Nope. You're not getting it. You honestly believe that one case said it's OK to kill if you're attacked and the other said it's OK to kill after you've been attacked and the person is walking away.


THE EVIDENCE - WHICH THE GRAND JURY WAS PRIVY TO - DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS SCENARIO. The news media and what it's chosen to show you in its coverage has told you this is the scenario and you've chosen to believe it, without seeing any of the evidence for YOURself; you find yourself better informed than those people who DID have access to ALL the evidence.





Earlier, there were indications the Grand Jury's evidence would NOT be shared with the public; now, there's reports it's already being put out, online.


Perhaps, after viewing ALL the evidence that was provided to the Grand Jury but NOT (previously) to the media, your legal mind will get back on track.


Or, perhaps you'll continue to let your emotions override your logic.

As someone previously stated, each of us is entitled to our own humble opinion. Humbly, I prefer to base MY opinions on facts and reality.

Too bad he didn't run into an on-duty police officer who was responding to a call to a crime HE'D just committed, too.



You really ARE stretching to ignore the completely different facts of the matters to *make* them one-and-the-same, huh?




Gosh. If someone so well trained in the law is so easily riled, to the point of completely ignoring the law, imagine what the millers-about in the streets of Ferguson are thinking - and feeling - right about now.

Zimmerman didn't HAVE to provide a "stand your ground" defense; he simply had to present "in self defense". Each state has different requirements: "stand your ground", "a duty to retreat", "like-force", etc. The JURY is instructed which rules come into play in a "self-defense" plea.


Zimmerman was a private citizen; this officer was acting while on duty and while in the line of duty while responding to a call for police assistance.


Zimmerman's case was bound by Florida law; this is Missouri law.





You should know the law better than you're pretending to be oblivious to, now.

DIFFERENT STATES; DIFFERENT LAWS.

TO BOOT, 'STAND-YOUR-GROUND' FOR A PRIVATE CITIZEN VS. 'IN-THE-LINE-OF-DUTY' JOB REQUIREMENTS.



YOU, WITH YOUR PARALEGAL TRAINING, KNOW BETTER THAN TO MIX APPLES WITH ORANGES, FOR EFFECT. THAT'S THE DOMAIN OF LITIGATING ATTORNEYS.

Did you serve on the Grand Jury?

If not, then you do not have all the evidence, but have based your opinion on what the media - and what the media's coverage - has *told* you.

Personally, I'll wait to see what the Grand Jury (made up of 7 men, 5 women / 3 blacks, 9 whites) decides...and WHY they decided it (IF they'll even share their reasons).


But, I'm just *weird*, that way.

?!?

A grand jury simply issues a decision on whether or not there's enough evidence for the District Attorney TO bring charges.

If they DON'T indict, certain citizens of Ferguson [and elsewhere] have promised trouble; if they DO indict, other certain citizens of Ferguson [and elsewhere] have promised trouble.

Reads to me like there's going to be trouble, regardless.


If he's indicted, there'll be a decision on what charges will be brought; THAT will cause another uproar.

If there's a plea deal, THAT will cause another uproar.

If it goes to trial and a verdict is rendered, THAT will cause another uproar.

If the conviction is for too mild a charge, THAT will cause another uproar.

Once sentencing is delivered, based on the verdict which is based on the charges, THAT will cause another uproar.



This scene is FAR from being over, regardless of this first step in the process...unless the Grand Jury releases tonight that there's not enough evidence FOR a trial -


then the town will probably burned down to the ground, once and for all, in one fell swoop tonight, instead of in bits and pieces during each step of the process over the months and years to come.


Pretty crappy prospects, anyway one looks at it.

They actually said about a week ago that everyone would be given 24 hours' notice once a decision had been reached but before they announced the decision, to allow schools, businesses, police, etc., to gear up.

Perhaps because many of the schools are already closed this week for Thanksgiving - and since everyone's been anticipating this for a couple of weeks, now - they figured 1.5 hours was long enough for the Mayor to get to the podium and for the news vans to set up their live - and continuous - feeds.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguson-grand-jury-deliberations/19474907/

OOOOOoooooo...thanks for the reminder.


Gotta add "a working doorbell, installed" to my Christmas Wishlist.

What a great idea!!! Hell, I'd start ordering one of every model AND pay extra shipping fees IF they'd let the drones drop 'em from 2,000 feet, on their pointy little heads, right on my doorstep.

I might even go *buy-sexual* just to spread some extra holiday cheer around for some of my nearest and dearest!!!

Whoa, there, Nellie!!! Let's not forget to provide proof of your previous allegations, before moving on to new ones, now!!!

Ummmm...please do go back and find where in my post I "defended him and his actions".

Now, go back and find where I have EVER defended President Obama.

I'll save you the trouble: you can't. I've specifically said I don't believe in [being put in a position to be] defending a currently-seated POTUS; those who DO do such, put this country to shame and bring world-wide embarrassment to us all.


Refusing to jump on the scandal and conspiracy-theory bandwagons (because my brain won't allow me to) is a VERY different beast from "defending him".



Speaking of defenses, please provide PROOF from a legitimate source for just one of these allegations, which you've presented-as-fact:

If you run out of material, Mother Jones has put together a pretty comprehensive list of all the Obama scandals, complete with hotlinks to the *proof*.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/chart-obama-conspiracy-theories


It's no wonder you're so interested in it all, OP...it's been reported that Obama is a space-traveler, just like you:

..."Obama's adventures on Mars: As a teen, Obama participated in a CIA initiative to teleport to Mars using a top-secret "jump room." Self-described time travelers William Stillings and Andrew Basiago claim to have met the future POTUS at American space bases on the Red Planet. In early 2012, a spokesman for the National Security Council actually acknowledged these claims, and issued a fairly convincing denial."

@ stan:

WTF?!? IAC purchased Amazon?!?

Cool game!!!





shirtless men




more clothes

So, (at least in the state of Texas,) it is now unconstitutional to commit adultery?!?


Cool. This should be fun to watch.

My 1 gud habbit: Impeccable spelling skills.

My 1 bad habbit: Incessantly mentally spell-checking others' posts.





Thanks for asking!!!

Has anyone hooked OP up with free WiFi, yet?!?




I'm positively dying to know who the lucky *female* is!!!

True. But it was an odd lead-in example to the other "Dating and Relationships" topics you threw in afterwards.


On my browser, anyway.


I've just often wondered what your thoughts on OTHER subjects are and got a little *titterpated* when I saw you'd ventured into an unfamiliar community, that we don't normally see you in.


In any event, I answered your question to the class, first thing in my first post.

Oh. My bad, then. It must be my browser acting up again.


On my screen, your OP started with:



followed by a whole bunch of words and then ended with:




Oh, and on my browser, this was in the "Dating and Relationships" community.




You come across as such an intelligent person; intelligence usually comes from being well-rounded on a vast array of many, many different subjects, rather than being solely focused on just one or two.

You should create your OWN website, complete with rules that say there are no rules, which others can agree to play by when joining it and creating their profiles,


OP.