It’s true that the first portion of § 776.012 says, “…except deadly force…” But here’s the whole section:
(Emphasis added)
So § 776.012 allows even deadly force when there is a reasonable belief that great bodily harm will be prevented. Zimmerman’s story to the police describes the potential of great bodily harm (as understood in the law) and the injuries mentioned in the police report substantiate it.
To arrest or even detain Zimmerman, then, the police must have probable cause to believe this is not the case. They have to point to specific facts that make it probable that Zimmerman’s story isn’t true.
let’s go over this one last time. if you can’t grasp it this go, it would seem to reason you just are not going to get it.
you said there’s no way anyone could have determined the screams were trayvons.
that is what started this.
[QUOTE=cos]
The reports of a child’s voice are unreliable because neither was a child.
[/QUOTE]
to which i replied:
[QUOTE=dontbesojumpy]
the described “screams of a child” were, by all accounts, those of Martin after the first gunshot, before the second which silenced him.
a horrific scream of a kid who just got SHOT is probably a sort of specific sound–something easier to distinguish than, say, specific words in an altercation.
[/QUOTE]
you said you had never heard this and asked where i got two shots. to which i provided:
[QUOTE=cos]
Where did you get the two gunshots thing? Honestly, that’s new to me. I hadn’t heard anyone say they heard two shots.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dontbesojumpy]
Quote:
In one of the eight calls, screaming can be heard in the background as a woman tries to get help. That call is punctuated by two gunshots.
Quote:
“I heard the yell for help, one yell for help, and then I heard another… excruciating type of yell. It didn’t almost sound like ‘help.’ It just sounded so painful… two men on the grass, one on top of each other … And then I heard the gunshots, which, to me, were more like pops than they were like a bang … Within a couple of seconds after the shots, one of the men was walking toward where I was watching, and I could see him a little bit clearer. Could see that it was a Hispanic man. He didn’t appear hurt or anything else.” – Eyewitness talking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper
Quote:
There’s someone screaming – I just heard gunshots …Hurry up, they’re right outside my house…I just heard screaming and gun shots…No, I don’t hear any more …A male …Oh, my God! The guy on top has a white t-shirt…I just looked out my window and the guy on top has a white t-shirt…I couldn’t see the other thing. I couldn’t see the person he was on…I don’t know – I came to the phone and called you…I couldn’t tell , it was completely dark."
Quote:
In the 911 tapes someone can be heard screaming for their life before two gunshots – then silence.
[/QUOTE]
the conversation was about if anyone could possibly distinguish the scream was trayvon.
according to people who have access to, note the bold, ALL THE 911 TAPES,
you can hear a shot, screaming, shot, silence.
you asked where it came from, i pointed where it came from.
*where *did this come from? ^that is where it came from.
do any witnesses say they heard screaming silenced by gunshots? yes.
do they vary from sayin “a shot” to saying “shots?”
yes.
do the lawyers intimate with the case claim to hear two shots silencing screams on the tapes (which you nor i nor anyone that i know has access to all the tapes)…?
yes.
let’s go over that again, because i’m positive you still won’t get it.
WHERE DID THE TWO SHOTS THING COME FROM?
from listening to the tapes and claiming they heard two shots.
from the above quotes from witnesses who claim they heard SHOTS silencing the scream of what they are certain was a child.
where’d the two shots thing come from, Cos?
where did aaaaaanyone come up with the two shot thing?
do you know yet?
where that came from? the thing about two shots…? which you hadn’t heard of?
…where did that come from?
NOT.
FROM.
MY.
HEAD.
from THOSE things i just posted.
you went from saying “i have never heard of this” to “you made it up since it cannot be irrefutably proven.”
one more time.
where’d it come from?
buy it. or dismiss it.
say the lawyers who heard it on the tape are full of shit.
say all the witnesses who said they heard SHOTS and POPS are full of shit.
Knowing now that reports show a single wound, a single ejected casing, and a gun that seems to have fired a single shot, do you have an opinion about how many shots were actually fired?
[QUOTE=dontbesojumpy]
i think it’s just going to be left to internet debate and speculation until the real investigation happens.
in one news article by the Chicago Tribute you get every and all different answers:
Quote:
Gun that killed teen was fired once
followed in the same article with:
Quote:
followed with:
Quote:
followed with yet:
Quote:
and then punctuated with the best part:
Quote:
who really knows…
[/QUOTE]
and from post 321, one page back:
[QUOTE=dontbesojumpy]
let me make something clear, so you can drop it: i listened to the actual call, (speaking of the call made by, i believe, mary cutcher’s room mate) and i heard 1 shot. and she said 1 shot when dispatch asks.
my personal opinion is zimmerman probably fired once, if i have to decide based on that one call. the two lawyers who claim to hear two shots heard one of 8 tapes, of which i have not heard.
there are a lot of corroborating quotes that suggest two shots were fired.
[/QUOTE]
i believe the information is sketchy.
i believe people did hear trayvon crying out before he was shot. i believe it was him screaming, silenced by the gun shot.
i also think there’s merit to the accounts of hearing “two shots,” even if they are mistaken. i do not think the lawyers nor the witnesses who heard “shots” are being misleading or malicious–i believe they heard something.
Bricker, why is it that for most things in this discussion, you constantly preach about waiting for all of the evidence, not jumping to conclusions, letting the process work. However for some reason with this question on the number of gunshots, you are willing to express absolute certainty without all of the evidence being revealed and with some conflicting reports that cast some doubt on the real situation. Is there evidence that there was one shot? Yes. Is there also information that seems to indicate that there may have been more than one shot? Yes. Do we have the ability to know with 100% certainty right now what the reality is? Unless you are psychic, or were there that night, then no.
So, why is this one point something that you are comfortable with asserting 100% certainty on when that goes against what you’ve been saying about patience and waiting for evidence regarding absolutely everything else?
Please quote the post in which I said, with anything approaching certainty, that there was only one gunshot? Where in the world do you find me expressing absolute certainty on the point?
Well, I just think its an odd turnaround for those like yourself and Terr that constantly admonish everyone for jumping to conclusions without waiting for all of the facts to come out, to then take the opposite tact with regard to the number of gunshots. I’ve seen nothing but stomping out those that have spoken of doubt on this matter as if its a settled point and should not be discussed. Where’s the patient deliberation on that point?
Feel free to discuss it. What evidence is there that more than one shot was fired? AFAICT, it is mostly the Martin family’s lawyers (and a few others) claiming they heard two gunshots on the 911 tape. OK, that’s one side. On the other, we have the fact that police reports that Martin was shot once in the chest have been confirmed by the funeral director, that only one shell casing was recovered from the scene, and only one bullet was gone from Zimmerman’s gun.
If you have access to more information than this, by all means present it. Unless and until then, it appears to me that theories of Zimmerman’s guilt that are based on multiple gunshots are not likely to be true.
It was just an observation about an inconsistency with regard to tone and how this single/multiple gunshot issue seems to be one thing we’re not allowed to wait and see about for some reason.
I’m not interested in getting this thread off into a tangent by arguing about this though. Its already got too much going on. I probably should have directed the reply to Terr, as that’s where I saw more of this dismissive attitude as I reread things. I suppose I’m guilty of the same thing I referred to before, which is responding to multiple people in a reply to one person. So I apologize for that.
I see. I should have read it more carefully. Thanks for clearing that up. I’m not sure I understand the logic behind that statute. It seems could allow someone to flee before the police had any time to really investigate. I think the issue with this case is that people feel the police didn’t investigate enough.
That also helps explain the FL case of Trevor Dooley.
An older man takes his pistol across the street to a park , gets in a argument and winds up shooting the man who tackles him and claiming self defense. He wasn’t initially arrested but there was a public outcry and he was arrested after two days. Several witnesses had said Dooley drew his weapon in a threatening manner.
Yes, you were talking about what a valuble witness Mary Cutcher was so I went and listened to her. She has nothing to offer other than her original statement which the police already have. She insists she can tell it’s Treyvon screaming but her reasoning is bad and it’s clear she does not know.
What I said and maintain is that it’s unreasonable for anyone to listen to someone yelling for help or two loud voices, and then claim they are sure the person yelling for help was the 17 year old not the 28 year old. So, from strictly an audio standpoint , those people , like Cutcher, who claim they heard a child {Treyvon} can’t reasonably know and their response is an emotional one.
You scenario changes things. Then it’s no longer just a matter of audio {I heard a child} but logic. The problem is , as I said, and you’ve avoided a simple direct response, none of the people that heard that night have described your scenario that I asked specifically about. Even now none of the quotes you’ve listed support that scenario which makes them fairly useless in regard to the point of disagreement.
In fact when I pointed this out before you said,
So here you are asserting that not just the word shots but your fantasy scenario is a serious and commonly held point of contention.
And THAT, is bullshit.
and again in post 293 when I’ve restated you assert
and
except there aren’t countless , or even several witnesses caliming your fantasy scenario is what they heard. Again, it’s bullshit.
So finally you come up with ONE news article where the lawyers claim they can hear your fantasy scenario in one of the 911 tapes. Hardly the countless or many eye witnesses you claimed in your previous post is it, considering they weren’t there at all.
You made a claim and couldn’t support it and continue to make feeble excuses and use sarcasm as a deflection.
I repeat, Please don’t critisize anyone’s reasoning again.
The two shots thing was only relevant in the scanario you first presented and I specifically asked about more than once. ALL the quotes you used that simply say, “shots” are utterly irrelevant to support that specific claim. That what makes it feeble BS.
Another body part does seem more likley
I never said anything remotely like that. I asked you to support a very specific scenario with some specific details which you claimed was a common point of contention. Not that it was true but just show that it is indeed a common point of contention. You failed and continue to post irrelevant quotes.
Had you simply said, well, one article I read said that, we wouldn’t have been wasting this bandwidth. With all the crap flying around it’s no surprise that one article made some unsubstantiated claim. Those types of claims are par for the course on this story.
It was the idea that it was common that you continued to assert it was, and continued to fail in establishing that is true and then failed to simply admit your mistake. Your sarcastic deflection doesn’t change that or hide it.
yeah, your reasoning is locked down, tight.
also, it’s “criticize.”
and let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? you presupposed the disposition no one could discern if it was trayvon screaming or not.
you, who literally has no business trying to ascertain such things (you weren’t involved in this thread in a timely manner and are ignorant to some fairly key aspects of the case) think HE has it all figured out.
anything contrary to that seems to really threaten you.
first of all, it’s ok to be wrong about stuff like this.
RELAX.
second, forging opinions based on sketchy details (and lack of details and lack of full awareness of details) kind of indicates you’re of the ilk of Terr and some others around here who stand by Zimmerman’s innocence come hell or high water.
why do you want to paint yourself this way?
you want to insist that believe something i don’t and want to continuously try to make me defend a stance i don’t necessarily believe in.
i said it’s been stated that the screams were trayvons, silenced by gunshots.
i pointed you to where this came from.
i have been asked if i actually BELIEVE that more than one shot was fired. i said, over the course of just one single article you get every answer possible, so that the info was sketchy.
i said that in the one call i’ve heard, you hear ONE SHOT.
i said that the lawyers, who heard all 8 of the tapes (which we havent’) heard something, and whatever that is is unknowable to me.
count how many times the words “shots” or Pops" are used.
plural.
now add that to the lawyers who claim they heard “shots.”
is there reason to think, believe, hypothesize there were “two shots?”
how many “shots” does it require for someone to say they heard “shots?”
the answer is: more than one.
you feel like you’re in a position to pick and choose what witnesses’ testimony is cogent when it suits you, and when it doesn’t, they aren’t reliable.
::coughsTERR::
that’s fine–but all you’re doing is trying to build a case that supports your already existing concept of what happened.
i, on the other had–still don’t know how many times the gun was fired. there’s evidence it was once (if you believe the leaked “police” reports and believe the police did an adequate forensics sweep), there’s evidence witnesses heard “more than one shot” if you believe the multiple witnesses who have claimed such.
you’re the know-it-all johnny-come-lately, so i’ll let you tell us all what’s-what.
you were ignorant to this aspect of the case, i pointed it out to you, even if i don’t wholly buy into it.
i realize you cannot, for the life of you, wrap your head around the concept that i was pointing this out for consideration but don’t wholly buy into it. because you seem incapable of compartmentalizing “objectivity.”
i can’t help you with that. but i can point out other conflicting aspects of the case from your own presupposed opinions that may or may not be worth considering.
I arrived at that through some very basic reasoning which should be obvious to anyone considering the specific details rationally Rather than do anything to demonstrate where my reasoning might be faulty you do your dime store analysis and declare I “presupposed”
You sure can cram a lot of wrong into one sentence. Can you point me to the SD rule of tradition that says I shouldn’t enter a thread on page 6. Maybe you can point me to what key aspects I’m ignorant of. The one key aspect you presented that was new wasn’t a serious one. Just something you read in one article. At this point we don’t even know if the lawyers actually said that because there’s no supporting reports or statements.
and finally, at no time did I make any claims about knowing what happened. What I do have a sense of is the difference between good reasoning , logic, and all the poor substitutes for them that people often use.
That’s pretty amusing coming from you. I just acknowledged an error in this very thread , and was glad to do so and learn something in the process. You OTOH, have spent several long posts doing all sorts of mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid admitting a mistake on a trivial matter. But I’m the one that’s threatened? That’s a laugh.
Here again you just get it wrong with bad reasoning or because that’s how you entertain yourself.
Please point to any post of mine that says Z’man is innocent or even heavily implies he is innocent. This is a direct simple question challenging a statement you made. Please try and respond directly rather than your usual avoid and misdirect
The only thing I’ve defended is decent reasoning about the details of the case that we have at present.
That’s also incorrect. I’m didn’t ask you to defend your fantasy as being factual. I asked you to defend that it was indeed a common and real point of controversy and contention in this case. That WAS your assertion. Not that you read it in one article , but that many people had been making the claim. And I’ve rightly pegged it as BS.
No, that’s a conveniant alteration of the details of your initial claim which I was very specific in asking about and you continued to defend.
Again, common and obvious avoidence and deflection gee, why do you want to paint yourself that way?
You offered a bunch of irrelevent quotes that did not speak to the specific details I asked about.
Whether there was one shot at the end or two, it’s not reasonable to think that people like Mary whatsherface and other witnesses could determine between the voices of two strangers, one 17 and the other 27.
Have you ever heard anyone decscribe voices as “late teens” or “late 20s”
However, if there was a shot, then 40 seconds or more of cries for help , and another shot, it then becomes reasonable to think the voice crying for help was the person in danger of being shot. Not absolute, but at least logical.
A rather significant difference that you have avoided dealing with.
AS I just explained. The word shots is irrelevant to the specific details of the scenario you presented. I never questioned whether people said shots or not, but only that anyone was claiming there was a shot, followed by a series of screams for help, and then another shot. I explained this early on as well. The woman on the phone calling to report someone crying for help says “shots” . Then when the dispatcher says, how many? She says “one”
It’s understandable for people to say “shots” after they’ve heard one. Because of the location there may have been echos. Now look at how many people say “a shot” or " a gunshot" Some even say both.
At least this source has some new material, but still none of them support your scenario. Considering how many people called in , and because we have a call where we can measure 40 seconds of screams for help, you’d think someone would have said, “I heard a shot, then someone screaming for help, then another shot” but none of them say that.
Yes one article your read that has nothing else to support it. Hardly a common and serious and common point of contention is it? Never mind, At this point I don’t expect you to change your pattern of avoidence, misdirection and denial.
You seriously don’t get it? It has nothing to do with picking and choosing but merely looking at things rationally and understanding the realisitic limits and problems with witnesses going by what they heard and a few saw on a very dark night.
Average people react differently to extraordinary situations and they report thier impressions , what they percieved, rather than just the cold hard facts.
not even close. In fact that’s what people are doing when they point to the perceptions of witnesses as if those are cold hard facts. They are not. You have to sift through the various reports/impressions along with other facts and try and rationally deduce what is more or less likely.
even the man who was outside and said he saw someone in red on the bottom and that person was asking for help, is only giving an impression on a dark night. He did actually see the struggle which is more than we can say for Mary C. The fact that several people saw two men struggling one on top of the other, lends that detail much more credibility. Then we consider the wtiness who says the guy on bottom was wearing red, and the one who said the guy on top had a white T-Shirt. {Zimmerman did not} Even that’s not absolute proof but it’s a piece to consider.
It appears you’ve assumed what my opinion is even though you have no good reason to do so. If I defend a point of reason and logic, it doesn’t mean I’m defending Zimmerman’s innocence. Again, point to any post of mine where I’m clearly defending Zimmerman rather than just a point of reason. If you can’t tell the difference between the two, then you should follow my suggestion and not criticize the reasoning of others.
IMO, the key point is the initail confrontation between the two and who was the aggressor. That’s something we have no witnesses for. Who approached who? Did someone push , or touch. Did Zimmerman try to aggressively question Martin, try to detain him, or use his gun to intimidate. Martin may well have punched Zimmerman in self defense
Even if Treyvon was on top punching Zimmerman , Zimmerman could still be the initial aggressor.
If I was going to guess, I’d say an overzealous NW guy assumed something negative with little or no evidence, and got aggresive with someone , then paniced when he was losing a fight he initiated with his own attitude and actions. But I don’t know.
I asked about some very specific details you started with, and made efforts to be clear about those details. you responded by muddying the water with irrelevant quotes that did nothing to support those specific details. That’s either because you can’t grasp the significant difference which would be sad, or are just obfuscating to avoid admiting an error.
I question whether you truly understand what that means, since I’ve been demonstrating that in this thread. It’s more likley that avoiding admitting an error and continuing to diss me seems like some Jr high debate victory for you. Congratulations on that. I’m more interested in an honest exchange of ideas and information. That’s why I was initially interested in your imagined scenario, only to discover it’s not a serious point of contention, just some random hearsay you read in one article.
so, just for the sake of clarity: when the lawyers claim to hear *something *in a tape that you’ve not heard, and *that something *that they claim to have heard is put out in the media, you–who is privy to nothing–fails to take them even remotely seriously?
it’s not even worth consideration?
what do you as well do with all the witnesses who claimed to hear a plural SHOTS?
also, what do i have to admit i was wrong about…? i still maintain the initial point: that people could discern trayvon’s screams. the screaming stops when the shot (or shots) were fired.
that was the bone of contention. and i stand by it.
seriously, if you want to “have an enlightened discourse,” maybe move past this trivial point and discuss things–
you asked where this two shot thing came from. it came from the lawyers and the witnesses who claimed to hear shots.