# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/101 "2012-03-13T16:04:23Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Is it the police’s job to decide whether someone is guilty or not? Or should that determination be made in a court of law? The job of the police is to make a threshold determination on the existence of probable cause and the strength of evidence for a conviction. The job of establishing guilt sufficient for conviction ultimately rests with the prosecutor, and the job of weighing the evidence and imposing conviction rests with the court. ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/102 "2012-03-13T16:09:43Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You can read them for yourself, but something all three types of illegal homicide in Florida have in common is they do not criminalize the simple act of homicide. They criminalize homicide “when.” Meaning “when you premeditated it” or “when you were acting recklessly” or “when you were showing negligent disregard for human life” or “when you acted unnecessarily.” > > So just the simple evidence that Zimmerman committed the homicide doesn’t rise to the level of a crime in Florida. My argument all along is that there is evidence that Zimmerman acted acted “unnecessarily” and “recklessly” by stalking the victim even when advised not to do so by 911. The power differential between the two individuals further supports these two things. So again, if there is some evidence that renders these details insufficient probable cause, I think the public is entitled to know what that evidence is. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/103 "2012-03-13T16:14:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The physical wounds on Zimmerman’s body? I guess the point being that, to the casual viewer, having a bloody nose is not sufficient evidence to outweigh the circumstantial evidence that a guy alleged to have previous issues with violence and authority gunning down a weaponless kid with no history in the street demostrates probable cause. The least imaginative among us can picture a fellow who, realizing he’s lost his temper and gone too far, bloodies his own nose and claims self-defence in the absence of witnesses. It just doesn’t seem like a slam-dunk requiring no court case to decide. I admit that maybe there is more to it, but assuming that the cops have actually made the call (and as far as I know they haven’t), it appears to be an odd one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/104 "2012-03-13T16:18:40Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If a dead body resulting from a fight between an unarmed victim and an armed perpetrator who initiated conflict with the victim unnecessarily doesn’t consitute enough probable cause, then I’m left wondering exactly what would constitute it. No one has really addressed this question. I don’t know the case law language in Florida, but I don’t imagine it differs darstically from my state. In Virginia: > [@](#): > > The legal standard of probable cause, as the term suggests, relates to probabilities that are based upon the factual and practical considerations in everyday life as perceived by reasonable and prudent persons. The presence or absence of probable cause is not to be examined from the perspective of a legal technician. Rather, probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. (citations omitted) In order to ascertain whether probable cause exists, courts will focus upon “what the totality of the circumstances meant to police officers trained in analyzing the observed conduct for purposes of crime control.” Quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth. The key language here is: _totality of the circumstances meant to police officers_. You recite only those facts which support your view. But probable cause includes the totality of circumstances. According to [this Miami Herald report](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html): > [@](#): > > Police say Zimmerman called police around 7:30 p.m. on Feb. 26 to report a suspicious person. The dispatcher told him to wait for patrol officers. > > At one point, Zimmerman followed the teen, stepped out of the car and they began to fight, Lee said. > > “When dispatchers told him not to do anything, it was just a recommendation,” Lee said. “There is evidence that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense.” > > He would not say what the evidence was. > > Why Zimmerman got out of the car and what led to the altercation are still unknown. So the police are aware of some evidence that, in their view, supports self-defense. How you can weigh that evidence, without knowing what it is, is unclear to me. It seems obvious that without knowing the specifics of what Chief Lee is evaluating, you cannot possibly have an opinion on the existence of probable cause. But it seems you do. ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/105 "2012-03-13T16:35:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So the police are aware of some evidence that, in their view, supports self-defense. Which brings us to another problem with not taking this thing to court: a lack of transparency. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/106 "2012-03-13T16:37:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No, he’s arguing that when, aside from the claim of self-defense, everything else leads one to believe a crime was committed, a claim of self defense should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card. The guy has either admitted to or evidence has been found for a compelling case of a crime being committed. If by “compelling” you mean “sufficient to establish guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, I don’t see that case, nor does the investigating police department, at least to date. > [@](#): > > Where is the kid’s assumption of innocence? That’s what seems to be flying all over these legal people’s heads: if you say he did not commit a crime, you are essentially convicting the dead kid. No, you aren’t. The dead kid isn’t charged with any crime, nor will he be. It would be a practical impossibility, but saying “we can’t disprove self-defense” does not establish anything except that the state cannot disprove self-defense. It does not establish that the black kid was in the wrong. There isn’t any evidence of that either, just like there isn’t any evidence that it wasn’t self-defense by the wannabe. > [@](#): > > And, sorry, but it is suspicious that the white guy with money is the one being assumed innocent and the less affluent black kid assumed to be guilty. Again, you are mistaken. The black kid is not assumed to be guilty of anything. And I rather doubt that this rent-a-cop is a particularly affluent person. [QUOTE=you with the face] If a dead body resulting from a fight between an unarmed victim and an armed perpetrator who initiated conflict with the victim unnecessarily doesn’t consitute enough probable cause, then I’m left wondering exactly what would constitute it. No one has really addressed this question. [/QUOTE] Actually, it has been addressed - > [@](#): > > …under the legal doctrine involved with self defense, in a prosecution, as long as Zimmerman established his self-defense claim the prosecution would have to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. [QUOTE=you with the face] So again, if there is some evidence that renders these details insufficient probable cause, I think the public is entitled to know what that evidence is. [/QUOTE] ISTM that you are making a mistaken assumption here. Zimmerman does not have to produce evidence to disprove anything. The state has to do the disproving. The details you mention are not (at least to date) sufficient to prove it wasn’t self-defense. 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 13, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/107 "2012-03-13T16:41:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The physical wounds on Zimmerman’s body? All that is evidence of is that a fight took place between he and the victim. The wounds by themselves gives us no clue as to who the aggressor was or whether Zimmerman was actually afraid for his life. I know that if a big fellow came charging towards me in a menancing fashion, I would do what I could to hurt him so that he’d leave me alone. If I got a few licks in before the guy shot me dead, would that be compelling evidence that he acted in self-defense? No. Keep in mind that I weigh as much as the kid in this story. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/108 "2012-03-13T16:41:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Which brings us to another problem with not taking this thing to court: a lack of transparency. Too soon to tell. If the police never release their findings, then your point is well-taken. At this stage, however, I would expect the police to be conducting an investigation. It is often improvident to release details of the investigation to the public because it can harm the eventual prosecution of the case. So right now, there is nothing inappropriate about the lack of transparency. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/109 "2012-03-13T16:44:57Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > All that is evidence of is that a fight took place between he and the victim. The wounds by themselves gives us no clue as to who the aggressor was or whether Zimmerman was actually afraid for his life. Were there wounds from a physical fight on the victim? If not, then there is another inference that can be drawn: that the fight was, prior to the gunshot, somewhat one-sided. > [@](#): > > I know that if a big fellow came charging towards me in a menancing fashion, I would do what I could to hurt him so that he’d leave me alone. If I got a few licks in before the guy shot me dead, would that be compelling evidence that he acted in self-defense? No. Keep in mind that I weigh as much as the kid in this story. It certainly would be evidence. “Compelling?” No. But evidence sufficient to cross the barrier of “preponderance of the evidence?” Yes, I think so; it would mean that the ‘aggressor’ may not have thrown the first – or any – punch. Again, though, since I haven’t seen all the evidence, I really can’t form any sort of an informed opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/110 "2012-03-13T16:49:35Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I know that if a big fellow came charging towards me in a menancing fashion, I would do what I could to hurt him so that he’d leave me alone. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion? The fact that Zimmerman was bigger than the kid, or a security guard, does not establish that he charged at the kid in a menacing fashion. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/111 "2012-03-13T17:19:22Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Has the decision been made not to charge this guy? If not, the argument is in advance of the facts - the real issue is not why he hasn’t been charged, but why he hasn’t been arrested and charged _right now_. > > The answer to that is probably that the guy doesn’t pose much of a flight risk (presumably he’s hoping to get off on self-defence), so there is no need. > > Fact is, circumstantial evidence is against this guy, but we don’t know what the actual evidence from forensics and witnesses is yet with any certainty. According to the chief of police they have no probable cause to arrest him. That is the factual answer, what some people seem to be wondering is whether some sort of racism is involved with that decision. ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/112 "2012-03-13T17:23:32Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I guess the point being that, to the casual viewer, having a bloody nose is not sufficient evidence to outweigh the circumstantial evidence that a guy alleged to have previous issues with violence and authority gunning down a weaponless kid with no history in the street demostrates probable cause. > > The least imaginative among us can picture a fellow who, realizing he’s lost his temper and gone too far, bloodies his own nose and claims self-defence in the absence of witnesses. It just doesn’t seem like a slam-dunk requiring no court case to decide. > > I admit that maybe there is more to it, but assuming that the cops have actually made the call (and as far as I know they haven’t), it appears to be an odd one. Check the thread again, the police have actually made the call that _they_ were not going to arrest. They listed as their reason “they lacked probable cause for an arrest.” Chief Lee then said that they have sent or are sending the case file for the State’s Attorney for the county in which this event happened. The State’s Attorney has made no charging decision, but the police have. So he might still be charged, but at least at this point the police investigation appears to be concluded sufficiently that they’ve passed it on to the State’s Attorney. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/113 "2012-03-13T17:33:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If by “compelling” you mean “sufficient to establish guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, I don’t see that case, nor does the investigating police department, at least to date. No, you aren’t. The dead kid isn’t charged with any crime, nor will he be. It would be a practical impossibility, but saying “we can’t disprove self-defense” does not establish anything except that the state cannot disprove self-defense. It does not establish that the black kid was in the wrong. There isn’t any evidence of that either, just like there isn’t any evidence that it wasn’t self-defense by the wannabe. > Again, you are mistaken. The black kid is not assumed to be guilty of anything. And I rather doubt that this rent-a-cop is a particularly affluent person. > Actually, it has been addressed - > ISTM that you are making a mistaken assumption here. Zimmerman does not have to produce evidence to disprove anything. The state has to do the disproving. The details you mention are not (at least to date) sufficient to prove it wasn’t self-defense. > > Regards, > Shodan Has Zimmerman raised a prima facie self-defense justification? I believe that the uncontradicted narrative is that Zimmerman initiated the contact by leaving his car (against police advice) and pursuing Martin. There is no availability of self-defense when one is the initial aggressor, nor is one entitled to use deadly force in self-defense where there is no danger of grievous bodily harm. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/114 "2012-03-13T17:36:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What evidence do you have that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion? [http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29814303](http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29814303) ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/115 "2012-03-13T17:48:16Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Has Zimmerman raised a prima facie self-defense justification? I believe that the uncontradicted narrative is that Zimmerman initiated the contact by leaving his car (against police advice) and pursuing Martin. There is no availability of self-defense when one is the initial aggressor, nor is one entitled to use deadly force in self-defense where there is no danger of grievous bodily harm. I don’t know that he has even had to raise a defense, you don’t have to raise a defense if you haven’t been charged. I suspect all he’s done is give his side to the police, who decided based on that and whatever other evidence they had they were not going to arrest him. The Police Chief has come out and said in news articles we’ve quoted in this thread he isn’t arresting Zimmerman because they did not find probable cause and that the case was being reviewed by the State’s Attorney. It could help if some of the people getting into this thread late read the thread and its links to news articles at some point. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/116 "2012-03-13T17:52:28Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > [http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29814303](http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29814303) That’s an interesting article. > [@](#): > > Lee publicly admitted that officers accepted Zimmerman’s word at the scene that he had no police record. Yet public records showed that Zimmerman was charged with battery against an officer and resisting arrest in 2005, a charge that was later expunged. There’s a certain slant to that paragraph, isn’t there? If the man’s arrest record was expunged, then it ceases to exist – at least for the purpose of answering the on-scene question, “Do you have an arrest record?” But the paragraph is written in such a way as to suggest that something sinister, or at least mildly underhanded, is being described. Anyway, Shodan asked you, “What evidence do you have that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion?” You responded with that entire link, presumably conveying your belief that somewhere in that link, the reader will find evidence that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion. I can’t reproduce the entire body of text here, but this appears to be the most damning portion: > [@](#): > > A dispatcher told Zimmerman to wait for a police cruiser, and not leave his vehicle. But about a minute later, he left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses – about 70 yards from where the teen was going. > > Witnesses told ABC News a fist fight broke out and at one point Zimmerman, who outweighed Martin by more than 100 pounds, was on the ground and that Martin was on top. I agree that the tone is suggestive of bad conduct on Zimmerman’s part. But since the tone of the “expunged” paragraph was also suggestive of bad conduct, but in reality said absolutely nothing untoward, I am moved to ask: what, specifically, either in the quoted text or anywhere else in the article, actually says that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion? At best, he know he followed Martin and a fight broke out. Where do we get to the “unlawfully,” the “charged,” and the “menacing?” ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/117 "2012-03-13T18:09:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the paragraph is written in such a way as to suggest that something sinister, or at least mildly underhanded, is being described. Where do we get to the “unlawfully,” the “charged,” and the “menacing?” Quite to the contrary, **Bricker** , I find that the article faithfully reproduced all relevant information. Certainly you had to do no further outside research to find out about the expungement. It was right there in the very sentence. It seems, rather, that you’d have preferred less candor, that is, no mention of the expunged offense whatsoever. Accordingly, I think you are more upset that your position is a bit weakened, and I do not accept your characterization that the article is engaging in innuendo. > [@](#): > > I agree that the tone is suggestive of bad conduct on Zimmerman’s part. But since the tone of the “expunged” paragraph was also suggestive of bad conduct, but in reality said absolutely nothing untoward, I am moved to ask: what, specifically, either in the quoted text or anywhere else in the article, actually says that Zimmerman unlawfully charged towards the kid in a menacing fashion? At best, he know he followed Martin and a fight broke out. As discussed above, I do not accept your contention that the news article is biased in its recounting of the incident. The second quote from your post, that Zimmerman initiated the contact and pursued Martin (which is uncontradicted by the parties), as well as the witness who reported hearing Martin call for help (which has been subjected to suggested “correction”), adequately establish by circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Reasonable doubt does not exclude appropriate inferences on the basis of circumstantial evidence where direct evidence is not available. To review: on the one hand, we have the uncontradicted account of Zimmerman leaving the car to pursue Martin against police advice and a witness who indicated Martin called for help. On the other hand, we have the flat assertion of self-defense by the accused. The balance of this evidence does not tend to Zimmerman’s favor. ---
**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, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/118 "2012-03-13T18:15:44Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > To review: on the one hand, we have the uncontradicted account of Zimmerman leaving the car to pursue Martin against police advice and a witness who indicated Martin called for help. On the other hand, we have the flat assertion of self-defense by the accused. The balance of this evidence does not tend to Zimmerman’s favor. That’s evidence Zimmerman approached Trayvon, but nothing else. There is no evidence available to the public indicating who started the confrontation. All we know is that the police have said they found no probable cause to arrest and that they think this is a case of self-defense. Favor or disfavor, nothing you’ve said would be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of an unjustified killing. In a hypothetical trial a prosecutor would posit Zimmerman started the fight and a defense attorney would posit the opposite, I have no idea how a jury could be certain of either thing, so I think it very unlikely Zimmerman would be convicted on the simple fact he approached Martin, since presumably his narrative will indicate Martin actually started the fight. If Zimmerman’s attorney were to say Zimmerman approached with no violent intentions, and Martin started the violence, then Zimmerman’s approach is irrelevant. If Zimmerman’s attorney indicates that his client did not expect to be attacked, it would also erode any “duty to retreat” arguments, since Zimmerman would argue he was unaware he would need to retreat until after the violence began. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/119 "2012-03-13T18:22:34Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Favor or disfavor, nothing you’ve said would be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of an unjustified killing. In a hypothetical trial a prosecutor would posit Zimmerman started the fight and a defense attorney would posit the opposite, I have no idea how a jury could be certain of either thing, so I think it very unlikely Zimmerman would be convicted on the simple fact he approached Martin, since presumably his narrative will indicate Martin actually started the fight. Reasonable doubt is _reasonable_ doubt. It must accord with the ordinary experience of prudent people. The law also allows cases to be made by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. A fact can be proven up beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence alone. It is also the province of a jury to assess the credibility of witnesses. The credibility assessment is _ **not** _ one that must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury could very well find Zimmerman not to be a credible reporter of events and reject the testimony that Martin started the fight. They could then also find that he was the aggressor on the basis of his initial pursuit of Martin and the overhearing of Martin calling for help. This would be a legally adequate (that is, not below the reasonable doubt standard) disposition by the jury. ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/120 "2012-03-13T18:23:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I think you’re misinterpreting at least how I (and perhaps **Loach** ) are looking at this. I’m _not_ assuming Trayvon was a threat. I’m not assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth. I think you have been right on point with what I am thinking. Look, I have certain assumptions about Zimmerman. I can form an opinion on what a man driving around a gated community with a loaded weapon as part of a neighborhood watch is like. My opinion is not good. But it is not necessarily correct either. But the law does not have anything to do with my feelings, just what they can prove. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Is it the police’s job to decide whether someone is guilty or not? Or should that determination be made in a court of law? Well its not the police’s job to throw shit on the wall and see what sticks. The level of proof needed for an arrest is lower than for a conviction but without possibility of a conviction its nothing but a waste of time. And in general it is very bad policy to arrest someone with the thought that, “What the Hell we can always drop the charges later if we don’t get enough.” But that is moot right now. The police are currently saying there wasn’t enough probable cause. Since they have information I don’t I can’t make a conclusion. I _think_ I _might_ have reached a different conclusion then they did if I was investigating but I can’t be sure. > [@](#): > > That’s an interesting article. Yes. Full of anonymous “witnesses”. Seems to be a lot of witnesses to an incident that had no witnesses. Did any of these witnesses talk to police? What was on their official statements? Anonymous statements do not hold up too well in court. \ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=7)