Florida Teen Shooting

The problem is that we don't have all of the facts about the case, therefore it is impossible to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what actually happened.

We don't have the shooter's statement.
We don't have the police report including the observations of the officers who responded to the scene.
We don't have any diagrams or photos of the scene.
We don't have any lab results (if any).

All we have is news reports containing the 911 tapes, the press release of the local PD and the usual statements made by the lawyer retained by the family which is usually made for the purpose of generating more press coverage.

The police have not yet arrested the shooter probably because they have sent the case and the results of their investigation to the State Attorney for their review and so the State Attorney can decide whether or not to file charges.

The major reason why the police do not make an arrest until directed to do so by the State Attorney is because of the 6th amendment speedy trial rule. In the state of Florida, there is a 175 day speedy trial period for a felony which begins with the defendant's initial arrest (or when the defendant is taken into custody on the charge), regardless of when the charges are ultimately filed.

Often it takes a lot of time to put a case together that is sufficient to result in a conviction in court. If there is a delay in lab results or other leads to pursue in an investigation that would take a large amount of time which would result in the state going beyond the 175 days limit, they would have to drop charges and let the defendant go free. If the local PD arrested the shooter at the scene or shortly thereafter, then the state would be under pressure to complete the investigation, charge the suspect, have him arraigned and then brought to trial within 175 days. If the defendant is not going anywhere and is not a flight risk or a danger to others if he is free, then the state is basically buying more time by delaying the arrest, if in fact the State Attorney decides through the results of the investigation that there is charges to be filed and an arrest to be made.

It is sad the kid got shot but after everything is said and done this guy was in the right.

Good to know, I guess I can see why they would be waiting. I was not aware that was the time frame, thank you for your valuable input!



Not that I am saying you are right or wrong, but what evidence do you have to support that and what is your argument for it?

that is a great question. now that I have a little more info maybe I can comment as well, assuming the above info is in fact true.

My first question is who owns the property they are on? this looks like either a condo association or an appartment complex too me. If the watchmen is a co-owner, then I say he has a right to follow the individual on his property. some how I doubt this is the case. which brings me to my second question. does the vicitm have the right to be on said property? (please do not act like I am suggesting that he deserves to be shot if he is tresspassing, I am simply suggesting that if he is on another person property after dark, it may raise suspision that is all)

Got a way to keep guns out of the hands of idiots? Aside from restricting everyone else, of course.

I would modify that with being the oenerr or his agent. If the watchman is the pwner's agent, he would have the same right.

But....we have to distinguish between private property and public access areas, condo association or not.

Btw, I recall reading that the teen family lived in the neighborhood.

Let's test your position. Say you and I agree that to own a gun, you must at least have an IQ of 110. Would you agree to law requiring such or would you invoke the 2nd?

How about this: we require minimum training for gun ownership. This training given by third parties such as NRA, Red Cross, etc.

Then we require even more intense training for those who apply for concealed and carry.

And yet even higher training for those who would be employed as watchmen.

Whatsayyoutothat?

Btw, nice to see you back on podium.

“Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self defense.”

To claim self defense, someone has to show there was danger of great bodily harm or death, Lee said.

“Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story,” Lee said.

Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ Is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”

There were people around. People saw them fighting. The watchman was even pinned to the ground at one point.

I have no idea what really occurred, nor how guilty either party is. All I know is that the neighborhood watchman should have just stayed in his vehicle like he was told. I can't see anything that makes it seem like there was some event that required a confrontation to be made by him.

I am going by the fact that he has not been arrested.

The level of logic and sophistication of some are just astonishing.

Another reason not everyone should be allowed to own a gun.

FWIW, not only did the shooter pursue and engage the unarmed victim, he had a hundred pounds on the kid.

More details from a news report [sun-sentinel.com]
The witness statements and the physical evidence along with the reports that describe the relevance and nature of such evidence, and the results of the testing of that evidence (if any) are crucial in the attempt to determine whether or not the shooter acted in self-defense. It is impossible to come to any conclusion based on news reports alone.

One thing is almost absolutely certain: Whether or not Zimmerman is charged with a crime, he will definitely be facing a civil lawsuit.

The level of logic and sophistication of some are just astonishing.

Another reason not everyone should be allowed to own a gun.