad TM didn’t get the gun and have more restraint than GZ just shooting someone. Then the police could have handled it.
Hopefully then GZ wouldn’t assault that police officer though and has learned his lesson.
Click to expand...
Since he had told his girlfriend that he had lost him than there was no reason he should not have gone to where he was staying instead of returning to someone who was following him. Does the police recommend you confront someone who is following him. He should have called the police or if he didn’t want to lead him to the place he was staying go back to the store. You can’t get over the fact he hit Z not because he was defending himself but because he was annoyed at he “cracker” following him. What cause the whole thing was not Z following but TM attacking Z.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top