You presented some kind of scenario in which Martin was shot , then yelled for help , and then was shot again. I asked about that possibility, in specific terms and you reiterated that yes, according to some reports there was a shot, then cries for help, and another shot.
You’ve provded nothing at all to back that up. Instead you’re saying what? That you really didn’t mean it? I’ve glanced through the trhead and there are very few links. IMO, Terr is rationally dealing with what available facts we have while you’re speculating and drawing false conclusions from scant information.
That has nothing to do with it, as I’ve already explained. There are only two choices in this case , a 17 year old , and a 28 year old. It’s unreasonable to think that witnesses, going just by audio, could realistically tell which voice was the 17 year old , when both of the people arguing were strangers to them.
So all the people claiming they heard a child, are only giving their emotional impression, and that’s not credible evidence. The lady you’ve mentioned may have gotten some media attention but I watched an interview. She has very little to offer in the way of valuble information. She heard a noise, a cry, then a shot. She went out to her porch and saw Zimmerman standing over Treyvon. There’s nothing valuble in there that either conforms or contradicts Zimmerman’s story regardless of how she feels about it.
<blockquote> but this started with you being ignorant to the fact it was a point at all, much less one of contention. </blockquote>
That is incorrect. It started in post 273 when you presented a scnario that you can’t support and haven’t backed up,
to try and bolster your other unsupportable argument in which people hearing the screams of a stranger and describing one as a child are somehow providing credible evidence as to who was screaming.
I asked about very specific details because of scenario you essentially made up entirely and asserted. A shot, some screams, and then another shot.
I never said I never heard the term gunshots used , only that it wasn’t used in the way you used it, which turns out you just fabricated. No witness claimed to hear a shot, and then a series of screams for help , and then another shot, which was your assertion.
You know, in other threads, these claims have been debunked.
Just to take the most slippery one, the claim that a standard police investigation would have held Zimmerman for drug and alcohol testing… can you explain how the police could do that? Specifically?
Remember that Florida law (FSA 776.032) forbids the police from:
Unless there is already probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful.
And even if they could detain him for the shooting, drug and alcohol,testing requires a warrant, which must be supported by probable cause to believe that Zimmerman’s blood would reveal evidence of a crime. In other words, you cannot simply say, “Hey, we want to check this out, just in case.”
It disturbs me to see this same claim popping up here.
I feel like the analysis of these events is informed by “Law and Order,” and “NCIS.”
So pease explain it to me, specifically: how should the police have detained Zimmerman for drug and alcohol testing?
but here’s this, you know, video proof, of Zimmerman being detained after the shooting, with the line “New police surveillance video obtained by ABC News show George Zimmerman arriving at the police station after being detained by police on the night Trayvon Martin was killed.”
when could they administer a test?
gee, i dunno. maybe at any point during the detainment period?
eta:
being able to google florida state statutes and pontificate from your computer in your underwear doesn’t mean you know what the hell you’re talking about when it comes to the actual administration of real laws in real life.
maybe contact your florida congressman and explain how illegal it was that ^^^that video happened, since you have “proof” they legally couldn’t do the THING THEY JUST DID ON VIDEO.
Detained is a legal concept, arising from a case called Terry v Ohio. It is a brief investigatory detention, and must be supported by “reasonable suspicion.” Reasonable suspicion is a standard below that of probable cause, but above a mere unparticularizred hunch or guess.
It is my understanding that Zimmerman voluntarily accompanied the police to the station that night, handcuffed per department policy for all transportees. He was thus not detained within the meaning of Terry.
Well, you got me there. I have watched a lot of Judge Judy, though, so I feel I have a handle on some of this stuff.
Does lying about the basic elements of his self-defense claim constitute probable cause? To reiterate what is perhaps the second-biggest issue in this case, after the general problem of police apathy/incompetence that was going to lead to no charges in the first place, Zimmerman’s claims are alleged to be: that he shot someone in the chest who was literally on top of him, but got no blood on himself or his clothing; that his head was being slammed into a concrete sidewalk and his nose was broken with a punch, but he had no injuries on his face or head half an hour later; and that he was being beaten and slammed into said sidewalk with the bare hands of Treyvon Martin, whose corpse has not the slightest injury to his hands.
Does not the above alone constitute probable cause for an arrest? "I admit to killing him + the reason I did so was self-defense + my self-defense story makes no sense " = ???
It probably would, in my non-lawyerly opinion, if Zimmerman did in fact lie.
Unfortunately, most of the above is either unsubstantiated, or contradicted by the evidence (as far as we know it).
Taking it in order:
[ul][li]That Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest while Martin was on top of him. The police statement is that Martin was shot once in the chest at very close range. So that is substantiated.[/li][li]That Zimmerman got no blood on him. Unsubstantiated. [/li][li]*That Zimmerman suffered no injuries in the attack. *One of the police reports mentions that Zimmerman was treated for his injuries, and an enhanced video of Zimmerman at the police station shows injuries to the back of his head, consistent (in my opinion) with his account. So, again, this is contradicted by the evidence as we know it. [/li][li]That Martin had no injuries to his hands. This is a claim by the funeral director, who is not a forensic expert, and we do not know the official results of the autopsy. Nonetheless, it is not a very convincing piece of evidence to the unbiased mind. We do not know that Martin used his closed fist to hit Zimmerman in the nose. He may have used the iced tea he bought, or an open hand. It is entirely possible to hit a person in the nose with a closed fist hard enough to cause bleeding without damaging the knuckles at all - I know this from personal experience, and it is something I used to teach in my self-defense classes. The nose is a primary target for punching to the face, partly because the cartilage will cushion the impact to minimize damage to the striking surface of the fist. [/li]
Also, the dead do not generally bleed, and a bruise is an area of spilled blood under the skin. Therefore, it is possible that Martin died before his hand had a chance to bruise. [/ul]
IOW, Zimmerman’s story is consistent with the evidence, as far as we know to date.
Obviously, if you assume facts not in evidence, a strong case for arrest can be made, but that is always true.
I don’t believe that’s correct. I’ve seen that satute quoted in other discussions and looked it up. There are qualifiers listed which specify “except deadly force” or in cases where someone is on your property. Deadly force was used.
While I can appreciate good quality sarcasm as a form of humor this isn’t it.
I asked in regard to a specific scenario you presented and was very specific in asking which I just mentioned and you ignored.
<blockquote> In post 273
<blockquote> the described “screams of a child” were, by all accounts, those of Martin after the first gunshot, before the second which silenced him.</blockquote>
Your bad editing of my question left out the specifics <blockquote> There were two shots that were 40 seconds apart? </blockquote>
Are you taking your editing cues from NBC now?
NONE, that’s numeral 0, of the quotes you listed in post 279 spoke to the specifics I asked about which were based on you know, the facts we have, rather than facts we imagine or fabricate.
I clarified again in two more posts with the specifics and you responded in 293
<blockquote> there’s exactly that–someone saying they heard screaming, a shot–screams of pain and desperation–another shot, then nothing. </blockquote>
And now the ONLY people you have claiming that are who, the lawyers for Martin’s parents. Not one person who was actually there that night and heard.
That is feeble with a capital FEEB. You were presenting your scenario as if it was all over the place and an accepted part of the controversy and supported by several sources. Turns out all that is BS and now you are still trying to defend it with this weak sarcasm and repeating the lawyer thing?
Note that the words “property” and “deadly” do not appear anywhere in the statute. I guess you looked it up somewhere else, huh? I’d be interested in seeing your link, the one where you found the statute with those words. Can you post it?
sure, if you ignore the first post after you asked that had multiple quotes from multiple witnesses who all claimed to hear shotS
or the other posts previously in the thread i directed you to go back and find.
…
what the fuck is your point?
i didn’t make up the “two shots” thing, nor did i fabricate statements you can hear the screams “of a dying child” before the second shot silenced him.
all you have to do is say you don’t buy it, about which i am all out of fucks to give.
the point is i didn’t make it up, i quoted it from an article then followed that with several quotes from witnesses who said to have heard shots.
Yes, a material lie in circumstances like this certainly gives rise to a reasonable inference of guilt, and would support probable cause.
I’m not sure I can see any definitively false statements, but let’s go through them:
[ol]
[li]he shot someone in the chest who was literally on top of him, but got no blood on himself or his clothing[/li][li]]his head was being slammed into a concrete sidewalk and his nose was broken with a punch, but he had no injuries on his face or head half an hour later[/li][li]he was being beaten and slammed into said sidewalk with the bare hands of Treyvon Martin, whose corpse has not the slightest injury to his hands.[/li][/ol]
I’m assuming you don’t have much experience with gunshots and bleeding. Good, in general terms, for your life, but it handicaps you here. It’s highly dependent on the type of load used, but typically gunshot entrance wounds are much smaller than exit wounds, and do not spray blood.
If true, this would be damning evidence, but the problem is that the police report, submitted at the time of the vent by Officer T. Smith, does say, “Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of the head.” So the documentary evidence does support Zimmerman’s story. It’s true that the video doesn’t seem to show signs of major trauma, but it’s not a close-up, and Zimmerman was treated by EMTs before coming to the station, so they presumably cleaned his wounds. What we have not yet seen are the reports form those EMTs, which would go far in determining how severe the injuries actually were. Right now, though, i don;t agree that you can say he had no injuries. The initial police report documented the injuries.
If the autopsy report has not been released, then I assume you’re relying on the funeral director’s testimony that Martin’s hands were uninjured. It’s interesting, but the autopsy report would be the document that would support probable cause. If it doesn’t detail injuries, then no.
I’m gald to be talking to you about this for the sake of my own education. I asked the other person posting it and they never responded.
There at the top of the statute it says
“(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031”
I take those to be qualifiers. Are they not? I looked those up. Two says specifically “except deadly force” and the other is about people on your property.
I read that to mean that the “cannot arrest or detain” applies to the use of force “except deadly force” or unless you shot an unarmed person who had broken into your house or something like that. Am I mistaken?
Yes. Note that it doesn’t create probable cause, but it does create reasonable suspicion. A Terry-stop of Zimmerman is definitely sustainable on these facts.
However, a Terry stop does not extend to transporting the suspect to the police station. We learn this from a Supreme Court case called Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979). In Dunaway, police lacked probable cause to implicate Dunaway in a recent armed robbery and murder, although they did have reasonable suspicion in the form of a jailed inmate’s hints. They brought Dunaway down to the station and questioned him, after giving him the Miranda warnings; Dunaway ultimately made statements that implicated him in the robbery.
The Supreme Court decided that a detention of that length and scope must be justified by probable cause, not mere reasonable suspicion, and reversed Dunaway’s conviction. In fact, the case led to the less-famous-than-Miranda, but still important, Dunaway warning:
Do I really need to repeat myself? None of those quotes you offered support the specifics of your scenario which is what I questioned in specific terms. NONE of them say there was a shot, followed by screams , and a 2nd shot. That’s what you suggested , and I very specifically questioned.
I went back and skimmed looking for links to something credible, not just heresay by some poster. There are none.
…
That your original; scenario of a shot, someone screaming, and another shot was BS and you can’t support it. Which also reflects on the original subject which was the screams for help, not the question of how many shots were fired.
No you represented it as if it was a serious part of the controversy and there might be witnesses who presented your scenario. It isn’t and there aren’t , and that’s what makes it BS. Just because someone said it that doesn’t make it worthy of serious consideration.
No you just inflated what is essentially a non controversy and presented it as if it was a real controversy when it appears you knew it wasn’t.
I’m not really out of fucks to give because I never brought one to begin with. It’s just a discussion on a message board and largely irrelevant. I just wanted to note that while you are sarcastically critisizing the posts and reasoning of others you might pay more attention to improving your own. That is all.