The witnesses heard someone screaming, before the gunshot. Logic suggests that’s the guy with the serious head injuries.
Also, I think you’re confused. Martin was the one who went out of his way to encounter Zimmerman, not that the police would have known that at the time. Still no probable cause, and no good reason to arrest him there and then if there was.
It happened because people refused to believe the results of the initial investigation, and still refuse to believe it despite all the evidence supporting that conclusion. The police have been scapegoated, just as Zimmerman has, because people simply won’t even consider the possibility that Martin was to blame.
Yes. And if it turned out that a neighbour had a photo on his phone of Z’s truck nowhere near where he said it was and actually parked to place him ahead of TM’s path, timestamped for the correct time that evening, that would be evidence enough, right?
Even “these people” at Global Grind used “this imagery” for someone who is not charged with stalking someone.
Twitter** Lynch Mob **Calls For Killing George Zimmerman
After the immediate news of George Zimmerman’s release on $150,000 bail late Sunday night, deadly threats from the Twitter lynch mobs began to surface. So much so, that Zimmerman became a trending topic within minutes.
The viciousness of Twitter has once again turned a fight for justice into a manhunt. Violence begets violence and we should not be calling for the killing of George Zimmerman.
We’ve accomplished so much, calling for Zimmerman’s arrest and we achieved it. But now it’s time to let justice prevail and let the process play out. Calling for Zimmerman’s death will not bring back Trayvon.
No, logic doesn’t suggest that. What’s obvious is that you have problems distinguishing logic from fallacy. One could just as easily say that “logic suggests” the person with the gun stuck in their face would be the one most likely screaming. “Logic suggests” nothing about the source of the screaming.
But multiple witnesses attributed the voice to a boy or teenager. This is a fact that can’t be denied, no matter how hard you stomp your feet and pout about it. The voice was attributed to someone who fit Martin’s profile, not Zimmerman’s.
This is an interesting point. TM is supposed to have been going for Z’s gun first, because dumb old George had forgotten he was carrying it - What’s the first rule of Carrying A Gun Club? Don’t forget you have it. - but despite Z obviously winning the war of control over the suddenly viable weapon, we never heard one shout or cry of alarm from Trayvon before he was shot and it was actually Z who’d had the last scream, as he went into berserker mode, or something.
The MMA style was in reference to Trayvon’s “ground and pound” mounting position, from which ‘John’ never recanted. He only clarified that he could not see the blows due to Martin’s back blocking his view from his perspective. Therefore, he could neither confirm or deny, with absolute certainty, that was Martin was striking Zimmerman during the time he witnessed the assault.
No-one had a gun stuck in their face, so you’re wrong again.
Who saw the person screaming? Who did they say was screaming? Who did the people who could actually recognise the person screaming say it was?
The answers, by the way, are “Zimmerman”, “Zimmerman”, and, from their respective parents, “Zimmerman” and “not Martin”. No other witnesses saw it, and so cannot have identified the screamer.
So, when the witness claimed to have heard Martin screaming, the policeman rightly corrected her. If a witness claims something impossible, the police shouldn’t use their claim as a basis for arrest. It’s frankly astonishing that I need to point this out, but, after reading this thread, I probably should raise my threshold for astonishment at peoples ignorance and inability to reason.
But hey, you’re not interested in what can be shown with facts and logic, so I expect you’ll disregard this post.
And other witnesses heard Zimmerman yelling. Why does that not also figure into your calculations? “Totality of the circumstances,” remember?
I actually debated letting Terr’s error go unchallenged because I knew you would be able to understand the distinction between the two questions, or even understand that that a distinction existed.
But I didn’t, because I’m the only guy in this thread who is arguing the law, not for Zimmerman or against Zimmerman or for Martin or against Martin.
Sure, corruption exists. I’m not arguing the police did nothing wrong, nor am I arguing they are – or are not – corrupt. I am saying that probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful did not exist that night.
Well, let me be more clear: the affidavit of probable cause must establish probable cause, yes. And I agree it fails to do so. But the affidavit is not required to exhaustively list all the evidence that exists. So the question is: could I now write an affidavit of probable cause that WOULD be legally sufficient?
I’m attempting to argue the law, but I’ll admit I’m often getting sidetracked into discussions of morality, or irrelevant factual details. There’s at least a couple of others doing the same.
Where’s your evidence of this? Which witnesses told the cops on the night of the shooting that they heard Zimmerman screaming for help right before the gunshot? And please don’t insult my intelligence by including Zimmerman in with these witnesses. Which witnesses fingered Zimmerman as the voice on that 911 tape?
I’ve outlined the totality of the circumstances that implicate Zimmerman. What other evidence is that negates all of that? Be specific.
And that’s hilarious. Earlier you plainly stated if witnesses attested to hearing a teenager cry out before the gunshot, then that establishes probable cause. Now all of a sudden, that’s not the case. Why are you so inconsistent in your positions?