Trayvon Martin Shooting Case: Eyewitness Says Martin Attacked Zimmerman

[jasoncran]

Jason if that was you, I would be upset to no end. And yes I would holler out. And I think that the people on this board who knows you would try to jump start a petition.

thanks but as you can see with that teen who wantonly murdered that other teen there isnt much of a protest there. its sad that happened alas with me i do think it would be national only because of this and one other site but nothing on that level.

 

[Danus]

There are several aspects of this case we could look at individually, and we can speculate all day, but in so far as the legal aspects of this case the law is faulty in my opinion, and this I think, validly ties into a lot of the passions and opinions floating around. Here is what I mean.

It's hard not to think that Zimmerman used gross misjudgment while carrying a firearm. He did. He placed himself in an unauthorized position of emanate harm while carrying a firearm. Meaning that, his actions of following Trayvon, targeting him as suspicious, notifying authorities and..., confronting Trayvon in physical presents; (ie...getting out of his car and approaching Trayvon) placed Zimerman in emanate harm while knowingly carrying a firearm, which he intended to use if necessary. If you are carrying a firearm you have an intent to use if need be based on your judgment.

There is NO provision in the SYG law that speaks to this, and that's a problem. I'll explain.

There should be legal provisions around ones intent and use of a firearm they carry, but there aren't in the state of FL with the Stand Your Ground law, insomuch as the events leading up to someone defending themselves. So, as the law is now, all Zimmerman has to do to walk off with no charges, is to prove his actions are protected under the SYG law, in regards to self defence; and there seems to be ample evidence for that.

However, the prosecution may have something we don't know about. The prosecution is going to say that Zimmerman's actions do not fall under SYG. The defence will say it does. This is critical, because If the prosecution can prove his actions do not fall under SYG protection, and Zimmerman provoked the fight then he faces the jury for murder. If the prosecution does not prove it's case in this way, then Zimmerman walks away with the idea that he was simply defending himself.

Here is a look at the law as it is in FL.

The Law - 2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

This law - 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— is similar to the SYG law, but it has a lot of detail. Part of this law has provisions if the shooter provoks, or antagonizes a situation where the shooter had to use deadly force, then he may not be protected from prosecution under this law.

In other words the shooter may bare some culpability or all, but that's up to a jury to decide based on the event's leading up to the shooting on the shooters property. You can't just invite your enemy over to your house and shoot them and claim self defence even if they start it for say. That's still up to a jury. But under SYG, you can confront your enemy on a public street, get into a fight that they start, shoot them dead and claim self defence. The difference is, as long as the evidence at the scene matches up, then your protected under SYG law. No jury needed. That's pretty weak.

In my opinion and speculation about the shooter. Zimmerman, is a 25 year old married punk who lives with his mom and dad. He owns a gun and has a permit to carry. Because of this, he felt he would get a sense of self worth and empowerment that would make him feel important by patrolling his mom and dads neighborhood with his gun, whilst looking for possible bad guys. He spots Trayvon and it all ends in disastrous bloodshed.

It's one thing to defend yourself, but it's another to place yourself in a situation where you should know you may have to defend yourself with the very gun you are legally able to carry. That's the problem with this law and FL because as it stands, it can protect an antagonist who carries a weapon legally.

Any idiot with a clean record can buy a gun, get the training and get a license to carry. That does not mean they are stable minded, or with good judgment, or intentions. If we are going to have laws that allow people to carry we need better laws to hold them responsible for using their weapon. A provision dealing with provoking in the SYG law, similar to the use of force provisions found in 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm, would at least have avoided the ruckus it took to get this to court where it belongs. However, It still won't stop stupid people from doing stupid things. No law does that.

We don't know if Zimmerman started the fight. He may have been walking back to his car, and was attacked by Trayvon, but we know that he knew he had a gun and was willfully confronting someone he thought was "up to no good" where he might have to use that gun. He knew that. He had to have known that. That makes Zimmerman an an·tag·o·nist; A person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary. His actins from the moment he spotted Trayvon are antagonistic. He was not trying to meet the guy, or exchange greetings. He wanted to catch someone he opposed.....a criminal.

 

[Pard]

Pard,

The Grand Jury isn't indicting Zimmerman in this case. That is only necessary if the prosecutor was going after 1st degree murder. As she is seeking 2nd degree, she is by-passing the grand jury and taking it to trial herself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...shooting-death-wont-go-to-florida-grand-jury/

You're right. I am so not used to gran juries as my state doesn't have them and the state next to me has them for every single charge.

In this case the prosecution used their limited powers to make a preliminary investigation. That would actually explain why it took so very long to make the final decision, since the prosecution has almost no power to investigate unless they are investigating a current case.

 

[Mike S]

Florida's Stand Your Ground law may not be as relevant to this case as most people seem to believe, and even if it is relevant, it may not be critical to the Sanford police having had no grounds to arrest Zimmerman on the night of the killing.




Florida's Self-Defense Laws -- http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Media coverage of Florida’s self-defense laws in recent weeks has often been very inaccurate. While some persons, particularly from the gun prohibition lobbies, have claimed that the Martin/Zimmerman case shows the danger of Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, that law is legally irrelevant to case. So let’s take a look at what the Florida laws actually say.

Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

So the general rule is that deadly force may be used only to “imminent death or great bodily harm,” or “the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” A person may only use deadly force if he “reasonably believes” that the aforesaid factual conditions exist. These standards are the norm throughout the United States.

…there are two competing narratives. In one narrative, Zimmerman followed Martin, attacked him, and then murdered him. Let’s call this the “M narrative.” In Zimmerman’s account, he followed Martin, caught up with him, and then left; while he was leaving, Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began slamming his head into the pavement. Let’s call this the “Z narrative.”

It should be noted that neither the M narrative or the Z narrative has anything to do with a duty to retreat. The retreat issue would only be relevant if Martin were the aggressor, and Z had the opportunity to escape from Martin in complete safety. Then, and only then, would different state standards about retreat be relevant. Simply put, everyone who has claimed that Florida’s retreat rule affect the legal disposition of the controversy is either misinformed or mendacious.

The core Florida law on deadly force in self-defense leads to clear results. If M is true, then Zimmerman’s firing of the gun was a criminal homicide. If Z is true, the act was lawful self-defense. The results would be the same in every other state.

In sum, Florida’s non-retreat rule is not some 21st century novelty. It is consistent with a long tradition of American law, in which different states have had a variety of rules about when, if ever, retreat might be required.

Even among the most restrictive states, such as New York, retreat in safety is not required before using deadly force in the home; to prevent a burglary (if the person reasonably believes that the criminal would use force to thwart the person’s termination of the burglary) ; to prevent a robbery ; or to prevent a kidnapping, forcible rape, or other forcible criminal sexual attack. Thus, whether you are in Lake Placid, New York, or Lake Placid, Florida, and someone attempts to rob you when you are walking down the street, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to thwart the robbery.

So if a person used force lawfully in self-defense against a criminal attacker, then his actions are justified (not merely excused), and he may not be arrested, criminally prosecuted or sued. It seems obvious that persons who have obeyed the law should not be arrested or prosecuted. Nor should criminals or a criminal’s relatives be able to harass the victim by filing a civil suit.

he Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law. In fact, the statute does not change the law, but it apparently is effective at reminding law enforcement officers of the standard they are required to obey. Regarding arrests, the United States Constitution requires that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the . . . persons . . . to be seized.” As judicially interpreted, the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for some arrests, but the probable cause requirement remains enforceable. The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have “probable cause” in order to arrest someone.

In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction. The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful.

 

[Danus]

Mark while some anti gun people might be making the arguments you allude to, that's not the argument most legal people are making,.

The problem is not what the law says about defending ones self as it's written in the SYG law, it's what's missing in it. It's not as complete as it should be in terms of provoking, which you can find in laws dealing with home protection and self defense.

The SYG law in FL leans to the one claiming self defense as it should. But it does not go far enough to also protect the public's interest in also standing up to threats against people who are legally armed, as in this case.

Even if Zimmerman walks, which I think he will under FL law, I guarantee you they will be looking at this law, and it would be in the best interest of gun advocates to help restructure this law with further provisions to address how individuals can reasonably be expected to engage others when armed. Paying cop is not a reasonable engagement for a private citizen who is armed to do.

Zimmerman engaged Trayvon while armed. If Trayvon attacked him and how that took place may make a difference, but it should be reasonably expected that when you approach someone, you have no authority, you do not have clear cause to that individual, then that person should be expected to fight or flight you. If you have a gun and shoot them, you may have been protecting yourself, but you also placed yourself in that situation while knowingly carrying a weapon that you intend to use if need me based on your own judgment. ...That's a problem with that law.

If Zimmerman where just walking down the street and Trayvon attacked him and was shot, then the SYG law would be as it was intended. It should be, but this is different, because Zimmerman engaged Trayvon, but the law allows for that. There is no provision against it. There should be, otherwise anyone can carry a weapon and just follow people, stop them on the street, ask them what they are doing and where they are going....all while armed.

Is that your America? That the type of thing you'd call freedom? Seems oppressive to me.

 

[jasoncran]

gee, danus. im my high crime neighboorhood for my county where two murders have occured. my neighbor carries while he walks his children down the street. if attacked and he must use his guns and kill a kid or man. its his fault?

best to stay in not have your kids play in these hoods unless dealing drugs or spies so that you can spot the po-po. that is the hood i reside in.

 

[Mike S]

]Mark while some anti gun people might be making the arguments you allude to, that's not the argument most legal people are making,.

The problem is not what the law says about defending ones self as it's written in the SYG law, it's what's missing in it. It's not as complete as it should be in terms of provoking, which you can find in laws dealing with home protection and self defense. [/B]

The SYG law in FL leans to the one claiming self defense as it should. But it does not go far enough to also protect the public's interest in also standing up to threats against people who are legally armed, as in this case.

Even if Zimmerman walks, which I think he will under FL law, I guarantee you they will be looking at this law, and it would be in the best interest of gun advocates to help restructure this law with further provisions to address how individuals can reasonably be expected to engage others when armed. Paying cop is not a reasonable engagement for a private citizen who is armed to do.

Zimmerman engaged Trayvon while armed. If Trayvon attacked him and how that took place may make a difference, but it should be reasonably expected that when you approach someone, you have no authority, you do not have clear cause to that individual, then that person should be expected to fight or flight you. If you have a gun and shoot them, you may have been protecting yourself, but you also placed yourself in that situation while knowingly carrying a weapon that you intend to use if need me based on your own judgment. ...That's a problem with that law.

If Zimmerman where just walking down the street and Trayvon attacked him and was shot, then the SYG law would be as it was intended. It should be, but this is different, because Zimmerman engaged Trayvon, but the law allows for that. There is no provision against it. There should be, otherwise anyone can carry a weapon and just follow people, stop them on the street, ask them what they are doing and where they are going....all while armed.

Is that your America? That the type of thing you'd call freedom? Seems oppressive to me.

I understand that Danus. My point is that this case really isn't about the SYG law. People are using this case to push their own agendas, and in the public discourse it's become a cluster****. Some are using the case to go after gun rights in general, some are going after the SYG law, some are intent on just racial outrage. In the middle of this, what's getting lost is that a very human tragedy needs to be dealt with seriously and justly; a kid has been killed, and a man who made a stupid mistake will be going to trial for that killing. Both sides of this deserve justice, which seems increasingly unlikely in the very public political circus this thing has become.

 

[Danus]

I understand that Danus. My point is that this case really isn't about the SYG law....................... Both sides of this deserve justice, which seems increasingly unlikely in the very public political circus this thing has become.

Well, when the case is judged, it will have to be judged on the law, and the law surrounding this is the SYG law. It will come down to whether or not Zimmerman was defending himself in that he had a reasonable that his life was in danger. It won't matter what he thought leading up to the shooting, but his actions will come into play. That's why he will say he turned to go back to his car when he was attacked, and unless the court can prove otherwise, the SYG law as it is will free him from prosecution.

There is no justice in the intentional taking of a life; Not on this earth anyway. There is only just punishment and protection of the remaining public for the greater good of society.

 

[Danus]

gee, danus. im my high crime neighboorhood for my county where two murders have occured. my neighbor carries while he walks his children down the street. if attacked and he must use his guns and kill a kid or man. its his fault?

best to stay in not have your kids play in these hoods unless dealing drugs or spies so that you can spot the po-po. that is the hood i reside in.

Jasoncran, what got lost in translation? I'm not advocating not having the right to carry a gun. I'm advocating the responsibility of carrying a gun, and engaging the public.

Should your friend have his weapon drawn while walking his kids just in case? Of course not. That's irresponsible and unreasonable. If you see someone breaking into a house across the street, should you get your gun and go over there? If you strap on, or pull a weapon then you intend to use it as you judge fit.

In this case, Zimmerman left his house with his weapon to look for criminals. He's not a cop, but looking for trouble can be dangerous. It's not like he left the house with his gun to walk down the street and took it for protection in case he was attacked. But let's say he did, and on his way back he is followed; he runs and the person following him get's out of their car and confronts him. Should he draw that weapon?

 

[Mike S]

Well, when the case is judged, it will have to be judged on the law, and the law surrounding this is the SYG law. It will come down to weather or not Zimmerman was defending himself in that he had a reasonable that his life was in danger. It won't matter what he thought leading up to the shooting, but his actions will come into play. That's why he will say he turned to go back to his car when he was attacked, and unless the court can prove otherwise, the SYG law as it is will free him from prosecution.

There is no justice in the intentional taking of a life; Not on this earth anyway. There is only just punishment and protection of the remaining public for the greater good of society.

I think you're wrong, I don't think Zimmerman's defense depends on SYG at all. Nonetheless, if Florida wants to reconsider it's laws, that's their legitimate concern, but I support stand your ground laws.

We're just going to have to disagree, and since we've probably said what we're going to say, this is my last post on this thread.

 

[rwbovee]

We do all have the right to make a citizen's arrest regardless of what the police say. Zimmerman says he kept following because he still didn't have a street address to give the police. I think Trayvon overheard the phone call and got very aggressive because of it.

 

[Pard]

Well, you don't actually have the right to make a citizen's arrest unless you witness them committing a crime and you keep sight of that person from the moment the crime was committed until the moment you are able to legally persuade them to stop moving (and mind you you can only use your voice, no physical means). If you lose sight of them at all and they can prove it, then you just committed the crime of false imprisonment.

 

[Lewis]

Danus Wrote
In this case, Zimmerman left his house with his weapon to look for criminals. He's not a cop.

 

[Danus]

Sure. citizens have the right to make a citizens arrest, but in the US each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the "arrestor" has personally witnessed the offense occurring.

American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections held by police officers, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil and criminal law including, but not limited to, any infringement of another's rights. Nonetheless many citizens' arrests are popular news stories.

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both private citizens and police officers outside their jurisdiction. Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.(Ref: Citizen's arrest: Wikipedia)

So, making a citizens arrest falls on ones intent and judgment in pursuing someone and or detaining them., and they become responsible for their actions in doing this. No one has a right to detain or pursue anyone without reasonable just cause, and the law can be turned on the one making the citizens arrest if they do not have just cause.

Let's look at that intent with this case.

Did Zimmerman intend to look for criminal activity in his neighborhood that night? Yes he did. That was his purpose.

Did Zimmerman take his gun with the intent to use it if need be? Yes he did. His having it shows his intent coupled with what he was doing; patrolling his neighborhood.

This is where reasonable sound judgment comes into play from both Zimmerman and Trayvon.

Did Zimmerman spot Trayvon and think he might be a criminal? Yes he did. He made that clear on the call to the police. Was that thought reasonable? Maybe, but what told Zimmerman that this kid was "up to no good"? Only Zimmerman can answer that, but from what we know so far there is not enough evidence to make a reasonable assumption that Trayvon was up to no good.

From what we know he was a guy walking down the street in the rain talking to his girlfriend on the phone. Did he have a flat screen TV, a weapon, tools to break in to anything? Nope. Was he walking up to doors, checking windows, looking for entry points to homes or cars? Nope, according to Zimmerman, nope.

To assume the unseen or unknown at this point in Zimmerman's mind is not sound judgment on Zimmerman's part. Never the less he continued to pursue Trayvon, because something told him that Trayvon was "up to no good". Whatever is was about Trayvon, it was negative and bad.

Did Trayvon know he was being followed? Yes he did. He made that clear on his call according to his girl friend. Did he feel the need to flee from Zimmerman? Yes. His girl friend made that clear and advised him to do so. He does not run, but walks fast and cuts through a back path. Even Zimmerman says this.

Here is where we see reasonable judgment deteriorate even further. Zimmerman pursues on foot and confronts Trayvon. From Zimmerman's own account Trayvon asked him; "Why are you following me?". Next thing we know is a fight takes place; trayvon overpowers Zimmerman; Zimmerman pulls his weapon and shoots.

Which one of these two people are using reasonable judgement here? One is a 25 year old adult and the other is a 17 year old child...I don't care how big he is, he is a minor.

Zimmerman placed himself and Trayvon in a dangerous position while carrying a fire arm with intent to use it based on his own judgment. But, there is no law against that for say. They way the SYG law reads and works, it does not clearly address this type of thing, and because of this, Zimmerman can use the law as it exist as a defence. His attorneys will do that, and when the judge gives the instructions to the jury, they will be instructed not to consider Zimmerman's judgment in pursuing Trayvon, but his reasonable belief that he was going to be harmed.

Second-degree murder means a killing that was not premeditated but resulted instead from an "imminently dangerous act" that showed a "depraved" lack of regard for human life. That's what needs to be proven by the prosecution to find Zimmerman Guilty.

Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense after Martin pursued and attacked him. Florida is among 21 states with the "stand your ground law," which allows police on the scene to decide whether they believe the self-defense claim. That's it.

In many cases, the officers make an arrest and leave it to the courts to work out whether the deadly force is justified. In this case, however, police have said they are confident they did the right thing by not charging Zimmerman, specifically because of the way the SYG law is stated in FL. It does not address people who can legally carry a fair arm who place themselves, by their own judgment, purposely in a position to possibly use that fire arm. I think it should. I think most reasonable people think so also.

As for some in the black community, while it is unreasonable to trade hate for hate, and call that justice for racism, it is reasonable to think that Zimmerman may have targeted Trayvon based partly on his race. But since that can not be proven, it is fair to address the issue of civil rights, and not just for the black people, but for all Americans to have a right to feel safe walking down the street among other Americans who choose to carry a gun for their own protection.

So, to echo what Mark said, since I've said all I have to say, I'm also done with this thread.

 

[Lewis]

Great post Danus

 

[jasoncran]

ok. let me put this way. since my parents used to have a neighborhood watch program in their area. should they that do that watching not carry?

yes one does put oneself at risk and i myself even with a gun wouldnt engage them but really and honestly pard will agree the cops gun isnt for you but to protect himself! that is why you always seem them backing up and giving orders to drop the weapon and lie on the ground so that if the perp does attack they appear to be the agressor!

 

[jasoncran]

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/55/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/

no arrests on made on this. and its was a bunch of black boys in the wrong not that the guy they beat was anyway a saint.

 

[D4Christ]

In many cases, the officers make an arrest and leave it to the courts to work out whether the deadly force is justified. In this case, however, police have said they are confident they did the right thing by not charging Zimmerman, specifically because of the way the SYG law is stated in FL. It does not address people who can legally carry a fair arm who place themselves, by their own judgment, purposely in a position to possibly use that fire arm. I think it should. I think most reasonable people think so also.

Excellent post!

 

[Pard]

The problem is that laws don't work that way, and if they are written that way they become a failure. I personally feel that the Florida SYG law is just fine as it is. People get hung up on this concept of not arresting the person right away, but this is how most murder arrests are made anyways! Most murder arrests are statistically made 8 days after the crime took place. This is because the police and the prosecution and the grand jury all make separate inquiries. And nearly all murder arrests (even those when the cops find the murderer at the scene with the gun) are made the next day, as they cannot legally make a murder arrest without the medical examiner declaring the death a murder. And again, nearly all 1st degree murder arrests are made days after because they have to convene a grand jury, give them the facts, allow them to investigate, and then discuss.

It's funny because the SYG's criminal immunity clause is one of those things that is just going to ignite people no matter what way you look at it. This is one side, and the other is the poor mother who is home alone with her children when a man breaks into her house and tells her he is going to rape her and her children and then kill them. Well, when she grabs her .38 magnum in plugs the creep in the chest a number of times and is then arrested by the police because her state doesn't have a criminal immunity clause people will be in an up roar because the poor mother is sharing a jail cell with honest to goodness baddies and all because she defended herself and her children, which is the job of every parent.

And it should also be mentioned that this criminal immunity clause is also the same one that allows law enforcement officers to avoid being arrested and booked when they make a good kill in the line of duty. What a lot of people don't know is that when an officer kills a bad guy they are arrested just like anyone else and held until charges can be brought before the grand jury and then dismissed. I know an officer, works in my town and is a SWAT member, who was arrested last year because he shot the head off of a bad guy who was holding his wife at gun point. Now, he was treated as best as can be, but he still had to sit in the holding area, have his prints taken, get a mug shot, and then sit in a jail cell all night. This Florida law prevents the guys who protect us from having to be treated like scum whenever they take the ultimate action in order to protect the lives of the public.

Lastly, before I forget, the Florida law also has a civil immunity clause which means that you cannot be sued by the family if your shooting was deemed a good kill. This doesn't sound like it should matter, but it really does to pretty much everyone and here is why. Every time an officer kills someone in the line of duty they are sued by that family and the town almost always settles. The most recent officer related death in my town, the same one above, cost my town a total of $5,000,000. That's H-U-G-E! This law prevents the town, and thus the citizens, from having to shell out cash to a family who clearly sucks at raising proper humans.

 

[handy]

Pard, what got people upset wasn't that it took too long for the police to make an arrest in this case, but rather because the chief of police stated out right that there would be NO arrest at all. He cited the SYG law as the reason, saying it would be a violation of Zimmerman's civil rights to arrest him. It was only after Martin's family went public and poeple became outraged that the prosecutor moved the case forward.