# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/621 "2012-03-19T18:32:24Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > As per some of the articles from the Orlando Sentinel, I believe early rumblings of the civil case are already starting. Typically a full blown civil case will not start until the criminal case (or in this instance, non-case) is over, so I wouldn’t expect it to be filed until the State’s Attorney is done with Zimmerman (meaning they choose not to prosecute or they go to trial and a verdict is reached.) My understanding is that the “Stand Your Ground” laws apply to civil liability as well as criminality. Not that that’s going to stop anyone from filing suit, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/622 "2012-03-19T18:33:49Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > I’m glad we agree. > An alternative to those militia members, instead of trying to do a citizen’s arrest, would be to arm themselves for their own safety, and go question Mr. Zimmerman themselves, to verify that he is not a danger to other people. They are certainly free to do that. Of course, they are not free to trespass, but they are certainly free to approach Zimmerman and ask him whatever they like, and he is equally free to ignore them and go about his business. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/623 "2012-03-19T18:44:13Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > But if it was with a scowl and a move to block my way: “Who are you and what are you doing here?”, that certainly IS assault… I don’t agree that this is assault, which, AGAIN, in Florida requires: [ul] [li] intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence[/li][li]an apparent ability to carry out that threat[/li][li]an act which creates a well-founded fear in the other person that such violence is imminent[/li][/ul] “A person’s mere intention to commit an assault is not enough; there must be some overt act sufficient to demonstrate a threat directed at the person placed in fear.” _Johnson v. Brooks_, 567 So. 2d 34, 35 (Fl Ct App 1990). I can’t find a single Florida case which construed scowling and moving to block someone’s path as an act which creates a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. Would you care to cite to your authority for this proposition? > [@](#): > > … and my response would be “none of your goddamn business. Now stand aside.” And if he didn’t stand aside - and promptly, the very next thing that would happen would be that my .45 would be jammed into his belly, and he’d be looking into the eyes of a man who by god would pull the trigger if he so much as twitched. Interestingly, that act is assault, and also battery, as defined by FSA § 784.011, criminalizing the act in which a person “Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other.” Now, if your subject continued to actually block your way, then he has committed his own crime. But to move to step in your way, once, and scowl, is not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/624 "2012-03-19T18:56:01Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > Link? I know of cases in TX where burglars have been shot in the act by neighbors. I also know of at least one case in TX where a homeowner apparently thought he was in danger for his life when a somewhat rowdy teenager knocked on his door apparently looking for directions and got killed for it. > > But I don’t know of any cases where neighbors “executed” burglars - which carries with it the implication that they caught and secured the burglars, then killed them. Really? It was a pretty famous case — the guy was on the phone with 911, he was watching a house that he saw a couple guys enter through a window, and he was furious at the thought that they were committing a burglary in his neighborhood – and by the way, he didn’t know the neighbor, so he really didn’t know they were burglars. They were, but they could have been friends of the neighbor, who had gone on vacation and forgotten his laptop, and asked some friends to get it and FedEx it to him, breaking a window if they had to. Anyway, he told 911 he had a shotgun, and he was going to stop them. The operator told him to stay in his house, cops were on the way, but the guy ran out and immediately shot them, the whole thing is on the recording of the 911 call. He clearly intended to shoot them from the beginning. He had obviously given it a lot of thought even before the incident started, as he was quoting a new law about home defense before he went outside, and he gave the standard, “I was in fear of my life” after he shot them. What’s more, you have to listen closely, but at six minutes into the [tape](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc), the 911 officer (who had already said a couple of times that officers were responding and he didn’t want a civilian out there confusing them) said, “You’re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun,” and Horn responded, “You wanna bet? I’m gonna kill 'em.” Both men were shot in the back. The grand jury failed to indict, ruling it justifiable. ---
**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 19, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/625 "2012-03-19T19:15:03Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Given that case in Texas, where the guy executed two people for burglarizing a neighbor’s house and wasn’t indicted, what’s the point? The thing this case has going for it is that Martin’s only crime was existing in the same time and place as his shooter. That’s it. He wasn’t a burgular, a mugger, or even a drug dealer. He was a kid on his way home from a store. Comparing this with any other self-defense case that involved a crime in commission overlooks the one thing that makes this shooting so tragic and alarming. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/626 "2012-03-19T19:18:48Z")
> [@The Shooter's 911 call](#): > > This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. > He’s got his hand in is waistband and he’s a black male. He considers being a ‘black male’ grounds to assume the victim was up to no good. Pretty good indication of his state of mind. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/627 "2012-03-19T19:20:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. One element of assault in Florida is doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. The term “well-founded” means that the fear must be reasonable and founded on specifics; it cannot be a general, inchoate fear. Indeed, the fear has to exist; in _Pray v. State_, 571 So.2d 554 (Fl. Ct App 1990), an assault conviction fails because the victim, a toddler, could not have a well-found basis for fear. > > It seems to me you’re deciding, on your own, that “confront” means something more than the dictionary says it does. The word means “to cause to meet : bring face-to-face; to to face especially in challenge.” Nothing about the word demands that it include an assault. Your claim that when Zimmerman confronted Martin, he committed a crime is absolutely unsupportable. Certainly it COULD include the threat of violence, but there is no particular evidence that it did in this case. > > Is there? I guess we’re reading different dictionaries. From [here:](http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+confront&qpvt=define+%22confront%22&FORM=DTPDIA) 1. challenge somebody face to face: to come face to face with somebody, especially in a challenge, and usually with hostility, criticism, or defiance 2. make somebody aware of something: to bring something such as contradictory facts or evidence to the attention of somebody, often in a challenging way “confronted her with the evidence” 3. encounter difficulty: to be forced to deal with something, especially an obstacle that must be overcome “This is just one of the difficulties students confront these days.” 4. be problem for somebody: to cause difficulty to or present an obstacle for somebody “The hardships that would confront the settlers were blissfully unknown when they started out.” [Mid-16th century. Via French \< medieval Latin confrontare \< Latin front- “forehead”] Is there evidence that this confrontation rose to the level of assault? I don’t know. But the calls Zimmerman made to the police are suggestive: a cop says the recording sounds like he was intoxicated, he apparently stated words to the effect that the kid was up to something or on drugs or some such - which would indicate that he had made a pre-determination about the kid’s intent. Clearly, things escalated to the point where there was a fight which suggests - unless the kid WAS high on meth or PCP - that the kid did feel genuinely threatened. In the ordinary sequence of events, again presuming the kid was not himself in some altered mental state, he wouldn’t have felt sufficiently threatened to attack unless something well beyond the level of “Hi, can I help you with anything?” had occurred. Personally, I think the fact pattern we have supports an arrest. Taken together, there appears to be probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Whether that crime is murder would depend on a close reading of the statutes. While I’m willing to be convinced that Zimmerman didn’t assault the kid, based on everything we know, I’d bet he DID assault the kid. ---
**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 19, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/628 "2012-03-19T19:25:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And the lack of other injuries to Martin besides the single gunshot wound suggests that the hitting was rather one-sided. You don’t know this. The police hasn’t told us anything about Martin’s injuries. For all you know, the kid could have broken ribs, missing teeth, and bruises on his face. But the only reason hitting _might_ have been one-sided is because ZImmerman brought a gun to a Skittles fight. There was no need for him to risk injury to his precious fat-man hands, when he had a gun that could take care of it. So to act as though this fight ever had a chance in being equal is infuriatingly dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/629 "2012-03-19T19:29:07Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Really? It was a pretty famous case — the guy was on the phone with 911, he was watching a house that he saw a couple guys enter through a window, and he was furious at the thought that they were committing a burglary in his neighborhood – and by the way, he didn’t know the neighbor, so he really didn’t know they were burglars. They were, but they could have been friends of the neighbor, who had gone on vacation and forgotten his laptop, and asked some friends to get it and FedEx it to him, breaking a window if they had to. > > Anyway, he told 911 he had a shotgun, and he was going to stop them. The operator told him to stay in his house, cops were on the way, but the guy ran out and immediately shot them, the whole thing is on the recording of the 911 call. > > He clearly intended to shoot them from the beginning. He had obviously given it a lot of thought even before the incident started, as he was quoting a new law about home defense before he went outside, and he gave the standard, “I was in fear of my life” after he shot them. > > What’s more, you have to listen closely, but at six minutes into the [tape](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc), the 911 officer (who had already said a couple of times that officers were responding and he didn’t want a civilian out there confusing them) said, “You’re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun,” and Horn responded, “You wanna bet? I’m gonna kill 'em.” > > Both men were shot in the back. The grand jury failed to indict, ruling it justifiable. That IS the case I was thinking of, where the neighbor shot burglars. However, you do appear to know more about it than I did. I guess I would have to look it up to see, but back-shooting is unsupportable in any claim of “I was in fear of my life”, I would think. And, in fact, I don’t know all the details of the case. But it was also in TX where the teenager I mentioned got shot. The ruling there was that the homeowner, though mistaken in this case, had a legitimate reason to be afraid. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/630 "2012-03-19T19:30:51Z")
**Bricker** , I hope you don’t mind me asking you directly, but I’m curious what you think about federal involvement in this case. One article mentioned that the FBI was “monitoring” the investigation. I’m trying to come up with a scenario that would justify their involvement and all I can think of is possible police corruption. Apart from that, federal civil rights violations? Isn’t that only applied to government officials? ---
**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 19, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/631 "2012-03-19T19:32:03Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > Clearly, things escalated to the point where there was a fight which suggests - unless the kid WAS high on meth or PCP - that the kid did feel genuinely threatened. In the ordinary sequence of events, again presuming the kid was not himself in some altered mental state, he wouldn’t have felt sufficiently threatened to attack unless something well beyond the level of “Hi, can I help you with anything?” had occurred. > > Personally, I think the fact pattern we have supports an arrest. Taken together, there appears to be probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Whether that crime is murder would depend on a close reading of the statutes. I certainly agree with you, but the defenders of Zimmerman who take his account at face value are going to argue that we have no evidence that Zimmerman was threatening, and therefore he should get off. It seems pretty obvious to me that the likely scenario is that Zimmerman intimidated the kid and tried to restrain him, not that he walked up to him politely asking “What are doing out on a stroll, this fine evening?” and the kid, unprovoked, hauled off and slugged him. But many people in this country are fans of the idea that citizens should be part-time law enforcement officers and use their guns to stop criminals. Which is a clearly a terrible idea, as this case shows, but what can you do? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/632 "2012-03-19T19:34:01Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > **Bricker** , I hope you don’t mind me asking you directly, but I’m curious what you think about federal involvement in this case. One article mentioned that the FBI was “monitoring” the investigation. I’m trying to come up with a scenario that would justify their involvement and all I can think of is possible police corruption. Apart from that, federal civil rights violations? Isn’t that only applied to government officials? No, there is a federal crime involving intimidation even from a private person when the purpose is to prevent a person from exercising civil rights related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s a more serious offense to do it “under color of law,” but it’s federal even without a badge involved. However, as yet I haven’t heard even a scintilla of evidence suggesting that this was motivated by a desire to deny Martin any such rights. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/633 "2012-03-19T19:42:40Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > Is there evidence that this confrontation rose to the level of assault? > > I don’t know. But, not knowing, you still said, “Absent probable cause, being confronted IS simple assault if it carries with it any threat - which can be expressed by body language, facial expression, or tone of voice.” That is not an accurate statement of Florida law, is it? > [@](#): > > But the calls Zimmerman made to the police are suggestive: a cop says the recording sounds like he was intoxicated, he apparently stated words to the effect that the kid was up to something or on drugs or some such - which would indicate that he had made a pre-determination about the kid’s intent. Yes, that same cop, Rod Wheeler, who is not a Florida officer or involved in the case in any official capacity, also [said that](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/fall/the-oh-really-factor) lesbian gangs are forcing kids into homosexuality. I’m not sure why you would place any credence whatsoever in his analysis. Can you explain why you find him credible? ---
**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 19, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/634 "2012-03-19T19:53:22Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Which is a clearly a terrible idea, as this case shows, but what can you do? I guess when we reach some critical mass of trigger-happy, paranoid vigilantes, they’ll do themselves in. At least we can hope. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/635 "2012-03-19T19:53:29Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > I certainly agree with you, but the defenders of Zimmerman who take his account at face value are going to argue that we have no evidence that Zimmerman was threatening, and therefore he should get off. It seems pretty obvious to me that the likely scenario is that Zimmerman intimidated the kid and tried to restrain him, not that he walked up to him politely asking “What are doing out on a stroll, this fine evening?” and the kid, unprovoked, hauled off and slugged him. But many people in this country are fans of the idea that citizens should be part-time law enforcement officers and use their guns to stop criminals. Which is a clearly a terrible idea, as this case shows, but what can you do? Quite a bit can be done. One of the basic issues here is whether Zimmerman had ANY authority or reason to confront the kid. I think that’s open and shut; he had NO reason to UNLESS he saw the kid actually committing a crime, and being a member of a neighborhood watch conveys no authority to do so. And, if it DID convey such authority, then Zimmerman would be bound by the 4th Amendment just as any police officer is. Which once again would restrain him legally from confronting the kid for the serious crime of merely walking down the street. I’m willing to be convinced that Zimmerman didn’t do anything wrong, but I’d need something other than his say-so because the fact pattern strongly suggests otherwise. Speaking personally, I want this vigilantism to stop and be stopped. I personally open-carry a .45 when I am out and about. My reasons have far less to do with asserting my constitutional rights or with being a “tough guy” than with a pronounced desire to address a specific threat - a threat that killed four of my friends and maimed four others two years ago this week. I have no desire to stop crimes, though on at least one occasion my merely walking into the gas station kiosk stopped what appeared to be a growing confrontation; they were eyeball to eyeball, they both saw me, they both stepped back. Because I open-carry, I am invariably completely polite; no one, under any circumstances, is going to have any cause to say I threatened them. I do not like to see people carrying concealed and behaving as Zimmerman appears to have behaved. People like him are a threat to the entire movement. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/636 "2012-03-19T20:01:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But, not knowing, you still said, “Absent probable cause, being confronted IS simple assault if it carries with it any threat - which can be expressed by body language, facial expression, or tone of voice.” > > That is not an accurate statement of Florida law, is it? It is accurate enough. The Florida law says that simple assault has three elements: ``` An intentional and unlawful threat - by word or act - to commit violence against another person; The apparent ability to carry through with the threat at the time it was made; and The threat created a genuine fear in the intended victim that the violence was imminent. ``` Operative word is “threat”, which can be by word or act, hence body language certainly plays. > [@](#): > > Yes, that same cop, Rod Wheeler, who is not a Florida officer or involved in the case in any official capacity, also [said that](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/fall/the-oh-really-factor) lesbian gangs are forcing kids into homosexuality. > > I’m not sure why you would place any credence whatsoever in his analysis. Can you explain why you find him credible? Really? LOL. OK, then. Though the police tapes have not been released, there are still reports that Zimmerman was making claims that the kid was high or some such and was up to something. I suppose we need to wait for the tapes. In any event, this still leaves the issue of why Zimmerman would confront the kid anyway. He had no right to. I don’t have an omniscient viewing time machine, so I cannot tell you with certainty what he did that day. But the fact pattern that we know certainly is suggestive, and I suggest it is enough to arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/637 "2012-03-19T20:07:33Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > Quite a bit can be done. One of the basic issues here is whether Zimmerman had ANY authority or reason to confront the kid. I think that’s open and shut; he had NO reason to UNLESS he saw the kid actually committing a crime, and being a member of a neighborhood watch conveys no authority to do so. > > And, if it DID convey such authority, then Zimmerman would be bound by the 4th Amendment just as any police officer is. Which once again would restrain him legally from confronting the kid for the serious crime of merely walking down the street. I think my head is going to explode. First, merely because Zimmerman had no particular authority to confront the kid, he had the legal right to do so – just as any person would have the right to do so. So I have no idea why you believe the statement that he had no reason or authority is particularly dispositive. Secondly, although generally irrelevant to our analysis, let’s assume that Zimmerman was a cop, and thus – as you put it – bound by the Fourth Amendment. Do you somehow believe that a cop is for some magical, Fourth Amendment reason, restrained from confronting someone? No. Without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a cop is entitled to approach you and ask what you’re doing. In Fourth Amendment parlance, this is a “consensual encounter.” As long as you are free to disregard his inquiry and go about your business, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. > [@](#): > > Moreover, characterizing every street encounter between a citizen and the police as a “seizure,” while not enhancing any interest secured by the Fourth Amendment, would impose wholly unrealistic restrictions upon a wide variety of legitimate law enforcement practices. The Court has on other occasions referred to the acknowledged need for police questioning as a tool in the effective enforcement of the criminal laws. “Without such investigation, those who were innocent might be falsely accused, those who were guilty might wholly escape prosecution, and many crimes would go unsolved. In short, the security of all would be diminished. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 515.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S., at 225. From _U.S. v. Mendenhall_, 446 US 544 (1980). There are three types of encounters between police and citizens: consensual encounters, brief seizures that do not rise to the level of arrest, and arrests. Please stop these confident but utterly wrong pronouncements. I have provided cites for my claims. If you believe you’re correct, why don’t you offer up a cite or two? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/638 "2012-03-19T20:08:37Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > Really? LOL. Really, LOL, as already detailed in post #577 of 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 19, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/639 "2012-03-19T20:12:20Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > In any event, this still leaves the issue of why Zimmerman would confront the kid anyway. He had no right to. Really? What do you mean? He had no right to walk up to another person? I’m not sure what you mean by “right.” He certainly was breaking no law by doing it. How else would you define “right?” > [@](#): > > I don’t have an omniscient viewing time machine, so I cannot tell you with certainty what he did that day. But the fact pattern that we know certainly is suggestive, and I suggest it is enough to arrest. It is. But since the police have to examine the totality of circumstances, not just the facts we, the public, know, and determine if probable cause exists based on those totality of circumstances, it seems certain that the police determination of whether probable cause exists is based on a knowledge of a more complete set of facts than yours is. Until we know what the police know, our determination is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/640 "2012-03-19T20:24:24Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > But the only reason hitting _might_ have been one-sided is because ZImmerman brought a gun to a Skittles fight. I’m not sure what you mean. If Martin struck Zimmerman and Zimmerman never struck Martin, that fits the scenario of self-defense as well as any other, and better than some. > [@](#): > > So to act as though this fight ever had a chance in being equal is infuriatingly dumb. Again, when did I say anything about the fight being equal? Of course it wasn’t an equal fight - Zimmerman had a gun. That’s what a gun is for - to make fights unequal in your favor when necessary. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=33)