Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us'
Source: CNN
The George Zimmerman investigation was hijacked "in a number of ways" by outside forces, said the former police chief of Sanford, Florida.
Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice.
"It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."
When Sanford police arrived on the scene on February 26, 2012, after Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they conducted a "sound" investigation, and the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, he said.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justice/sanford-bill-lee-exclusive/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MADem
(135,425 posts)Nothing to see here, move along, citizens...
Californeeway
(97 posts)Is proof that this guy and everyone working for him are racist sacks of shit.
They did everything they could to ignore the red flags and cover for Zimmerman.
If I was a resident of Sanford, I would be doing everything I could to get this asshole fired and the fuck out of my community.
calimary
(81,322 posts)Glad you're here. This whole sordid Zimmerman mess is just sickening. Many of us here have been commiserating and gnashing our teeth about it. It just points up SOOOOOOO many wrongs in this country. In - would you believe, the 21st Century AD?
I fear he's gonna walk, and then take it as justification for what he did - for which he's expressed no remorse. Told that-guy-whose-name-rhymes-with-Vanity that it was "God's plan." WTF???????
Unbelievable.
lib87
(535 posts)That the public outcry got Bill Lee fired last year
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)
JI7
(89,252 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)That would seem to be his viewpoint.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 07:41 AM - Edit history (1)
But depending on your definition of provoked, in most states the answer in a lot of situations is, in fact, yes.
If the provocation was not the provoking party actually using physical force, it is yes in most every state.
In a lot of states even if I throw the first blow, if I then attempt to back away and end the fight and the other party continues to fight, the other party becomes the aggressor and in some cases deadly physical force can be used and it be considered self defense.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Zimmerman is clearly the aggressor and either shot Martin outright, or went from "f'in punk" to "oh shit" in a heartbeat that ended with a gunshot. You can't initiate a fight and expect to run away scot free and be a victim... Zimmerman's wounds, even if not self inflicted, were trivial, bandaid optional. In no way were they life threatening.
If you wanted to give him every doubt in the book, he is still absolutely guilty of manslaughter.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But sadly it is what you can prove.
And unless they can prove he threw the first blow, legally he isn't the aggressor. That is the bad part- he could have followed Trayvon, asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood, called him a nigger, and all that- and if Trayvon acted like a typical impulsive teen and threw the first blow, legally Trayvon was the aggressor in the fight.
It essentially comes down to can the state prove Zimmerman threw the first blow or not. beyond a reasonable doubt. And they seem to be blowing it.
On a side note, that is kind of how those bastards from Westboro make all their money. They go around saying things they know will enrage people, but if you lose your cool and hit one they will sue you. Half the family is lawyers.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)We know there was a last blow, we know that there was instigation leading to the event, at a very minimum, manslaughter.
The problem with your analogy is that the Westboro assholes do not protest while carrying, do not follow anyone, and have not killed anyone.
And the fact that we cannot know for sure what happened between the time he hung up and when the shot was fired is why he will likely walk.
To get a conviction, the prosecution has to lay out a chain of events of what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. They simply haven't. I don't quite understand what they are doing, they are acting more like defense attorneys and trying to just muddy waters- but creating reasonable doubt about the defense doesn't get a win for the prosecution.
I think if the prosecution had gone for manslaughter from the beginning, and laid out a case that by carrying a gun while doing his neighborhood watch and also pursuing Trayvon he created a circumstance that led to the shooting that was 100% unavoidable, they could have stood a much better chance of getting a manslaughter conviction. But they didn't, they went for a bridge too far with M2- and because they didn't argue the case for manslaughter, it is less likely the jury will see the picture like that.
My WBC church analogy was because the same premise of law applies to provocation or instigation-words spoken to you, no matter how distasteful, are never a justification for the use of physical force (with some very, very, very limited exceptions). I don't doubt that some of the WBC assholes carry guns, and if they followed people instead of standing in one place it wouldn't change that. Some folks intentionally abuse this part of the law to bait people into striking first, then use it to their advantage. The WBC does so because they can get money from it. Zimmerman could have because he knew if he got Trayvon hit hit first that he could shoot and claim self defense.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Trayvon's hands even showed no evidence of fighting. Words do not justify force, force does not justify lethal force.
Also, the prosecution has request that the jury be instructed that manslaughter and aggravated assault charges are in play if murder 2 is not used.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Is enough to create reasonable doubt in the jury.
All it takes is one juror to believe that maybe it could have happened that way. Not even likely happened that way, but just possibly could have, and under our system that is enough to acquit or get a hung jury.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)if you see it any differently now?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It was weak. Very poorly constructed and presented.
He never laid out a clear chain of events that will remain 100% believable after the defense gets their say. He should have been laying out a clear narrative of facts that tell the story so they can reach a verdict, one that will survive all the defense will throw at it tomorrow. But instead he spent much, too much, of the time appealing to emotion.
He spent most of the time just poking holes in Zimmermans story. That is what a defense attorney is supposed to do. He never laid out a clear, concise chain of events that was believable beyond a reasonable doubt. He didn't. He asked a whole lot of questions. You don't eliminate reasonable doubt with questions, you create it.
Whoever did that powerpoint needs to be fired. It didn't just look amateurish, it contained things that made me go WTF? Like claims Zimmerman had an "overloaded gun"- what does that even mean? I am a certified firearms instructor and have never, ever heard such a term used. How does a professional prosecutor and his team let something like that get into its presentation?
At one point I heard him say "I hope this makes sense" about his own exhibit. Hey, McFly, your job is to eliminate doubt, not create it by using exhibits you are unsure the jury understands.
And lastly, he kept yelling. I know it was to appeal to emotion, but I expect it turned off the jurors. People yell when they are not confident of their argument.
Remember, the defense has a lot lower bar to reach than the prosecution. Imagine as an 90/10 thing. The Prosecution needs to create 90% or better certainty in the jurors minds that what they are saying happened like they are claiming to convict. The defense only needs to create more than 10% doubt or so that the prosecution is right to win.
Had this been a defense closing, poking holes in a story and asking questions to make jurors wonder and create doubt, I would say they did a good job. As a prosecution closing, it was lacking.
I am very disappointed.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Defense I already using the problems I pointed out.
"How many "could have beens and what ifs have you heard from the state?". That is a damming attack, and it is using the prosecutors own words to create the reasonable doubt they need.
John2
(2,730 posts)other posters and you have been making this assertion a lot on here. I took the time out to look at your claims. People have been found not guilty because the other party provoke the fight and charges were dropped.
The assertion that you can follow and stalk a person for no reason is against the law. You cannot get in a person's face and intimidate them. So from what I have out, what you are saying is not true.
If a person believes that they are in imminent danger of an harmful act, they have a right to act against the provocation. To continue to defend Zimmerman's actions, as not placing Trayvon in imminent danger is false. Zimmerman was an armed person following Trayvon a night. Trayvon was justified in being apprehensive of Zimmerman and the evidence that he was. came from Jenteal's testimony. And it was verified, she was the last living person to talk to him. So go ahead and explain that away if you can? I'm open to anything to throw out.
Giving Trayvon Martin's circumstances and now we know Zimmerman had followed Martin with a loaded gun, Martin had just as much right to defend himself as you would give this murderer. The only difference is, Martin didn't have a loaded gun, which gave him no chance at all. Zimmerman had the advantage from the start even when he lied about calling for help.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I know NC law best, but I expect FL law is similar.
You can be charged with disorderly conduct if you follow a person and try to incite them to fight you or make threats.
But because you do does not legally justify that person in using force against you. Because you are apprehensive about a person does not justify the use of force against them.
To justify use of force first from the part of Trayvon would require Zimmerman to actually make threatening statements or physical acts. Following somebody and looking creepy doesn't rise to that standard.
In addition, at least in NC, that will be an affirmative defense, meaning you will still likely be charged, but you can use that defense with the judge and/or jury.
John2
(2,730 posts)any state; I took time out to look it up. A person who believes that they are in imminent danger of a harmful act by another, has a right to act.
Ceorge Zimmerman gave Trayvon martin the right to believe he was in imminent danger of him by following him for no reason at night. The clear evidence shows Trayvon ran or tried at one point to lose Zimmerman, only to come into contact with him again.
It is taught in every law course, the use of a Deadly makes it automatic, if Zimmerman was indeed armed when he chose to pursue Martin. You can't escape the fact, zimmerman knew he was armed at the time he went after Martin and already had his gun loaded and in the position to fire it.
The evidence is not murky when Zimmerman pursue Martin. The evidence is not merky when Jenteal claimed Martin saw Zimmerman again and his cell phone disconnected. None of that evidence is in question.
The only evidence that gets questionable is when zimmerman creates his story about Martin circling back and jumping him. All of that evidence comes from his lawyers, the detectives,witnesses and Zimmerman. That is where it looks like a big coverup, but they are having a hard time covering their stories. All the witnesses don't agree.
The prosecution doesn't have to prove none of that under Florida's stand your ground or self defense. Zimmerman is the one have to defend his actions for using Deadly Force, because he was the aggressor from the start. Trayvon Martin also had the right to use self defense, because Zimmerman was the aggressor. There is no evidence to prove Trayvon should have lost his rights to self defense against Zimmerman even if he got the better of Zimmerman in a fist fight.
Especially when Zimmerman possessed a loaded gun all the while. The only life threatening injury shown and proven to be one in the entire case, was the gunshot wound. That came from the gun Zimmerman loaded and fired at Trayvon. That is why you have a Deadly Weapon Doctrine.
So any evidence confusing you, entirely comes from their Bullshit story to coverup murder. It didn't come from Trayvon's side. That is why there is no reasonable doubt, only bullshit from O'Mara.
Following a person is not enough to make a person reasonly believe they are in immensely danger of bodily harm. Now if Zimmerman displayed the gun, the combination of the two would be enough. But just following a person isn't enough to rise to the legal standard.
John2
(2,730 posts)coming home in a strange neighborhood at night, and some creepy white man followed me, at night, would give me concern. I'm from North Carolina too guy.
I'm a Black man to and weigh over 200 pounds. How would some white kid in North Carolina feel about me If I decided to follow them at night? I'm not a police officer either. This is what I'm talking about. You don't need to answer, but are you white? That is not normal for a person to follow a kid at night, but you seem to think it is?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Is not the same as having reasonable fear of them doing imminent bodily harm.
Concern, sure. Concern doesn't rise to the level required to hit somebody, or otherwise use physical force, first.
As for my racial bona-fides, if you want really to go there, I an half Fillipino and half Lumbee Indian, and if you hail from NC you may be aware that the bulk of the evidence is that us Lumbee are not actually Native Americans but descendants of mixed race people who started claiming native status to lessen discrimination. So I look more like a half asian half black, and that is probably what my DNA really is, and trust me whenever someone wanted to discriminate they had no issues seeing me as black as they wanted to.
John2
(2,730 posts)that you mentioned Lumbee or even Lumberton North Carolina, which is where I was raised. My Grandfather worked for the Robesonian for years also. So you got a background of just about how much I know about Lumbee Indians. Some people try to pass for both races. Whatever drop of blood comes to their advantage. I've had my differences with Lumbee Indians. I've also seen people categorize Blacks because of the skin color or hair texture.
As far as your first premise, it does if the person chasing you, caught you by surprise. It does if that person approached you first and had the gun out.
It is your one sided view, to believe Zmmerman's claims Trayvon circled back and jumped him. So Trayvon attacked this guy while talking on his own cell phone. You are the one want to believe he sneaked up on Zimmerman while talking on his own cell phone. That is the bullshit O'Mara fed you.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If anything I am saying we really can't know how it all went down, and that is the biggest problem with this whole case.
We have the prosecutions version, which they really haven't been very clear about and seem to be jumping all around with things like "maybe the injuries to his head were from tree branches", which is the kind of muddying the waters you expect from defense, not prosecution, and we have Zimmermans inconsistent claims. I really hope in their closing argument the prosecution lays out a clear, concise timetable of events for what they say happened to tie it all together.
Right now neither party has laid a convincing case when you put aside personal bias and look at only what has been allowed in court. But remember, only the prosecution has to convince the jury to almost 100%, if the defense can just raise some doubt under our system they win. If the jury is 80% sure Zimmerman is guilty, that 20% is enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
A person chasing you still doesn't rise to the level required to initiate force, in and of itself. If they are chasing with a gun out where you can see it, then that certainly does. We can't know if that is what happened, however. That is the big problem with this case, too many unknowns, and unknowns favor the creation of reasonable doubt.
My mom was from Bladenboro, but I was born in Wilmington and grew up in Gastonia, so I never got much of a chance to interact with anyone from the area- I was stuck kind of in the middle in a very racially polarized town in the 80's growing up. Too dark for the white kids, too asian for the black kids and I was raised by a mom who insisted we were not black but Indian.
where you are coming from. I agree with you about the prosecution. They are being very passive, as if they are trying to throw this case. They are letting the defense get away with a lot of non facts in this case. and giving a clear rebuttal. So they are letting the defense muddy up the evidence.
Let me put it this way, Read the "Deadly Weapon Doctrine Effect," which is taught in every law course. Martin did not have to see Zimmerman's gun when Zimmerman took after him. Even though Zimmerman has a right to carry, a concealed weapon, doesn't give him the right to unlawfully kill some one.
What you have to measure is his intent. This is very easy for the prosecution to prove Zimmerman's intent that night. When Zimmerman stepped out of his vehicle, the chamber was loaded, with the safety off. I'm also a military veteran. I know about fire arms safety. I don't know any instructions that teaches you to carry a loaded gun in a holster with the safety off. What Zimmerman was implying is unreasonable. So you have to infer, that he is lying.
If he is indeed lying, it means Zimmerman pursued Martin with intent to use a loaded gun on him as soon as he left his vehicle. There is no way to get around that. Think about what he is claiming now. He had a loaded gun in his holster at home with the safety off. You think he always keeps it in his presence or out of his presence like that? He took a loaded gun to the grocery store? You know how dangerous that is? What if that gun went off accidentally? It is just part of his bullshit. More then likely, he had that gun out and loaded it when he went looking for Martin.
On the gun point. I am military, but was also a sheriffs deputy for several years and now teach self defense and concealed carry here in NC, primarily focused on women. How the military handles guns and how everybody else does is very, very different.
Carrying with a round in the chamber is standard- it is for police, it is for concealed carry. I tell my students that if you can't trust yourself to carry in the condition for the gun to be put to immediate use, you shouldn't carry. In a life or death situation you may not have the time or control to stop and use both hands to chamber a round.
As for the safety being off, somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the handgun he used was a model that does not even have an external safety, so there is nothing to have "off".
Just like the Glock I carried as a deputy- I carried every day with a round chambered, and it has no external safety. I wasn't out to kill. I carry a smaller Glock now, same thing/
That line of reasoning only works with people ignorant about guns and safe carry, and is somewhat dirty pool. I have my Glock 36 right now, and the chamber is loaded, and there is no external safety. It is always like that when I carry. That damm sure doesn't mean I am out to kill somebody, and your line of reasoning here is deeply flawed.
I really suggest you take a good concealed carry course in NC, even if you don't get a permit, it will be very educational. Once I find a new range to host my classes again you can come for free.
24601
(3,962 posts)police dispatcher would rise to the level of a crime. Approaching another person on the sidewalk is not a crime. The police testified under oath that Zimmerman following Martin broke no law. They also testified that telling Zimmerman that they did not need him to follow Martin was not a police order because of two reasons - the first being that the dispatcher is not a sworn officer and secondly because they were not permitted to give such an order.
So the issue comes down to who took the first swing and therefore (il)legally became the aggressor. The other person becomes the non-aggressor is entitled to self defense and under Florida law has no duty to retreat. There has been no credible evidence introduced identifying the aggressor and, coupled with the legal standard that a defendant is not guilty until proved otherwise, the existence of reasonable doubt isn't really in question if the jury follows the law and applies the evidence.
Tragic that a young man was killed? Absolutely. Proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman threw the 1st punch and was the aggressor? Not even close. Convince me that someone with a gun is going to going to start a fight with bare hands - that dog don't hunt.
OJ walked with a much stronger case murder case against him. Don't expect a conviction here either.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)A lot of folks are really hung up on the fact that he followed him, but unless you can prove he followed him and was first to use force, it doesn't matter.
But lacking a good witness, and without Trayvon being able to tell his side, we simply can't say one way or the other with certainty.
FWIW What he did would only be stalking in NC if he did it twice- here one of the elements of stalking is that it is repeated behavior.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)They weren't going to arrest him. It sounds like to me even though the officer on the scene wrote down manslaughter (which if he had been arrested under that would have been a good start), they simply interviewed him and then let him go.
The so called "witnesses" were unreliable and said things that contradicted the facts in the case (I am mainly talking about the one guy who said Martin was on top of Zimmerman in an MMA type hold). The police seemed to start with the assumption that only self-defense was possible and stick with that throughout whatever investigation occurred. It seems to me like the police, Zimmerman, his lawyers, and the witnesses are all covering for him by doing whatever they can to discredit Martin.
While the judge in the case has been fair and kept both sides at bay, I think this case was doomed from the moment they let Zimmerman go.
John2
(2,730 posts)me the investigators were pointing out the weaknesses in Zimmerman's excuse to him, so that he could shore it up. For example, it seemed like Serino was hinting to Zimmerman like what are you going to say tio explain this, just in case someone ask you.
It did not seem Zimmerman was treated at all like someone who committed a crime. Even taken him out to go over the crime scene and his actions. It seemed more like a rehearsal for covering all the bases. This whole thing looks like a coverup by them and now this guy comes out crying he is a victim. How many Black officers are in police management or their investigative units? The bottomline is 20 percent of the Sanford community has no trust in the Police Department. That is not good for a Police Department.
Jim__
(14,077 posts)My suspicion is that he would disagree.
ceonupe
(597 posts)city manager and city officials are tight lipped the lawsuits coming upon acquittal will be large lots of mis steps and the insurance company will look to settle.
the city will settle to avoid full discovery.
The more i find out about this case the more its clear this became political and was no way this was not going to trial.
The city has already paid the old chief a crap load of money. the DOJ was involved in organizing protests for travon and no proper procedure was followed in dealing with the martins. What shocks me the most about this whole thing is how lacking the states case for 2nd degree was. This at-most should have been a manslaughter trial.
John2
(2,730 posts)If you think there wasn't evidence for murder, then why is the Defense trying to prevent the Martin's right to bring a civil suit? I think your accusing the DOJ of organizing protests, exposes you. People filed complaints to the DOJ. So who is O'Mara really working for? You sure he didn't get involved in this case because of politics himself?
ceonupe
(597 posts)because in FL if you are acquitted of Murder/manslaughter you cant be sued in civil court
But if you are convicted of a lessor charge you can be sued in civil court.
rpannier
(24,330 posts)Because it was my understanding that the officers on the scene thought he should have been arrested
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Only to get rebuffed? And here we have the police chief showing his ass.
The elected officials in that area are racists. That doesn't bode well for the jury pool. 
John2
(2,730 posts)whole trial should be in question, including certain actions from the Judge and prosecutors in this case. Some of those jurors should have been struck, that were allowed on the jury. She also kept racial profiling out of the case but allowed the defense to use it in their case, to justify stereotyping Martin for an excuse for Zimmerman to target him. And Zimmerman's trainer should have never been allowed to testify about the physical capacity of Trayvon Martin. He never met Trayvon Martin in his life, but he volunteered as some expert about Martin. That whole testimony was phony.
Mz Pip
(27,451 posts)if Zimmerman had been a Black guy packing and Martin had been white. A white teen carrying a bag of Skittles followed and subsequently shot and killed by a black guy would be a whole different story.
reflection
(6,286 posts)You deserved to have it taken away from you, you incompetent or Machiavellian fool. Even the average person with a cursory knowledge of the case realizes you did everything in your power to ensure that he wasn't charged, and that if he was eventually, there would be little evidence from that night to use against him, even though he was the one with the hot gun and the child was sprawled dead on the ground amidst so many Skittles. Enjoy your retirement, fuckface.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)They decided on who would be assigned to prosecute. Its clear to me that they picked attorneys that were corrupt enough to do their bidding in that they would only try hard enough to make it appear like they actually wanted to win the case. Or at the very most, a reduced manslaughter conviction.
When the defense dropped the Stand Your Ground defense my alarm bells went off. This is all my opinion of course but I can see that the prosecution made a back room deal with the defense to drop the Stand Your Ground defense in exchange for doing what they can to fumble the ball. The last thing the Florida GOP wants is their precious SYG law to be dragged through the mud and have a defendant actually lose when he bases his case on it.
So now however this turns out, its a win for the SYG law and Republicans as its not even a part of the show.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But I am seeing these prosecutors make such a weak case, that was obviously overcharged, that it keeps making me wonder if they are trying to throw it.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Unbelievable.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and then complain about how they were taken off it. The Florida bigot type has a level of arrogance that is truly bordering on psychosis.