# 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:** 52
**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 21, 2012, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1021 "2012-03-21T12:58:12Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > That’s something I’m not getting here. It seems like these SYG laws will do every bit as much to let bad guys shoot good guys with impunity, as it does to let good guys shoot bad guys with impunity. Why did anybody think this was going to be a good idea? Because the idiots who wrote and passed this law were probably working off the assumption that you can tell, just by looking at someone, who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. Zimmerman “looked” like the good guy. Martin “looked” like a bad nobody. Thats why we can be pretty confident that had it been Zimmerman who had been shot, Martin would have been locked up the same day. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1022 "2012-03-21T12:58:58Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > LOL! That’s one of the silliest logical wranglings I’ve heard in a long time. That’s like saying a car accident is murder “with intent” because there was _INTENT_ to drive with lapsed insurance. If murder can be proclaimed for any death that results during any other criminal act, than this case could easily be called murder. What is the other criminal act? ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1023 "2012-03-21T13:04:07Z")
Perhaps this will spur a change in the law. We can only hope. I am just haunted by that photograph of Martin in his white hoodie. What a beautiful young man he was. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1024 "2012-03-21T13:08:31Z")
So I asked **monstro** what I had posted about her and **you with the face** that was obnoxious. Her response: > [@monstro](#): > > This is what you posted way back: > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > If the grand jury fails to indict, I wonder what the monstros and you with the faces of the world will then say? That doesn’t strike me as particularly obnoxious. Actually, it doesn’t strike me as obnoxious at all. My point, then as now, was simple: both you and **you with the face** have already decided Zimmerman is guilty. I haven’t. > [@](#): > > Why should you have to wonder what I would say, **Bricker**? I have not advocated vigilante justice or staging a coup. So why would you even have to ask this question? That is obnoxious to me because you are implying that simply weighing in on this case–like tons of other Dopers have done–is akin to being biased or prejudiced. You are biased. You have reached a conclusion. Your bias is evident in your posts. I haven’t reached any conclusion. I’m waiting until I hear the remainder of the evidence. > [@](#): > > You are able to be so detached in this case, but you were so fired up about the Dartmouth rape case that multiple Dopers had to give you a course in basic statistics. We were entertained by pages of pages of crazy scenarios about ninjas wearing purple tutus carrying coins turned on their side. Talk about navel-gazing! I assume you mean the Duke case. Yes, there I reached a conclusion. And I was right – Nifong ended up resigning, publicly disgraced, for pushing forward when he had no case – an action he took, it’s now widely agreed, because he felt pressured by the community to act before he had all the evidence. I agree the Duke case is a cautionary tale, but I think its caution is a message for you, not I. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1025 "2012-03-21T13:12:52Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > LOL! That’s one of the silliest logical wranglings I’ve heard in a long time. That’s like saying a car accident is murder “with intent” because there was _INTENT_ to drive with lapsed insurance. If murder can be proclaimed for any death that results during any other criminal act, than this case could easily be called murder. [Here is a primer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)) on how _intent_ as an element of most criminal laws, and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. LOL! OMG! ---
**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 21, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1026 "2012-03-21T13:48:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok. > > This is IMHO, and this thread has been dominated by opinions. I guess I shouldn’t complain. > > But I am just curious, so here’s a mini-poll within this thread: what will you say, do, think, if the grand jury no true bills Zimmerman – that is, if they fail to indict? Acknowledge the lack of probable cause? Demand a new grand jury? Demand a federal grand jury? Join arms and march for justice? What? I would hope that the public would have an explanation of the facts that convinced the grand jury that Mr. Zimmerman did, indeed, act in a way that conforms to the intent of the Stand Your Ground laws. And, in any case, I would support any group that tries to reverse these Stand Your Ground laws. P.S. You accused me earlier of making up quotes to make Zimmerman look like a liar, I hope you are retracting that now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1027 "2012-03-21T14:02:31Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > P.S. You accused me earlier of making up quotes to make Zimmerman look like a liar, I hope you are retracting that now. Nope. Here’s the problem. I said you misquoted Zimmerman in response to this post of yours: > [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > First of all by his own words; the shooter tells the 911 dispatcher he is going to follow the teenager, and then after the fact says that he didn’t intend on following the teenager, the reverse happened, the teenager pursued and attacked _him_ ?!? To defend this quote, you posted this: > [@](#): > > “Are you following him?” > “Yeah,” Zimmerman replied. > “We don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher said. > … > Zimmerman told police that he was headed back to his truck when Martin jumped him from behind, Lee said. > … > Indeed, Zimmerman got out of the truck, allegedly to check the name of the street he was on. So I agree Zimmerman said he would follow Martin, and I agree that Zimmerman said that when he was attacked, he wasn’t following Martin. I DON’T agree that he ever said that he didn’t intend on following the teenager, which is the quote you imputed to him. He said he was going to follow Martin. At some point, he lost track of Martin, and was no longer following him when he was attacked (according to him). You quoted him as saying he never intended to follow Martin, so you could show a contradiction between his also saying he was going to follow Martin. But he did not say he never intended to follow Martin. THAT, you made up. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1028 "2012-03-21T14:13:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok. > > This is IMHO, and this thread has been dominated by opinions. I guess I shouldn’t complain. > > But I am just curious, so here’s a mini-poll within this thread: what will you say, do, think, if the grand jury no true bills Zimmerman – that is, if they fail to indict? Acknowledge the lack of probable cause? Demand a new grand jury? Demand a federal grand jury? Join arms and march for justice? What? There is always the option of gunning him down in cold blood and claiming “self-defense” under the SYG law. After all, it seems to be working for Zimmerman. 😃 In fact, it would work better. He has a much more violent history then his murder victim did. ---
**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 21, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1029 "2012-03-21T14:19:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Right? No, wrong. Zimmerman told the 911 person he was going out of the vehicle to follow Martin, and was following Martin. Later on, he told the police he was going out of the vehicle to look up a street sign because he didn’t know on what street he was, and that he then went back to his truck, and Martin followed _him_ and attacked him. How do you reconcile those two things? I appreciate you bending over backwards to defend this guy, but I am amazed that you don’t see that the evidence contradict what he says. But I’ll humor you anyway. Let me rephrase my post this way: I think the “reasonable” story offered by Zimmerman is contradicted by the evidence. The shooter tells the 911 dispatcher he is following the teenager; later on he tells the police that the reverse happened, the teenager pursued and attacked him ?!? This is contradicted by the evidence of the person on the phone with Trayvon, saying that Zimmerman was chasing Zimmerman and not the other way around. Zimmerman, to me, is clearly lying. Do you find his story credible? That this man, he was advised multiple times to not follow the teenager, but clearly showed he didn’t want to let “another of those assholes get away”, didn’t actually do that? That Martin followed and attacked Zimmerman, even though Martin’s last phone call shows the reverse? How can you say that there is no evidence to contradict his story? ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1030 "2012-03-21T14:20:15Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The only rational response to a story such as this is “of course we (the general public) don’t know the whole story yet, so let’s wait until the facts come in.” There are two problems with this. 1. We, the non-jury, have no duty or obligation to remain impartial, pronounce Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty and sit on the sidelines quietly until all the facts come in. 2. It’s precisely because there’s so much public interest in this story that the investigation has moved forward. Were the public to have waited “until the facts come in” there would be no facts coming in! ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1031 "2012-03-21T14:21:14Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Because the idiots who wrote and passed this law were probably working off the assumption that you can tell, just by looking at someone, who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. That and the fact that the real bad guys tend to be serial bad guys and are probably barred from carrying a weapon. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman “looked” like the good guy. Martin “looked” like a bad nobody. Thats why we can be pretty confident that had it been Zimmerman who had been shot, Martin would have been locked up the same day. Isn’t Zimmerman mixed race? Depending on the part of the country and the neighborhood I think he might be mistaken for a bad guy. Especially running around in that orange jumpsuit he is pictured in. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1032 "2012-03-21T14:25:41Z")
> [@Death\_of\_Rats](#): > > He has a much more violent history then his murder victim did. Any chance of a cite for this? My understanding is that he was arrested once, and that arrest did not lead to any charges, and may in fact have been expunged. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1033 "2012-03-21T14:27:14Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > I think the “reasonable” story offered by Zimmerman is contradicted by the evidence. The shooter tells the 911 dispatcher he is following the teenager; later on he tells the police that the reverse happened, the teenager pursued and attacked him ?!? This is contradicted by the evidence of the person on the phone with Trayvon, saying that Zimmerman was chasing Zimmerman and not the other way around. Zimmerman, to me, is clearly lying. > > Do you find his story credible? How can you say that the police have no evidence to contradict his story? I find it very credible. I also think it could be credible that once he caught up with or cornered Martin that he was attacked. Does this justify what resulted? I don’t think so, but given Florida law and so little explicit evidence, I think it really muddies the waters. I think Zimmerman was spoiling for a confrontation. I think he got more than he bargained. I think things got out of hand. I think a 17 year old died for no good reason. I think a lot of questions in this case will never be adequately answered. :mad: ---
**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 21, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1034 "2012-03-21T14:29:46Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > 1. It’s precisely because there’s so much public interest in this story that the investigation has moved forward. Were the public to have waited “until the facts come in” there would be no facts coming in! Exactly. Have people forgotten that the cops, only within a few weeks after the shooting and while the investigation still supposedly was in progress, matter of factly announced that Zimmerman felt the need to defend himself? They had their minds made up already and it didn’t matter what the evidence said or didn’t say. That’s why they werent collecting any. Hence, no checking of the phone logs, doing any blood tests, or performing any background checks. It is extremely easy to say a case is weak due to the lack of evidence when you don’t look for any. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1035 "2012-03-21T14:44:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Stoid, it wasn’t too long terribly long ago that you posted long screeds with your analysis of another legal situation, one with you were much more personally familiar, and thereafter discovered you had virtually no clue what the hell you were talking about. This is an erroneous statement, but it doesn’t matter, because it has nothing to do with this thread and this case, which is all I’m here to participate in talking about. > [@](#): > > _Since intention is not a feature of most of the ways that murder is defined in Florida law…_ WRONG. Okee dokee. [Here](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html) is the Florida murder statute. Where it plainly says (among other things, this is specifically section (2): > [@](#): > > 782.04  **Murder.—** \*\*\* (not “homicide” - the crime of murder)\*\*\* > (2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, **although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual,** is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. [775.082](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. [775.083](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. [775.084](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html). Without intent to kill. Or even the intention to do anything criminal at all. You just have to cause death by doing something that is dangerous without regard for the fact that someone could die, you do not have to have any intent to kill, nor any intent to commit any other crime. And as I noted previously, it is very easy to make the case that the act of following a stranger with a loaded gun in your hand, never mind confronting him directly, is an act which is imminently dangerous to another and disregards human life. Certainly there are defenses to this argument, but we are not disagreeeing over whether Zimmerman will actually be convicted, we are arguing over whether he can be charged with the crime of murder in the state of Florida if he had no intent to kill nor an intent to commit any criminal act which then resulted in the death of someone. The answer is yes, he can. Second degree murder as defined in 782.04(2) For the benefit of those who are not accustomed to reading statutes or super-deep outlines and might mistake everything around Section (2) as having a direct bearing on Section (2), it doesn’t. The Florida statute is broken into 5 main sections, the outline levels go like this: (1) Main section is numerals in parentheses. (a) first subsection is lower case letters in parentheses [INDENT]1. Then numerals with a period [/INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]a. Then lower case letters with a period [/INDENT][/INDENT]Section (2) is complete, it has no subsections which alter or refine the section in any way. [INDENT][/INDENT] > [@Steophan](#): > > As **Bricker** has explained, it doesn’t have to be intent to kill, it has to be intent to commit a criminal act. And Bricker made a mistake in asserting that this applied in Florida, as Florida attorneys will readily tell you. > [@](#): > > I’m saying there was no pressing need to arrest him on the spot. If he’s no threat to anyone else, and isn’t going to run, it makes no difference if he’s arrested then, now, or in 6 months time. And on what reasonable basis can a cop reliably determine that a man they know absolutely nothing about except that he’s just shot another younger, smaller, darker unarmed man to death is no threat and isn’t going to run? Are you really comfortable with cops making a call like that? I’m sure as hell not. Lock that guy up and THEN figure out if he’s really unlikely to be a threat - leaving him on the streets to see if he does it again seems jaw-droppingly stupid as a way to police. > [@Bricker](#): > > I agree the Duke case is a cautionary tale, but I think its caution is a message for you, not I. Handy rule of thumb for choosing the first person pronoun: remove the other person from the sentence and see if the pronoun you chose still sounds right. > [@Bricker](#): > > [Here is a primer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal_law%29) on how _intent_ as an element of most criminal laws, and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And I’m sure you know that in law the specific trumps the general. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1036 "2012-03-21T14:45:22Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > No, wrong. > > Zimmerman told the 911 person he was going out of the vehicle to follow Martin, No, he didn’t. You added the “going out of the vehicle” part: > [@911 call transcript](#): > > Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got > something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is. > Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok > Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here? > Dispatcher: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does > anything else. > Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the > clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the > clubhouse. > Dispatcher: So it’s on the lefthand side from the clubhouse? > Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh > you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running. > Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running? > Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood. > Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards? > Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking [unintelligible] > Dispatcher: Are you following him? > Zimmerman: Yeah > Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that. > Zimmerman: Ok > Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name? > Zimmerman: George…He ran. > Dispatcher: Alright George what’s your last name? > Zimmerman: Zimmerman > Dispatcher: And George what’s the phone number you’re calling from? > Zimmerman: [phone number removed] > Dispatcher: All right George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the > officer when they get out there? > Zimmerman: All right, where you going to meet with them at? > Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the > club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they > go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck…[unintelligible] > Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of? > Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address. > Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area? > Zimmerman: Yeah, I…[unintelligible] > Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number? > Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t > know where this kid is. > Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes > then? > Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine. > Dispatcher: All right George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there okay? > Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? > Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that’s no problem. > Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it? > Dispatcher: Yeah I got it [number removed] > Zimmerman: Yeah you got it. > Dispatcher: Okay no problem, I’ll let them know to call you when you’re in the > area. He never said a thing to the dispatcher about going out of the vehicle, did he? You added that. > [@](#): > > Later on, he told the police he was going out of the vehicle to look up a street sign because he didn’t know on what street he was, and that he then went back to his truck, and Martin followed _him_ and attacked him. Which is perfectly consistent. He followed martin IN HIS TRUCK, got to a point that he didn’t know which street he was on, and got out of the truck to look at the street sign. > [@](#): > > Do you find his story credible? That this man, he was advised multiple times to not follow the teenager, but clearly showed he didn’t want to let “another of those assholes get away”, didn’t actually do that? That Martin followed and attacked Zimmerman, even though Martin’s last phone call shows the reverse? How can you say that there is no evidence to contradict his story? Multiple times? I count one time. Now, hearing the testimony of the girl who was on the phone with Martin, we have new evidence. She says she heard a sequence of voices that does not suggest Martin attacked Zimmerman. But how could the police have used that evidence to decide whether or not to arrest him? They weren’t aware of the phone call when they questioned him. How can you contend this should have been part of the probable cause calculus? ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1037 "2012-03-21T14:53:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > As the police had already determined that they had no probable cause to arrest him, I’m not sure on what grounds they could have performed a blood test. The problem I see here is that all they used to make that determination was _Zimmerman’s own word_ and a minor injury. Yet we have witness accounts of them wrestling before the killing, which could have been started by either Martin or Zimmerman. Why is the killer given the beneift of the doubt in such a situation? If a driver were to hit and kill a pedestrian I expect the cops to rule out contributing factors like distracted driving and being under the influence, not just take the guy’s word that the person just jumped out in front of them. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1038 "2012-03-21T14:53:19Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > This is an erroneous statement, but it doesn’t matter, because it has nothing to do with this thread and this case, which is all I’m here to participate in talking about. > Okee dokee. [Here](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html) is the Florida murder statute. Where it plainly says (among other things, this is specifically section (2): > > Without intent to kill. Or even the intention to do anything criminal at all. You just have to cause death by doing something that is dangerous without regard for the fact that someone could die, you do not have to have any intent to kill, nor any intent to commit any other crime. > > And as I noted previously, it is very easy to make the case that the act of following a stranger with a loaded gun in your hand, never mind confronting him directly, is an act which is imminently dangerous to another and disregards human life. Certainly there are defenses to this argument, but we are not disagreeeing over whether Zimmerman will actually be convicted, we are arguing over whether he can be charged with the crime of murder in the state of Florida if he had no intent to kill nor an intent to commit any criminal act which then resulted in the death of someone. The answer is yes, he can. Second degree murder as defined in 782.04(2) > > For the benefit of those who are not accustomed to reading statutes or super-deep outlines and might mistake everything around Section (2) as having a direct bearing on Section (2), it doesn’t. The Florida statute is broken into 5 main sections, the outline levels go like this: > > (1) Main section is numerals in parentheses. > (a) first subsection is lower case letters in parentheses > [INDENT]1. Then numerals with a period > [/INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]a. Then lower case letters with a period > [/INDENT][/INDENT]Section (2) is complete, it has no subsections which alter or refine the section in any way. > [INDENT][/INDENT] > > And Bricker made a mistake in asserting that this applied in Florida, as Florida attorneys will readily tell you. > > And on what reasonable basis can a cop reliably determine that a man they know absolutely nothing about except that he’s just shot another younger, smaller, darker unarmed man to death is no threat and isn’t going to run? Are you really comfortable with cops making a call like that? I’m sure as hell not. Lock that guy up and THEN figure out if he’s really unlikely to be a threat - leaving him on the streets to see if he does it again seems jaw-droppingly stupid as a way to police. > > Handy rule of thumb for choosing the first person pronoun: remove the other person from the sentence and see if the pronoun you chose still sounds right. > > And I’m sure you know that in law the specific trumps the general. **Stoid** , you need to understand something (and never will). Your opinions on legal matters are not worthless; they are less than that. The fact that you have asserted something or other goes a long way towards establishing that it’s wrong. You know the saying ‘a stopped clock is right twice a day’? Yours is digital. 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 21, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1039 "2012-03-21T14:54:41Z")
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried] Do you find his story credible? That this man, he was advised multiple times to not follow the teenager, but clearly showed he didn’t want to let “another of those assholes get away”, didn’t actually do that? That Martin followed and attacked Zimmerman, even though Martin’s last phone call shows the reverse? How can you say that there is no evidence to contradict his story? [/QUOTE] Another telling clue is that, when asked by the dispatcher for an address where a cop can meet him, Zimmerman at first directs him to the clubhouse. But then suddenly he changes his mind and asks the dispatcher to tell the cops to just call him when they arrived and he would direct him to his location then. If Zimmerman really want to make it easy to link up with the cops, he would have either told them where to meet him or, better yet, he would have volunteered to wait for them at the front entrance. But he didn’t want to wait for the cops. His request to the dispatcher indicates he wasnt concerned about making it easy for the cops to find him. His priority was to get the kid, and then direct the cops to where to find him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1040 "2012-03-21T15:08:35Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > [Here](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html) is the Florida murder statute. Where it plainly says (among other things, this is specifically section (2): > > Without intent to kill. Or even the intention to do anything criminal at all. You just have to cause death by doing something that is dangerous without regard for the fact that someone could die, you do not have to have any intent to kill, nor any intent to commit any other crime. > [@Linehan v. State](#): > > On the surface, particular statutes defining criminal offenses which contain the words “willfully” or “intentionally” might be thought to encompass “specific intent” crimes simply because they contain words denoting intent as a requisite mental state. However, that approach would ignore a fundamental concept of criminal law that there are three broad categories of crimes: (1) “strict liability” crimes (e.g., DWI manslaughter or statutory rape) which are criminal violations even if done without intent to do the prohibited act, see Baker v. State, 377 So.2d 17, 19 (Fla. 1979); (2) general intent crimes; and (3) specific intent crimes. See W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law § 28 (1972). The inclusion of words denoting a state of mind as an element of the offense (e.g., “willfully” or “intentionally”) serves to distinguish general intent and specific intent crimes from strict liability crimes. But the distinction between general intent and specific intent depends upon how words denoting state of mind are used in a statute. If the crime is not a strict liability crime, it has an intent element. Second egree murder in Florida is not a specific intent crime. You don’t have to have the specific intent to kill. But your general intent is relevant – indeed, the state must prove it. > [@Linehan at 247](#): > > A “general intent” statute is one that prohibits either a specific voluntary act or something that is substantially certain to result from the act (e.g., damage to a building is the natural result of the act of setting a building afire).. . . Thus, in general intent statutes words such as “willfully” or “intentionally,” without more, indicate only that the person must have intended to do the act and serve to distinguish that conduct from accidental (noncriminal) behavior or strict liability crimes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=51) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=53)