# 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:** 196
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3901 "2012-04-12T20:47:08Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Ok, but on what grounds would it be disallowed? “Disallowed” as in “the judge tells the jury to ignore that when making their decision”. And not allowing the prosecution to bring it up in their arguments. The judge will have to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3902 "2012-04-12T20:50:33Z")
On what grounds would the defendent’s recorded words on a 911 call be dissallowed? “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you know, a 911 operator is not a policeman, so please disregard the entire section of the defense’s case where they talked about that.” ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3903 "2012-04-12T20:53:57Z")
So because its possible that the judge may rule at some future time that this part should be ignored by the jury, we should therefore definitely stop talking about it now, and it also certainly has no relevance? I don’t see how that follows from your reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3904 "2012-04-12T20:56:14Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > On what grounds would the defendent’s recorded words on a 911 call be dissallowed? > > “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you know, a 911 operator is not a policeman, so please disregard the entire section of the defense’s case where they talked about that.” Because legally that exchange has no relevance, but as evidenced in this thread, it may have a prejudicial effect on the jury. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3905 "2012-04-12T20:57:07Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > So because its possible that the judge may rule at some future time that this part should be ignored by the jury, we should therefore definitely stop talking about it now, and it also certainly has no relevance? I don’t see how that follows from your reasoning. You can talk about it, sure. Just be accurate when you do. Or be corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3906 "2012-04-12T20:58:46Z")
yeah. every … single … time … ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3907 "2012-04-12T21:00:55Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Because legally that exchange has no relevance, but as evidenced in this thread, it may have a prejudicial effect on the jury. I’m sure a Bricker or two will correct me, but I don’t think a judge would tell a jury to ignore a key portion of the defense’s case, as it relates to motive because of the pedantic cry: “a 911 operator is not the police.” ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3908 "2012-04-12T21:03:47Z")
Yeah as long as the prosecutor uses the term ‘911 operator’ why on earth would it be disallowed? And if “police” was used, I’d expect an objection from the defense and a sustained from the judge and a correction by the prosecutor. I wouldn’t expect the entire thing to be disallowed because the prosecutor misspoke. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3909 "2012-04-12T21:05:18Z")
I meant the prosecution’s case up there, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3910 "2012-04-12T21:10:12Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Because legally that exchange has no relevance, but as evidenced in this thread, it may have a prejudicial effect on the jury. That was my point. The call most likely begins with a recognized affirm by the dispatcher, like, “How’s it going Zimm? Whattya got for us today?”, since he’s a frequent caller, not so much a listener. What about previous 911 calls while on his NW duty? Can they be allowed to show a pattern of prejudice? How about his history of calls related to police response and a police no-show? If they want to produce a Batman complex, an over zealous citizen with an armed handgun, wouldn’t his calling history be totally relevant? Guess it depends what points the prosecution wants to go with. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3911 "2012-04-12T21:13:25Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m sure a Bricker or two will correct me, but I don’t think a judge would tell a jury to ignore a key portion of the [prosecution]'s case, as it relates to motive because of the pedantic cry: “a 911 operator is not the police.” Because legally it makes no difference. The operator could have yelled, cursed, screamed, and ordered Zimmerman to return to his truck, and it still wouldn’t have any relevance. The operator has no authority over Zimmerman, and Zimmerman is under no obligation to follow his instructions. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3912 "2012-04-12T21:14:19Z")
**Locrian** - "That was my point. The call most likely begins with a recognized affirm by the dispatcher, like, “How’s it going Zimm? Whattya got for us today?”, since he’s a frequent caller, not so much a listener. What about previous 911 calls while on his NW duty? Can they be allowed to show a pattern of prejudice? How about his history of calls related to police response and a police no-show? If they want to produce a Batman complex, an over zealous citizen with an armed handgun, wouldn’t his calling history be totally relevant? Guess it depends what points the prosecution wants to go with." That’s what I’m saying. To say it has no relevance is ridiculous, and because this thread is not an actual trial, to be so pedantic about legal accuracy with regard to terminology with every post is equally ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3913 "2012-04-12T21:21:53Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > That’s what I’m saying. To say it has no relevance is ridiculous, and because this thread is not an actual trial, to be so pedantic about legal accuracy with regard to terminology with every post is equally ridiculous. Legal accuracy is relevant because the premise of this thread is “Why hasn’t the neighborhood watch shooter been arrested”. If the thread was, “Did Zimmerman act correctly”, then the exchange would have relevance. Part of the problem is that the people arguing for Zimmerman’s arrest have been doing it based on facts that are not legally relevant: (1) Martin was walking home after buying skittles. Irrelevant (2) Martin was unarmed. Irrelevant. (3) Dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Irrelevant. (4) Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed Martin. Irrelevant. There are only two facts important in this case. (1) Did Zimmerman start the physical confrontation? (2) If (1) is “No”, did Zimmerman reasonably fear for his life? There are some minor ifs and subquestions, but those are the two issues at the heart of the case. If the prosecutor can’t prove the answer to (1) is “yes” or the answer to (2) is “no” then there is no case against Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3914 "2012-04-12T21:23:57Z")
> [@treis](#): > > There are only two facts important in this case. > > (1) Did Zimmerman start the physical confrontation? > > (2) If (1) is “No”, did Zimmerman reasonably fear for his life? > > There are some minor ifs and subquestions, but those are the two issues at the heart of the case. If the prosecutor can’t prove the answer to (1) is “yes” or the answer to (2) is “no” then there is no case against Zimmerman. Wow. I suggest you not watch the trial, because your head is going to asplode. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3915 "2012-04-12T21:25:37Z")
So do you think the judge will not allow the concept that Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin into the trial because it was not illegal? Only things that are illegal can be discussed in the trial? In what sense are you using the term relevant? I’m using it as information with which the jury will be presented and using which they will deliberate and reach a verdict. Anything in that category is fair game in this thread I would think. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3916 "2012-04-12T21:30:47Z")
I would imagine that the defense will argue just as you are, that this is irrelevant to the question of guilt because it is not required that he follow the 911 operator’s instructions, but its definitely going to come up, and the jury will certainly hear the evidence and probably _gasp_ form an opinion about it. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3917 "2012-04-12T21:42:53Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > So do you think the judge will not allow the concept that Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin into the trial because it was not illegal? Only things that are illegal can be discussed in the trial? In what sense are you using the term relevant? Directly related to proving an aspect of the crime. A prosecutor can’t simply paint a picture of a scenario and allow the jury to fill in the blanks. For example, she can’t say “Zimmerman racially profiled a kid, complained about how they always get away, and then followed him despite orders not to. Of course when they met he attacked Martin.” Because the intent is to prejudice the jury. She’s trying to say “Martin is a bad person, so he must have committed the crime”. She can’t do that. What she as to do is say “Facts X, Y, and Z show that Zimmerman is guilty”. And no, I don’t think the 911 call will be allowed. There’s nothing on there showing that Zimmerman intended to start a confrontation, and he legally had the right to be where the confrontation started. Getting out of your truck to follow a suspicious person isn’t a crime. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Wow. I suggest you not watch the trial, because your head is going to asplode. I’m pretty confident I have legally correct information. As long as the defense doesn’t do something stupid, the facts leading up to the confrontation aren’t admissible. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3918 "2012-04-12T21:43:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It was, by three other “experts”. I’m glad you put “experts” in quotes: > [@Terr](#): > > \*\*Dr. James Wayman, a San Jose State University expert in the field of speech science, \*\*told The Daily Caller that he questions the grounds on which Owen based his analysis. > > **One voice authentication expert whose work is commercial in nature** > > **another industry insider** So expert they aren’t willing to be identified publicly? I’m impressed! For the record, the expert who did the original analysis for the Sentinel is the Chair Emeritus of the [American Board of Recorded Evidence](http://www.abreboard.us/), and advisory board to [The American College of Forensic Examiners International](http://www.acfei.com/). The board has a very comprehensive description of their [voice comparison standards.](http://expertpages.com/news/american_board_voice_comparison.htm) The Google didn’t offer up any evidence that Wayman has anything like the background in forensics that Owen does, making > [@](#): > > Wayman also said he would be willing to testify against the admissibility of Owen’s findings on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria required for evidence in federal courts. Interesting, but not particularly meaningful. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I was responding to steronz who said: As _part_ of saying that it might be a strategy to get Zimmerman to cop a plea, in which case Zimmerman’s belief about his own guilt or innocence would of course be pertinent to the success or failure of such a strategy, since it depends on his assessment of what might likely happen. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3919 "2012-04-12T21:44:40Z")
So you think the defendant’s entire 911 call will be disallowed then? How else would the jury not hear all of this information? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/3920 "2012-04-12T21:46:31Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’m glad you put “experts” in quotes: Just like I would put Owen’s “expert” status in quotes. > [@](#): > > So expert they aren’t willing to be identified publicly? I’m impressed! One definitely was. And if you have a battle of the experts in court, especially discussing the fine points of frequency analysis and white noise removal, it’s gonna be fun watching the jury’s eyes glaze over. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=195) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=197)