Prosecutor rules out grand jury in Trayvon Martin case

[Jamie B]

http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-rules-grand-jury-trayvon-martin-case-160059250.html

(Reuters) - The special prosecutor investigating the shooting death of unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin has ruled out using a grand jury in the case, meaning her office alone will decide whether to charge shooter George Zimmerman with a crime.

So it looks as if the local prosecutor is going to finish the investigation and make the call on charges.

Can someone tell me if this is a significant event, a political ploy, or normal business?

I am guessing that they have a pretty good belief about what they will do, but not sure what it means.

[Jamisjockey]

Normal business, even according to the MSM.

[sumpnz]

Apparently that lady has a reputation for only using a grand jury when it's required by law (in FL apparently that's only murder 1). 

Personally I think she'd be better off taking it to the GJ.  That way if they no-bill she can toss her hands up and say "Oh well, can't do anything about it".  Now, if she decides not to bring charges she'll have a price on her head just like Zimmerman does. 

[Jamie B]

Exactly what I was thinking - she tossed her safety net, and is an elected official.

She is either ready to proceed with charges against Zimmerman, or she is comfortable in telling everyone else to pound sand if she is not going to levy charges.

Option #3 might be to weakly charge Zimmerman, then allow herself to get easily beaten in court, and play the 'it's the will of the people' card.

[makattak]

Exactly what I was thinking - she tossed her safety net, and is an elected official.

She is either ready to proceed with charges against Zimmerman, or she is comfortable in telling everyone else to pound sand if she is not going to levy charges.

Option #3 might be to weakly charge Zimmerman, then allow herself to get easily beaten in court, and play the 'it's the will of the people' card.

And, if she does the latter, she'd be giving Mr. Martin's family exactly what they want: I'm willing to bet this whole fiasco is simply to force the police to arrest him so that the family can then start suing him, the county, the homeowner's association, et al. Without an arrest, the civil suit is proscribed according to the accounts I have read.

And, yes, I'm willing to believe the blood-sucking lawyer they hired is perfectly willing to cause a race war for a few dollars.

[grampster]

The family lawyer doesn't seem to be the only one willing to start a race war over this incident.  To me, this affair is a classic example of how emotionalism is trumping law, and has been for decades.

My previous comment should not be construed to be making a judgment about who was right or wrong or even if there actually was a right or wrong; just an observation of how crowds are manipulated, especially with the mass communication available today. 

If there is any lesson in this, I believe my observation is the lesson.  Our whole political system is at stake because of the ability of a few to easily inflame the many in a short period of time.  Truth be damned.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/defending-george-zimmerman-facts

decent job

[makattak]

The family lawyer doesn't seem to be the only one willing to start a race war over this incident.  To me, this affair is a classic example of how emotionalism is trumping law, and has been for decades.

Very true. I spoke of him specifically because he is the one that started this fiasco, and I will assert that he PLANNED to cause the significant racial tensions that have arisen. That is why he called Al Sharpton. That is why he went to the media with the outdated pictures of Trayvon Martin. That is why he got his version of events into the media so that they ran with the race story.

The blood-sucking lawyer is the instigator and will likely suffer no consequences for his brazen actions.

[De Selby]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/defending-george-zimmerman-facts

decent job

If I gave that to Zimmerman or filed it in a brief to the Court, he'd have a malpractice claim against me.

The grand jury idea was probably chosen so whomever ran the show could say "eh, I didn't do it!" irrespective of the outcome.  Of course, it would be hard to imagine a grand jury failing to indict.

I'd say charges are likely, based on the tapes, not the politics.   That's what happens when the only exculpatory evidence comes from the defendants mouth - he ends up having to sell his story to the jury.  That will be hard to do given Zimmerman's criminal history, and his demonstrated (on tape) batman tendencies.

[De Selby]

Very true. I spoke of him specifically because he is the one that started this fiasco, and I will assert that he PLANNED to cause the significant racial tensions that have arisen. That is why he called Al Sharpton. That is why he went to the media with the outdated pictures of Trayvon Martin. That is why he got his version of events into the media so that they ran with the race story.

The blood-sucking lawyer is the instigator and will likely suffer no consequences for his brazen actions.

For what exactly do you think the lawyer is doing this?  A lawsuit against a student who dreams of someday being a cop?  The civil suit will likely cost the lawyer more than it yields.

The family has a legitimate beef - their kid was John doe'd to the morgue for days.  How likely do you think that would've been had the victim been white?  Can you imagine them assuming the white body was that of a crackhead, and not even bothering to dial the number he was on the line to during the shooting?

The bizarre investigation practices caused the racial tension, not the lawyers.

[HankB]

. . . That will be hard to do given Zimmerman's criminal history . . .

I'm sorry I missed the details, would you please list Zimmerman's prior criminal convictions for me?

[makattak]

For what exactly do you think the lawyer is doing this?  A lawsuit against a student who dreams of someday being a cop?  The civil suit will likely cost the lawyer more than it yields.

The family has a legitimate beef - their kid was John doe'd to the morgue for days.  How likely do you think that would've been had the victim been white?  Can you imagine them assuming the white body was that of a crackhead, and not even bothering to dial the number he was on the line to during the shooting?

The bizarre investigation practices caused the racial tension, not the lawyers.

I noted more than Mr. Zimmerman as the target of the lawyers avarice.

And you continue on the angle of "bizarre investigation practices" after it has been shown the police interviewed 12 witnesses and brought Mr. Zimmerman in for questioning. What's bizarre to me is the family not bothering to look for Trayvon for three days.

As for not calling back the number, exactly what proof do you have that the police we able to access the phone? Have you heard of keylocks?

[De Selby]

I'm sorry I missed the details, would you please list Zimmerman's prior criminal convictions for me?

None.  But he did admit to criminally assaulting an officer (that's a precondition for diversion) and was the subject of a restraining order.   Both criminal records that, though they dont make you a convict, are relevant to claims of being a non-violent person.

[De Selby]

I noted more than Mr. Zimmerman as the target of the lawyers avarice.

And you continue on the angle of "bizarre investigation practices" after it has been shown the police interviewed 12 witnesses and brought Mr. Zimmerman in for questioning. What's bizarre to me is the family not bothering to look for Trayvon for three days.

As for not calling back the number, exactly what proof do you have that the police we able to access the phone? Have you heard of keylocks?

You don't think it's at all odd that police never interviewed the person trayvon was on the phone with, at any time???  How was the family's attorney able to get the phone records if police couldn't?   I doubt a phone lock was an issue, considering that the data was obtained by a lawyer who didn't actually have the phone.

Also, yeah, three days and no asking around the neighborhood to see if anyone knew the victim, who, incidentally, died right near a house full of people that knew him? 

Sending a narcotics investigator instead of a homicide one to the scene, also seems a bit off to me.  What do you think?

[makattak]

You don't think it's at all odd that police never interviewed the person trayvon was on the phone with, at any time???  How was the family's attorney able to get the phone records if police couldn't?   I doubt a phone lock was an issue, considering that the data was obtained by a lawyer who didn't actually have the phone.

Also, yeah, three days and no asking around the neighborhood to see if anyone knew the victim, who, incidentally, died right near a house full of people that knew him?  

Sending a narcotics investigator instead of a homicide one to the scene, also seems a bit off to me.  What do you think?

Well, I think you're stretching as hard as you can.

Phone records are mailed to a person's address. I wonder how, weeks later, an attorney who the family hired might have access to phone records. As for the phone lock issue, it is an EXTREMELY important issue within those three days that you claim the police didn't do all the could to find Mr. Martin's identity. In the long run, of course police can get those records, but it's rather hard to pull phone records for a person whose name and phone number you do not know.

As for the searching for a family member, is that standard police procedure? I wasn't aware that police generally canvassed door to door rather than waiting for the family to look for their loved one.

I sincerely hope you don't bring such easily rebutted arguments to court.  

[makattak]

Further, we have the LAWYER'S word that he was on the phone with his girlfriend. Has he release the phone records to confirm this?

[CNYCacher]

DeSelby,

It's quite clear from everything that you have said on this topic that you are reacting to the scenario which you imagine in your head as you listen to the tapes.  I don't think that it is clear to you, as it is clear to most of us, that the scenario you are imagining is based partly on the tapes, and partly on wild speculation.  You seem to have invented, or had invented for you, a scenario with specific damnable motives on the part of the various actors, and then used your imagination to stitch the scene in your head together with the audio from the tapes in a way that supports your preconceptions.

In essence, you were fed a specific narrative, and then you made the tapes fit the narrative which you were fed.

[AJ Dual]

I'd also ask DeSelby if he's basing his opinions off of the "NBC Edit" of the 911 tapes, or the er... actual "Director's Cut" so to speak?  

Even if you've heard the uncut version, I'll agree with CNYCacher that you seem to be engaged in a lot of emotive reasoning here and seem pretty heavily invested in a certain narrative when all the evidence and actual testimony is largely still in the hands of the police and prosecutors. And that's among this group here who is all at least in agreement to varying degrees that "Zimmerman was a dumbass", we're just all unsure if he's a criminal dumbass, or just the plain sort.

I think it's pretty clear that there'll be riots if Zimmerman got charged with anything less than Murder. And since Murder 1 was never on the table, even under the worst interpretation of Zimmerman's actions and motives, there's no point in the prosecutor doing anything other than charging based solely on the facts of the case.

While we can fault Zimmerman for following Martin and playing wannabe/strange-ranger, the key things we don't know are still up in the air. Did he verbally or physically accost Martin, or did Martin return to Zimmerman and confront him?

Who moved to who? We all agree Zimmerman followed Martin, but did he keep a same distance the entire time? Did he close on Martin, or did Martin reverse course to close on him?

Did Zimmerman make a "detaining move" or simple assault like grab Martin's arm or shoulder, or block or impede Martin's path first? Or did Martin close with Zimmerman and was so outraged at being followed, he beat him?

This is all the meat of the case we don't yet know. And "we" includes you too DeSelby.

[Jamie B]

De Selby to the white courtesy phone. De Selby to the white courtesy phone.

Remember our deal, buddy.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

their kid was John doe'd to the morgue for days

nope  not even close  but hey if imagining that gets you hot go for it

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

kids dad id'd his son on the 27th  kid was shot on the 26th

kid was apparently a regular for overnite walkabout  dad wasn't worried

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martins-parents-talk-with-the-post-814/2012/03/28/gIQA9e8ngS_video.html

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/eight-outrageous-media-falsehoods-the-trayvon-martin-shooting

[Tallpine]

kid was apparently a regular for overnite walkabout  dad wasn't worried

The kid probably was going to the chapel at night to pray 

[Chester32141]

deleted due to .... the word th em being changed to *expletive deleted*ers .... what's up w/ that ?

[De Selby]

AJ, the fundamental problem for Zimmerman is that, on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him - having done that, to regain his right to self-defence against that person is nearly impossible.  Literally, he'd have to have done something as drastic as getting down on his knees and pleading with his hands in the air.   That's why it is a bad idea to chase when armed - if it turns out you chased the wrong guy, you are going to be in serious trouble.   It's so bad for his case that a defence which is sufficient to overcome the chasing, and at the same time beleivable, just isn't realistic.

The key here is the chasing - you chase someone who wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place, and you aren't going to be able to claim self defence if you end up shooting the guy.  Whether trayvon pounded him after the chase or even hid in the bushes and sprang out will only matter at sentencing time, it's not going to work for a defence.

The more this case goes on, the more it reminds me of the Scott Peterson case.  The media invented this impression that it was a close call, but in reality, the conviction was pretty much guaranteed from the day the body washed up.  There were tons of pundits carrying on about this or that legal matter, but it was 99 percent fluff.  No technicality or bs about satanic cults was ever going to work.

And today there's another similarity - zimmermans attorneys have withdrawn from the case.  Zimmerman, like peterson, is going to the media and apparently buying in to the stories told by throngs of online supporters (Peterson had a big fan club too.).  

This is a sure path to conviction folks.   Shouldn't be a surprise, but some will make it out to be when it happens.

[sumpnz]

AJ, the fundamental problem for Zimmerman is that, on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him - having done that, to regain his right to self-defence against that person is nearly impossible.  Literally, he'd have to have done something as drastic as getting down on his knees and pleading with his hands in the air.   That's why it is a bad idea to chase when armed - if it turns out you chased the wrong guy, you are going to be in serious trouble.   It's so bad for his case that a defence which is sufficient to overcome the chasing, and at the same time beleivable, just isn't realistic.

What country are you in again?  Australia?  I'm certainly not up on the laws there, but that's (from an American perspective) just plain absurd.

I mean I know Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.