At This Point Seems to Me The Reason They Are Taking So Much Time to Arrest Zimmerson is because

--imm

he was handcuffed. State law sys he has to be charged within x days after arrest. It is not x+1 days... We can't charge him now."

Additionally, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

I don't think they're necessarily planning to throw the book at him, just getting all of their ducks in a solid row to deal with the inevitable firestorm when they do decide to charge him.

There is no statue of limitations on murder. Florida has a 'right to a speedy trial' law. 175 days after a suspect is initially arrested, the state has to bring the case to trial. It would behoove the state to make sure they had built a solid case against Zimmerman before arresting him.

They may be trying to differentiate between murder and manslaughter.

It's actually only right that they do so.

The prosecutor has a reputation of being aggressive.

Or they are just kicking the can and waiting the news cycle out for the story to go away; waiting for the media and the people to move on to something else.

but I'm concerned the potential evidence was tainted, for various reasons. (Misplaced, lost, never obtained; failed to interview witnesses/911 callers/neighbors.)

Isn't a Grand Jury to be held on the 10th?

If they wanted a whitewash, they'd run it through in a hurry. If they are going to arrest, they want the best possible chance for a conviction.

Zimmerman didn't add a criminal attorney for no reason.

jury was scheduled by the Recused states attorney and the new one doesn't have to go before a grand jury on 10th.

their findings may indicate the likelihood of being able to win a conviction at the state level, of a federal hate case, etc.

Federal investigations in particular are never quick and easy.

No one wants to drop the ball in this situation and lose or prejudice the case because they missed something or got their facts wrong.

Why rush it?

It's not as if some are intentionally delaying the case in the hopes that it will simply go away or get swept under the rug.

There's no fucking way that's going to happen.

It will start all over again during a civil litigation...It's going to be a long summer.

You sure love this law don't you. Keep on misinterpreting it.

"In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?_r=1

your local law enforcement has the power to decide SYG just on their sayso, you got another think coming.

You can't sue if SYG has been adjudicated in a court proceeding. That hasn't happened here yet. The Martins have every right to sue.

SYG doesn't even apply in this case though you seem intent on believing it as a given, as you have been told to do by the media and racist states attorney.

Zimmerman was not standing any ground. He pursued a child with a gun after he was told not to.

Sorry but this case is going to cause these laws to be repealed.

It's debatable if the lawsuit will go anywhere though.

"Hillsborough Circuit Judge Robert Foster found Podany was immune from prosecution under the state's "Stand Your Ground" law. The statute also immunizes shooters from any civil action.

"It would not surprise me if a court ultimately throws out this case," said Robert Batey, a criminal law professor at Stetson University College of Law. "But the issue could be more complicated than I see.""

http://www2.tbo.com/news/metro/2010/feb/14/na-stand-your-ground-civil-suit-is-a-surprise-ar-83027/

True, Tayvon's family can attempt to sue but more then likely, the lawsuit will be tossed unless Zimmerman is found not to be covered by SYG.

If you look at my posting history, you'll read comments written by me where I say the law needs to be changed. That it is medieval.

Your comment:

"Zimmerman was not standing any ground. He pursued a child with a gun after he was told not to."

But according to second hand sources (we don't really know what Zimmerman told the police), he lost track of Trayvon, was walking down a sidewalk, looking at the apartments to get an address, and was returning to his vehicle when Trayvon then confronted him.

asked if he was following Martin and he said yes. The cop then said "we don't (need) you to do that" not "don't do that".
Zimmerman said "OK", did that mean he agreed with the cop that he didn't "need" to pursue him and then did it anyway. Or "OK" could mean he stopped following him and headed back to his car as he claimed and then Martin confronted him. I don't feel I have enough evidence to come to any conclusion either way at this time. If it is proven Zimmerman did pursue Martin that would make Zimmerman the aggressor and I wouldn't think the SYG law apply to the case anyway.

And what I know so far is that he hasn't been arrested.

I'm quite sure the Feds are looking to nail Zimmie on hate crime charges, especially with the "effin coons" remark, which Zimmie and the Neo-Nazis are trying to spin it as "effin' punks" to weasel his way out of getting the needle.