"If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon."

[Red Arrow]

I want to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt,

I believe reasonable doubt is the actual dividing line.

[TulsaMoon]

WRONG THREAD!

EVERYONE! PLEASE STOP WITH THESE FALSE EQUIVALENCIES!

Once again the reason I don't come to these forums that often is this dude.

[AquaMan]

That's odd. I am spending more time away from this forum because of the domination of responses by those critical of him. His style is necessary to shock some of you out of your complacent, Okie thinking that has led the state down the path of Fallin and the state legislature. The stultifying effect of that mindset just doesn't appeal to me.

And somehow, this forum, and the world keep on keepin' on.

[Conan71]

I've actually come to appreciate TTC's contrarian views.  It keeps things stirred up.

[DolfanBob]

I've actually come to appreciate TTC's contrarian views.  It keeps things stirred up.

No doubt. You have to always have a Devils advocate.

[we vs us]

Just...wow!

When it's a disruption of your normal life and you have to cash in your child's college fund to defend yourself that's a penalty.  To claim otherwise is nothing but parsing.

As far as the rest of your argument, if the PD and DA are irresponsible or there are suspected irregularities, that's what a grand jury is for.  Again, you and a few others apparently do not appreciate there is already a very good process in place specifically for these situations.

Your argument borders on infringement of 2nd and 5th amendment as well as basic Constitutional rights.

Should every single person accused of a crime stand trial?  That's why DA offices review every single case prior to making a determination of whether or not there is enough merit to prosecute.  A) it prevents the court system from being clogged B) it serves as a check and balance system to make sure wrongly-arrested people are not forced to go through the expense and time of criminal prosecution.

You're misunderstanding.  I'm not saying that defending yourself in this situation is without cost or inconvenience.  I'm saying that the cost hasn't been applied specifically to punish you for your deeds, which is what you're implying.  The court will appoint you an attorney, so there's always the option of not paying out-of-pocket; obviously, quality is an issue but it's up to you how much you want to pay.  Time, unfortunately, is what everyone will spend -- including the friends and family of the deceased (who won't get compensated for their time) and the witnesses (who won't get compensated for their time).  

But look. You don't get to kill someone, claim self defense, and then walk out into the sunshine never to think about what happened again.  As easy as you want to make it, it's in everybody's interest to make sure that that's in fact what you did.  Not everyone is as responsible or ethical or honest as you are.  And if I didn't know you, I'd damn sure insist on finding out (via a trial) that you were.  Because if you weren't, what happened probably wasn't self defense.  It was probably plain old murder, and if it was, you should pay for that.  There should be a high bar because it is easy to abuse.

In this case especially, the system seemed to be resisting moving forward with that process.  Systems will do that occasionally, because systems are made up of individuals who are susceptible to inertia and capture by powerful interests and good old fashioned fear.  

(and when I say "move the system forward," I don't mean "to a guilty verdict." I mean "to an attempt at resolution.")

[Gaspar]

Without TTC we would rarely see a glimpse of the Left's true colors.

He says exactly what many are thinking but have the power to edit from their dialogue.

[Conan71]

You're misunderstanding.  I'm not saying that defending yourself in this situation is without cost or inconvenience.  I'm saying that the cost hasn't been applied specifically to punish you for your deeds, which is what you're implying.  The court will appoint you an attorney, so there's always the option of not paying out-of-pocket; obviously, quality is an issue but it's up to you how much you want to pay.  Time, unfortunately, is what everyone will spend -- including the friends and family of the deceased (who won't get compensated for their time) and the witnesses (who won't get compensated for their time).  

But look. You don't get to kill someone, claim self defense, and then walk out into the sunshine never to think about what happened again.  As easy as you want to make it, it's in everybody's interest to make sure that that's in fact what you did.  Not everyone is as responsible or ethical or honest as you are.  And if I didn't know you, I'd damn sure insist on finding out (via a trial) that you were.  Because if you weren't, what happened probably wasn't self defense.  It was probably plain old murder, and if it was, you should pay for that.  There should be a high bar because it is easy to abuse.

In this case especially, the system seemed to be resisting moving forward with that process.  Systems will do that occasionally, because systems are made up of individuals who are susceptible to inertia and capture by powerful interests and good old fashioned fear.  

(and when I say "move the system forward," I don't mean "to a guilty verdict." I mean "to an attempt at resolution.")

I have to ask.  Have you ever been on a jury or inside a courtroom during a trial?

One apparently screwed-up police department investigation should not put the rights of millions of others to defend themselves at risk.  Without SYG, Gaspar pointed out correctly your options are A) Run B) Get dead or C) return fire and face prosecution.  No matter how you spin it, Wevus, facing prosecution is a penalty to the person being prosecuted.  I know you will continue to define punishment as a sentence or some form of adjudication.  You don't get reimbursed for your time and legal fees if you are acquitted of a crime and if you can afford an attorney, you cannot use the public defender's office.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that if I shot a black intruder in my home that I might be convicted because several jurors on my case assume I wouldn't have shot the intruder if he were white and decide to say it was racially-motivated.  I find it highly improbable that you really can find an impartial jury who will put aside all prejudice when making decisions.  I believe it's entirely appropriate for the police and the DA to interpret the law and decide whether or not I acted within the law.  If I acted within the law, as it is written, why the hell should I have to stand trial to prove that to 12 people who may or may not give a whit about my personal liberty?

I'm convinced you do not appreciate how closely most police departments and DA's take this matter seriously and do their best to ensure that justice is served.  Three such cases are close to mind:

- Kenneth Gumm
- Jerome Ersland
- The beating death of Deadtown Bar owner Shawn Howard.

It's obvious you and Nathan have not been around the court system nor observed very well how the investigative process actually works and what benefit that not only serves potential defendants but society as a whole.  You only seem interested in pointing out a flawed example or two and therefore the entire system should be changed to suit your paradigm.

[erfalf]

I know an assistant DA in a smaller county. They don't bring criminal charges against people unless they are pretty dang sure they can win. And they don't give up easily. They are extraordinarily smart, persistent people. If the DA in Florida thought he had a case, I'm sure they would be filing charges this instant. And yes I do trust them. There is no way a cover up of this scale could be persisting with the scrutiny it is facing. Plus, in this case don't you think the DA (if he/she enjoyed any kind of praise) would be chomping at the bit to do so? If the evidence isn't there it's not there, no matter how unfair it is. That is the system we live in, fortunately. It doesn't get it right every single time, but it is the closest possible without loosing every single freedom you hold dear.

Can the kid's family file a civil suit if he isn't charged, or does SYG protect him from that too? I ask, because for some reason the OJ case popped into my head this morning.

[Teatownclown]

Gassie, I'm beginning to think you are dense. I am not a liberal. I am a progressive. Obviously, you read what you want and disregard the rest....

[patric]

it's looking like the police themselves were actually going to press charges against Zimmerman, but the prosecutors slow-played the investigation, at least in part because of concerns about legal hurdles surrounding the stand your ground law.

Actually, they seemed divided.  Down the road, the homicide investigator wanted charges pressed, but initially the officers at the scene told reporters at the scene that the shooting was justified.

I'm convinced you do not appreciate how closely most police departments and DA's take this matter seriously and do their best to ensure that justice is served.  Three such cases are close to mind:

- Kenneth Gumm
- Jerome Ersland
- The beating death of Deadtown Bar owner Shawn Howard.

Didnt each of those have circumstances that disqualified them as self defense?
Ersland shot, stopped to reload, then continued to fire into the body,
the Deadtown Bar owner had been beating his (eventual) killer with brass knuckles, etc...

[Conan71]

Gassie, I'm beginning to think you are dense. I am not a liberal. I am a progressive. Obviously, you read what you want and disregard the rest....

Isn't that like saying: "I'm not a racist, anti-government, gun-toting, bible carrying moron!  I'm a tea bagger!"   

[Red Arrow]

I am not a liberal. I am a progressive.

Many of us don't see the difference.  Please describe what you believe are the differences.  I'm serious and curious.

[Gaspar]

Many of us don't see the difference.  Please describe what you believe are the differences.  I'm serious and curious.

I think the Green Party is the closest current representation of progressive political policy.

Conservative is to Liberal as Tea Party is to Green Party.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I know an assistant DA in a smaller county. They don't bring criminal charges against people unless they are pretty dang sure they can win. And they don't give up easily. They are extraordinarily smart, persistent people.

And then there is Tim Harris and his office....