There's way too much focus on Zimmerman

[TeamsterDem]

32. Speaking of conjecture, being questioned is most certainly NOT the same as being arrested

in any jurisdiction. Being detained or interviewed is just that, otherwise they'd be called something else. In fact, the only way an interview/detainment for questioning is ever viewed as anything similar to an arrest is on a job application for police officer or with the FBI. Courts, however, do not view being detained for questioning as having been arrested, as the latter requires more of a burden to demonstrate guilt than does the former.

A good example of that happened just the other day in my neighborhood. Unbeknownst to most of us one neighbor has a monkey as a pet, and the monkey managed to escape from his containment and go sailing through the neighborhood trees which, at night, caused several neighbors to call the police complaining of a prowler. When they arrived they noticed one neighbor meandering down the sidewalk and they stopped, detained him, cuffed him, and questioned him. But when they discovered that he lived there, and in fact the reason he was meandering was because he'd tripped, fallen, and hit his head on an item in his own garage (after which he became disoriented) - that and nearly at that same time another officer spotted the monkey tarzaning his way through the trees. So the neighbor was uncuffed and received medical treatment. I ask you: Was he arrested? I'd suggest to you that he was detained, and that detainment and arrest are two very different animals.

During questioning one has the right to end the interview. During an arrest one does not have the right to terminate it. See the difference?

This is the report of what Zimmerman told police: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

You can give the Sanford PD all the credit you like. But understand that yours is not a widely-shared opinion, nor does it seem to go along with what's already been admitted by the shooter himself with respect to what creates a self-defense scenario. Since Zimmerman's own attorney says "stand your ground" doesn't apply, one must ask just what a police department or DA could possibly see in a situation like this one which in any way absolves Zimmerman. Nothing absolves him, frankly, under any law I've ever seen. He armed himself, usurped the role of police officer, and pursued a civilian both in a vehicle and on foot, all actions which would certainly tend to show aggressiveness and a reasonable fear of maliciousness on the part of Martin. I don't know anyone who doesn't become fearful and defensive when they're being pursued by anyone other than a uniformed police officer, so it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who had a reasonable right to self-defense. Zimmerman caused the entire situation to occur, and shot an unarmed kid in the process. Even if Trayvon had assaulted him, Zimmerman had pursued Trayvon for some time that night, so a reasonable person would have indeed inferred a threat - not to mention that Zimmerman outweighed him by over 100 lbs.

Those are not assertions, they're the facts of the case. No one disputes any part of what I just said - except the part where I use the term "if," as in "even if Trayvon had assaulted him" to wit is the only disputed part of the story. The rest is all a matter of witness statements and that of Zimmerman himself.