# 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:** 4
**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 13, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/61 "2012-03-13T01:58:57Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I don’t _think_ this is right. > > they have proof the kid is dead. > > They have proof the neighbourhood watch guy killed him. > > Doesn’t “self defence” require some form of “proof” that there was fear for life? Otherwise I could walk up to anyone and kill them with impunity. The burden of proof is always on the government. The burden of production to create an affirmative defense (“I did it but this is why..”) is on the defense. If the defense establishes an affirmative defense the prosecution must _disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt_. To establish the affirmative defense of self defense most States just require that you establish with a “preponderance of the evidence” that you were acting in self defense. At that point the prosecution most _disprove_ the theory of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In _Mullaney v. Wilbur_ a man (Stillman Wilbur) beat another man to death in a hotel room. Wilbur claimed it was because the other man had made a homosexual advance on him and he (Wilbur) entered an uncontrolled rage. The specifics of this case may bog down the discussion, but basically the Maine courts instructed the jury that an essential element of the crime of murder was “malice aforethought.” Further, they instructed that if the prosecution proved that the homicide was both intentional and unlawful, malice aforethought was to be implied. The jury did not buy Wilbur’s heat of passion argument and convicted him of murder. In his appeal Wilbur argued that because of the implied malice aforethought, he was essentially forced to _disprove that he acted with malice_, because by pursuing the affirmative defense in which he said he was acting in the heat of passion he had already conceded committing an unlawful homicide. Essentially Maine law could be argued to have put him in a situation where, unless he successfully proved he was acting in the heat of passion, he would then have _disprove_ that he acted with malice. When the case reached the SCOTUS, they agreed with Wilbur, and of relevance to this discussion (and the issue of self defense, not crimes of passion), said this: > [@](#): > > It has been suggested, State v. Wilbur, 278 A. 2d, at 145, that because of the difficulties in negating an argument that the homicide was committed in the heat of passion the burden of proving this fact should rest on the defendant. No doubt this is often a heavy burden for the prosecution to satisfy. The same may be said of the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of many controverted facts in a criminal trial. But this is the traditional burden which our system of criminal justice deems essential. > > Indeed, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court itself acknowledged that most States require the prosecution to prove the absence of passion beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 146. 28 Moreover, the difficulty of meeting such an [421 U.S. 684, 702] exacting burden is mitigated in Maine where the fact at issue is largely an “objective, rather than a subjective, behavioral criterion.” State v. Rollins, 295 A. 2d, at 920. In this respect, proving that the defendant did not act in the heat of passion on sudden provocation is similar to proving any other element of intent; it may be established by adducing evidence of the factual circumstances surrounding the commission of the homicide. And although intent is typically considered a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, this does not, as the Court has long recognized, justify shifting the burden to him. See Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 469 (1943); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 45 (1969). > > **Nor is the requirement of proving a negative unique in our system of criminal jurisprudence. 29 Maine itself requires the prosecution to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Millett, 273 A. 2d 504 (1971). 30 Satisfying this burden imposes an obligation that, in all practical effect, is identical to the burden involved in negating the heat of passion on sudden provocation. Thus, we discern no unique hardship on the prosecution that would justify requiring the defendant to carry the burden of proving a fact so critical to criminal culpability. 31 [421 U.S. 684, 703**] ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/62 "2012-03-13T02:11:25Z")
To approach from another angle, consider the options before a Florida prosecutor. 1. Charge him with murder. In Florida, murder is defined as: > [@](#): > > (1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being: > 1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being; Additionally, Florida defines murder as an unlawful killing that happens while involved in an enumerated list of felonies (essentially Florida’s felony murder concept.) You can view the full statute [here](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html). I don’t believe even a stretch of the imagination would show the shooter in this case was involved in any of those enumerate felonies while the deceased was killed. Further, given the nature of the crime I do not know how the prosecution would establish scant evidence of premeditation to convict him of regular murder (meaning not one that incidentally happens during the commission of a felony.) 1. Charge him with manslaughter. The manslaughter statute (or the section that would be relevant to this case) reads: > [@](#): > > (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Note that the statute says “in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide..” That suggests to me that an essential element of the crime that the prosecution _must demonstrate_ is that it was not excusable homicide. So if the defendant puts forth a defense that he was acting in self defense, the prosecution _must_ prove **beyond a reasonable doubt** that the defendant’s claim of self defense is false. It’s possible to disagree on the point, but I think given the evidence available (as we have heard) it would be very difficult for the prosecution to do this in this case. 1. Charge him with “Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.” > [@](#): > > 782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. > History.—s. 13, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2388; GS 3213; RGS 5043; CGL 7145; s. 719, ch. 71-136. In this case, the prosecution has to prove “unnecessarily.” The burden of proof is on the prosecution, the only witness to the case is the defendant. I can **guess** the physical evidence is either inconclusive or supports the defendant (because the defendant has not be charged.) Essentially it all boils down to, the only way they could get this guy for manslaughter or “unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act” is by proving it was an unlawful killing or proving it was an unnecessary killing. Given the only witness is the defendant, that means the proof to establish guilt would have to come from something the witness said to police or from physical evidence collected. Given the local police chief has said he has not made an arrest because they did not find probable cause, I’m going to guess the defendant hasn’t said anything damning and the physical evidence doesn’t damn him. That means the prosecution has an almost insurmountable burden in convicting this guy of any of the illegal homicide crimes in Florida. They may find other crimes he committed (perhaps a gun crime, something of that nature), but I think it’d be very hard for him to be convicted under any of the felony homicide statutes in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/63 "2012-03-13T02:16:49Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I don’t _think_ this is right. > > they have proof the kid is dead. > > They have proof the neighbourhood watch guy killed him. > > Doesn’t “self defence” require some form of “proof” that there was fear for life? Otherwise I could walk up to anyone and kill them with impunity. Yes and no. What happened and who did it are two elements. Depending on the statute intent may also need to be proved. Often intent is the hardest part. When it comes to homicide intent is an important element. It means the difference between murder, manslaughter or no charge. I am not familiar enough with Florida statutes to talk about the specifics there. I could read the statute but that doesn’t tell me how they have been interpreted by the court. From the information available I would have guessed there would be enough for some sort of manslaughter charge. But knowing that I don’t have all the information I can see how they might not have enough. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/64 "2012-03-13T02:30:33Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > They may find other crimes he committed (perhaps a gun crime, something of that nature), but I think it’d be very hard for him to be convicted under any of the felony homicide statutes in Florida. Thanks for putting more effort in than I was willing to do. From what I read the gun was legal and he had a concealed carry permit. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/65 "2012-03-13T02:30:54Z")
The implication here is that I can murder anyone I like in Florida just as long as there isn’t an eyewitness. I just have to claim self defense. Jesus Christ. ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/66 "2012-03-13T02:31:43Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I could read the statute but that doesn’t tell me how they have been interpreted by the court. From the information available I would have guessed there would be enough for some sort of manslaughter charge. But knowing that I don’t have all the information I can see how they might not have enough. I did read the statute and under the plain reading I think it’d be hard. As you say we do not know how it has been interpreted by the courts. In Florida at least it looks like this is being reviewed by a State-level prosecutor, who we can presume is an expert in precisely those matters. If they don’t charge, I’m going to assume it is because they don’t feel they can prove that a crime was committed in court. ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/67 "2012-03-13T02:35:57Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The implication here is that I can murder anyone I like in Florida just as long as there isn’t an eyewitness. I just have to claim self defense. > > Jesus Christ. You can’t, really. But keep in mind, you couldn’t kill _just anyone_, you couldn’t kill someone you had a beef with, you couldn’t kill someone you know most likely. You could possibly kill some random person. But that gets us to the crux of it, how frequently does someone want to kill just some random person. Most of the time you kill someone in the commission of another crime, in revenge (slept with your wife, stole from you etc), or to benefit (collect life insurance, remove rival gang leader etc.) So if I tried to kill anyone like that, the police would most likely link me to the victim and find from other persons that I had a reason to kill that person, which would immensely undermine my claim of self defense. Now, if I just wanted to walk up to someone on the street to kill a random person because I’m sick like that, I do think you _might_ be able to get away with it by claiming self defense. But any act is going to leave physical evidence, so whatever story I tell to the police had better not conflict with the physical evidence. There is no way to know precisely what physical evidence I’ll leave, either. So there is no way to know precisely whether or not my story will conflict. There’s also not as many opportunities as you might imagine where I could be **certain** there was no eyewitness. If I’m absolutely certain there is no eye witness and I just want to shoot a random person, I’m not sure I wouldn’t be better off just shooting them, dropping the gun, and walking away. If I’m _certain_ there is no eye witness, why even confess to the shooting at all? Why not just leave? If it’s a truly random victim then the police will probably not be able to link me to him whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/68 "2012-03-13T02:36:48Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The implication here is that I can murder anyone I like in Florida just as long as there isn’t an eyewitness. I just have to claim self defense. > > Jesus Christ. Of course you can claim self defense. But it better match the circumstances and the evidence. You can claim self defense in any of the 50 states. Doesn’t mean it will fly. ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/69 "2012-03-13T02:44:03Z")
If you think about it too, the neighborhood watch guy does have some things going for him you or I just wanting to kill a random person and frame it as self defense wouldn’t. Namely, he has a plausible reason to have been out on the streets with a gun. He has a plausible reason as to why he would have confronted the kid. He also had some wounds that were signs of a scuffle. Assuming I could someone manufacture the wounds (or entice someone to wound me as part of a plot to kill them), I would still have to explain the situation as a whole. That’s easy for this guy “I was doing the neighborhood watch, and I carry my legal firearm when doing so.” Me trying to just kill a random person, what’s my story? Was it an attempted mugging? Well, what if it ends up I just shot a local bank president or lawyer who lives in a $600,000 and drives a Benz? That makes it likely the authorities aren’t going to believe this guy was randomly mugging someone he had never met. So all of a sudden it looks like I’m lying. ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/70 "2012-03-13T02:56:32Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] But that gets us to the crux of it, how frequently does someone want to kill just some random person. [/quote] How often does a random passerby who, while on their way home after buying some candy, suddenly snaps and starts wailing on another man, forcing them pull out a gun to defend themselves? That sounds much more implausible to me than the theory that an overly exuberant, wannabe cop with more temper than good sense tried to restrain a kid who didn’t look right to his liking, got more fight than he bargained for, and shot his way out of it. Wouldnt evidence that he confronted the kid unnecessarily be an indication that he, not the kid, was the aggressor in this situation? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/71 "2012-03-13T03:12:46Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If you think about it too, the neighborhood watch guy does have some things going for him you or I just wanting to kill a random person and frame it as self defense wouldn’t. > > Namely, he has a plausible reason to have been out on the streets with a gun. He has a plausible reason as to why he would have confronted the kid. He also had some wounds that were signs of a scuffle. > > Assuming I could someone manufacture the wounds (or entice someone to wound me as part of a plot to kill them), I would still have to explain the situation as a whole. That’s easy for this guy “I was doing the neighborhood watch, and I carry my legal firearm when doing so.” > > Me trying to just kill a random person, what’s my story? Was it an attempted mugging? Well, what if it ends up I just shot a local bank president or lawyer who lives in a $600,000 and drives a Benz? That makes it likely the authorities aren’t going to believe this guy was randomly mugging someone he had never met. So all of a sudden it looks like I’m lying. Actually, I think it’s plausible the guy is a rageholic jerk. People like that don’t have to have a good reason to pull a gun on someone and be Mr. Tough Guy. One person sees a good citizen monitoring his neighborhood, checking on a “suspicious” character. I see a guy who thinks he’s Mr. Hot Shot with a gun, not comfortable that a black “youth” is hanging out in his neighborhood. He sees the kid walking along and asks him what’s he doing. The kid probably doesn’t give him the respect he thinks he’s entitled to and dude gets out of the car, angrily. Violence ensues, with the boy getting in a few jabs (he’s by himself in a strange neighborhood. why wouldn’t he fight with all his might?) Mr. Hot Shot has a gun, which he pulls out in the heat of anger. Maybe he doesn’t intend to shoot, but it goes off anyway. Maybe the dude really feared for his life. After all, he marked the kid as suspicious from the get-go. But it appears to me that he escalated the situation. There is no evidence the boy was doing anything wrong. Dude came up on HIM, not the other way around. If you trust authority, of course the guy’s story sounds plausible. I mean, it’s obvious he’s not exactly an outsider in the community, despite his past. The boy was an outsider, though. He had every reason to be where he was and now he is dead. The public is waiting for an explanation. But it sounds like from what you’re telling me, we aren’t going to get one. Sounds like, from what you’re telling me, I can be walking down the street, minding my own business, and someone can shoot me in cold blood as long as there is evidence of a scuffle. And my killer wouldn’t have to shed a single tear in a jail cell. I’m not being the least bit sarcastic when I say I honestly did not know this could happen. Do you think the same thing would play out if the roles were reversed in this case, **Martin**? ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/72 "2012-03-13T03:42:26Z")
So the Daily Mail has a picture of the guy. Looks pretty big. Plus he had a gun. I wouldn’t buy fearing for his life. Plus there were complaints about aggresive tactics from his neighbors. > **[Neighborhood Watch Captain Who Killed Teen Was Subject Of Gripes](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358?ref=mostpopular)** > > Neighborhood Watch Captain Who Killed Teen Was Subject Of Gripes ---
**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 13, 2012, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/73 "2012-03-13T04:05:31Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Actually, I think it’s plausible the guy is a rageholic jerk. People like that don’t have to have a good reason to pull a gun on someone and be Mr. Tough Guy. One person sees a good citizen monitoring his neighborhood, checking on a “suspicious” character. I see a guy who thinks he’s Mr. Hot Shot with a gun, not comfortable that a black “youth” is hanging out in his neighborhood. He sees the kid walking along and asks him what’s he doing. The kid probably doesn’t give him the respect he thinks he’s entitled to and dude gets out of the car, angrily. Violence ensues, with the boy getting in a few jabs (he’s by himself in a strange neighborhood. why wouldn’t he fight with all his might?) Mr. Hot Shot has a gun, which he pulls out in the heat of anger. Maybe he doesn’t intend to shoot, but it goes off anyway. > > Maybe the dude really feared for his life. After all, he marked the kid as suspicious from the get-go. But it appears to me that he escalated the situation. There is no evidence the boy was doing anything wrong. Dude came up on HIM, not the other way around. No one has to prove the boy did anything wrong. What we have to prove is that the shooter committed a crime. If he can establish _beyond a preponderance of the evidence_ a claim of self-defense, the state has to **disprove beyond a reasonable doubt** that same claim. This case isn’t about what happened, because we cannot know what actually happened. Instead, it’s about two things: the statement the shooter gave to police, and the physical evidence collected at the scene. If the statement was a “good” statement, meaning the shooter knows enough about the law to properly phrase it such that he describes self-defense, and nothing in the physical evidence contradicts that statement then I would like you to explain _how the state can convict_. I’ve pointed out the illegal homicide statutes in the state of Florida. I think it essentially impossible to prove premeditation in this case, so murder is right out. The other two illegal homicides have wording suggesting a key element of those crimes is that the killing is either unjustifiable or unnecessary, which means there is an element that must be proven by the prosecution. I think it is really important we let that sink it. **It isn’t enough that we don’t think this kid that got killed was doing anything wrong** , the state _has to prove this other guy did something wrong beyond a reasonable doubt and to a jury of twelve_. > [@](#): > > If you trust authority, of course the guy’s story sounds plausible. I mean, it’s obvious he’s not exactly an outsider in the community, despite his past. The boy was an outsider, though. He had every reason to be where he was and now he is dead. The public is waiting for an explanation. But it sounds like from what you’re telling me, we aren’t going to get one. Sounds like, from what you’re telling me, I can be walking down the street, minding my own business, and someone can shoot me in cold blood as long as there is evidence of a scuffle. And my killer wouldn’t have to shed a single tear in a jail cell. I’m not being the least bit sarcastic when I say I honestly did not know this could happen. That’s the rub of it, I don’t necessarily think his story is true. I’m just saying it isn’t a fairy tale that no one is going to believe. (And I was comparing it to a situation in which a hypothetical murderer wishing to take advantage of the self-defense option randomly picks someone on the street to murder in cold blood.) In any jury there are going to be people very sympathetic to this kid: black people, mothers, grandmothers and etc. But there are also going to be people on that jury who intrinsically side with the shooter. Every jury is going to have people that are predisposed to supporting certain types of people. When the prosecution has overwhelming evidence of guilt, our jury system is pretty good and jurors tend to convict even if they may be predisposed to believe the defendant. (Obviously we try to remove objectionable jurors through _voir dire_, but you cannot build a perfect jury.) In a case like this, where the evidence against the shooter will be _very weak_ especially given the elements of illegal homicides in Florida the prosecution will have to prove, I think it’d be massively difficult to obtain a conviction. It could be worth it to charge him, in the hopes he has a bad lawyer who agrees to a plea deal, or in hopes the shooter gets so scared of losing at trial he pleads out, but I think actually winning a conviction would be very, very difficult if not impossible. I also think a conviction could be overturned on appeal depending on the specifics of the evidence and the statement given to police. > [@](#): > > Do you think the same thing would play out if the roles were reversed in this case, **Martin**? Well, I probably wouldn’t know about this case if the role was reversed because I did not know about it until you started this thread, and you wouldn’t have posted about a white kid getting shot by a black neighborhood watchmen. In general I have no idea. I know that people have been set free on appeal for killing a police officer who was unlawfully arresting them (_John Bad Elk v. U.S._), but they generally would definitely get arrested and tried. A neighborhood watchman isn’t a police officer though, so I don’t know what the default action would be in a situation in which a neighborhood watch men is killed and there is no probable cause that the shooter was doing anything other than acting in self-defense. ---
**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 13, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/74 "2012-03-13T04:11:12Z")
This is a bit more detail, from the Florida police chief in that area: > [@](#): > > Chief Bill Lee of the Sanford Police Department on Thursday evening said the account given by Martin’s family and attorney is correct, that Zimmerman saw the young man walking home from the store. He said that Zimmerman did indeed call 911 and report a suspicious person, and that he was told not to follow him. > > “For some reason he felt that Trayvon, the way that he was walking or appeared seemed suspicious to him,” Lee said. “He called this in and at one part of this initial call [the dispatcher] recommends him not to follow Trayvon. A police officer is on the way at that point.” > > Lee said that Zimmerman instead followed Martin. > > “I believe that Mr. Zimmerman was trying to, by his account, find an address to give the officers and also trying to keep Trayvon in eyesight.” > > Zimmerman told the police that Martin noticed that he was being followed and asked, “what’s your problem?” > > That’s when a physical confrontation ensued, Lee said. And moments later, Martin was shot. > > Lee said that Zimmerman has a legal permit to carry the weapon used in the shooting, and that he told police that he shot Martin in self-defense. > > “He felt the need to defend himself,” Lee said. “ I don’t think it was his intent to go and shoot somebody” that night. > > The chief said the police have met with Zimmerman on two to three separate occasions, and that their investigation should be wrapped up this week. He said all of the evidence in the case will be delivered to the Seminole County State Attorney’s Office soon after. > > “We’re going to present all the information and if they feel that based on all of the evidence that we’re able to produce that Mr. Zimmerman has satisfied the requirement that he shot in self defense, they may, but if not, he would be charged with some type of homicide or manslaughter,” Lee said. > > “It is certainly and absolutely a tragedy, especially for the Martin Family,” Lee said. "No one expects their teenage son to go the store and never come back.” It essentially sounds like to me Zimmerman’s statement was convincing to law enforcement. That may not be a fair standard, and probably doesn’t seem like a fair standard to the people who feel bad for this dead kid. However, in a case like this, where I’m assuming the statement didn’t contradict any of the physical evidence, I don’t know what we’re supposed to rely upon other than trained law enforcement who have to sift between lies and truths every day of their lives. But it doesn’t end there, it is being reviewed by the State’s attorney, maybe Chief Lee and his officers are incompetent and a State’s attorney will see a case, or the State’s attorney will find Zimmerman’s story unconvincing. There’s still a lot about the details we don’t know–but I question how much of a chance you have at convicting someone who has apparently seriously swayed the police chief to all but declare him innocent. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/75 "2012-03-13T06:38:40Z")
Based on the info in this thread - if neighbourhood watch guy gets off without any consequence it doesn’t feel “right”. And I also don’t like what Loach and Martin are arguing. The poor kid was followed, probably threatened or questioned in some way - after neighbourhood watch guy had been explicitly told not to. It seems that the shooter preciptitated the encounter, and now he is using that as a defense - it just doesn’t jibe with what I would think of as natural justice. ---
**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 13, 2012, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/76 "2012-03-13T08:13:49Z")
Jeez, the teen only weighed 140 lbs? How scary could he have been? This thing reeks. Until Zimmerman can prove his life was in danger, he’s guilty of vigilante murder here in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/77 "2012-03-13T10:52:00Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Well, I probably wouldn’t know about this case if the role was reversed because I did not know about it until you started this thread, and you wouldn’t have posted about a white kid getting shot by a black neighborhood watchmen. The “reverse roles” wouldn’t be a white kid shooting a black guy. I’m talking about a black teenager shooting a white wannabe cop and citing self-defense. It’s not like we aren’t familiar with cops shooting black people, so this claim wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility. Call me a racial militant, but I ain’t thinking we’d even be talking about this case if the kid had shot the captain. The kid would be sitting in jail right now, with the police department using his sordid history in detention hall as evidence of his criminality. And as I said before, no one would even care because we’d just say, “Hey, he admitted to shooting the guy! The police have to charge him with something and then do their investigation. If he didn’t do anything wrong, he has nothing to worry about!” Hell yeah, it seems unfair. This guy isn’t even a police officer and he’s getting the backing of the police department. I’m not even thinking he’d get such a benefit of the doubt if he were just a regular citizen trying to protect his property. It’s obvious I’m not familiar with all the ends and outs of the criminal justice system, but can you understand why this case has people freaking out? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/78 "2012-03-13T11:53:43Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > (bolding mine so you know exactly what part of your sentence is causing my forehead vein to pulsate.) > > We aren’t talking about what the prosecution needs to do to get a conviction. We are talking what evidence is needed to press charges against the guy. I mean, look at the thread title if you’re in doubt about this. > > Never at any in point in this discussion have I argued that the prosecution doesn’t have to refute the self-defense claim. Of course they do if they expect to get a conviction. Arrests aren’t held to the same standard, though. Pulsate all you want. I said nothing wrong. Arrests are not and end unto themselves. As I said, probable cause is needed for an arrest. But theend point is a conviction. The probability of a conviction is taken into account. But in this case they have said they don’t have probable cause. I don’t have all the information needed to make up my mind if I agree or not. > [@bengangmo](#): > > Based on the info in this thread - if neighbourhood watch guy gets off without any consequence it doesn’t feel “right”. > > And I also don’t like what Loach and Martin are arguing. > > The poor kid was followed, probably threatened or questioned in some way - after neighbourhood watch guy had been explicitly told not to. > > It seems that the shooter preciptitated the encounter, and now he is using that as a defense - it just doesn’t jibe with what I would think of as natural justice. I’m not sure what you think I am arguing. I am arguing nothing just explaining how the system works or is supposed to work. Our justice system is not based on how things feel. It feels wrong to me too. It is based on the idea that it is better to let a guilty man walk than it is to convict an innocent man. Of course there have been times it goes the other way. There are humans in the system so its flawed. > [@](#): > > This thing reeks. Until Zimmerman can prove his life was in danger, he’s guilty of vigilante murder here in the real world. It may reek but he does not have to prove anything. The state has to prove its case. From what I read it now goes to the states attorney for that county for final review (like I said before, where I work its different. The county would have been involved in the entire process). Due to the high profile nature of the case I would not be surprised if the prosecutor over rules and files charges. ---
**Author:** ![BetsQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@BetsQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BetsQ)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/79 "2012-03-13T13:45:55Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > But keep in mind, you couldn’t kill _just anyone_, you couldn’t kill someone you had a beef with, you couldn’t kill someone you know most likely. You could possibly kill some random person. To me, this is the crux of it. These weren’t just some random people. It was a white guy with a gun and delusions of authority and a black teenager. In a gated community. In Florida. Let’s be honest. There’s a racial history there that needs to be taken into account. If the victim here were a 50 year old white man, this story would have gotten no press at all. I’m pretty sure that if the victim were a 17 year old white boy, we wouldn’t have heard much about it either. It’s because of the races of the shooter and the victim that it doesn’t sound “random” to the media or the general public. I don’t think it’s crazy to suggest that the shooter was looking for trouble not from random people, but from young black males. Obviously, I have no idea what the legal ramifications are, but I think it’s disingenuous to suggest this was an encounter between “random” people. ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/80 "2012-03-13T14:05:50Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Due to the high profile nature of the case I would not be surprised if the prosecutor over rules and files charges. Probably the most appropriate action would be to send the matter to a Grand Jury- the people who are charged with deciding if the evidence warrents a trial. While it’s famously said that you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwhich, occasionally they do decline to. Either way it would take the heat off the authorities. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=5)