Trayvon case NOT going to grand jury

[Pommer]

This could still go either way but it looks to me like she's leaning toward justifiable homicide. Noting that if it's determined that Zimmeman acted in self defense he is immune from civil action

Not even wrong.

 

[Veritas]

This could still go either way but it looks to me like she's leaning toward justifiable homicide. Noting that if it's determined that Zimmeman acted in self defense he is immune from civil action

I was kinda hoping for a Grand Jury so available evidence could be presented and have a third party determine whether it was enough to charge Zimmerman and go to trial. I believe without a Grand Jury, it will only serve to inflame racial violence. Of course, it could happen either way.

 

[MachZer0]

I was kinda hoping for a Grand Jury so available evidence could be presented and have a third party determine whether it was enough to charge Zimmerman and go to trial. I believe without a Grand Jury, it will only serve to inflame racial violence. Of course, it could happen either way.

Another point is that going to the grand jury may be just a big waste of time. Depends on what the investigation has revealed

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I was kinda hoping for a Grand Jury so available evidence could be presented and have a third party determine whether it was enough to charge Zimmerman and go to trial. I believe without a Grand Jury, it will only serve to inflame racial violence. Of course, it could happen either way.

It could also potentially prove that Zimmerman did actually commit a crime in killing Martin.

Why did you leave that part out?

 

[MachZer0]

It could also potentially prove that Zimmerman did actually commit a crime in killing Martin.

Why did you leave that part out?

I'm sorry but the grand jury can't prove anything

 

[Veritas]

It could also potentially prove that Zimmerman did actually commit a crime in killing Martin.

Why did you leave that part out?

Because I have ulterior motives. Ooooooo!

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Because I have ulterior motives. Ooooooo!

Well, if you say so

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I'm sorry but the grand jury can't prove anything

Semantics. The point is they can get us started toward a real trial to find out if Zimmerman is truly innocent.

 

[MachZer0]

Semantics. The point is they can get us started toward a real trial to find out if Zimmerman is truly innocent.

You call it semantics, I call it accuracy. And before a grand jury can move us toward a trial, they have to be presented with evidence that a crime was committed

 

[Schneiderman]

Semantics. The point is they can get us started toward a real trial to find out if Zimmerman is truly innocent.

If there's not even enough evidence to charge him then my guess is, there isn't enough evidence to convict him. Unless of course whoever is selected for the jury has already been convinced by the media of Zimmerman's guilt and won't be swayed by facts presented in a court of law- which is probably the case with most people who currently believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter.

 

[Rion]

If there's not even enough evidence to charge him then my guess is, there isn't enough evidence to convict him. Unless of course whoever is selected for the jury has already been convinced by the media of Zimmerman's guilt and won't be swayed by facts presented in a court of law- which is probably the case with most people who currently believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter.

Evidence? Who said they were going to let a little thing like evidence get in the way of their quest for blood.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

There it is again. "Quest for blood". Like not a single person on Martin's side (or, at the very least, on neither side) has good motives and just want justice.

 

[MachZer0]

There it is again. "Quest for blood". Like not a single person on Martin's side (or, at the very least, on neither side) has good motives and just want justice.

There seems to be a dispute over what justice would look like in this case. It may very well be that justice has already been served

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

There seems to be a dispute over what justice would look like in this case. It may very well be that justice has already been served

The point is we don't know that. So naturally, if there's no guarantee justice has been served, people involved would still want to see it served.

 

[Rion]

There it is again. "Quest for blood". Like not a single person on Martin's side (or, at the very least, on neither side) has good motives and just want justice.

You're the one calling for a trial, regardless if the evidence warrents it or not. If there is enough, they'll have a trial, if not, they won't.

I don't know if he's guilty or not, and I'm not going to defend him regardless of the evidence; neither will I call for a trial if it isn't warrented.

 

[MachZer0]

The point is we don't know that. So naturally, if there's no guarantee justice has been served, people involved would still want to see it served.

Putting a man on trial when the evidence doesn't point to a crime is not justice. Some seem to be calling for a trial regardless of sufficient evidence

 

[Schneiderman]

The point is we don't know that. So naturally, if there's no guarantee justice has been served, people involved would still want to see it served.

IF the police officers and prosecutors involved are competent, honest, and believe that Zimmerman acted in self defense, then justice HAS been served. It is not just to subject a person to a criminal trial for acting in self defense.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

You're the one calling for a trial, regardless if the evidence warrents it or not.

Solely for the purpose of finding out if he is really innocent or not. It's in everyone involved's best interests to get straight to the heart of the matter and figure this out once and for all.

 

[Schneiderman]

Solely for the purpose of finding out if he is really innocent or not. It's in everyone involved's best interests to get straight to the heart of the matter and figure this out once and for all.

You seem to have this backwards. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Apparently there is not even enough evidence to bring the guy to trial, because everyone who has the actual facts of the case believes he acted in self defense. You seem to be promoting the practice of deeming everyone who acts in self defense to be guilty, until a trial is held to declare them innocent.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

You seem to have this backwards. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Apparently there is not even enough evidence to bring the guy to trial, because everyone who has the actual facts of the case believes he acted in self defense. You seem to be promoting the practice of deeming everyone who acts in self defense to be guilty, until a trial is held to declare them innocent.

You'd have a point if I ever once said Zimmerman was guilty and Martin was innocent, but I've not said that anywhere. In fact, I've defended Zimmerman's (and Martin's) right to innocence until guilt is proven.

So your assessment is pretty off-base.