# 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:** 72
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1421 "2012-03-23T19:09:20Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > I’m not convinced he needed to be actually arrested at the scene, but it seems reasonable to bring him in immediately for questioning and hold his gun for testing. They did do so. Zimmerman went _voluntarily._ This likely helped made up their mind why they didn’t arrest him on the spot. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1422 "2012-03-23T19:13:55Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Good luck trying to explain the law and legal procedure to the outraged. I do hope that this leads to at least a better interpretation of this Florida law if not repeal. As I said long ago I do believe that by the end someone in the chain will decide to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. Well said. I think the outraged are mistaking a lot of the dispassionate analysis as being support for Zimmerman, when in fact it is simply support for the rule of law as it exists. From what details I know, the case smells a bit foul. But also from what I have read, there are a lot of assumptions that have to be made to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Barring a bombshell of unreported evidence, I suspect Zimmerman will not be convicted in criminal court. However I doubt he will fare so well in the sure to follow civil case where the burden of evidence is much lower. ---
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1423 "2012-03-23T19:14:19Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > In the article, “John” says he told the man in the red sweater to stop. Did anyone else catch that? > > Stop what? It seems like he was telling him to stop yelling for help. It would never occur to me to tell someone in a life and death struggle to stop yelling for help though. Listen to it again carefully. There is a break in the audio between **“The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’”** and where he says **“I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,”** Its all in the editing. I am pretty sure he was telling Martin to stop. The quote is misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1424 "2012-03-23T19:35:38Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > **Bricker** ’s analogy is inapt because the suspect does not allege an affirmative defense, rather subsequent events necessarily reveal that no criminal activity occurred at all, not, as Zimmerman’s defense obligates him to claim, that the crime did occur but was legally justified. No. Zimmerman’s version negates criminal activity, period. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1425 "2012-03-23T19:41:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > Zimmerman’s version negates criminal activity, period. Right, if it was legally justified, then no crime occured, aka the Corpus delicti. If facts warrant an arrest later, rather than on scene, that can happen, sure. ---
**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 23, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1426 "2012-03-23T19:42:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you’re in the “dangerous to human life” circle, you MUST be also in the “poor judgment” circle. > > But it’s very possible to be in the “poor judgement” circle and still be outside the “dangerous” circle. > > So, no, they are not equal. One is a subset of the other. Welcome to Logical Fallacies 101: all fathers are men, but not all men are fathers. It would ridiculous to think that all poor judgment rises to the level of dangerous acts undertaken with reckless disregard for human life, and absolutely no one does or did. But it would be _just as ridiculous_ to suggest that dangerous acts undertaken with reckless disregard are not, as you put it, a subset of poor judgment. And yet that’s pretty much how this little sidebar got started when you decided to keep pushing back at Magivers choice of words as though they made no sense: > [@Magiver](#): > > The case against Zimmerman is negligence through poor judgement. > [@Bricker](#): > > And is that a crime? Yes, it is! (even though he worded it improperly). When a person dies as a result of another person’s poor judgment leading them to engage in dangerous acts without regard of the harm that might come to others, the crime is murder in the second degree. Which is what Magiver said: > [@Magiver](#): > > The prosecutor would have to prove he created a situation based on poor judgement that led to Martin’s death. As far as [negligence](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/negligence): > [@](#): > > Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. “dangerous acts that disregard human life” cannot possibly be _anything other_ than “conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm”, meaning they were negligent. Although that is not the specific legal charge that would be made as a result, Magiver’s reasoning was perfectly sound. Magiver said potayto. The law says potahto. Magiver made perfect logical sense, and there was no reason for you to question him in that manner. > [@Bricker](#): > > Ok, let me put it another way: what is the specific Florida law that criminalizes poor judgment that results in a death when the shooter can claim self defense? On the other hand, this question does not make perfectly logical sense: by definition, no law criminalizes self-defense at all. If self-defense is factually true, then the judgment wasn’t poor and no crime was committed. If the judgment _was_ poor, so poor that the acts undertaken were dangerous to human life, so negligent that a person is harmed in the form of dying, then Florida’s murder statute §782.04 (2) criminalizes it: _second degree murder_. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1427 "2012-03-23T19:53:05Z")
> [@newme](#): > > Listen to it again carefully. There is a break in the audio between **“The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’”** > and where he says **“I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,”** Its all in the editing. > > I am pretty sure he was telling Martin to stop. The quote is misleading. It’s now my turn to say, “We need to wait for all the facts to come in.” If people can suspend judgment on the claim that Zimmerman had chased Martin by foot as evidenced by the sounds on the 911 call, then it seems only proper to do the same to every piece of audio recording being revealed to us through the media. In fact, I would say since all of the information we are receiving is coming to us through the press, we shouldn’t be accepting anything at face value. I am going to be waiting patiently for the investigation to tidy up, as has been recommended. And in the meantime, I’m hoping there isn’t going to be a sad confession from the police that they fucked up so badly with collecting the evidence that the case is impossible to prove or disprove. Like the family, I don’t have faith in this police department. And it’s not just because they didn’t arrest Zimmerman, but because from the get-go they made statements about his glowing credibility. Sorry, but I just can’t get that out of my mind. That does not sound like a department burning the midnight oil to scour all the evidence, commiting itself to a full-scale investigation, ensuring justice for all. That sounds like a department already dusting its hands of the whole thing because whadayagonnado? This police stuff is just too HARD!! I think that is why the family’s outrage has reached a fevered pitch. They sensed (as I did) the premature closing of the door on this case. You want to talk about bad PR? Not doing a perfunctory arrest on Zimmerman has been the worst PR nightmare that the Sanford PD could ever imagine. If they were within the law to do so, as has been admitted by the lawyerly crew, then that’s what they should have done. I understand that arresting someone can sometimes blow a case, but I would think that in a situation like this, where it is so easy to get off the hook based on the law anyway, that it wouldn’t have harmed Zimmerman or the PD to bring him in a formal manner, just to provide assurance to the victim’s family. Given the unbalanced nature of this crazy SYG law, I think arresting the shooter is the very least that law enforcement should do. If the police had done this one thing, no one would even know that this case existed at all. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1428 "2012-03-23T19:56:11Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > If the judgment _was_ poor, so poor that the acts undertaken were dangerous to human life, so negligent that a person is harmed in the form of dying, then Florida’s murder statute §782.04 (2) criminalizes it: _second degree 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, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. How can you get murder second degree from (2) above? ---
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1429 "2012-03-23T20:00:01Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > What ABC interview are you talk about? Do you have a link? Austin McLendon in the Huffington post interview didn’t even see two people. > > . I was wrong about it being with ABC. The interview I saw with the 13 year old was with the [Orlando Sentinel.](http://www.loop21.com/life/trayvon-martin-witness-fears-his-own-life) He never says they were separated in that interview. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1430 "2012-03-23T20:01:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, of course that’s true. The cop could certainly lie and never get called on it. Under these circumstances, the cop’s claim would never get questioned. > > Is that what you’re saying the cops should have done? > > Or are you saying that in fact he was twitchy and disorganized in a way that made the questioning officer believe he was under the influence? Unless Zimmerman is a psychotic killer I can’t imagine him being anything other than what I speculated given the circumstances. The same rules of common sense should apply whether you’re driving a car recklessly or hunting perps while on a neighborhood watch. The 911 call shows a level of recklessness when Zimmerman chose to follow and confront someone he suspected was both high and armed. ---
**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 23, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1431 "2012-03-23T20:07:23Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Heavens to Betsy, how many times must this be repeated? > > The following furnish probable cause (_i.e._, facts sufficient to allow a prudent person reasonably to surmise that criminal activity is likely afoot and that the suspect is likely responsible for it) > > • Martin was shot and killed > • Zimmerman’s gun did it > • Nobody else was around to fire the gun > • Neighbors had shortly before heard a scuffle and a gunshot > • **ZIMMERMAN ACKNOWLEDGED SHOOTING MARTIN** (A big one!!) > > Knowing the above, a prudent person could reasonably (indeed, very easily) surmise that a crime has been committed and that Zimmerman was the one who did it. > > Notice that what is _ **not** _ required for probable cause is either the absence or disproof of any purported defenses to the alleged crime. **Thank you!!** > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Prosecutorial discretion. I never said that wasn’t a real thing. But understand this: if you say, “There was no probable cause to arrest,” then you are saying, as a matter of law, the suspect cannot be arrested. That is an altogether different thing to say (and, in this case, would also be a grossly erroneous thing to say) than “the police or prosecutor must not believe it would be wise to arrest this person now.” > > Discretion entails a very accommodating standard of review, but it does not mean that the actions cannot be reviewed at all. Now, nobody can challenge a failure to arrest in court (who would have standing to do so?). However, we, as citizens, can review the action in the same accommodating spirit and see if it is, despite being so accommodating, wanting. We should review it because our system is one that operates by the consent of the governed, and we should be vigilant regarding the actions of officers of the executive branch. > > So, in this instance, one would want some explanation for what appears to be a very arbitrary refusal to arrest. Hitherto, they’ve only said that Zimmerman has claimed self-defense and they have not been able to disprove. But, they have adduced no explanation as to how vigorous their attempt to disprove it has been or the facts they found that corroborate (or at least fail to refute) the claim. “Just trust us, OK,” does not adequately meet even the very low bar of the abuse of discretion standard. Thank you again… and this seems to be an opportune time to ask: I have been reading that the investigation had ended, for all intents and purposes, and that is why Martin’s parents have raised a stink. Contrary to much of what’s been put forth in this thread, there was no ongoing investigation, no evidence gathering, nothing. They had pretty much taken Zimmerman at face value and left it at that. (The [Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin) seems pretty well-sourced and has interesting details I haven’t seen mentioned in this thread yet, by the way.) Does anyone have any sources for that one way or another? I find it credible simply because of the fact that Martin’s body was listed as a John Doe for 2-3 days when his father had reported him missing the following morning and he had a cel phone which was receiving calls that no one was bothering to answer: how much “investigating” could they possibly have been doing if it took almost three full days to even identify Martin? Either they weren’t investigating much of anything, or they are grossly incompetent. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1432 "2012-03-23T20:14:19Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > It’s now my turn to say, “We need to wait for all the facts to come in.” > > In fact, I would say since all of the information we are receiving is coming to us through the press, we shouldn’t be accepting anything at face value. > > You want to talk about bad PR? Not doing a perfunctory arrest on Zimmerman has been the worst PR nightmare that the Sanford PD could ever imagine. If they were within the law to do so, as has been admitted by the lawyerly crew, then that’s what they should have done. I understand that arresting someone can sometimes blow a case, but I would think that in a situation like this, where it is so easy to get off the hook based on the law anyway, that it wouldn’t have harmed Zimmerman or the PD to bring him in a formal manner, just to provide assurance to the victim’s family. Given the unbalanced nature of this crazy SYG law, I think arresting the shooter is the very least that law enforcement should do. If the police had done this one thing, no one would even know that this case existed at all. Read my post #1408. Now, do you still think that the police should have done a “perfunctory arrest on Zimmerman”? Do you still think “think arresting the shooter is the very least that law enforcement should do.” Do you want Zimmerman to get off or do you want him brought to justice? If you want Zimmerman to go free, you should make sure the police and DA jump the gun and proceed without the proper steps. If you want Zimmerman charged with murder- then you should applaud the police and DA. Yes, it has caused a PR nitemare. And, maybe the Police were hoping that the case would go away. But, in any case, what they did was the right thing if you want Zimmerman brought to justice. But I do agree “we shouldn’t be accepting anything at face value” here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1433 "2012-03-23T20:15:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Unless Zimmerman is a psychotic killer I can’t imagine him being anything other than what I speculated given the circumstances. The same rules of common sense should apply whether you’re driving a car recklessly or hunting perps while on a neighborhood watch. The 911 call shows a level of recklessness when Zimmerman chose to follow and confront someone he suspected was both high and armed. So you believe the cops were incompetent in not getting a court order to test Zimmerman’s blood, which they could have by swearing that because Zimmerman’s statement was disorganized and he was twitchy. And your evidence that Zimmerman’s statement was disorganized and he was twitchy is that you can’t imagine that he wasn’t. Wow. Well, damn, why don’t we just ask you what happened, take your word for it, and proceed to sentencing? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1434 "2012-03-23T20:19:07Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > … and this seems to be an opportune time to ask: I have been reading that the investigation had ended, for all intents and purposes, and that is why Martin’s parents have raised a stink. Contrary to much of what’s been put forth in this thread, there was no ongoing investigation, no evidence gathering, nothing. They had pretty much taken Zimmerman at face value and left it at that. (The [Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin) seems pretty well-sourced and has interesting details I haven’t seen mentioned in this thread yet, by the way.) Does anyone have any sources for that one way or another? > > I find it credible simply because of the fact that Martin’s body was listed as a John Doe for 2-3 days when his father had reported him missing the following morning and he had a cel phone which was receiving calls that no one was bothering to answer: how much “investigating” could they possibly have been doing if it took almost three full days to even identify Martin? Either they weren’t investigating much of anything, or they are grossly incompetent. Cite that “there was no ongoing investigation, no evidence gathering, nothing”? Nope, it was the day after, not “2-3 days “. From your own cite “_The morning after the incident, Tracy Martin called missing persons and the police to report his son as missing. Officers were dispatched to the home, where they showed the father a crime scene photograph of Martin for identification purposes. Martin’s body had been taken to the medical examiner’s office as a John Doe.[47]_ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1435 "2012-03-23T20:20:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Cite that “there was no ongoing investigation, no evidence gathering, nothing”? > > Nope, it was the day after, not “2-3 days “. From your own cite “_The morning after the incident, Tracy Martin called missing persons and the police to report his son as missing. Officers were dispatched to the home, where they showed the father a crime scene photograph of Martin for identification purposes. Martin’s body had been taken to the medical examiner’s office as a John Doe.[47]_ Don’t bother. Stoid is impervious to facts she doesn’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1436 "2012-03-23T20:21:45Z")
Zimmerman’s story doesn’t hold up under a sober examination of the evidence. The shooting happened well away from his car, despite being “jumped”, Zimmerman claims he got out of the car to read the street sign in a small neighborhood he patrols, he also bothered to take his gun with him when he did this. Zimmerman hangs up the phone,there is nothing on the 911 call to indicate a struggle, why would he do that? He told the dispatcher he was following Trayvon and never indicated he wouldn’t. Zimmerman’s comment about “They always get away with it” certainly indicates some level of dissatisfaction that may urge to act on their own (I say may, it is an indication, not proof). Now I think all of this indicates that he did in fact follow Martin and confront him. A physical confrontation followed, it is not clear who initiated the actual physical contact. it is unclear who had the “upper hand” but Zimmerman at some point shot Martin. He may have in fact been thinking he was defending himself, but he also probably had an itchy trigger finger and even possibly a misguided sense of vigilante-ism. He then told the police a lie about who initiated the initial confrontation. I do not know what laws that would mean he broke, if any. This is my belief. My belief is just that, my belief. It is not offered up as being definitive of anything, just what I think likely happened. If burden of proof to convict is 95-99% confidence, I would place my belief at about 70-75%. ---
**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 23, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1437 "2012-03-23T20:21:54Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > (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, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. > How can you get murder second degree from (2) above? By arguing that Zimmerman’s decision to play cop (see all the information about his background, fascination with law enforcement, etc) with a loaded gun, patrolling the grounds looking for suspicious people and following them around is a recipe for disaster, one that has baked up into a dead 17 year old boy who was an excellent student with a bright future and no record of any kind. Another way to express “recipe for disaster” is an “act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life”. From earlier posts: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant’s conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting. > > > [@](#): > > > > “to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct.” 60 NY2d at 274. > > So the argument is pretty clear: patrolling the neighborhood playing cop with a loaded gun is a very dangerous way to behave and presents a very high risk of death to others. (And just as an aside, I would think that the research I cited earlier demonstrating that people are more likely to think others have a gun when they have one would be something you’d want to use to support this argument…) > > More on depravity of mind defined: > > > [@](#): > > > > Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community. > > > [@](#): > > > > In the area of legal ethics, offenses that involve depravity of mind such as fraud or breach of trust, make a person unfit to practice law. In Military law, an act involving depravity of mind is punishable, usually with a dishonorable discharge or confinement not less than a year. > > Even more interesting is case law from Florida that would undermine any suggestion that “depraved” in this instance is something terribly complex that only trained legal minds can possibly fathom: > > Quote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Although the phrase “depraved mind” could have been better defined and explained,5 we are not convinced that the instruction given was so prejudicial as to render the trial fundamentally unfair or that any error in the instruction rose to the threshold of a Constitutional violation. We agree that complex legalisms must be translated into prose understandable to the average juror. See United States v. Clark, 475 F.2d 240 (2d Cir. 1973). We cannot agree with Bryan’s contention that “depraved mind” is such a complex legalism. Rather, we agree with the Supreme Court of Florida: > > > > 13 > > We disagree that the term ‘depraved mind regardless of human life’ is one which of necessity, absent a request for an instruction or an objection to its not being given, creates fundamental error. It is frankly our view that the average juror pretty well understands what a depraved mind is, and particularly where it is noted at least in partial definition as one which has no regard for human life. This was sufficient for the jury’s evaluation in our judgment and we do not find the charges as given to be so recondite in their meaning as to escape the jury’s understanding. Sometimes we underestimate the intelligence and comprehension of our juries; they do not have to have every single detail spelled out to them, for they are accepted on the basis of their average and ordinary understanding and intelligence in the ordinary matters of life and in applying the evidence. Furthermore, jurors enjoy the benefit of their composite knowledge, and the privilege of requesting further instruction if desired. > > There’s no question that a second degree murder charge against Zimmerman could be defended against any number of ways, of course. But I don’t see anything that suggests it’s not a solid charge to make in this instance, or, more on point, that intention is a necessary element of the charge, the absence of which means the charge cannot be successfully made or prosecuted. > > (And for the hell of it I’d actually throw in the argument that the mere act of carrying a loaded gun in public qualifies as reckless disregard, but of course that’s just asking for a big ol’ gun thread…) > > Whether George Zimmerman’s playing cop with a loaded gun that he ended up discharging into the chest of a 17 year old boy armed with Skittles actually falls within the definition of “unlawful killing of a human being via an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life” is a separate question, one that should be answered by a jury of his peers after they have been presented with all the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1438 "2012-03-23T20:26:02Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Zimmerman’s story doesn’t hold up under a sober examination of the evidence. . True. Except that you have seen maybe 1% of the evidence. Have you read Zimmerman’s statement? The ballistics report? The Medical Examiners report? The CSI report? (none of these are available, mind you, so the answer is no.) ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1439 "2012-03-23T20:30:39Z")
Stoid, I don’t see it that way, to wit: …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… I bolded **AND** , it does not say **OR**. So being conjunctive, one must possess a depraved mind WITH an act imminently dangerous to another. What was the ACT (s) that were imminently dangerous, or do you read the clauses as seperable in nature? I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1440 "2012-03-23T20:34:30Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > I bolded **AND** , it does not say **OR**. So being conjunctive, one must possess a depraved mind WITH an act imminently dangerous to another. > > What was the ACT (s) that were imminently dangerous, or do you read the clauses as seperable in nature? I don’t. Er, don’t you mean “did Zimmerman possess a depraved mind”? Obviously the “imminently dangerous act” was the gunshot, so it’s the other clause that’s in question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=71) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=73)