It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

I know the file is there. What I'm saying is that all we know about what's in the file is what a Fox O&O station has told us that a source tells them is in the file. (Probably a source within a battered police department that is desperately trying to justify its inaction, but that's just my guess.) So we have an outlet that has already demonstrated its distaste for facts in this case telling us some vague details about what an as-yet-unidentified witness saw, information that has the added bonus of being NOTHING NEW except to people who haven't been paying attention and didn't know that there is no dispute from anyone that there was a prior altercation in which Martin kicked Zimmerman's ass.

Anyway, I think PCLoadLetter said it best, so I'm signing off.

 

I'm not trying to "help" anyone, and your bullshit condescending attitude needs to stop. I can tell you why I disagree with you without being a douche.

 

Who's calling names? I suggested you have half a wit. I was being generous.

 

First, police could have gotten a warrant, but didn't. 4 and 3 are inherently linked.

Second, arrest =/= indictment =/= conviction. He should have been arrested.

 

And I'm guessing he still will be.

 

I notice everyone has avoided this one like the plague. Gee, I wonder why.

 

The same reason most of us walk around a turd.

 

We have come a long way, though. I have yet to see evidence of anyone demanding to see a receipt for the Skittles.

 

Tony, I have a big problem procedurally here. These stand your ground laws, if that's his defense, should be interpreted as an affirmative defense. That means that he bears the burden of proof. Thus, police shouldn't wait until after an investigation of the merits to arrest him. They should arrest him first, and then, if evidence vindicates him, release him.

 

Because it's a completely irrelevant non sequitur?

 

I agree that he has the burden of proof.

As for arrest, don't you also generally wait to arrest someone until you're sure you can and will charge him? With all the questions, arresting him three weeks ago doesn't strengthen the case. In fact, it may weaken the case showing a rush to judge.

 

What probable cause would the police have that evidence of the crime would be located in a tox screen of the suspect? A positive screen could mitigate a 1st degree murder charge to 2nd, a 2nd degree to manslaughter. Proof of the suspect's lack of ability to form intent is not helpful to the prosecution. Tox screen of the suspect would be red meat for the purulent press, but nothing more.

Additionally, arresting someone you know is either not guilty or you lack the evidence to prove the guilt is completely unethical, not to mention draconian. Right up there with , 'kill them all and let the Lord sort them out'.