In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

§61.30. Loitering or Prowling; Defined & Punished; Defenses. (a) A person commits a violation if he loiters or prowls in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a peace officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. (b) Unless flight by the person or other circumstances makes it impracticable, a peace officer shall prior to any arrest for an offense under this Section afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. (c) No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Section if the peace officer did not comply with Subsection (b) or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm.

We know from the recorded phone call with the dispatcher that the first time Martin approached Zimmerman, Zimmerman did not comply with subsection b).

We know from the recorded phone call with the dispatcher that the first time Martin approached Zimmerman, Zimmerman did not comply with subsection b).

But if we want to evade all semantics, just translate boy/adolescent to minor.

Frankly, until a court decides that Martin should be considered an adult, I'm going to continue to consider him a minor.

If Martin killed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd robbed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd stolen something he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd been in a fight he'd be treated as an adult. I can't really think of a case where he wouldn't be treated as an adult, excluding the purchase and consumption of alcohol. The only difference is that, in this case he's the victim, and calling him a minor helps subtly sway opinion towards automatic presumption of innocence.

To constantly refer to him as a minor when discussing legal precedence is a lot more inaccurate.

Isn't he so unless a hypothetical court were to deem otherwise? I don't know much about this stuff, but I was under the impression that it's the circumstances of a crime which get a minor tried as an adult. In the absence of those criminal actions, there'd be no rationale for changing his status.

If you wanted to play with people's heartstrings I'd probably use more descriptive terms like young, innocent, baby-faced, child, etc.

Zimmerman just shot this thing. No biggie - go back to bed.