That falls under "there's some mitigating/exonerating evidence they're hiding".

And even if it's out there you can still prove up probable cause because you can't make affirmative defense arguments at a probable cause or grand jury indictment hearing.

(04-07-2012 10:31 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That falls under "there's some mitigating/exonerating evidence they're hiding".

And even if it's out there you can still prove up probable cause because you can't make affirmative defense arguments at a probable cause or grand jury indictment hearing.

So they could have arrested them and you're mad b/c you wanted them to, but they didn't. max always wanting to be in control.

(04-07-2012 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 10:31 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That falls under "there's some mitigating/exonerating evidence they're hiding".

And even if it's out there you can still prove up probable cause because you can't make affirmative defense arguments at a probable cause or grand jury indictment hearing.

So they could have arrested them and you're mad b/c you wanted them to, but they didn't. max always wanting to be in control.

Well, they don't always let all the evidence out, for me, I want to know why Obaffoon won't let the evidence out for the Fast and Furious scandal.

All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child. No one has asked for his conviction. If he can't be found guilty so be it but at least the murder would be addressed.

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child. No one has asked for his conviction. If he can't be found guilty so be it but at least the murder would be addressed.

I understand exactly what you are saying; however, if Zimmerman was in the right (by Florida law) he should not have to go through the trial process.

Originally, I was ticked that this guy wasn't immediately thrown in jail, but the more I hear, I'm not sure he should be. Again I want to point out that this is Central Florida...Trials are stupid whacky around there (see Casey Anthony stuff).

(04-07-2012 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 10:31 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That falls under "there's some mitigating/exonerating evidence they're hiding".

And even if it's out there you can still prove up probable cause because you can't make affirmative defense arguments at a probable cause or grand jury indictment hearing.

So they could have arrested them and you're mad b/c you wanted them to, but they didn't. max always wanting to be in control.

Generally when somebody kills a kid without an airtight defense, they get arrested, and law enforcement lets the courts and defense lawyers ensure the fairness of the process. This is turned on its head. I want him arrested because it's their f'king job moron, and if indeed there is that airtight defense they should speak up to relieve the tension.

(04-07-2012 12:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child. No one has asked for his conviction. If he can't be found guilty so be it but at least the murder would be addressed.

I understand exactly what you are saying; however, if Zimmerman was in the right (by Florida law) he should not have to go through the trial process.

Originally, I was ticked that this guy wasn't immediately thrown in jail, but the more I hear, I'm not sure he should be. Again I want to point out that this is Central Florida...Trials are stupid whacky around there (see Casey Anthony stuff).

Let the f'king jury decide if he was in the right. What's with you reich wingers and your high faith in Texas juries to decide life or death, but here it's "Oh, he shouldn't have to face the jury process, they're stupid and wacky!"

(04-07-2012 02:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child. No one has asked for his conviction. If he can't be found guilty so be it but at least the murder would be addressed.

I understand exactly what you are saying; however, if Zimmerman was in the right (by Florida law) he should not have to go through the trial process.

Originally, I was ticked that this guy wasn't immediately thrown in jail, but the more I hear, I'm not sure he should be. Again I want to point out that this is Central Florida...Trials are stupid whacky around there (see Casey Anthony stuff).

Let the f'king jury decide if he was in the right. What's with you reich wingers and your high faith in Texas juries to decide life or death, but here it's "Oh, he shouldn't have to face the jury process, they're stupid and wacky!"

Yeah, let's just let internet armchair detectives like you decide who goes in front of a jury, regardless of evidence.

(04-07-2012 02:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child. No one has asked for his conviction. If he can't be found guilty so be it but at least the murder would be addressed.

I understand exactly what you are saying; however, if Zimmerman was in the right (by Florida law) he should not have to go through the trial process.

Originally, I was ticked that this guy wasn't immediately thrown in jail, but the more I hear, I'm not sure he should be. Again I want to point out that this is Central Florida...Trials are stupid whacky around there (see Casey Anthony stuff).

Let the f'king jury decide if he was in the right. What's with you reich wingers and your high faith in Texas juries to decide life or death, but here it's "Oh, he shouldn't have to face the jury process, they're stupid and wacky!"

LOL...A lawyer advocating more trials. Shocking. No conflict of interest there.

(04-07-2012 03:01 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 02:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child. No one has asked for his conviction. If he can't be found guilty so be it but at least the murder would be addressed.

I understand exactly what you are saying; however, if Zimmerman was in the right (by Florida law) he should not have to go through the trial process.

Originally, I was ticked that this guy wasn't immediately thrown in jail, but the more I hear, I'm not sure he should be. Again I want to point out that this is Central Florida...Trials are stupid whacky around there (see Casey Anthony stuff).

Let the f'king jury decide if he was in the right. What's with you reich wingers and your high faith in Texas juries to decide life or death, but here it's "Oh, he shouldn't have to face the jury process, they're stupid and wacky!"

LOL...A lawyer advocating more trials. Shocking. No conflict of interest there.

Amazing, a lawyer who never heard of prosecutorial discretion either. What is wrong with you left wingers, don't you know the jails are already too full with drug offenders and murderers. I thought you liberal wacko just wanted to give the guy a ticket and forget about it.

More trials? Try paying attention. I've been attacking SYG on here and the castle doctrine at length because it leads to LESS confrontations, less deaths, less arrests, less murder cases. In fact I posted a topic here last week pointing out private prisons and bail bond conpanies wrote the law for these reasons. I want all spotentially dangerous situations defused with no injuries which is why I hate SYG. I really don't give a f'k about the number of trials, I'm trying to get you mouthbreathers to see the light and how much damage your ideology is doing and is capable of.

Uh I've heard of prosecutorial discretion, this is an abuse of that discretion.

(04-07-2012 05:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  More trials? Try paying attention. I've been attacking SYG on here and the castle doctrine at length because it leads to LESS confrontations, less deaths, less arrests, less murder cases. In fact I posted a topic here last week pointing out private prisons and bail bond conpanies wrote the law for these reasons. I really don't give a f'k about the number of trials, I'm trying to get you mouthbreathers to see the light and how much damage your ideology is doing and is capable of.

Your ideas lack logic, but you are pretty good at hurling insults. Did you go to a real law school or just a diploma factory?

Oh then by all means open my eyes.

(04-07-2012 05:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Oh then by all means open my eyes.

Read through your post again. It doesn't make any sense.

You attack something because it leads to less confrontations. Why would you attack something that lessens confrontations, murders, etc?

(04-07-2012 02:34 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 02:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child. No one has asked for his conviction. If he can't be found guilty so be it but at least the murder would be addressed.

I understand exactly what you are saying; however, if Zimmerman was in the right (by Florida law) he should not have to go through the trial process.

Originally, I was ticked that this guy wasn't immediately thrown in jail, but the more I hear, I'm not sure he should be. Again I want to point out that this is Central Florida...Trials are stupid whacky around there (see Casey Anthony stuff).

Let the f'king jury decide if he was in the right. What's with you reich wingers and your high faith in Texas juries to decide life or death, but here it's "Oh, he shouldn't have to face the jury process, they're stupid and wacky!"

Yeah, let's just let internet armchair detectives like you decide who goes in front of a jury, regardless of evidence.

Your Honor I would like to present Exibit "A" the body of an unarmed child.

You going to let me take all those unarmed children mothers murder and present them as evidence?

(04-07-2012 05:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 05:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Oh then by all means open my eyes.

Read through your post again. It doesn't make any sense.

You attack something because it leads to less confrontations. Why would you attack something that lessens confrontations, murders, etc?

No, SYG increases confrontations; my position (ie of repealing SYG and castle) would lessen confrontations. My position on this has been very clear.

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child.

Child??? Spin much?

(04-07-2012 09:18 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Proof of which? I listed why there's probable cause before, so they can make an arrest and charge. Those are the only explanations I could think of for why they haven't. Feel free to add more.

(04-07-2012 09:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Why else would they not make an arrest?

Amazing that you still don't seem to know what probable cause is...

While certainly this is an oversimplification, the burden to arrest is the probability, not possibility, but probability that a crime was committed, based on the evidence. Lots of people are killed without an arrest being made... If there weren't cases, we wouldn't have justifiable homicide. You and your friends think a jury should decide... But you haven't met the first burden of prosecution... The belief that a crime proobably occurred. Dang that iirc4th amendment

The biggest reason they wouldn't make an arrest is the obvious one... That at this point, a crime probably didnt occurr. I understand that YOU think one did, but you don't really have all the evidence now do you? You think the police should be defending their case in the press, but that isn't how our system works. Public opinion has no bearing on criminal cases.