# 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:** 33
**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:** [March 19, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/641 "2012-03-19T20:30:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. And a bloody nose makes it necessary to shoot someone in the chest? ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/642 "2012-03-19T20:55:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Fine, it might be legal for him to approach and ask a question. He has no authority to do so, but as you say, he needs no authority just for that. But it would certainly appear, in the particular circumstance, that things went well beyond him asking a question. If we assume for the present that the kid was in his right mind, and behaving normally as someone his age (I forget…16? 17?) could be expected to behave, then things must have gone well beyond just questioning; Zimmerman pretty much had to have crossed the line into assault. For that, he has no right and no authority - and, for that matter, apparently no just cause. I may have the right to approach you and ask you a question; I don’t have the right to confront you when you are merely pursuing your lawful business. I don’t have the right to attempt to detain you under virtually any circumstances. > [@](#): > > 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? He absolutely is constrained from confronting someone unless he has probable cause to believe that the person is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime. At the most, he may briefly stop someone for a good purpose, but cannot detain them without cause. He is specifically constrained from stopping pedestrians on the street and asking them for their purpose in being there and/or for their identification, unless he can show that he has reason to believe… etc. The body of law on this is simply immense. It has been before the Supreme Court in various forms many times, and absent just cause, such a stopping is held to be an illegal search. > [@](#): > > 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. And if my response is that “I don’t want to tell you, it is not your business”, then absent just cause he MUST let me pass. > [@](#): > > 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. Exactly right. There is a huge body of law on this topic. > [@](#): > > 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? Right back at you. Please stop splitting hairs. I earlier acknowledged that merely approaching to ask a question is not illegal. But this, quite obviously, is not that. As for cites, yours works just fine for my purpose. I could provide many but they’ll all boil down to the same thing; the most a cop can do is ask you a question absent just cause or reasonable suspicion, and you neither have to answer nor remain in his presence. ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/643 "2012-03-19T21:02:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. The press usually gets it wrong. Little doubt about that. It has been reported that no blood samples were taken from Zimmerman. I would consider this to be odd and unusually sloppy police work. But it could be that samples were taken from the kid. If this is the case, usually it takes several weeks to a few months to get the results back. So, it could be that the police are waiting for the results of the blood work on the victim. If that comes back showing meth, PCP, or possibly just straight amphetamine in the kid’s blood, then Zimmerman will likely walk. If none of those substances are found, Zimmerman’s story won’t hold up, I wouldn’t think. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/644 "2012-03-19T21:21:34Z")
Here’s a pure hypothetical, with no claim that it’s what happened. It’s simply a plausible scenerio of how Zimmerman could have had cause to fire a gun in what was up to then a fist fight: Zimmerman rightfully or wrongfully encounters Martin. Someone initiates aggression, verbal or otherwise. At some point Martin decks Zimmerman, giving Zimmerman a bloody nose and a laceration of the back of his head. Zimmerman is on the ground and Martin begins beating on him. Zimmerman pulls his firearm intending to order Martin to back off. Martin tries to _grab_ the gun. Zimmerman judges that he is now in a use it or lose it situation with regard to the gun, and shoots Martin. Whether such a shooting would be legally justified would depend on whether Zimmerman was responsible for initiating aggression or not. But it would be a reasonable explanation for why a bloody nose made it necessary to shoot someone in the chest. We would have to know what Zimmerman’s claim is to exactly when and how he shot Martin, and what the forensic evidence says about angle and distance of the shot. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/645 "2012-03-19T21:27:03Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And a bloody nose makes it necessary to shoot someone in the chest? In and of itself? No. Do you think there might be possible scenarios where it is appropriate to shoot in self-defense, and that some of them might include in ‘the totality of their circumstances’ a bloody nose? Not ‘limited to’. ‘Including’. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/646 "2012-03-19T21:27:40Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > If we assume for the present that the kid was in his right mind, and behaving normally as someone his age (I forget…16? 17?) could be expected to behave, then things must have gone well beyond just questioning; Zimmerman pretty much had to have crossed the line into assault. To assume that Martin acted like a reasonable person is crazy talk, you hear? If you want to talk about reasonable, we should look no farther than Zimmerman. He closely pursued a “suspicious” person for several minutes, over several blocks, in the dark, just because he had a hunch that this person was a weapon-weilding, coked-out, burglar-on-the-prowl. He was wrong on all three accounts, mind you. And if he’d been right, he could have gotten himself killed. But of course hindsight is 20/20. Can’t expect to win them all. Right. But anyway, after this paragon of reason confronted this “suspicious” person, he exhibited a reasonableness that few others could maintain. He pulled out his gun and shot the “suspicious” person dead. Why? Because when his nose started bleeding it was like his whole life flashed before his eyes and he thought he was dying. This kind of belief–totally reasonable, by the way–is one we’d certainly expect from someone who judged Martin as a threat merely because he was a black teenager walking slowly. And thus, we consider this belief inherently reasonable. Because Zimmerman has proven himself to be so reasonable. So, in close, stop assuming Martin was the reasonable actor in this equation. We have all this evidence that Zimmerman was the level-headed one of the two, and you keep overlooking that. It makes me think you’re bias towards common sense. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/647 "2012-03-19T21:40:33Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > To assume that Martin acted like a reasonable person is crazy talk, you hear? > > If you want to talk about reasonable, we should look no farther than Zimmerman. He closely pursued a “suspicious” person for several minutes, over several blocks, in the dark, just because he had a hunch that this person was a weapon-weilding, coked-out, burglar-on-the-prowl. He was wrong on all three accounts, mind you. And if he’d been right, he could have gotten himself killed. But of course hindsight is 20/20. Can’t expect to win them all. Right. > > But anyway, after this paragon of reason confronted this “suspicious” person, he exhibited a reasonableness that few others could maintain. He pulled out his gun and shot the “suspicious” person dead. Why? Because when his nose started bleeding it was like his whole life flashed before his eyes and he thought he was dying. This kind of belief–totally reasonable, by the way–is one we’d certainly expect from someone who judged Martin as a threat merely because he was a black teenager walking slowly. And thus, we consider this belief inherently reasonable. Because Zimmerman has proven himself to be so reasonable. > > So, in close, stop assuming Martin was the reasonable actor in this equation. We have all this evidence that Zimmerman was the level-headed one of the two, and you keep overlooking that. It makes me think you’re bias towards common sense. Ignoring the irony for a minute, I do have a question: Is that “over several minutes and several blocks” a part of the rest? Or is that a fact, or considered to be a fact? ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/648 "2012-03-19T21:40:46Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > We have all this evidence that Zimmerman was the level-headed one of the two, and you keep overlooking that. Did you overlook post #626? ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/649 "2012-03-19T21:55:56Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Zimmerman rightfully or wrongfully encounters Martin. Someone initiates aggression, verbal or otherwise. At some point Martin decks Zimmerman, giving Zimmerman a bloody nose and a laceration of the back of his head. Zimmerman is on the ground and Martin begins beating on him. Zimmerman pulls his firearm intending to order Martin to back off. Martin tries to _grab_ the gun. Zimmerman judges that he is now in a use it or lose it situation with regard to the gun, and shoots Martin. Under this scenario, how would it come to be that Martin was shot in someone’s backyard? Do you think Zimmerman followed him there? Or do you think the fight started on the sidewalk and migrated? Here’s another question: Why would someone try to wrestle a gun away from someone in the dark? Would you think to do that? Especially in a panic situation? When adrenaline is pumping, a person usually exhibits one of two reactions (or a combo): fight or flight. Not grabbing-a-gun-from-a-strange-creepy-man-in-the-dark reaction. To bring your body closer to a gun is antithetical to human instinct, so to propose this as a possibility means you think it’s a good possibilty Martin was a suicidal idiot. It also betrays an unwillingness to factor in what we know about human nature, just to concoct a scenario that justifies Zimmerman’s actions. A stretch, in other words. And any scenario that appears to be stretch on its face should not be favored over those that aren’t a stretch. Occam’s razor. Common sense should tell us that if we had to guess, Martin would have tried to run away from the gun as well as the man holding the gun. If Martin decked Zimmerman, it more than likely was when the fight was already underway or after Zimmerman tried to restrain him in some way. That was his intent from the start: to keep the boy from running away. There is absolutely no reason we should dismiss that 911 evidence, when it’s central to determining who started what. We could invent any kind of scenario to justify any kind of thing. Seriously. It takes no detective skill to do such a thing; only an active enough imagination. You have to make your story align with common sense and the available evidence. The problem with Zimmerman’s story is that it doesn’t align with common sense. It’s a stretch. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/650 "2012-03-19T21:59:22Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > Ignoring the irony for a minute, I do have a question: > > Is that “over several minutes and several blocks” a part of the rest? Or is that a fact, or considered to be a fact? I remember reading somewhere that Zimmerman’s 911 call supposedly was made 10-15 minutes or so before the shooting. So actually, not _that_ long. But several minutes had elapsed. I’ll try to find where I read that. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Did you overlook post #626? I’m being sarcastic, just in case you can’t tell. (And I can’t tell if you can’t tell.) ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/651 "2012-03-19T22:06:02Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I’m being sarcastic, just in case you can’t tell. (And I can’t tell if you can’t tell.) Sorry, I didn’t realize that. I’m just trying to bump that post because no body is responding to it. I think it clearly shows that Zimmerman was not being reasonable, and was biased, and lacks credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/652 "2012-03-19T22:08:18Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And a bloody nose makes it necessary to shoot someone in the chest? a child 100 lbs the lesser in stature who you just went out of your way to harass. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/653 "2012-03-19T22:14:06Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I remember reading somewhere that Zimmerman’s 911 call supposedly was made 10-15 minutes or so before the shooting. So actually, not _that_ long. But several minutes had elapsed. Yeah, I think I heard that too. One of the things I looked into was FL’s law on stalking. State laws vary, and in some states Zimmerman could be considered a stalker in that situation. However, FL makes repeated use of the word “repeated” in their statute, in a context that makes it plain that a single event doesn’t rise to the level of stalking. ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/654 "2012-03-19T22:20:32Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > However, FL makes repeated use of the word “repeated” in their statute, in a context that makes it plain that a single event doesn’t rise to the level of stalking. In this thread, I’ve been using stalking in the non-legal sense of the word. But in the literal sense of the word, that’s exactly what he was doing. He was trying to make sure the boy would get nabbed, either by himself or the cops. Preferably himself. And why do I say that? Because he got out of his car. No reason for him to do that unless he wanted to physically restrain the boy. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/655 "2012-03-19T22:37:37Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t think your views on provocation are in line with legal precedent. It’s not “provocative” but rather “provocative enough to excuse you physically attacking someone who has not laid a finger on you such that the law will excuse what would otherwise be an assault.” I don’t think just asking someone their business is going to meet the definition. I imagine all Zimmerman will cop to is that he wanted to ask Trayvon Martin what he was up to, even if he really did fling racial insults and et cetera to bait Martin, he’d be brain dead to admit that. > > So legally I do not know that it is really very important that Zimmerman approached Martin. All Zimmerman has to demonstrate is that Martin started the actual physical confrontation, and it got to a point where he felt at danger of serious injury or death. It’s obvious whatever he said convinced police, we don’t know if it would convince a jury, and maybe it only convinced the police because of some inherent bias. (Although I think if that is the case, their bias is probably reflected in the community of Sanford at large, so I think it would be difficult to find a Sanford jury that would be totally lacking in whatever biases the Sanford police might have.) again, I disagree. His rights to free speech are not in dispute but his ability to claim immunity to the effect of that speech come into question. Martin didn’t just randomly run up to Zimmerman and attack him. Zimmerman approached Martin and presumably challenged his intentions and reason for being where he was. This would anger the average person so the fight that ensued is the direct result of Zimmerman’s actions. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/656 "2012-03-19T23:11:00Z")
I’m sure there would be no debate if the black kid was the shooter. However, I have a question w.r.t. the fact that Zimmerman was mentally in an advantageous position - he spotted Martin first and stalked him before Martin became aware and second, Zimmerman had a gun and knew how to use it and felt under a pretense that Martin is a criminal justified to use it. Doesn’t this notion of dominating and steering the conflict -i.e. Zimmerman did not have a motivation to calm down the situation but quite the opposite - play out as liability under the law (as in he was the one who with more responsibility)? ---
**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 19, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/657 "2012-03-19T23:13:47Z")
In general I doubt that questioning someone on what they are doing in the neighborhood would satisfactorily meet the standard normally required to successfully assert a “provocation” defense at trial. What’s interesting is people keep asserting crazy interpretations of the law that just aren’t true, and prior history (all the cases in Florida in which prosecutors have decided not to prosecute armed people shooting unarmed people because of SYG statute) as well as the actual fact that the authorities have so far not charged Zimmerman strongly suggests the people who are actually informed on the law agree with me that the case against Zimmerman so far isn’t a slam dunk. In fact, it’s weak. Some people in this thread desperately do not want that to be the case because it offends their sense of justice, that does not however, change the state of the law. It’s ludicrous to think that in court an argument that simply approaching someone to question them is an illegal search (if done by police), an illegal confrontation, an assault, stalking or etc. I know better than to think myself an expert in the law, that’s why I’ve tried to qualify any statements or quotes of Florida statute with qualifiers about how I do not know how those statutes have been interpreted by Florida courts. Armchair lawyers in this thread on the other hand are insisting Zimmerman is guilty of all kinds of things based on a simplistic and infantile assessment of the legal situation. One that at least so far the authorities in Florida do not agree with and that a former Federal prosecutor and current law professor do not agree with. By the way **Bemused** made the claim that a police officer engaged in a consensual encounter with someone is an illegal search, and insists there is tons of case work on that. Even as a laymen I know that’s absolutely false, there is a ton of case work on an illegal search and there is absolutely no fourth amendment implications in a police officer walking up to someone and asking them “hey, what are you doing?” As long as the citizen has the right to ignore the question or refuse to answer without being stopped by the legal authority of the officer or by force there is no fourth amendment implication to that approach and question. ---
**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 19, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/658 "2012-03-19T23:15:55Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > I’m sure there would be no debate if the black kid was the shooter. > > However, I have a question w.r.t. the fact that Zimmerman was mentally in an advantageous position - he spotted Martin first and stalked him before Martin became aware and second, Zimmerman had a gun and knew how to use it and felt under a pretense that Martin is a criminal justified to use it. Doesn’t this notion of dominating and steering the conflict -i.e. Zimmerman did not have a motivation to calm down the situation but quite the opposite - play out as liability under the law (as in he was the one who with more responsibility)? I can’t agree you are correct that there would be no debate. Would Martin have been charged? Possibly, I regard it as more likely than not. Would he have been prosecuted and convicted? That isn’t so straightforward. I’ve actually linked to an article showing many other cases in which an armed person shoots an unarmed person in a confrontation in Florida and never end up being charged. Many of these were being held up by anti-SYG advocates in Florida as cases that most likely would have resulted in charges prior to SYG, so these ostensibly are cases most of you would be up in arms about as well if you knew about them. ---
**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:** [March 19, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/659 "2012-03-19T23:23:10Z")
Was is it ever stated in any news report what sort of range the kid shot was from? I mean, they can tell fairly easily if the guy was shot at point blank range, or from say, 5 feet away or something right? I’d be very curious to know that. About the only way I can figure this as self defense, is if he was shot at very close quarters … like if the kid (all 140 pounds of him) had Zimmerman mounted somehow and was choking him into unconsciousness. I’d have to find some paper towel tubes to do a complete study of the physical possibilities of that … but I digress. My point in all of this is … in the middle of any altercation where one guy has a gun and another guy doesn’t, just whipping it out and saying, “Don’t move or you’re getting a lead salad!” would probably be enough to get the kid to stop bloodying up a nose or two. And if he was shot from any further than arm’s length away, Zimmerman was in no danger from him. ---
**Author:** ![TreacherousCretin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treacherouscretin/32/476_2.png) [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/660 "2012-03-19T23:36:49Z")
This is one of the most interesting threads I’ve ever followed. I don’t think the following excerpt has been posted or mentioned yet, and I apologize if it has. I also have no idea how reliable the Huffington Post is in such matters- I don’t know if this is hard news, or just “some guy on the internet”. From [Trayvon Martin Case: 911 Audio Released Of Teen Shot By Neighborhood Watch Captain (AUDIO) | HuffPost Voices](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html?ref=mostpopular) _Zimmerman had been the subject of earlier complaints by residents of the gated community in which he and Martin’s family lived. At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting earlier this month, “one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,” a resident wrote in an email to HuffPost. “It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics” in his neighborhood watch captain role._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=34)