> He killed an unarmed boy. Absolutely indisputable.
> That's not cause for instant arrest?
Not in the US. And not for a very long time. Where you been?
Maybe in the 1840s, out in the territories ... 'round these parts, we have what's cheerfully known as the presumption of innocence. There's plenty of time to arrest him, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world that he wasn't arrested at the scene. And once it became a media circus, no further action by the police is warranted: this is a job for the DA.
> And it was only after the--much delayed--worldwide scandal that a
> "grand jury" (not needed for prosecution, let alone arrest) was
> convoked.
It's an evolving story. I'm sure there was some sloppy police work involved here, but the "worldwide scandal" happened after things started changing.
> I can't imagine a situation where, in a minimally decent
> social order, the perpetrator of such an atrocity would
> not be immediately apprehended and punished according to
> the laws or standards of that decent social order.
Here's the initial report:
Let me know if it's as clear to you after reading/watching that as it is today. Like I said, now that we know more, I'm confident that the grand jury will indict, and that George Zimmerman will have a hard time claiming self-defense in this case. But I don't think "immediate arrest" for "atrocity" was what Sherlock Mage would have come up with on the scene as the responding officer.
Ok, I'm done with this story until the grand jury reports.
/jordan