Trayvon Martin case will not go to the Grand Jury

[Scruit]

Which means.... Nothing.

The prosecutor already says she never uses grand juries.

At this point even if they found video that comclusively proves Zimmerman acted in self defense... most folks will believe he is still a murderer. The media has done a great job of making him the bad guy.

[Bad324]

don't wanna get shot? don't act shady

end of this story and all the dumb drama people are making of it. Plus the minute Jesse Jackson and Al Not-So-Sharpton got involved was the minute I took the exact opposite side knowing exactly nothing other than a kid was shot and killed

Edited April 9, 2012 by Bad324

[Casper]

Which means.... Nothing.

The prosecutor already says she never uses grand juries.

At this point even if they found video that comclusively proves Zimmerman acted in self defense... most folks will believe he is still a murderer. The media has done a great job of making him the bad guy.

I have to say I'm impressed that NBC fired the producer over the edited 911 call. However, the fact that it even happened is exactly what's wrong with our media.

I'm not passing judgement. That's what the courts are for.

[Scruit]

I have to say I'm impressed that NBC fired the producer over the edited 911 call. However, the fact that it even happened is exactly what's wrong with our media.

I'm not passing judgement. That's what the courts are for.

I'm not passing judgement until I get all the facts. However it seems that the general consensus is that you either condemn Zimmerman or you think he's a hero. There is no rooom for the middle ground that clear-thinking people occupy.

I don't want him to go to trial "because he might be guilty" or "because Nancy Grace thinks he's guilty". I want him to be treated like every other person who is accused. People are put on trial only when the prosecutor believes there is enough evidence for a conviction. I recognize that I don't have all that info so I will trust what the prosecutor comes up with. But don't put him through a trial just for face saving or public appeasement. If the evidence proves it was self defense then don't put him through a trial - it's not Zimmerman's fault that the media chewed him up like a shoal of pirhanas. BUT If the evidence proves it was murder then charge him.

Never should a person be charged purely because of media-fuelled public opinion.

To me the most important question is WHEN did the gun come into play. If the gun was out and presented prior to the scuffle then the self-defense angle goes away. If the gun was still concealed when the scuffle started then the whole "using a gun against an unarmed person" doesn't mean much - self-defense could easily become valid if that was his only option he had after being overpowered by Martin.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Scruit

[magley64]

I'm still on the other side of this...

he killed that man, it was his gun, his bullet, and he pulled the trigger. He should be "charged" with murder based on the evidence, allow him a jury of his peers to decide if it was murder or self defense.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

I'm still on the other side of this...

he killed that man, it was his gun, his bullet, and he pulled the trigger. He should be "charged" with murder based on the evidence, allow him a jury of his peers to decide if it was murder or self defense.

Ha you seen all the details or just listening to the main stream media? I know yuor better then that magley

[Steve Butters]

lock his ass up and throw away the key

the kid was walking through a neighborhood....just because he is black he is instantly "shady"?

he was there visiting with family, its not like he broke in

the dude who shot him took his "neighborhood watch" too seriously, and it got out of hand.

if the guy was "suspicious", the man should have called the police and reported it...not confronted the kid himself and pick a fight....sounds like he confronted the kid and picked a fight, started getting his ass beat, and pulled out a gun

he should have never had any interaction with the kid at all - you know, just like the police told him not to

Edited April 9, 2012 by Steve Butters

[magley64]

Ha you seen all the details or just listening to the main stream media? I know yuor better then that magley

His gun, His bullet, He pulled the trigger

can you dispute any of those details?

maybe not murder 1 (even though the 911 calls definitely suggest that he followed this person before killing him)

But at bare minimum charged with involuntary manslaughter, people have gotten that for nothing more than driving their truck down a dark road at night and hitting people in the road wearing dark clothing.

I'm not saying he should be convicted, that's for a jury of his peers to decide, but i don't like the picking and choosing from the police of who gets charged.

Edited April 9, 2012 by magley64

[Scruit]

I'm still on the other side of this...

he killed that man, it was his gun, his bullet, and he pulled the trigger. He should be "charged" with murder based on the evidence, allow him a jury of his peers to decide if it was murder or self defense.

Sorry, but the Constitution says your opinion sucks goat balls.

14th Amendment, section 1..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The prosecutor and the courts have a well-defined process, and well-defined standards of evidence that are considered during Grand Jury hearings and indictment hearings, for determining who gets charged with crimes. "Because Magley Thinks So" is not Due Process.

[Scruit]

sounds like he confronted the kid and picked a fight, started getting his ass beat, and pulled out a gun

And therein lies the problem. "sounds like". You are forming an opinion based upon something you heard, without all the evidence. Did you hear how Martin got away, Zimmermand told the dispatcher he was going back to his truck, then Martin followed Zimmerman and jumped him? I heard that too - but I'm not going to make a absolute decision basedupon something I HEARD.

Come sit on the fence with the rest of us. It's comfy.

[Steve Butters]

he should have never made any contact with the kid AT ALL in any form for any reason.....he is not a police officer, as much as he thinks he is with his citizen police classes and his chl ....the police told him not to pursue and he did anyways....regardless of what happens after that, he is the aggressor

[Scruit]

I'm not saying he should be convicted, that's for a jury of his peers to decide, but i don't like the picking and choosing from the police of who gets charged.

You can't set one standard for one person. It has to be the same across the board.

If Zimmerman is to be charged purely because there was a death, then you're saying any time there is a fatal accident the surviving driver must be charged and go to trial. EVEN IF the police/prosecutor/judge have information before the trial that the dead driver caused the accident. How is that fair?

I like that a person who is known to be innocent doesn't have to go to trial just for trial's sake. Save trials for people we think are guilty.

[Ron505]

I guess I haven't seen enough evidence to attend all the demonstrations that have been going on all over the US. I guess they all know a lot more then me.

Hopefully "the system" has enough evidence to make the proper decision.

I too have heard different stories.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Ron505

[Scruit]

he should have never made any contact with the kid AT ALL in any form for any reason.....he is not a police officer, as much as he thinks he is with his citizen police classes and his chl ....the police told him not to pursue and he did anyways....regardless of what happens after that, he is the aggressor

Making contact withthe kid was not illegal. Unwise, sure, but not illegal.

I wholeheartedly dispute your assertion that "regardless of what happens after that, he is the aggressor". Say, for example, some guy get sout of his car at a red light and punches the driver behind him. Then he gets back into his car. At the next light the punched driver catches up and punches him back. Under law these are two seperate events as they are separated by times and/or distance. It is NOT self-defense. It WOULD be self-defense if the victim punched back immediately before the agressor drove away again.

The law specificalyl states that a confrontation ends when "one party leaves or indicates their desire to not continue the confrontation". IF Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and Martin came back to the scene later then he is starting a new confrintation where Martin is the aggressor.

That's a big IF - that's just whan I heard - and in this case nobody has heard enough to make a decision.

[magley64]

You can't set one standard for one person. It has to be the same across the board.

I agree

If Zimmerman is to be charged purely because there was a death, then you're saying any time there is a fatal accident the surviving driver must be charged and go to trial. EVEN IF the police/prosecutor/judge have information before the trial that the dead driver caused the accident. How is that fair?

Life isn't fair, if you are responsible for the death of another human being, even unwillfully, that is the definition of "involuntary manslaughter"

I like that a person who is known to be innocent doesn't have to go to trial just for trial's sake. Save trials for people we think are guilty.

This is not one of those cases... he is not KNOWN to be innocent

[Scruit]

I guess I haven't seen enough evidence to attend all the demonstrations that have been going on all over the US. I guess they all know a lot more then me.

Hopefully "the system" has enough evidence to make the proper decision.

+1. Exactly what people should be thinking.

[jblosser]

I am withholding judgement, as I was not there and know only what I've heard/seen via various media outlets.

I will allow the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to conduct their investigation, and will go from there.

That said, be ready for a (hopefully) localized to Sandford, FL. miniature SHTF training exercise opportunity.

[John]

he should have never made any contact with the kid AT ALL in any form for any reason.....he is not a police officer, as much as he thinks he is with his citizen police classes and his chl ....the police told him not to pursue and he did anyways....regardless of what happens after that, he is the aggressor

you are correct that the initial aggressor loses the ability to claim self defense, however, as with everything else there are exceptions.

if the initial aggressor withdraws, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, they regain the right to self defense.

also, if the victim of aggression escalates the level of force, (i.e. you start a fist fight, and then they pull out a knife) the initial aggressor may regain the right to self defense.

just to be clear, im not trying to defend or villify anyone. im just saying that these are the rules.

[magley64]

also, if the victim of aggression escalates the level of force, (i.e. you start a fist fight, and then they pull out a knife) the initial aggressor may regain the right to self defense.

this would be a coin in the Trayvon bucket...

[Scruit]

I agree

Life isn't fair, if you are responsible for the death of another human being, even unwillfully, that is the definition of "involuntary manslaughter"

I don't think you actually know the definition of Involuntary Manslaughter.

Involuntary Manslaughter is subdivided into Constructive Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Manslaugher. Both are predicated upon some unlawful act. If there is no unlawful act then there is no manslaughter.

If you are sitting at a red light in your car and you are struck from behind by a speeding motorbike, and the biker dies, then should you be charged with manslaughter just so the trial can confirm that you were innocent?

I agree

...

This is not one of those cases... he is not KNOWN to be innocent

You missed the point again. You "agree" that one rule should apply to all - yet you think Zimmerman should be charged becuase he is not known to be innocent...

1) This positoin logically demans that all persons involved in a death should go to trial, which is ludicrous. See example above, bike into car)

2) He is not known BY YOU to be innocent. Thank the media for that. You're probably a hoot at hypnotism stage shows based upon how suggestable you are. What if the prosecutor KNOWS him to be innocent based upon having all the facts at her disposal? Then what?

[Cheech]

I have to say I'm impressed that NBC fired the producer over the edited 911 call. However, the fact that it even happened is exactly what's wrong with our media.

I'm not passing judgement. That's what the courts are for.

This right here. We (the public) do not have access to all the evidence that the investigators (now that the public forced the investigators to start investigating) have, therefore I don't have a complete picture to assess guilt or innocence. What I do have a complete picture of, however, is the complete lack of fucks given by the Sanford police and the fact that it took the FBI to swoop down on them to get them to do anything at all. What I also have a complete picture on is the laughable test of "self-defense" undertaken by law enforcement, the passing of which invokes the criminal/civil immunity portion of FL's stand your ground law. Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL for civil/criminal immunity once it's been PROVEN via some modicum of due process that the events that took place actually took place. If some dude broke into my house and I shot him dead, I would expect to surrender my firearm and have my house and my story investigated thoroughly to ensure that I wasn't bullshittin' the cops. Once the investigation was done, I'm exonerated, property returned, and I have immunity from any bullshit civil liability suit the family of the moron I shot wants to file against me.

[RVTPilot]

You can't set one standard for one person. It has to be the same across the board.

If Zimmerman is to be charged purely because there was a death, then you're saying any time there is a fatal accident the surviving driver must be charged and go to trial. EVEN IF the police/prosecutor/judge have information before the trial that the dead driver caused the accident. How is that fair?

I like that a person who is known to be innocent doesn't have to go to trial just for trial's sake. Save trials for people we think are guilty.

Is Zimmerman known to be innocent? The undisputable facts to date are that he shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old for reasons that have yet to be determined. Was it truly self defense? Was it overreacting on his part? There are laws that define the justified use of deadly force by an armed civilian, and given the current list of facts - regardless how many there are or aren't - he should still have to answer in a court of law as to why he chose to shoot Martin. If the courts decide based upon indisputable evidence presented in his defense that Zimmerman was within his constitutional right to defend himself by the most lethal means possible against Martin, so be it. Zimmerman is entitled to his constitutional right of being considered innocent until proven guilty. But common sense should allow one to see that with what as already been offered, innocent is a term that will be difficult to define Zimmerman by. Innocent people do not put themselves in postions to have to defend themselves to the degree that Zimmerman has allowed himself to be in.

[magley64]

What if the prosecutor KNOWS him to be innocent based upon having all the facts at her disposal? Then what?

riight, She has a video of Trayvon, stealing the gun from zimmerman who was doing nothing wrong, then screaming for help and shooting himself in the back of the head... right?

[Scruit]

Is Zimmerman known to be innocent?

No. Never said he was. I am on the fence on the Martin/Zimmerman thing.

I was disputing one poster's opinion that any person involved in any death should always be charged and always go to trial to figure out if they are innocent. I say people should be charged only if the prosecutor thinks they can prove the person is guilty.

[Scruit]

riight, She has a video of Trayvon, stealing the gun from zimmerman who was doing nothing wrong, then screaming for help and shooting himself in the back of the head... right?

You don't know what she has. I don't know what she has. Nobody knows what she has. Only the prosecutory knows whaty she has. Only SHE can make any decision regarding pressing charges.

Wait, where does "back of the head" come from? Are you just flat-out making crap up now?