I think subornation of perjury is considered criminal but in practice, what with the attorney-client privilege keeping their conversations with their clients confidential, who is ever going to be able to prove what an attorney has or has not been told by their client? So it comes down to each individual's professional ethics imo, and sometimes practical considerations might win (in that if your client's story is confirmed horsefeathers and the prosecutor can prove it it may be better to choose another line of defense).
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...2-documents-released-in-george-zimmerman-case
Documents released in George Zimmerman case
Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester issued an order to unseal several documents. According to one of the documents released Monday, Zimmerman's arraignment was pushed forward from May 29 to May 8.
Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...leased-in-george-zimmerman-case#ixzz1stU5VbNz
Court order:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90825621/George-Zimmerman-trial-Order-to-Unseal-Court-File
Wow...........everyone must be busy reading.
LOL my daughter's too. It will be easy to remember.Oh great, his arraignment is on my birthday now! I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing! :what::floorlaugh:
I've said it on other threads- I am Neighborhood Watch, there is NO on duty, where I live, there are NO shifts. If you see or hear something suspicious, you call it in, no matter what the hour. That's where it ends, you don't carry a weapon- I don't own a gun and never will, and you don't follow. You leave it up to LE, period!One thing that I have noticed and top of mind is how often it is said by DT and others (Tafee) that he "wasn't on duty" when this happened. WTF! You aren't *on duty* for NW - it's a continual thing! Me thinks they *think* have a loophole somewhere?
I think subornation of perjury is considered criminal but in practice, what with the attorney-client privilege keeping their conversations with their clients confidential, who is ever going to be able to prove what an attorney has or has not been told by their client? So it comes down to each individual's professional ethics imo, and sometimes practical considerations might win (in that if your client's story is confirmed horsefeathers and the prosecutor can prove it it may be better to choose another line of defense).
JMO/IMOI have never worked in FL but when I was City Manager in MA everything required a vote of the Council to keep the record clear. Permanent records of all hiring, firing, resignations. It there is any wrong doing on the part of the Chief in this investigation pretty much the City is on the hook. Of course it would have to be proven but a case like that is expensive and generally settled out of court.
But making the record clear right now is imperative. Because the Officers of the Department, the staff and the citizens need to know who is in charge. And a formal vote to accept the resignation makes it clear, that this chief is no longer at the helm and has no right to dictate how that department is run.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sanford-chief-resigns-20120423,0,3336571.story
(snipped from above article at above link)
Commissioner Patty Mahany said the chief submitted his resignation over the weekend; Lee temporarily left his post last month amid complaints about how his department handled the investigation of the Feb. 26 shooting. The city commission is scheduled to hold a special meeting late Monday afternoon to discuss Lee's severance package, Mahany said.
"Elected officials used this man as a scapegoat to heal our community," she said in a telephone interview with the Los Angeles Times. "Our community was never broken."
Mahany, who had supported Lee during the political furor over his departments investigation, called the resignation a "terrible tragedy." She said she blamed civil rights activists whose protests "ruined the reputation and career of a really stellar law enforcement officer."
Lee "is nothing but a scapegoat," Mahany said. "Our police department did nothing wrong."
Not much of a doc-dump, but hey! It's something.
Interesting to read the Motion to Appear in Civilian Clothing.
Then a lot of reporters misspoke. JMO
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403
When Tracy Martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. "He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures," Martin said.
"I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, 'OK, let me go to my car and get something.'" The detective returned with a folder.
It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. "From that point, our nightmare," Martin said.
That is interesting to read, but why would the state care what he is wearing?
I've had the impression he was being used as a scapegoat too.
That's a shame IMO.
Probably your right, but what evidence supports that? I believe her statement was taken 3 weeks after the event?
I know. That seemed a bit strange to me, too. Why would they care??? jmo