# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/361 "2012-03-16T00:16:51Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Really, if someone wanted to be a murdererer and picked a totally random person to kill and ensure there were no witnesses and no physical evidence, then it is very likely indeed that they would not be caught. Thankfully (?) most murderers don’t work like that. Although I do sometimes wonder how many unknown serial killers there are out there who are cautious and only pick random victims who won’t be missed. The difference there is that \*\*serial killers usually aren’t found standing over their victims with the murder weapon in their hands. \*\* What I find fascinating here is that Zimmerman was found standing over the body with the smoking gun in his hand, and what I am being told, in this thread, is that all he has to do is say “It was self defense” and he can get away with it. I am no longer particularly interested in Zimmerman’s case; what fascinates me is that the law could actually be written in such a manner as to allow any person to simply claim self defense in response to any killing without the trouble or bother of mounting an affirmative defense. It would effectively legalize a lot of murder. And yet that seems to be what people are saying, including the Sanford chief of police. Why couldn’t a Florida resident simply walk in on their spouse and shoot them in the head? If the Sanford chief of police is correct, it would be impossible for such a person to be charged with a crime, unless they had left behind some sort of trail indicating they planned to do 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 16, 2012, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/362 "2012-03-16T00:18:18Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No one has ever said that if the evidence points to murder the police shouldn’t make an arrest. I think what’s been said since page one by myself at least 10 times is that no one participating in this discussion knows the full evidence. So no one can say what the evidence points towards. We’ve all been working off a news reports, and plenty of them feature the chief of police making claims like this: > [@](#): > > “In this case, Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense," Lee said during Monday’s press conference. **"Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.** ” Ignore, for a minute, police concerns about scoring a conviction under Florida’s statutes. Just look at the part I’ve put in bold. According to Lee’s statment, the cops aren’t looking for probable cause for homicide. They are using Zimmerman’s self-defense as the basis by which they judge the physical and circumstantial evidence. His statement isn’t merely just one data point among many, as you and **Loach** keep insisting is how this analysis is and should be done. It’s the primary data point, according to the chief. All I’m saying is that regardless of if this is legal or not (and I strongly suspect it’s not, but I’m not a lawyer), I am convinced that it’s impossible to have an objective investigation when you’re filtering all the evidence through the one person involved who has the biggest incentive to lie. It would be like me accusing a guy of rape, and the cops making an arrest simply because: “We can’t find any evidence that she _wasn’t_ raped, so we’re going to press charges.” How many people in this thread with be shrugging _that_ off? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/363 "2012-03-16T00:21:19Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Actually, I think **Shodan’s** invented the expungement too. Most stories report that Zimmerman’s prior was only dropped. I know it’s a long and complicated thread. But **Kimmy** and I discuss the expungement (from the point of view of slanted reporting) here: > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > [http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29814303](http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29814303) > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s an interesting article. > > There’s a certain slant to that paragraph, isn’t there? If the man’s arrest record was expunged, then it ceases to exist – at least for the purpose of answering the on-scene question, “Do you have an arrest record?” > > But the paragraph is written in such a way as to suggest that something sinister, or at least mildly underhanded, is being described. > > Anyway, Shodan asked you, “What evidence do you have that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion?” > > You responded with that entire link, presumably conveying your belief that somewhere in that link, the reader will find evidence that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion. > > I can’t reproduce the entire body of text here, but this appears to be the most damning portion: > > I agree that the tone is suggestive of bad conduct on Zimmerman’s part. But since the tone of the “expunged” paragraph was also suggestive of bad conduct, but in reality said absolutely nothing untoward, I am moved to ask: what, specifically, either in the quoted text or anywhere else in the article, actually says that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion? At best, he know he followed Martin and a fight broke out. > > Where do we get to the “unlawfully,” the “charged,” and the “menacing?” The link contains the expungement information and our subsequent discussion refers to it several times. How can you possibly believe anyone invented it, when it has been richly substantiated in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/364 "2012-03-16T00:24:21Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It would be like me accusing a guy of rape, and the cops making an arrest simply because: “We can’t find any evidence that she _wasn’t_ raped, so we’re going to press charges.” How many people in this thread with be shrugging _that_ off? The accusation of rape creates probable cause. If the police can’t find evidence you weren’t raped, it is entirely appropriate to proceed with an arrest. ---
**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 16, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/365 "2012-03-16T00:33:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The accusation of rape creates probable cause. If the police can’t find evidence you weren’t raped, it is entirely appropriate to proceed with an arrest. Are you seriously saying that all I have to do is say a guy raped me, and the cops can press charges against the guy without so much as single solitary piece of physical suggestive that sex took place? I know you don’t believe this, but I’ve read your post multiple times and it’s the same interpretation each time. You’re essentially says cops have to prove a negative. I’m going to bookmark this thread so that I refer to this post the next time we have another rape trainwreck thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/366 "2012-03-16T00:36:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > (1) **Kimmy\_Gibbler** , I think you’re misstating the law. In Florida, like most states, the burden of disproving self-defense falls on the prosecution, not the accused. \* E.g., Jenkins v. State\*, App. 2 Dist., 942 So.2d 910 (2006). So that makes it more plausible that the reluctance to arrest is about whether the police think there’s sufficient evidence to prosecute, though prosecutorial discretion could still play a role even where self-defense is the accused’s burden. Hmmm, interesting… The _Jenkins_ court wrote: > [@](#): > > While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. _ **If a defendant establishes a prima facie case of self-defense,** _ the State must overcome the defense by rebuttal, or by inference in its case-in-chief. (Internal citations omitted; emphasis added.) I wrote: > [@](#): > > The prosecution only has a burden of proof with respect to the elements of the crime. _ **There is no burden on the prosecutor to disprove affirmative defenses for which a prima facie case has not been made. If the accused does make a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to disprove.** _ (And if the prosecution succeeds, the burden again shifts to the accused to rebut the prosecution.) > > As to affirmative defenses, which self-defense is, _**the accused has the burden of production (i.e., the accused must raise the defense, the prosecutor does not, at any time, have to disprove any possible defenses not raised by the accused)**_ and the burden of persuasion (i.e., has to convinced the finder of fact by some specified quantum of evidence). In a criminal trial, the accused must prove up his affirmative defense by a “preponderance of the evidence” (usually glossed that the accused must show that the allegations of fact that make up his defense are more likely true than not). > > So, in this instance, _ **Zimmerman must raise and make out a prima facie case** _ that he both actually and reasonably feared that he faced an imminent danger of grievous bodily harm. Also note that the jury may reject uncorrobated testimonial assertions as not credible. Obviously a defendant has an incentive to lie. I think a lot of people think that in a he-said/the-other-guy-didn’t-say-because-he’s-dead situation, the testimony of the survivor must be taken as gospel. That isn’t the case, you can’t meet he-said with either direct evidence (usually, the she-said) or circumstantial evidence (for instance, what he said sounds deeply implausible in light of his contemporaneous statements and actions). (Emphases added.) Now, I suppose I could have gone further and stated that once the defendant rose the issue and made out a prima facie case, the prosecution has to disprove it _ **beyond reasonable doubt** _. (Of course, I said everything up to the bold italic part in my original post.) But I certainly did not mistate the law either explicitly or even by omission. ---
**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 16, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/367 "2012-03-16T00:37:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The link contains the expungement information and our subsequent discussion refers to it several times. Your link is dead, and I don’t care if you’ve thrown around he word “expungement” multiple times in this thread. None of us are in the position to matter-of-factly state that his charges were expunged, especially when most information out there suggests that they are only dropped. The accessibility of public records for his arrest belies the idea they expunged anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/368 "2012-03-16T00:40:06Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Now, I suppose I could have gone further and stated that once the defendant rose the issue and made out a prima facie case, the prosecution has to disprove it _ **beyond reasonable doubt** _. (Of course, I said everything up to the bold italic part in my original post.) But I certainly did not mistate the law either explicitly or even by omission. You are incorrect that the accused ever has the burden of persuasion for self-defense. That burden rests with the prosecution (in Florida). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/369 "2012-03-16T00:45:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Your link is dead, and I don’t care if you’ve thrown around he word “expungement” multiple times in this thread. None of us are in the position to matter-of-factly state that his charges were expunged, especially when most information out there suggests that they are only dropped. > > The accessibility of public records for his arrest belies the idea they expunged anyway. [http://www.wbobradio.com/2012/03/13/florida-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct/](http://www.wbobradio.com/2012/03/13/florida-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct/) [http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/t/story?id=15907136](http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/t/story?id=15907136) This certainly rebuts the idea that Shodan made it up, doesn’t it? And I’m almost afraid to ask, but do you have the slightest clue how expungement works? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/370 "2012-03-16T00:46:38Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Are you seriously saying that all I have to do is say a guy raped me, and the cops can press charges against the guy without so much as single solitary piece of physical suggestive that sex took place? Just as a PSA for rape victims everywhere: this absolutely is a sufficient basis to arrest someone and bring rape charges. Don’t ever think otherwise. Of course, there are many reasons the cops might choose not to make an arrest in such a case, such as if the guy has a credible alibi, or the guy disputes the facts and comes across as more credible. But cops are getting better and better about leaving that question to the finder of fact. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/371 "2012-03-16T00:58:54Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You are incorrect that the accused ever has the burden of persuasion for self-defense. That burden rests with the prosecution (in Florida). What do you suppose the _Jenkins_ court meant when it wrote “If a defendant establishes a prima facie case of self-defense” and “Mr. Jenkins presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie issue of self-defense”? It seems to me that the first one, phrased as a conditional, suggests there will be times when a defendant will not establish a prima facie case. Since you appear to believe that all that requires is the defendant’s assertion of a defense (perhaps you have a direct citation for this proposition?), it seems that this would be an illusory worry. How hard, after all, would it be to make out a prima facie case if all an accused had to say was “It was self-defense. Disprove _that_, State’s Attorney.” The second quote make it even more apparent that a prima facie case involves “sufficient” evidence. Finally, I invite you to consider [_Peterson v. State_, 983 So.2d 27 (2008)](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4550408100917847020), which held: > [@](#): > > Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to review an order denying his motion to dismiss based on the statutory immunity established by section [776.032(1), Florida Statutes (2006)](http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.032.html) [immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force]. We deny the petition and _ **hold that a criminal defendant claiming protection under the statute must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is immunized from prosecution.** _ Here, the trial court applied the correct standard. (Emphasis added.) ---
**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 16, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/372 "2012-03-16T01:00:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Just as a PSA for rape victims everywhere: this absolutely is a sufficient basis to arrest someone and bring rape charges. Don’t ever think otherwise. It says something fucked up when a dead body and an identified shooter somehow is insufficient probable cause for homicide, but a claim of rape is enough by itself. Good thing this knowledge doesn’t seem to commonly held by criminals. We’d have many more murders. I mean, episodes of self defense involving big hefty fellows carrying guns. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/373 "2012-03-16T01:01:45Z")
**Kimmy** : You’re misunderstanding the terms involved. Bringing a prima facie case is synonymous with the burden of production. A burden of production is different from a burden of persuasion. The latter is the burden to convince the fact-finder (in this case a jury) that a given element is true under a given evidentiary standard (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt). The former is the burden to produce sufficient evidence,\* that if believed\*, established the defense. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/374 "2012-03-16T01:03:19Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It says something fucked up when a dead body and an identified shooter somehow is insufficient probable cause for homicide, but a claim of rape is enough by itself. > > Good thing this knowledge doesn’t seem to commonly held by criminals. We’d have many more murders. I mean, episodes of self defense involving big hefty fellows carrying guns. You don’t quite have that right. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the police lack probable cause for homicide. At most, they are asserting that since we don’t know what evidence the police have, we cannot say for certain that they lack evidence that would be sufficient to rebut the inference of probable cause present from the facts we do know. By analogy, they might say in the case where all we know is a woman claimed she was raped that we cannot know if the police have probable cause because we don’t know if, say, the police have confirmed the man’s alibi. ---
**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 16, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/375 "2012-03-16T01:15:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Yes, it is simpler to assume Zimmerman was in the wrong. I lean towards that way myself. This thread’s title isn’t “Do you think the neighborhood watch shooter committed a crime?” The thread’s title is " Why hasn’t the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?" If I’m going to **speculate** on why someone wouldn’t be arrested, I can only rely on my knowledge of the law and criminal procedure (not expert, but I didn’t flunk civics class either) to contribute an opinion (the purpose of this forum.) My opinion **will only be explaining reasons for not arresting Zimmerman**. Sure enough, but pretty much these scenarios are all saying “if the police know a bunch of stuff we don’t, then they might have had reason to not arrest Mr. Zimmerman”. Which as far as idle speculation goes, is fine, but I don’t see how it really helps us arrive at the truth any better. My idle speculation is that the police have a (maybe unconscious) bias which is what made them give more weight to the shooter’s statement than to the facts in the case. I personally am looking at it from a slightly different point of view: with the information I have now, I think that, even if the police chose not to arrest him immediately, Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with something (like manslaughter) eventually. Mostly I’m saying that I hope Mr. Zimmerman doesn’t get away with 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 16, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/376 "2012-03-16T01:17:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The former is the burden to produce sufficient evidence,\* that if believed\*, established the defense. Doesn’t this mean that Zimmerman has a duty to show some evidence that supports his claim? He can’t just assert that he was fearful of losing his life; he has to show proof that his life was in danger, the kid escalated things during the fight, and/or that he made every reasonable attempt to get away or subdue the kid using non-lethal force. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/377 "2012-03-16T01:20:03Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Doesn’t this mean that Zimmerman has a duty to show some evidence that supports his claim? He can’t just assert that he was fearful of losing his life; he has to show proof that his life was in danger, the kid escalated things during the fight, and/or that he made every reasonable attempt to get away or subdue the kid using non-lethal force. No. “Evidence” is not synonymous with physical proof. Testimony is the most common kind of evidence, and frequently the only evidence available. As you suggest, it would be necessary for him to testify as to all the relevant elements. But that testimony would be enough (to meet the burden of production). ---
**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 16, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/378 "2012-03-16T01:24:20Z")
The longer that Zimmerman is allowed to walk as a free man, the more I think the State is jeopardizing its own case, should he ever be charged. Prospective jurors\* are going to start viewing the prosecutor with a distrustful eye (I know I would be), which means even if **Zimmerman** _did_ act in self-defense, folks are going to be inclined to discount the evidence he provides. Maybe that’s the goal along, though. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/379 "2012-03-16T01:24:59Z")
I should add: importantly, that does not mean his testimony would be sufficient to acquit him. A reasonable jury could find that he is not credible, based on all the other circumstances and his demeanor while testifying, etc. Should the jury so find, the prosecution could prevail on its burden of persuasion that he did not act in self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/380 "2012-03-16T04:02:30Z")
Sanford PD says Mary Cutcher’s interview inconsistent with statement she gave them. [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/os-trayvon-martin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/os-trayvon-martin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story) [http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/2696446\_p2/trayvon-martin-case-give-do-public.html](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/2696446_p2/trayvon-martin-case-give-do-public.html) Second story talks about a 13 year old witness also. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=20)