Skip to comments.Zimmerman Reenacted Shooting For Police, Step-By-Step On Video, At The Scene, One Day Later
Posted on 04/12/2012 2:59:07 PM PDT by zeestephen
The Sanford Police Department was unable to obtain any evidence that would allow them to press even involuntary manslaughter charges against Zimmerman. And no new evidence changed that, even as days and weeks passed.
(Excerpt) Read more at wagist.com ...
"Almost immediately, within around thirty-seven minutes after the shooting, Zimmerman was already waiving his right to an attorney. He then proceeded to interview with the police for several hours without any legal representation present."
"Then the next day, still without any attorney present or legal advice, Zimmerman took the police back to the scene of the shooting at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, and reenacted what happened on the evening of February 26th with them, step-by-step on video."
"Had Zimmermans narrative and recounting of the details of that evening been any less than 100% consistent, thats the moment when everything would have fallen apart for him sometime right around February 27th. The police had every reason and opportunity to document and doggedly pursue any differences they saw between Zimmermans initial interview and his video re-enactment the following day."
"Rather than finding anything they could follow up with, what happened instead? The Sanford Police Department was unable to obtain any evidence that would allow them to press even involuntary manslaughter charges against Zimmerman. And no new evidence changed that, even as days and weeks passed."
In a way this is good for Zimmerman. The information is only one day removed form the case. If Zimmerman’s portrayal match with the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts, this will strengthen his case for acquittal.
Conversely, that Lady Nifong made her case knowing this information exists is clear evidence of an agenda in play.
My family has personal experience on why you should never help police with ANYTHING. They will always act like your best friend and then turn things to their advantage.
It also shows Zimmerman’s absolute commitment to full cooperation with the police.
Even if you want to spill your guts to the cops and tell everything that happened because you think that the truth will set you free, you still need an attorney present to make sure that what you tell the cops ends up being the same as what the cops tell the jury you said. Otherwise they will edit your remarks as thoroughly as an NBC producer to get the "facts" they want.
Zimmerman cooperated because he had nothing to hide, and the police weren’t going to file any charges against him, til the race baiters got involved, then this whole case blew up into something it should have never become. This was an open and shut case from the start, this is Duke Lacrosse/Richard Jewel times 100
Its not his job to prove he's innocent. Talking to the police only digs your hole deeper.
It is never wise to talk to the police without counsel present. Hopefully, his dememanor and testimony will dispel any "depraved mind" elements for the prosecution.
I wonder if he was read his rights before he was taken into the station. Should he have been?
sometimes people panic, but the son of a Magistrate should know better.
Sadly, George Zimmerman’s name may now become the new verb for NOT cooperating with the police (for your own protection) i.e., “Even though I was innocent, I didn’t dare talk to the police after the incident because I didn’t want to get Zimmermaned.”
Of course he should have been read his rights and should have also signed a statement relinquishing his right to have cousel present.
The rule of thumb is when a person goes from being a “witness” to a “suspect”, then he needs to be Mirandized.
In a perfect world this would have happened, however, chances are the detectives involved took advantage of the situation and pressed him. Chances are Zimmerman felt he had nothing to hide and fully cooporated, which is why he wasn’t charged since his story was probably plausible and consistent.
The same applies to reporters...they are NEVER your friend
Me too, but it really depends on the circumstances. My son was being falsely accused in an after the fact situation. So talking to the cops made no sense. But even when the DNA proved he didn’t do it they still came after us—mainly because we didn’t cooperate with them. They knew we’d win in court, but they pressed on.
They wanted to make us suffer for not helping. And that’s what happened. My son missed his freshman year of school because you can’t go to school with charges pending in my state. He got to spend 2 nights at the detention center. Luckily I have legal insurance so they thought my high priced attorney was going to hurt my pocketbook, but it cost me zilch.
Even more troubling is they scams they played going into court. Like hiding evidence. I can’t say how I knew they were hiding it, but I did and my lawyer was able to surprise them. So the day of the first trial date they showed up with the evidence they never turned over. Knowing it couldn’t be used that day and hoping we’d agree to go to court without it. They were throwing a hail mary pass. I refused to go to court that day. They offered a settlement—we refused.
Next time at court and they pull more crap by not having their “key witness” show up. So it gets rescheduled again. Now my son will miss the start of his sophomore year! I pitch a fit on my lawyer and so he gives up another client’s court date to me so I can get this done.
We go in and we win in front of the judge—easily. But still a major headache and my lesson was that our justice system is not fair.
Had I allowed the cops to interview my wife and son they may have left us along, but then again they may have screwed up and said something wrong or been taken out of context and then he’d be in jail. But yeah you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
Great insight, Reddy.
“My family has personal experience on why you should never help police with ANYTHING.”
Which makes sense at to why the African American community hate the police. They can never, ever afford lawyers.
Our Family Rules
1. Never answer police questions without an attorney’s advice
2. No Law Enforcement Officer enters our home for any reason without a warrant, not even to speak to us.
I have friends that are Police Officers, but the Police are not the citizens friend.........
Never talk to the police, period.
Their goal is to get a conviction, if the person is actually guilty so much the better.
That is kind of taking it too far. I think a better way to put it is (and you may have meant this anyway), don't help the police if you or anyone you care about is in any way under suspicion of committing a crime. Even if you or the person(s) you care about are completely innocent, it is always better to have a lawyer present. Outside of that, I feel we should help law enforcement wherever reasonably possible.
“Talking to the police only digs your hole deeper.”
Because some lawyer, defense or government, is going to try to screw you to the wall............even if you are only a witness.
The kid didn’t know you can’t make a move in Obama’s America without a lawyer next to you. I sure hope his innocence didn’t screw him.
He is not going to be acquited. He will be given a “show trial” and convicted. This charge is politically motivated by cowards who are afraid to do their duty.
Because he is a decent and most importantly, innocent man.
When this goes to trial, the defense is going to ask all the officers who had contact with George Zimmerman this question.
“Officer, during your contact, interview, interrogation or other communication medium, did you at any time detect deliberate deception or evasion?
“In your investigation did you at any time find that George Zimmerman failed to disclose fully his actions on the night in question?”
Folks, the Sanford Police Department is a state accredited agency. They would be MANDATED to film any interview or interrogation of George Zimmerman for his involvement in a capital or life crime. That interrogation tape will reveal his emotional state, and attempts to derail, mislead or stall the process. Couple that with his VOLUNTARY decision to reenact the incident for the police, (which is a great rarity and will be gold for the defense) and you have an acquittal.
Murderers reenact what they did AFTER they make a deal, not before.
I can’t be to specific but lets just say I come from a small town and someone in my family was nearly killed with a shotgun blast to the chest.
We allowed the police to talk to him to get a description while he was heavily medicated and on a ventilator, nearly unconscious, because we thought he was about to die (and he was.) Well, he could barely form a single word let alone sentences and they came out with pages of notes.
Well it turns out one of the people that were on the “bad” side was a police officer’s delinquent son and things went south for our “good” kids.
They denied they were shot with a shotgun even though the doctor pulled pellets out of them and they are still pulling pellets out to this day. They charged the person basically with assaulting himself because he should have anticipated he would have been shot.
Obviously there are more details and even though we live in a good town our kids shouldn’t have been hanging out that late on a weekend. The kids in the neighboring small town however are heavily into gangs.
We no longer trust police with anything. The end of the trail of our group ended with a mistrial and the DA came back with so many charges everyone had to plea because no matter what you do, you can always be guilty of something.
“Then the next day, still without any attorney present or legal advice, Zimmerman took the police back to the scene of the shooting at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, and reenacted what happened on the evening of February 26th with them, step-by-step on video.”
In all the postings of news reports previously made here of FR, this is the first I recall that tells of a “re-enactment” for police that was videotaped. Why have we not heard of this before?
If this is true, it’s VIS (very important stuff)....
The New York Times is the source.
I picked up the story from Wagist.com.
Wagist has the embedded link, I read the NYT article, and that's exactly what it says.
I was shocked, too.
That’s messed up. Sorry to hear it.
I personally have never had a bad encounter with any cop whether I was pulled over, or had to speak to them about something I witnessed, or the 2 odd times I have ever had to call them to my house (jerk neighbors).
Lot’s of messed up stories out there, I just haven’t had it happen to me, maybe I’m lucky or just really boring.