Has to be probable cause re Zimmerman's identity as the shooter.  Check.

But also has to be probable cause to believe Zimmerman committed a crime.  

Seems fuzzy based on discussion here.  I have not watched TV news coverage and am "click-limited" re the newspapers upon which I used to rely.

This has to be a horrific nightmare for Trayvon's mother and father, leaving them to second-guess themselves over respective mundane decisions each made in the days and hours leading up to their boy's fateful encounter with a complete stranger. For Trayvon's mother, she could be asking herself why she allowed her son to go to Sanford to stay with his father for the week. For his father, he's wondering why he didn't accompany his son to the 7-11 at halftime.

Anyone with intelligence and a modicum of understanding would know that invoking The Oxbow Incident to defend Zimmerman is the height of absurdity.

What we do know is that Zimmerman was following Martin in his car.  If he got out of the car to confront Martin, how could he have been attacked "from behind"?  Or do you mean to imply that Zimmerman got out of the car for some other reason, and all of a sudden started to ignore the man he just called the cops on, so that Martin had the ability to come at him from behind?

That there are many unknowns (some of which may include Martin initiating violence against his armed stalker) doesn't undo the knowns. And the knowns are enough to prompt people interested in justice to call for justice. The knowns also appear to be enough to get some people defensive and flailing with ignorant nonsense, like Pamela Gellar and others.

In any case, your comment cuts it's own legs out from under itself. If it weren't for the news media you sneer at with sarcasm quotes, we would know even LESS about this case, because the Sanford Police Department was clearly uninterested. If it weren't for the news reports, would a grand jury have been called? -- I doubt it, given the Sanford PD's history. If it weren't for the news reports informing you of the fact that Martin existed in the first place, people like you wouldn't even know there were more facts to be had.

... those facts don't exactly match up with a silly "thrill kill" scenario, which is, of course, the reason you presented it as the alternative.

That violated his duties. He called the cops on his suspicions. That was it. Once he decided to be a vigilante, he was in the wrong.

He killing of Martin was not "foolish." It is indefensible.

Is it criminal? We'll find out. But your description of events is borderline offensive.

Once Zimmerman reported his suspicions to police, and after being asked if he was following this person was explicity told "we don't need you do that," Zimmerman should have parked his truck and waited for police.  P.E.R.I.O.D.

As near as I can tell, the only fools in sight are Zimmerman, who needlessly escalated what wasn't even a situation into the death of an innocent teenager, and the police, whose skills seem about on par with this so-called "watch" group - which, I might add, so far seems to have consisted of Zimmerman and one other person who has admitted to also being a "captain."

Oh, wait - I just thought of one more fool: you, for writing this ridiculous comment that sounds more like a treatment for a really bad TV movie.

Just because one is carrying a legally permitted weapon doesn't mean that everything one does with it is also legal - a permit to carry does not confer blanket permission to shoot people.

The rest is garbage, what you describe is what the police should do, people with that authority.  Not the self proclaimed gun toting Watch Captain that nobody knew was Watch Captain.

Would it make any difference if the kid lived in the house ?

And your whole schick rest on this "Mr Zimmerman perhaps being attacked from behind".  Perhaps Mr Zimmerman is a liar, perhaps the facts support one side far more then the other, perhaps Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle as advised by 911.  

Because Gerald USN Ret has spoken.  harrumph.

Neighborhood watch involves calling incidents in and never follow nor confront.  Police also told Zimmerman not to follow.

A 17 year old going to the store is foolish?  Jeez.

From David Dayen at FDL

Also, key details about Zimmerman - claims that he showed signs of a struggle - magically appeared in a second police report, after the first one left out those details.

A reasonable person might also assume that this would be a lot better for everyone involved, most of all Zimmerman himself if he actually is innocent - if an actual police investigation had occured, with evidence gathered at the scene, so that we could attempt to answer these questions in a trial where it belongs.  Unfortunately the police didn't do their job, so we will probably never know what truly happened that night.

But since you're making things up, I may as well do the same.

When Zimmerman grabbed Martin from behind, he hit his own nose on Martin's skull as Martin struggled and refused to be quietly victimized. After Zimmerman attacked and then shot Martin, he collapsed on his back for a few moments -- because exhausting a burst of adrenalin does that to you -- and stained his shirt while smacking the back of his head on a rock.  Or maybe on his gun.

Could someone please layout how that could have happened without Trayon Martin beating him and giving him a reason to fear for his life?  According to the police reports Trayon is over 6foot and Zimmerman is 5'7''.

Second: A second young man whose decisions in the face of clear opposition to instructions from the police have probably ruined his life.  Absolutely no indication in the 911 call that Zimmerman was in fear for his safety.

Third: a police chief, who, if he actually believed he was doing his job, doesn't deserve to have that job.

Fourth:  Many families tragically affected.  More families who fear for the lives of their sons in a community where police have condoned the killing of a young black man who was doing nothing wrong.

Fifth: George Zimmerman has admitted to shooting Trayvon Martin and nothing about his story adds up.  Police reports mysteriously changed to reflect the blood and grass stains on Zimmerman, attempts by police to get "ear" witnesses to change their story, the police department's failure to observe rudimentary protocol even if they believed Zimmerman's story, the police department's history of disregard for crimes committed against black people.

Rush to judgment?  I don't think so.

I'm more than willing to let the due process of law take its course, but I'm also very concerned that the investigation into Trayvon's death may well have been hopelessly compromised due to police negligence and incompetence, if not their outright misconduct. That's what this discussion is really about. Traditional law enforcement protocols regarding a homicide were clearly not followed ignored.

When it's readily apparent that someone has shot and killed someone else, the police are supposed to take the alleged shooter in for questioning in order to determine an accurate timeline of events.

Instead, the Sanford cops at the scene of the shooting just took Zimmerman at his word. They not only failed to hold him for questioning that night, they also allowed him to take with him the weapon he used in the shooting! Then, they changed their initial police report to infer that Zimmerman was defending himself, and then allegedly pressured witnesses who heard the screams and gunshot to change their stories to fit their amended report!

He had a police record and was perceived as not well mentally.

To be sure, the Sanford police KNEW all this at the time.

They argue, see letter from Sanford City Manager, that the Stand Your Ground law PROHIBITED (his word) them from arresting Zimmerman.

.

harrumph