# Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 12, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504 "2012-03-12T00:53:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/241 "2012-03-14T17:58:03Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > There’s no surveillance video of Zimmerman, unless you’re referring to the 911 call, and that’s not a slam-dunk smoking gun. The 911 call shows that Zimmerman wasn’t in any immediate danger when he first reported the kid. (And although I don’t think the tapes have been released, I strongly suspect that Zimmerman doesn’t report anything glaringly wrong with the kid’s behavior…only vagueness.) The 911 call also shows that he was determined to chase the kid down and restrict him from getting away. Just like surveillance video showing an accused rapist crouching in bushes minutes before an attack, this gives us insight into Zimmerman’s state of mind and his actions leading up the shooting. The 911 call also shows that Zimmerman was informed that cops were on their way. The fact that he overrode the advise of the dispatcher is more evidence that he acted unnecessarily. > [@](#): > > In fact it probably counts toward his claim of self-defense that he called the authorities. Depends on what was said during that call to the authorities, doesn’t it? If the gist of his report is: “There’s a slow-walking black kid, wearing a hoody, and eating Skittles in my neighborhood, come quick!” this is going not going to help his claim of self-defense at all, and will likely indicate that he’s prone to racial profiling and overreactions. > [@](#): > > The rest of your scenerio fits into the he said-she said/“she asked for rough sex” rape defense, which happens from time to time, and it’s been known to work. If Trayvon had lived and his testimony offered evidence against Zimmerman for attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon, then the authorities would have to decide who’s account was more credible. Martin is bit under the weather and can’t speak for what happened, but that doesn’t mean Zimmerman should have the last word. If Martin’s statement isn’t a factor (because he’s dead) then does it really make use put much weight in Zimmerman’s statement? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/242 "2012-03-14T18:17:24Z")
> [@Pitchmeister](#): > > He cannot testify, and that’s why it will be hard to disprove self-defense. I hate it just as much as you, but many times do you need to hear it? Because there’s other evidence out there that suggests a crime took place. We have more to go by than just Zimmerman’s claim. Martin’s credibility as a non-violent person _can_ be verified. He had friends and family who knew him well, who can speak on his character and disposition. No other people presumably had reported Martin doing anything wrong, other than Zimmerman. The kid was unarmed. All these facts speak to Martin’s harmlessness. What you guys are saying makes no sense. It doesn’t. I think you guys are letting Zimmerman’s claim bias your analysis, and it’s insane. Let’s go back to the hypothetical rape I just mentioned. Let’s say she’s been killed by the same guy who had sex with her in the alley. A couple of cops, on their way to Dunkins, found the killer standing over the victim with the murder weapon (a knife) in hand. When interviewed, the guy admits to having rough consensual sex with her (which explains all those pesky signs of rape), and he claims he killed her in self-defense after she suddenly became too freaky for him to handle. He points to big gash on his forehead, as if to say “See, she started it!” He’s 250 lbs and she’s 140lbs. What then? Are we really supposed to let this man’s statement bias how we look all the other evidence that points to rape and homocide? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/243 "2012-03-14T18:26:19Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Why wasn’t the analogy analogous? Because its not. Maybe you should go back to the dog and cat thing. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/244 "2012-03-14T18:34:43Z")
If you seriously think that rape analogy is anywhere close to the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident then I think we’re so far apart on common sense I’m not sure how we can meaningfully discuss the matter. I’m not unwilling to consider an analogy, but if you’re going to talk about a totally different scenario that has nothing to do or even has virtually nothing in common with this situation I see no reason to comment on it. It has nothing to do with this case. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/245 "2012-03-14T18:37:54Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Because there’s other evidence out there that suggests a crime took place. We have more to go by than just Zimmerman’s claim. > > Martin’s credibility as a non-violent person _can_ be verified. He had friends and family who knew him well, who can speak on his character and disposition. No other people presumably had reported Martin doing anything wrong, other than Zimmerman. The kid was unarmed. All these facts speak to Martin’s harmlessness. > > What you guys are saying makes no sense. It doesn’t. I think you guys are letting Zimmerman’s claim bias your analysis, and it’s insane. > > Let’s go back to the hypothetical rape I just mentioned. Let’s say she’s been killed by the same guy who had sex with her in the alley. A couple of cops, on their way to Dunkins, found the killer standing over the victim with the murder weapon (a knife) in hand. When interviewed, the guy admits to having rough consensual sex with her (which explains all those pesky signs of rape), and he claims he killed her in self-defense after she suddenly became too freaky for him to handle. He points to big gash on his forehead, as if to say “See, she started it!” > > He’s 250 lbs and she’s 140lbs. > > What then? Are we really supposed to let this man’s statement bias how we look all the other evidence that points to rape and homocide? Despite the fact that I have said repeatedly I believe he committed manslaughter and thought I could probably get an indictment in my jurisdiction, I am somehow biased by his statement. Again all my responses are about why things are going this way legally. Not how I feel about it morally. You are biased by your emotional response to the issue. Which is fine, you don’t have to be unbiased in your opinion, you are not involved in the case. I am attempting to answer the question as what the reasons were for them not to charge. Since there is do much wrong with your analogy I’m not going to answer any of that. If you can’t see how it doesn’t fit nothing I can say will change it. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/246 "2012-03-14T19:05:44Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If you seriously think that rape analogy is anywhere close to the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident then I think we’re so far apart on common sense I’m not sure how we can meaningfully discuss the matter. And still, no rational rebuttal. Just bluster. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/247 "2012-03-14T19:11:14Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Despite the fact that I have said repeatedly I believe he committed manslaughter and thought I could probably get an indictment in my jurisdiction, I am somehow biased by his statement. I’m saying that if you think the state needs to look at evidence through the filter of Zimmerman’s account, then you are advocating a biased analysis. If you aren’t saying this, then aren’t advocating bias. Very simple. ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/248 "2012-03-14T19:13:42Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Did any of these witnesses talk to police? What was on their official statements? Anonymous statements do not hold up too well in court. \ They did speak to police, actually. It seems the witness didn’t observe what the police wanted her to have observed though, so they corrected the witness about how things really went down. [Link](http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html) > [@](#): > > But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said. > > \*\*Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help. > > The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.\*\* > > The Sanford Police Department refused to release 911 calls by witnesses and neighbors. This does not seem like something police officers should do when conducting a possible murder investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/249 "2012-03-14T19:15:23Z")
I don’t know what you mean by “through the filter of Zimmerman’s account” but just about every criminal investigation puts significant weight in the suspect’s testimony. Not because it is intrinsically believable or reputable, but because it is very important evidence and can show you very clearly when a subject is lying about what happened. It’s an important part of lots of criminal convictions or confessions, so to act like it should never be taken into account is ridiculous. Is it your contention police _shouldn’t_ compare a suspect’s statements with physical evidence? That they shouldn’t vet it for internal consistency? That they shouldn’t draw _any_ conclusions if the suspect statement is both internally consistent and consistent with the physical evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/250 "2012-03-14T19:17:06Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And still, no rational rebuttal. Just bluster. Come back with a good analogy. I didn’t even want to give you the satisfaction, but I’ll point out that your horrible analogy involves video evidence of someone “lying in wait” which has massive legal ramifications and there is nothing analogous to that in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/251 "2012-03-14T19:20:21Z")
It seems like the opinion of **you with the face** is the only way to avoid bias when taking a suspect statement is to ignore it completely. I’ve followed enough criminal trials to know that just isn’t how things are done, ever. So I think it is **you with the face** who is confused. I don’t think anyone will disagree if the police took his statement, immediately accepted it at face value, then searched for evidence exclusively to prove his claim, that would be biased and inappropriate behavior. Is there evidence here they did that? Maybe, but it’s murky at best (referencing that ABC News article.) But the general principle you shouldn’t consider the suspect statement at all is ridiculous. Especially when the only hard evidence is a dead body, a gun, some wounds on the suspect, and the suspect’s admission he pulled the trigger. That is evidence someone got shot by the suspect, it isn’t intrinsic evidence of anything else without further investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/252 "2012-03-14T19:25:13Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I’m saying that if you think the state needs to look at evidence through the filter of Zimmerman’s account, then you are advocating a biased analysis. > > If you aren’t saying this, then aren’t advocating bias. > > Very simple. The statement (interview, interrogation whatever you prefer) is looked at in conjunction with the evidence. I would say that most of my convictions have come in great part due to suspect statements. Should I have ignored them too? > [@Terraplane](#): > > They did speak to police, actually. It seems the witness didn’t observe what the police wanted her to have observed though, so they corrected the witness about how things really went down. [Link](http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html) > > This does not seem like something police officers should do when conducting a possible murder investigation. Yes that is that article I was referring to. You just quoted a bunch of anonymous sources. It’s hard to evaluate the veracity of an anonymous source. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/253 "2012-03-14T19:30:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It seems like the opinion of **you with the face** is the only way to avoid bias when taking a suspect statement is to ignore it completely. I’ve followed enough criminal trials to know that just isn’t how things are done, ever. So I think it is **you with the face** who is confused. > > I don’t think anyone will disagree if the police took his statement, immediately accepted it at face value, then searched for evidence exclusively to prove his claim, that would be biased and inappropriate behavior. Is there evidence here they did that? Maybe, but it’s murky at best (referencing that ABC News article.) > > But the general principle you shouldn’t consider the suspect statement at all is ridiculous. Especially when the only hard evidence is a dead body, a gun, some wounds on the suspect, and the suspect’s admission he pulled the trigger. That is evidence someone got shot by the suspect, it isn’t intrinsic evidence of anything else without further investigation. Since I nothing have else to go on I have been going under the assumption that the police acted in good faith. I have no doubt, particularly due to the high profile nature of the case, that if the police acted improperly it will come out during the review by the states attorney. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/254 "2012-03-14T19:32:09Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t know what you mean by “through the filter of Zimmerman’s account” but just about every criminal investigation puts significant weight in the suspect’s testimony. We don’t have a suspect, remember? Zimmerman hasn’t been charged. We only have his statement. As you rightly pointed out to me earlier, a testimony comes after an arrest. > [@](#): > > Not because it is intrinsically believable or reputable, but because it is very important evidence and can show you very clearly when a subject is lying about what happened. It’s an important part of lots of criminal convictions or confessions, so to act like it should never be taken into account is ridiculous. Here you go again with this talk about convictions…which conveniently requires a much higher burden of proof than probable cause does. Do you think we’re not paying attention when you conflate things like this? It’s impractical and unreasonable. > [@](#): > > Is it your contention police _shouldn’t_ compare a suspect’s statements with physical evidence? I’m saying that police should not start with the assumption that the “suspect’s” claim is true, and then go searching for contradictory evidence. Since it would be enormously easy for Zimmerman to construct a narrative for self-defense that is amazingly consistent with all the physical evidence (much like the rapist in my hypothetical did), we should not be inclined to factor this narrative into the detective work. Zimmerman has every incentive in the world to lie, which means we need to look else where for evidence. Police should start with a null hypothesis. “Is there evidence suggestive of a homocide, yes or no?” Do you disagree with this? > [@](#): > > That they shouldn’t vet it for internal consistency? That they shouldn’t draw _any_ conclusions if the suspect statement is both internally consistent and consistent with the physical evidence? Why we would expect them do all this vetting just to establish probable cause? This would require cops to interview persons of interests over and over again, just to make sure they’re sticking to the same story. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/255 "2012-03-14T19:37:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Come back with a good analogy. I didn’t even want to give you the satisfaction, but I’ll point out that your horrible analogy involves video evidence of someone “lying in wait” which has massive legal ramifications and there is nothing analogous to that in this situation. If the 911 call demonstrates evidence of racial profiling, that too has legal ramifications. But thanks for making an attempt to refute the analogy, although it was almost as lame as that dog and cat mess that **Loach** posted. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/256 "2012-03-14T19:41:28Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > The statement (interview, interrogation whatever you prefer) is looked at in conjunction with the evidence. I would say that most of my convictions have come in great part due to suspect statements. Should I have ignored them too? For the 135th time, we are not talking about convictions. ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/257 "2012-03-14T19:47:48Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Yes that is that article I was referring to. You just quoted a bunch of anonymous sources. It’s hard to evaluate the veracity of an anonymous source. I suppose I trust ABC news to not have made it up whole cloth. Maybe when the department finally releases the 911 call tapes you can get the caller’s addresses and go to their homes and interview them yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/258 "2012-03-14T19:57:07Z")
My conclusion after reading all this is that there’s something wrong with our society if any yahoo with a gun can decide to start chasing people down in the street, shoot them dead after an altercation, and get away with it scotfree. I hope charges are pressed against the shooter. Why didn’t he stay in his car when the dispatcher told him police were on their way? ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/259 "2012-03-14T19:59:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except he landed enough punches to visibly injure Zimmerman, who must be at least a little tougher than a paper bag. I must have missed how this is accepted as a fact. How do we know the killer’s injuries didn’t come from tripping over his own feet during the chase and falling? Did any witnesses report that the young man hit the shooter? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/260 "2012-03-14T20:00:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t think anyone will disagree if the police took his statement, immediately accepted it at face value, then searched for evidence exclusively to prove his claim, that would be biased and inappropriate behavior. Is there evidence here they did that? Maybe, but it’s murky at best (referencing that ABC News article.) Well, actually on page 1, this is what you wrote: > [@](#): > > We don’t know what story the shooter told police. In many cases of defensive gun use, the person claiming self defense will be the only witness to the crime. So if he has a credible story that is either backed up by physical evidence, or not contradicted by physical evidence, it’s not going to be easy to bring charges or win conviction. In other words, you assert that as long as the shooter’s story doesn’t contradict the available evidence, it’s going to be hard to establish probable cause. Is this a correct reading of what you wrote earlier? Because I’m going to need you to explain how this is not inviting bias into the interpretation of evidence. This approach means that the shooter’s story is going to be treated like the reference by which all objective evidence is measured against. Zimmerman can concoct a story that explains away every little detail that makes him look bad (“She scratched me because she’s a frisky lover!”), and as long as the cops can’t come up with proof he’s lying, then they can’t do much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=14)