I have never seen or heard any quotes from any Sanford Neighborhood Watch guidelines reported on radio or TV. If they have ween widely published, I’ve missed them. I am searching the web right now.
I would disagree that they would not be relevant. If Zimmerman acted outside the guidelines, the prosecution would use that as evidence to support the “profiling” aspect of its case. If his actions were consistent with the policy, the defense would say that helps prove Zimmerman’s assertion as to what happened that night. “Following” would not be legal if it’s part of a plan to track down and kill someone unlawfully.
The Sanford PD’s NW program Handbook states:
“1. Neighbors join together to provide information about their households to one another.
2. Participants receive training in observation techniques and recognition skills in order to recognize suspicious activities.
3. Upon seeing a suspicious activity or a crime, Participants immediately report their observation to the police department.
4. Law enforcement responds and apprehends the suspect criminal. If the suspect is not caught in the act of committing the crime, your recognition of the suspect and your notes will be very vital.”
Based on this, I see all of Zimmerman’s actions prior to the confrontation with Martin as completely within the NW guidelines. I would like to know what exactly is taught in section 2 regarding “observation techniques.” Those details might further exonerate Zimmerman.
Well again, he was not on a Neighborhood Watch “patrol” at the time. He was going to Target on a personal errand. I agree the prosecution will try to throw up a fog which may include NW guidelines, though. I only meant those guidelines would not be legally binding and are not among the elements required to prove Second Degree Murder.
When you say ““Following” would not be legal if it’s part of a plan to track down and kill someone unlawfully.” that is obviously true, but then it isn’t just “following” either. The police have already clearly stated that Zimmerman acted lawfully in getting out of his car and following. I can’t see any way a NW handbook can change that.
Somehow the two physically met and all that went out the window; still I’m not aware of any oath that NWers take that prohibits them as citizens from doing such things as walking up to a person and asking him what the hell he’s up to. But that’s their own private affair. Kind of like the dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to...” in the passive tense. The dispatcher can’t infringe on Mr. Z’s own further rights as a private citizen.
“’Following’ would not be legal if it’s part of a plan to track down and kill someone unlawfully”
In that case “following” would not be the crime. It would be stalking, which Zimmerman is not charged with, or just a part of the larger crime of premeditated murder. If they had evidence of him conspiring to kill Martin, then maybe the following becomes part of the step-by-step murder process that we could term stalking. But they don’t.
Since he’s not charged with murder 1, I don’t think they’re alleging there was a larger plan part of which following was. They’re going on following as being provocative of a violent response from Martin, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, or a prelude to Zimmerman attacking Martin and possibly evidence of his depraved mind, without it being in itself a crime. Which is weird, to say the least.
“If Zimmerman acted outside the guidelines, the prosecution would use that as evidence to support the “profiling” aspect of its case. If his actions were consistent with the policy, the defense would say that helps prove Zimmerman’s assertion as to what happened that night. ‘Following’ would not be legal if it’s part of a plan to track down and kill someone unlawfully.”
His acting outside the rules of neighborhood watching might lead one to believe he was more likely to profile, but not that he was profiling. Profiling in itself isn’t a crime, anyway. Whether or not he abided the rules doesn’t go anywhere toward establishing his following was part of a plan to murder Martin, so long as what he did instead of abiding the rules wasn’t itself illegal.