# Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2659

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/2659 "2012-03-31T21:44:15Z")

</div>

> [@monstro](#):
>
> You know, there are more threads about this topic than this one. Why don’t you check them out before lecturing me?
> 
> And yes, I believe SYG and the defense being made for it is “legalistic bullshit”. It is a horrible law and anyone who doesn’t see the giant holes in it are full of bullshit. Apparently being a lawyer means you can’t issue a judgement against the worth of a particular law.

Not true at all:

> [@Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/113):
>
> So I guess the argument must first rely on one of the half dozen or so lawyers we got the boards. Or the ones who admit it, anyway. Is this law that badly written? And can you explain that without a buttload of op. cit., dispositives and _stark staring decisis_? Or penumbras? Jesus, anything but penumbras.

> [@Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/120):
>
> Yes, it’s badly written.
> 
> Here’s why. The usual formula for self-defense law is that the accused, the guy on trial, has to prove at least the basics of self defense. Then, after he’s made that basic case, the prosecution has to disprove him, beyond a reasonable doubt. The usual process puts the fact-finding in court, before a judge and jury.
> 
> This law says a person who has used force “is immune from criminal prosecution.” And it specifically defines “criminal prosecution” to mean “arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.” See that? He’s immune from even being arrested.
> 
> The only way around that is for the police agency to determine that probable cause exists that the use of force was unlawful. In other words, this is not your usual “is there probable cause to believe a crime was committed” but rather “is there specific information about the use of force that makes it probable that the force used was unlawful?”
> 
> That is literally what the law says:
> 
> This law puts the cart before the horse, in other words. what would normally be developed after arrest, interrogation, charging, etc., now must be essentially an one-the-scene determination by the police.
> 
> It’s crazy.
> 
> Does that help, without being too technical?

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504)._