Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

hedgehog

(36,286 posts) Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:31 AM Jul 2013

What kind of police officer would go through that walk through

with George Zimmerman without challenging his account?

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What kind of police officer would go through that walk through (Original Post) hedgehog Jul 2013 OP

One that has no business being a police officer. nt avebury Jul 2013 #1

One that wants Zim's version pintobean Jul 2013 #2

One naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #3

One that's doing his/hers job, premium Jul 2013 #4

avebury

(10,953 posts)

1. One that has no business being a police officer. nt

Reply to hedgehog (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:33 AM

Jul 2013

pintobean

(18,101 posts)

2. One that wants Zim's version

Reply to hedgehog (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:08 AM

Jul 2013

so he can compare it to all the other evidence. It was the day after the shooting. Zim didn't know what evidence the police had. One couldn't ask for a better scenario. A lawyer would have never let GZ go through with that. If the story didn't match the evidence, they had him.

naaman fletcher

(7,362 posts)

3. One

Reply to hedgehog (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:09 AM

Jul 2013

that was happy to let a murder suspect blabber about without a lawyer present.

premium

(3,731 posts)

4. One that's doing his/hers job,

Reply to hedgehog (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:11 AM

Jul 2013

letting the subject tell their side of the story to compare it later on with the physical evidence and other statements made by the subject.
That's police interview tactics 101.

Reply to this discussion