TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...may not even go to a Grand Jury now... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... 9719.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would be a great disservice to justice...... and a violation of the 5th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution which states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I hope I am not the one thinking this....

...perhaps this should be pointed out to the Fla. special prosecutor...


...here's the Miami Herald story that the linked story was based on... http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/28/2 ... light.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AFCop wrote:

speedsix wrote:...may not even go to a Grand Jury now... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... 9719.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would be a great disservice to justice...... and a violation of the 5th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution which states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I hope I am not the one thinking this....

This case SCREAMS for the need for an independent grand jury devoid of politics or bias.

I don't care which way she decides to take this - charge or no charge - it deserves a grand jury.

...the Miami Herald reporter stated that grand jury was the way it was handled...the only way I see that she could NOT go to GJ is if she refused to charge him...she may have just been posturing...we'll have to wait and see...Fox hadn't picked up on this as of this evening...

speedsix wrote:...the Miami Herald reporter stated that grand jury was the way it was handled...the only way I see that she could NOT go to GJ is if she refused to charge him...she may have just been posturing...we'll have to wait and see...Fox hadn't picked up on this as of this evening...

This is the same attorney who is quoted by ABC News as saying that Stand Your Ground cases were harder to prosecute than other criminal cases because they required a higher burden of proof; guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Has me thinking I should stay away from Florida. I mean, dang, if you can be convicted of a crime based on a lesser burden, what chance do you have?

...Methinks she told the Guvnah she'd make him look good on this one...oops...

speedsix wrote:...the Miami Herald reporter stated that grand jury was the way it was handled...the only way I see that she could NOT go to GJ is if she refused to charge him...she may have just been posturing...we'll have to wait and see...Fox hadn't picked up on this as of this evening...

According to the story you posted "In Florida, the decision on whether to indict someone in capital cases must be made by a grand jury. In all lesser cases the decision to file charges are routinely made by prosecutors. But in highly controversial or difficult cases, prosecutors often defer to a grand jury, leaving the politically charged decision to a panel of citizens.

So accordingly, she may decide its not a "capital" case but still decide to file charges without a GJ indictment... I personally think anything other then a GJ presentment would be an...... (pause for effect)........ Epic Fail!

...if she doesn't go for the throat...certain folks in Washington will be acting ignorantly in Congress...again...

...I learned something about the 5th that I didn't know...thanks...

IMO if they don't go to a grand jury (if they decide charges are warranted), then ESPECIALLY in a case like this they are opening up a HUGE can of worms that could follow them and the florida judical system a long time. IANAL, but it seems to me if there is even the slightest hint of political shenanigans or racial bias it will mean major problems for any prosecution they can mount. This has powder keg written all over it any way your look at it. If they are going to pursue this, they had better dot every i and cross every t.

mamabearCali wrote:IMO if they don't go to a grand jury (if they decide charges are warranted), then ESPECIALLY in a case like this they are opening up a HUGE can of worms that could follow them and the florida judical system a long time. IANAL, but it seems to me if there is even the slightest hint of political shenanigans or racial bias it will mean major problems for any prosecution they can mount. This has powder keg written all over it any way your look at it. If they are going to pursue this, they had better dot every i and cross every t.

Trayvon Miller shooting media time line per Brietbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... al-Outrage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first post on TexasCHLforum.com was March 12. Thanks tallmike.

Most news threads die out within a day or so in the forum. This one seemed pretty cut and dry day one. "CHL playing police officer. Bad idea." But it seemed to have legs here and never drifted away from the New Posts section even though there were no additional news stories. Then it suddenly exploded in the newsmedia and we are at over 400 posts, 5000 views and counting.

Why on CNN the host is calling the shooting of Mr. Martin as a crime. Till date no one was charged with a crime. That is totally biased

Beiruty wrote:Why on CNN the host is calling the shooting of Mr. Martin as a crime. Till date no one was charged with a crime. That is totally biased

I'm sure CNN is using that terminology just to "fan the fires", HOWEVER...

It's my understanding that the taking of a life is always a crime. The question is whether it was justified.

Chapter 9 of the penal code is titled "Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility". Section 9.02 "Justification as a Defense" states "It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter."

So, if you have to kill someone, Chapter 9 is where you'd look for justification, that would free you from criminal responsibility for the crime. Note that section 9.21 even gives justification for the taking of a life by an executioner.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Why on CNN the host is calling the shooting of Mr. Martin as a crime. Till date no one was charged with a crime. That is totally biased

I'm sure CNN is using that terminology just to "fan the fires", HOWEVER...

It's my understanding that the taking of a life is always a crime. The question is whether it was justified.

Chapter 9 of the penal code is titled "Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility". Section 9.02 "Justification as a Defense" states "It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter."

So, if you have to kill someone, Chapter 9 is where you'd look for justification, that would free you from criminal responsibility for the crime. Note that section 9.21 even gives justification for the taking of a life by an executioner.

Look at it another way, if someone is shot and killed a crime HAS BEEN committed. Either the shooter unlawfully shot the deceased. Or the deceased unlawfully used deadly force or committed a violent felony against the shooter, who was justified in shooting the deceased to stop his unlawful action.


EDITED TO ADD: So if all those who're are screaming that an ARREST MUST BE MADE - THE CRIMINAL MUST BE CHARGED! ... just simply reply that it's not really good form to arrest a dead person.

A-R wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Why on CNN the host is calling the shooting of Mr. Martin as a crime. Till date no one was charged with a crime. That is totally biased

I'm sure CNN is using that terminology just to "fan the fires", HOWEVER...

It's my understanding that the taking of a life is always a crime. The question is whether it was justified.

Chapter 9 of the penal code is titled "Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility". Section 9.02 "Justification as a Defense" states "It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter."

So, if you have to kill someone, Chapter 9 is where you'd look for justification, that would free you from criminal responsibility for the crime. Note that section 9.21 even gives justification for the taking of a life by an executioner.

Look at it another way, if someone is shot and killed a crime HAS BEEN committed. Either the shooter unlawfully shot the deceased. Or the deceased unlawfully used deadly force or committed a violent felony against the shooter, who was justified in shooting the deceased to stop his unlawful action.


EDITED TO ADD: So if all those who're are screaming that an ARREST MUST BE MADE - THE CRIMINAL MUST BE CHARGED! ... just simply reply that it's not really good form to arrest a dead person.

Well, my point was that the taking of a human life by another is a crime by itself. In order to convict someone of that crime, the prosecution must prove two things
1) that the accused actually caused the death (not much doubt about that in this case), and
2) that none of the justifications apply

If you want to consider that Martin ALSO committed a crime (illegal use of deadly force), then that would be a second crime. That second crime would NOT invalidate or erase the first, but it may justify the first.