I know that I’m very late to this thread, and I apologize for responding to a post that is now several days old; I had basketball to watch. 
Hoever, I’d like to point out that the scenario you describe almost exactly fits the case of John Tabbutt. AFAIK, Mr. Tabbutt was never charged with any crime at all.
I find it interesting that Zimmerman’s father wrote a letter that he hand-delivered to the Orlando Sentinel where he says:
[
](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/2696446_p2/trayvon-martin-case.html)
Yet in George Zimmerman’s 911 call, he clearly affirms that he has left his car and his following Mr. Martin.
After wading through 10 pages of this thread, put me down in this category also.
I’ve read, I think, every word of every (still functioning) linked article in this thread, as well as every word of every post, and yet I can’t remember reading this. Where did you read that this is what Zimmerman claims happened?
Well, in Zimmerman’s 911 call, he does affirm that he was getting out of his car to follow Mr. Martin. If you want to argue that Mr. Zimmerman’s “following” was not “chasing”, I’d be willing to hear you out.
Not your best question ever. In fact, as has been made clear, killings where the particular situations are described as something covered by this law never make it to trial in the first place.
I will bet you are right. That was my thought after reading the article. The press usually gets it wrong, but there’s enough in this that this scenario appears likely.
Should this prove to be what happened, the neighborhood watch guy is in serious trouble. He’s not a cop, and the kid had absolutely no responsibility to answer to him in any case. Even if the neighborhood watch guy could be considered a cop, then the 4th amendment applies, and the kid’s presence on the street is not probable cause to believe he is committing a crime, therefore again he does not have to identify himself or justify himself in any way to anyone.
So this 26 year old asshat who thinks he’s hot stuff 'cuz he’s the neighborhood watch captain braces this 17 year old on the street for no good reason, and the 17 year old winds up punching him.
If the weapon was concealed, and it probably was, then this could indeed be a murder charge with aggravating circumstances, though I’m not that familiar with FL law. Specifically, the NW guy assaults the kid - which bracing him would constitute, under the law- in full knowledge of the fact that he had a weapon and therefore a substantial advantage over the kid.
The kid, severely pissed off by the assault by the asshat (which well could have included phrases along the lines of: “what’s someone like you doing in this neighborhood?” reacts the way many or most kids that age would react, and punches his assailant. Who then pulls a gun and kills him.
Why is it taking so long to make the arrest? Let us hope the local police are just being thorough.
Okay, I made it through all 11+ pages, and just want to say that IMO, Martin Hyde and Loach did an excellent job of (very) patiently explaining the legal aspects and police procedural aspects that are in play in this case, in some places damn near ad infinitum. I thought Kimmy Gibler brought some good points, and I thought that Bricker was also a valuable contributor, if a bit reticent (understandable given the, er, atmosphere of the thread at times, tho).
I remember when Texas passed their Castle law; I didn’t like the concept because I thought it went too far in what it allowed. As other states, including my own, followed suit, I became more dismayed. WIth the addition of SYG laws, it seems to me that to a large degree we now have exactly the kind of state/country/place that was wanted by all the people who supported these laws: a place where people can and will get killed for little to no reason, or worse, for wrong reasons, and the people left alive will not have to deal with many, if any, consequences.
Thankfully, there are at least 2 courts left that can deal with these sort of things: civil court and the court of public opinion.
As I read on through this thread, and read this post, I guess I have a couple of questions.
Well, really one question.
To wit: What plausible reason does he have to confront the kid? This is well established law in the US; the mere fact that someone is on the street is not probable cause of…well…of anything. I would doubt that the fact that this is a gated community would change that.
Also,as I look into this, I find that there is no one “neighborhood watch” organization. There are a multitude of different programs that call themselves “neighborhood watch”. This quote, from usaonwatch.org, seems typical:
This doesn’t say a thing about sending armed men around to brace strangers and find out what they are up to.
Seems to me that what the NW guy did smacks of vigilantism, and under any circumstances that I can see (unless he caught the kid heaving a brick through a window or some such), his approaching the kid and bracing him DOES constitute assault as defined in most places. Since he was armed when he did it, that is aggravated assault, which is a felony in most places. In which case, his subsequent shooting of the kid was a homicide committed while he was engaged in another felony crime, thus making it murder.
Can’t believe that I’m the first in here with this. The plot thickens!
News report on ABC news on-line, supposedly posted about 11 hours ago: Neighborhood Watchman Who Allegedly Shot Trayvon Martin Wanted to Be a Cop
A few points from this article:
– Zimmerman has called 911 umpty-ump times before, and was thus known to the police.
– In the present case, he called the police several times, including one or more calls on the non-emergency line before that final 911 call.
– Several people who heard the tapes say that Zimmerman’s speech was slurred.
– The police routinely drug-check people right away as part of the questioning after a homicide.
– But they did no such thing with Zimmerman.
– The local police are now handing the investigation over to the state.
I think it probably is sufficient to show that the kid was doing nothing wrong. If he was doing nothing wrong, then the mere fact that the NW watch approached him shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the NW watch guy WAS doing something wrong, and the situation then spun out of control.
An assault is a physical or verbal attack, that causes the victim to fear violence to any level. I’m walking along, minding my own business, and you come up to me with a fierce expression on your face and say to me in a harsh tone: “What do you think you are doing in this neighborhood?”
You have just committed assault. Your neighborhood watch standing gives you no authority whatsoever. Even if it did, then you’d have to show probable cause to be stopping me.
I respond: “None of your goddamn business” and move to step around you and continue on my way.
You step into my path to block me and repeat: “I asked you a question, and you’re going to answer it.” As you step into my path, you bump me.
You have now committed assault and battery, and your assault is persisting.
So, now I now have legitimate reason to fear physical harm and may act to defend myself to whatever level is necessary to end your assault. So I punch you in the face.
But, you see, all this time you were armed - which means you knew you had the means to kill me if you chose. Thus, your assault was an aggravated assault. So you shoot me. You have now committed murder.
His confronting the kid IS a crime. Period. This is where your argument breaks down.
It is simple assault, and everyone would ignore it if he doesn’t pursue it. When he does pursue it, perhaps through the scenario i sketched earlier or something similar, then any law enforcement agency should be willing to accept a complaint. Given that he’s armed and he knows it, it is in fact aggravated assault.
To clarify some definitions (as best I understand it): assault vs. battery :
assault does not entail making any kind of physical contact or injury. If you simply confront someone in a threatening way, that is assault.
battery occurs when you actually make physical contact, or shoot, or stab, or other injury. By the typical modern interpretation, simple unwelcome touching someone is battery. In popular usage, this is often called “assault”.
“Get in the way of law enforcement?”
The discussion has been about the law.
If this proposal – a citizens’ arrest – from this militia group were legal, then I, too, would have no problem with it.
But while a citizen can make an arrest in Florida, it must be – drum roll – supported by probable cause. In Ripley v. State, 898 So. 2d 1078 (Fl Ct App 2005), police officers making an arrest outside their jurisdiction were found to be making a citizen’s arrest, and lacking probable cause, it was reversed.
I am wondering how happy you’d be if this group arrested Zimmerman and then ended up with the arresting members bankrupted by his subsequent false arrest suit. In Florida, police have qualified immunity for mistakes under some circumstances, but private citizens do not; they can be sued for an arrest if no probable cause exists.
And by the way – though police can be sued for making an arrest if they know they don’t have probable cause, they cannot be sued for failing to make an arrest even if they do have probable cause. Making an arrest is discretionary. *Everton v. Willard[/], 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985).
This is just all kinds of fucked up!
If Zimmerman was drunk, no wonder that night was filled with bone-headed decisions. But I’m still wondering if even this is enough evidence of messed-upness to provide probable cause for arrest.
Martin’s post about his friend not being charged for assaulting a mugger makes me think the answer to this is no. It doesn’t matter if there’s enough reasonable doubt to suggest this guy may have committed a crime. What matters is if the prosecution believes it can get a conviction.
This is where mistrust of the system comes in. Not only is the law a fucked-up one, but a justice system that is dictated by the sympathies of the populace is as well.
Bullshit.
To be simple assault, it must be more than “confronting.” Simple assault in Florida is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. FSA 784.011.
Where do you get the idea that simply confronting someone is assault?
Better question: why are you posting this incorrect claim as a confident fact?
I love seeing confirmation bias in action.
The expert who said Zimmerman sounded drunk was Rod Wheeler.
Now, here is a link to a Southern Poverty Law Center review of another of Rod Wheeler’s conclusions:
So tell me, monstro: are you now saying you find him credible in this instance, when he is saying something you want to hear?
I mean, I haven’t heard the tapes, but I don’t find Wheeler a credible source. And I can only imagine how I’d have been criticized if I offered him as a source on this board.
But you find him credible, huh?
I’ve read that article. ‘Several calls’ refers to all the calls not Zimmerman calling several times.
There’s only one guy mentioned in the article that thinks Zimmerman sounded drunk.
My first listen, I didn’t think Zimmerman sounded drunk. He sounded nonchalant to me. He tells the dispatcher at one point that Trayvon reached for his (own) waistband which coincidentally is where Martin kept his piece. We know Trayvon didn’t have a weapon which leads me to think he was covering his SYG bases.
Zimmerman is claiming self defence, which is only a valid claim if the other person started the fight. It’s a necessary extrapolation from what we know he has said.
Following assumes Martin was not trying to get away, chasing assumes he was. In this particular case, as chase would be strong evidence that Zimmerman was the wrongdoer, and so evidence of a chase would be pretty important. I’ve not seen any so far, and had the police seen any at the scene, they should have arrested him.*
I don’t believe that following someone to ask them questions is in and of itself illegal, so the fact that Zimmerman did that is not any sort of evidence of criminal intent. It may well be evidence that he’s an arsehole, but that’s not legally relevant.
*Assuming the police are doing their job properly. If they’re not, all bets are off.
Martin ran per Zimmerman. In order to catch up, you have to chase.