Showing posts with label destroying evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label destroying evidence. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Take his guns away, already: Why the George Zimmermans are so protected

George Zimmerman may be right to think he's invincible: police don't seem upset that he destroyed evidence

George Zimmerman destroyed the iPad that had recorded an argument with his wife even though knew it was evidence in a police matter, since Shellie Zimmerman called 911 during the confrontation. Later, his wife declined to press charges. Police don't seem to be upset that he destroyed evidence, but they are trying to recover data from the iPad.


Take his guns away, already: Why the George Zimmermans are so protected
What exactly does it take for a man with domestic abuse complaints and a fatal shooting to lose access to weapons?
By Katie Mcdonough
Salon.com
Sep 12, 2013

Exactly what happened on Monday between George Zimmerman and his estranged wife, Shellie, in Lake Mary, Fla., is still in doubt — but seeing the words “Zimmerman,” “gun” and “altercation” strung together once again has turned Zimmerman into a lightning rod for questions regarding gun violence and domestic abuse in the United States.

Based on the initial report, Shellie called the police that day claiming Zimmerman, brandishing his firearm, was threatening her, daring her to “step closer” to him. “I don’t know what he’s capable of. I’m really, really scared,” she told the emergency dispatcher. He violently destroyed her iPad, she said, allegedly cutting through the device with his pocketknife. He also apparently came to blows with her father, and allegedly exhibited the complete lack of self-control and dangerously poor judgment for which the public has come to know him.

But because Shellie changed her story only hours later — saying she never saw a firearm, and that she wouldn’t press charges — there was no domestic violence report filed. Absent that, the police didn’t pursue a warrant to search Zimmerman’s vehicle for the gun he may or may not have used to threaten Shellie.

Whether or not Zimmerman had a gun on him that day, one thing remains clear: The gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin may still be lawfully returned to him. And he is, according to recent reports, looking to buy more.

Which invites the question: What does a person have to do in this country to get a gun taken away? Or lose the right to a concealed carry permit? And, more specifically, what does a man with a noted history of both domestic violence complaints and a willingness to use deadly force, who is currently in the news for what may still turn out to be another such incident, have to do?

Turns out: quite a terrifying lot. Because, put mildly, the laws in Florida and elsewhere regulating gun ownership among domestic abusers and men suspected of domestic violence are, shall we say, permissive.

“In our country, and in most states, the scales have been very, very heavily tipped toward the individual rights of gun owners,” Dr. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, tells Salon. “United States policy almost always gives the benefit of the doubt to the gun owner,” and things are no different in cases of domestic violence.

According to recent data, more than 60 percent of women killed by a firearm in 2010 were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. The presence of a firearm during a domestic violence incident increases the likelihood of a homicide by an astounding 500 percent. In general, guns are very, very bad for women’s health.

But in spite of all of the evidence identifying a strong and deadly correlation between gun deaths and violence against women, our policies to protect women (victims of intimate partner-related gun violence are, overwhelmingly, female) are full of holes.

For an example of this, look no further than Florida. In Zimmerman’s home state, as a result of federal law, it is illegal for a person subjected to a protective order to own or purchase firearms, and it is a crime for that person to refuse to surrender them to law enforcement. This is a good law that, when effectively enforced, can save women’s lives. “There are actually three studies now published in scientific journals showing how this policy [barring people subjected to restraining orders from owning or purchasing firearms] is associated with a significant reduction in risk of intimate partner homicide — ranging from a 6 to 19 percent reduction,” Webster notes.

But because the law does not explicitly compel courts to authorize police to take the firearms away, many people who are subjected to domestic violence-related restraining orders are still able to keep and carry their guns, undeterred. And those who do have their guns taken away will just as soon have them returned at the expiration of that order. “The minute it expires,” Webster says, “the person who has been under the order can legally possess as many guns as they like. And in places like Florida, this person can also carry a concealed and loaded gun more or less wherever they want.”

Zimmerman is a perfect example of this. In 2005, the same year he faced felony charges for battering a police officer, Zimmerman was subject to a temporary restraining order after his ex-fiancĂ©e accused him of striking, shoving and groping her on several occasions. During the duration of the order, Zimmerman was prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms. But after it expired in 2006, he was once again eligible to possess a gun — and obtain a concealed carry permit...

Friday, July 26, 2013

Was San Ysidro School District smart to destroy documents?

Destroying evidence seems to be a successful ploy. It certainly worked for Halliburton (see story below).

What should SYSD's lawyers, Gil Abed and Dan Shinoff, do? Resign on principle?


Halliburton shares up despite destroying evidence
Adam Shell
USA TODAY
July 26, 2013

Halliburton shares rise despite guilty plea related to destroying evidence in 2010 oil spill in Gulf of Mexico.
Oil services firm will plead guilty to a criminal charge in Gulf oil spill disaster

Investors focus instead on $3.3 billion stock buyback announced last night
Shares of oil services firm are up about 30% this year

NEW YORK — Wall Street is shrugging off news that oil services firm Halliburton has admitted to destroying evidence related to the environmentally damaging 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, pushing shares up more than 3.7%.

After the market close Thursday, Halliburton said it will plead guilty to the criminal charged filed by the Justice Department and pay a fine of $200,000. It also made a voluntary contribution of $55 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Investors opted instead to focus on the oil services firm's announcement yesterday that it is planning on buying back $3.3 billion of its shares, as well as the company's quarterly earnings beat announced Monday.

CRIMINAL CHARGES: Halliburton admits destroying Gulf oil spill evidence

The stock was up 27.8% for the year heading into today's trading session, which tops the 18.5% gain for the broader market represented by the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index.

The oil rig blowout three summers ago in the Gulf of Mexico not only caused massive environmental damage, but also hurt the local economies of numerous states along the Gulf Coast, which rely on tourism and fishing profits. The explosion at the oil rig killed 11 workers and polluted hundreds of miles of coastline.

Halliburton was a contractor involved in the drilling of the faulty BP well, which was operated by Transocean.
v Halliburton rose $3.70 to $45.98.

Transocean shares dropped 80 cents, or 1.7%, to $47.69. BP's stock fell 11 cents, or 0.3%, to $43.58.

The government charged Halliburton with destroying computer simulations that it conducted a few months after the spill that were related to the process of using cement to seal the pipes in oil wells.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Criminal contempt is the appropriate charge for destroying and creating evidence at trial

Chula Vista Elementary spoliated evidence in this case. Obama jokes with Clooney at star's gala fundraiser By JIM KUHNHENN Associated Press May 11, 2012 ...Obama told the crowd that his famed "Hope" poster from the 2008 campaign was based on a photograph of Obama sitting next to Clooney when Obama was a U.S. senator. Clooney had been in Washington advocating on behalf of Darfur. "This is the first time that George Clooney has ever been photo-shopped out of a picture," Obama said. "Never happened before, never happen again." In fact, the artist who created the poster, Shepard Fairey, used another photograph of Obama but said he relied on the Obama-Clooney picture to avoid a copyright infringement case with The Associated Press. He pleaded guilty in February to criminal contempt for fabricating and destroying evidence...