Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?

[DrDeth]

@Senegoid

I have a question about Grand Jury rules of evidence and the phone call with the girlfriend, that I haven’t seen specifically addressed (or else I missed it). Maybe Bricker can help here (or cite an earlier post)?

Okay, so maybe the phone call with the gf might be inadmissable in court, as hearsay. But what about at the Grand Jury? What are the rules of evidence there? Are there any rules of evidence? Can that phone call be presented as evidence to a Grand Jury, and can such Jury consider it in deciding on an indictment?

Yes, the GJ can hear it, there’s lots of evidence that the GJ can hear or demand that isn’t normally admissible.

[Bricker]

@Rand_Rover

Here’s a prediction. Let’s assume it comes out that Trayvon went to town on Zimmerman and did stuff that any person in this thread would agree gave Zimmerman a reasonable fear for his life (say, wailing on his face while sitting on his chest and trying to choke him after having been the aggressor in the physical altercation in the first place). And that Zimmerman was extremely lucky to somehow manage to knock Trayvon off of him and get to his gun before Trayvon finished the job (say, Trayvon got distracted by something for a split second in classic action movie fashion). And let’s assume that Zimmerman is not indicted by a grand jury.

(Notez bien for the hard-of-reading among us: I am not saying any of the above is likely, more likely than anything else, probable, plausible, even physically possible. I’m just saying assume that this is the case.)

I bet many people will still defend Trayvon and condemn Zimmerman. They’ll probably say things like “Trayvon was reacting to the culture of fear that surrounds young African-American males. He had had enough of being scrutinized in the malls and being stopped by police for no reason at all. He just snapped. He can’t be blamed for his actions–it is really the fault of all the racist cops and shop owners–and white society at large–who caused him to feel that way.”

Yes, that might happen. There are a lot of people in the world, and some of them are blindly partial.

But for this prediction to have any meaning, I’d opine it has to apply to some significant fraction of the population. And I don’t agree that this is true – that is, if the outcome you postulate happens, most people now protesting will NOT claimMartin can’t be blamed.

[DrDeth]

@lawbuff

While an arrest warrant is preferred, per the SC, the 4th AM never requires one for ANY arrest.

In Zimmermans* home* it sure as hell does. (Absent certain odd circumstance, like they have reason to believe he is fleeing.)

[Terr]

@madmonk28

Is it, though? If Trayvon was acting in self defense, then Zimmerman was not, unless people are proposing that both sides were acting in self defense.

Is that an impossibility? Certainly both sides can subjectively act in perceived self-defense. Is that a hard concept?

Trayvon would be alive had Zimmerman either just minded his own business and let a black kid walk down the street, or if Zimmerman called 911 and left it at that. Without some attempt by an armed Zimmerman to confront Trayvon, there is no shooting.

… how is this relevant to the legal case? Is there some law that says you have to mind your own business, or that you have to call 911 and leave it at that?

[madmonk28]

While I can grasp the concept of subjectively acting in perceived self defense, it is not a standard that I want my courts to use. I think the reasonable person standard is more fitting.

… how is this relevant to the legal case? Is there some law that says you have to mind your own business, or that you have to call 911 and leave it at that?

It is relevant because Zimmerman took a series of actions that resulted in the death of a minor who was not engaged in any threatening, or illegal activity. Zimmerman is the driver of events that lead to the death of said minor. Please explain how it is not relevant.

Whether or not Zimemrman’s actions were legal are clouded by the fact that the police apparently did not pursue a robust investigation, making it now difficult, if not impossible, to fully understand what happened that night.

What we do know is that Zimmerman has a history of reporting suspicious black people in his neighborhood, including a suspicious 7-9 year old Trayvon Martin's Killer Once Reported a '7-9' Year-Old Black Kid to the Police - Business Insider. We also know that he was instructed not to pursue or engage with the minor he shot and killed

[Terr]

@madmonk28

While I can grasp the concept of subjectively acting in perceived self defense, it is not a standard that I want my courts to use. I think the reasonable person standard is more fitting.

Two people can reasonably have subjected perception of self-defense, while fighting each other.

It is relevant because Zimmerman took a series of actions that resulted in the death of a minor who was not engaged in any threatening, or illegal activity. Zimmerman is the driver of events that lead to the death of said minor. Please explain how it is not relevant.

If Zimmerman attacked the said minor, yes. If the said minor attacked Zimmerman, that is the relevant part for the law in question. In fact, according to the law in question, even if Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation, if he had reasonable fear for his life (and if someone is pummeling you while sitting on top of you, that fear does seems reasonable) he’s still legally in the clear.

What we do know is that Zimmerman has a history of reporting suspicious black people in his neighborhood, including a suspicious 7-9 year old Trayvon Martin's Killer Once Reported a '7-9' Year-Old Black Kid to the Police - Business Insider. We also know that he was instructed not to pursue or engage with the minor he shot and killed

Neither the history nor being instructed not to pursue are legally relevant.

[JoelUpchurch]

@JoelUpchurch

The most interesting part was where McClendon talked about how dark it was. It would tend to cast some doubt about whether the other witness “John” could tell a red shirt from a gray shirt. I checked and sunset would have been at 6:24 in Sanford that night. I’ll have to check how dark it is in my backyard at 36 minutes after sunset.

Well I tried it. It looks the altercation must have been fairly close to a porch light if someone could tell what color shirt someone was wearing. I couldn’t see squat.

[Terr]

@JoelUpchurch

Well I tried it. It looks the altercation must have been fairly close to a porch light if someone could tell what color shirt someone was wearing. I couldn’t see squat.

Are you saying “John” was deliberately lying in order to cover for Zimmerman? At the time “John” was interviewed, was he even aware of who the two people were?

[madmonk28]

@Terr

Two people can reasonably have subjected perception of self-defense, while fighting each other.

While they might both feel that they are fighting in self defense, it seems reasonable to assume that the armed person who instigated the confrontation is the aggressor and the person who is faced with an unknown, armed person on a dark street is the defender.

@Terr

If Zimmerman attacked the said minor, yes. If the said minor attacked Zimmerman, that is the relevant part for the law in question. In fact, according to the law in question, even if Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation, if he had reasonable fear for his life (and if someone is pummeling you while sitting on top of you, that fear does seems reasonable) he’s still legally in the clear.

Neither the history nor being instructed not to pursue are legally relevant.

Just to clarify, are you arguing that if Zimmerman is shown to have an unreasonable suspicion and fear of black people, and that this unreasonable fear affected his actions on the night he shot and killed a minor, it is still not relevant?

[Stoid]

@lawbuff

NO, what I meant was, there is a shooting, an officer comes to the scene where another officer who did the shooting says what Zimmerman said, “I shot him”.

NOW, of course the policeman (actor) is going to be initially believed it was in the line of duty, legal, no on scene arrest.

Since the thread deals with why was not an on scene arrest effected, the fact the actor says he shot the person is not automatic arrest facts.

First, police are not Joe Sixpack, especially in terms of matters like shootings. So yes, if Officer Sixpack says “I shot him, he was threatening me” there is nothing strange or unexpected about accepting it sufficiently to skip arresting Officer Sixpack. (Although it doesnt’ prevent a thorough investigation into the shooting, because people shooting other people is as serious as it gets and under no circumstances should we ever just accept that if one person shoots another and claims self defense that it is true, even when the shooter is a cop.)

Second as Kimmy spelled out very clearly what many of us understood automatcially: (my emphasis)

@Kimmy_Gibbler

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.

Bricker has repeatedly stated that the police need to take the totality of circumstances into account. What Bricker has not shown is that, in this case, were the police to arrest Zimmerman without disposing of his allegation of self-defense, a Fourth (plus Fourteenth, for the sticklers) Amendment violation would have occurred. Bricker will not make this claim because he knows it to be wrong, and now, so do you.

@Kimmy_Gibbler

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.

@Bricker

There are no goal posts moved here. The point remains: could the police have gotten a warrant for a blood test from Zimmerman if he refused to voluntarily provide one? No, because they would need a warrant. You can’t answer that point by declaring yes, they can get a warrant by claiming Zimmerman was twitchy and his statement was disorganized, unless it’s true that Zimmerman was twitchy and his statement was disorganized. And you don’t know it’s true, and you can’t make it true by declaring that you can’t imagi it otherwise.

How about claiming that:

@Kimmy_Gibbler

• 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!!)

Or how about no warrant at all? Is a warrant always required? That doesn’t sound right… isn’t that the point of probable cause, at least in part, to support immediate action on the part of the police - how can every single instance of search require a warrant first? Nothing would ever be discovered, criminals would hide or destroy everything before the warrant arrived! Or in this case, by the time a warrant is secured any chemicals in the system will have gone or at least be in a lower concentration than they would have been if the search was conducted immediately upon a finding of probable cause to do said search.)

In what universe can Zimmerman say: “It was self-defense and therefore you can’t do any further investigation, tough titty!” I mean, talk about Bizarro World! It’s like claiming self defense in a homicide investigation is the equivalent of touching base and having the umpire call “Safe!”, bringing the game (investigation) to a screeching halt. WTF?

A different message board summed some of this up very neatly:

I don’t know the ins and outs of FL law but if there truly is a law on the books that says you as a non-cop can LEAVE YOUR VEHICLE AND CHASE DOWN AN UNARMED INDIVIDUAL, instigate a confrontation, and then fire your weapon into his chest because he punches you in the nose and you “feel” that your safety is threatened , then that’s f-ing madness. That would mean that practically anyone could shoot anyone at any time based on a “feeling.” You could try to rape me and then legally shoot me if I managed to fight back. Unfreakingbelievable.

Things I’d like to have more information than just media reports without sources:

ABC news:

ABC News has learned police seemed to accept Zimmerman’s account at face value that night and that he was not tested for drugs or alcohol on the night of the shooting, **even though it is standard procedure in most homicide investigations. **

Is it or not?

Sanford, Fla., Police Chief Billy Lee said Zimmerman asserts he shot Martin out of self-defense.
“Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him,” Lee said last Tuesday.

Lee needs to talk to Kimmy.

Miami Herald:

Phone records have not yet been inspected, witnesses’ calls were allegedly not returned and the criminal record of the shooter was not checked until the morning after the shooting — what experts call examples of sloppy police work that undermined the police department’s credibility and could hamper a future prosecution.

Looks like they are saying the reverse of what we’ve been hearing in this thread, which is that actually arresting Zimmerman would have been more of a problem for any future prosecution. Which makes more sense?

• As evidence that the incident was not a case of racial profiling, Lee told The Miami Herald that when the police dispatch operator asked Zimmerman the race of the suspicious person he saw, the Hispanic neighborhood watch captain did not know. Yet when the recording of that conversation was made public, Zimmerman clearly says, “he looks black.”

Ouch. No wonder Lee stepped down, he has said some seriously stupid shit.

• Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle. Attorneys for the dead teen’s family believe the information was added in a second report to justify the lack of an arrest.

Anyone sources?

• Even though investigators have the dead boy’s cell phone, it was Trayvon’s father who combed through the phone records to discover that his son was talking to a girlfriend in the moments that led up to his death. Police never contacted the girl, who told lawyers that Trayvon was alarmed because he was being followed.

Would love to know when they got it. That night? More ouch.

In at least three police interrogations and a videotaped interview, Zimmerman told police he was on his way back to his truck when he was approached from behind by Trayvon, Lee said. Zimmerman said Trayvon attacked him. In fear for his life, Zimmerman said, he reached for the Kel Tek 9mm semi-automatic handgun he kept in a holster on his waist and fired.

You know, I don’t care if the whole neighborhood came out to say that Trayvon was wailing with all his might on Zimmerman, “defending” himself by shooting the kid in the chest is just beyond belief as in any way whatsoever justified. Insane.

Attorneys for the family say that the blunders that followed demonstrated that detectives never intended to arrest Zimmerman.
“Police never went knocking door to door that night asking if anybody was missing a kid,” the family’s attorney, Benjamin Crump, said. That’s because it never occurred to police that the boy wasn’t a burglar, so they patted Zimmerman on the back and sent him home, Crump added.
“They acted like, ‘We’re sorry you had to endure killing this teenager,’’’ he said. “They make it look like Zimmerman is the victim.”

Sure do, and again, I’d like more/better/clearer sources for this, although:

Law enforcement experts consulted by The Herald agreed.
“I have never seen such an incompetent investigation,” said Walt Zalisko, a former Jersey City police commander who now owns a police management consulting company in Central Florida. “There are so many problems with this case. The problem up here is that officers receive very little training, and there is very little understanding of diversity issues.
“The good ol’ boy network is so prevalent here.”
Zalisko, who has followed the case closely, said he was startled by Zimmerman’s claim that he had left his truck so he could check the name of the street he was on. Making a point that Chief Lee also made, Zalisko said it’s implausible that Zimmerman would not know where he was in a tiny gated community that he patrolled regularly.
“That’s a lie right there,” Zalisko said. “There are so many inconsistencies in the story. At the very least they should have arrested him, and let the state attorney sort it out.”

Morgenstern dismissed lawyers’ criticism that a drug test was conducted on Trayvon’s body but not on Zimmerman, saying toxicology tests are routine for a medical examiner conducting an autopsy, but uncommon for detectives conducting a homicide investigation.

A differing voice on the usualness of a drugtesting in homicide investigations. So which is it?

As for checking the boy’s phone records, Trayvon’s phone was locked and detectives were in the process of getting a subpoena for the records, Morgenstern said. He stressed that the department had pleaded for anyone with information to come forward, suggesting that the girl should have called investigators and the family should have turned the phone records over.

Ummm… alright, I guess, except a bunch of questions come immediately to mind:

1. What kind of phone did Trayvon have that was “locked”? Not saying it’s not possible, just asking.

2. Did the type of phone and lock prevent the phone from being answered when it rang, because common sense says that Martin was getting calls, seeing as he never came home that night. And if it rang, why wouldn’t the cops answer it?

3. There seems to be some timeline confusion in this report… why were detectives trying to subpeona records, vs. asking anyone in the family if they might have the password? Or were they trying to subpeona records after they knew it was Martin’s phone, in which case, seeing as how Martin was the victim, why wouldn’t they ask the family?

4. What records did the family have that they weren’t turning over?

Bottom line is that this doesn’t really explain anything, certainly nothing about the failure to use the phone to identify Martin, so what is it offered to explain?

[Terr]

@madmonk28

While they might both feel that they are fighting in self defense, it seems reasonable to assume that the armed person who instigated the confrontation is the aggressor and the person who is faced with an unknown, armed person on a dark street is the defender.

Not if the “unknown” person in the street attacks the “armed person”.

Just to clarify, are you arguing that if Zimmerman is shown to have an unreasonable suspicion and fear of black people, and that this unreasonable fear affected his actions on the night he shot and killed a minor, it is still not relevant?

If a girl is shown to be “easy”, is it relevant in her rape trial?

[madmonk28]

I’m not sure I understand what your comment regarding a girl “being easy” is meant to convey. I do think that if a man is accused of rape and he has demonstrated that he has been hostile and/or inapropriate with women in the past, it might be relevant in his trial. Do you not think so?

As for Zimmerman’s actions on the night of the shooting, I think that it is reasonable that an American citizen should be able to walk down the street without being confronted by an armed man with no legal authority to question or detain said citizen. Do you not think that is reasonable?

I also think that if a citizen is walking down the street being followed by an armed person who then confronts you, it is reasonable to fear for your life and to take steps to defend yourself. Do you not think that is reasonable?

I guess what it comes down to is that I can see myself behaving like Trayvon: walking down a street, being scared by an armed man and then running from him and when he did stop me, finally defending myself.

I cannot see myself behaving like Zimmerman: calling the police on a 7-9 year old ‘suspicious’ black child, being alarmed at the site of a black teen walking down the street, chasing the teen, calling him a ‘fucking coon’ and then shooting him.

I think for the people defending Zimmerman, they can see themselves in him and that scares the crap out of me.

[Martin_Hyde]

@monstro

I just know the Dispassionate chorus will call this out for the hysterical lunacy that it is.

I just know it.

It’s bad faith to assume we agree with every crazy scenario that people like Rand Rover comes up with speculating as to what people like you, you with the face, and Stoid will say if said scenario is true. I see no reason to even address those kind of posts.

[Terr]

@madmonk28

As for Zimmerman’s actions on the night of the shooting, I think that it is reasonable that an American citizen should be able to walk down the street without being confronted by an armed man with no legal authority to question or detain said citizen. Do you not think that is reasonable?

Sure. It is also reasonable to expect that if that armed man is then jumped on and wailed upon, resulting in bloody injuries, he may have some fear for his life. Do you not think that is reasonable?

[JoelUpchurch]

I watched the local Fox News interview with Zimmerman’s legal adviser. It was on right after Fringe and Fox did a teaser for it. I checked an the segment is available on their web site.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/032312-Arrest-demand-grows-in-Trayvon-Martins-shooting

The only things I picked up on is that the adviser said Zimmerman’s nose was broken and there was a gash in the back of his head. He also mentioned that the Sanford police interviewed Zimmerman for 10 or 12 hours.

They also reran the interview with the witness “John”.

[Bricker]

@Stoid

Or how about no warrant at all? Is a warrant always required? That doesn’t sound right… isn’t that the point of probable cause, at least in part, to support immediate action on the part of the police - how can every single instance of search require a warrant first?

Blood draws are more intrusive than other types of searches.

Why are you asking, anyway? You will simply disregard any part of the answer that does not fit your preferred narrative.

And no one has identified any probable cause for a blood test. Even assuming I accept, arguendo, the probable cause for arrest for the shooting, how does that translate to probable cause for a blood draw?

[Martin_Hyde]

Not knowing enough about the chemistry/biology involved, would the blood from Zimmerman’s injuries be sufficient in quantity and considered not tainted from an evidence perspective to have tested for BAC / other drugs?

[Bricker]

@madmonk28

I’m not sure I understand what your comment regarding a girl “being easy” is meant to convey. I do think that if a man is accused of rape and he has demonstrated that he has been hostile and/or inapropriate with women in the past, it might be relevant in his trial. Do you not think so?

Absolutely not. Prior bad acts are generally not admissible for the purpose of proving the accused acted the same way in the present case.

As for Zimmerman’s actions on the night of the shooting, I think that it is reasonable that an American citizen should be able to walk down the street without being confronted by an armed man with no legal authority to question or detain said citizen. Do you not think that is reasonable?

No. Because as an American citizen, I have the right to approach you on the street and ask you questions, without any particular legal authority. As long as you are free to disregard my questions, I have not infringed on any of your rights.

I also think that if a citizen is walking down the street being followed by an armed person who then confronts you, it is reasonable to fear for your life and to take steps to defend yourself. Do you not think that is reasonable?

I don’t know, because I don’t know what you mean by “confront.”

…calling him a ‘fucking coon’ and then shooting him.

That did not happen.

[Bricker]

@Martin_Hyde

Not knowing enough about the chemistry/biology involved, would the blood from Zimmerman’s injuries be sufficient in quantity and considered not tainted from an evidence perspective to have tested for BAC / other drugs?

Really good question.

Unlike the blood still in his body, Zimmerman abandoned his possessory interest in any blood that was wiped away or caught in a discarded bandage. So from a Fourth Amendment perspective, that blood is open season.

I defer to someone who knows about the science of it to answer how useful that kind f blood sample might be. But from a legal vantage point, that blood is abandoned and the police can test it as they please.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Terr

Are you saying “John” was deliberately lying in order to cover for Zimmerman? At the time “John” was interviewed, was he even aware of who the two people were?

No I’m saying the altercation happened near a porch light. It might also explain the boy’s statement. Somebody more than 30 feet from a porch might as well be invisible. He might not notice a second person