Trayvon Martin shooting: no grand jury for Zimmerman

That sounds about right. In a high profile deal like this, I'm sure they want to build as strong a case as possible before charging him.

Hopefully Angela took a look at Trayvons twitter account to see what kind of a person he really was. Just the same she looked at Zimmermans history to see the same.

Anyone who has taken the time to read the last 150 or so tweets from the alleged twitter account will see that Trayvon is not the innocent little lad the liberal media has tried to paint him as.

Meanwhile, Zimmerman had allegedly mentored a couple of black students and was accused of assaulting a police officer.

Looks like daddy won't be able to get Z out of his latest jam without at least facing a jury of his peers. Now that he's graduated from simple assault to manslaughter. Guess those anger management classes weren't too effective in his case -

On the other hand, while maybe not a model citizen, Martin has no history of violence or even getting into fights at school.

Except for the alleged incident with a bus driver. There is a first time for everything and Trayvon was likely pissed off at the world for getting busted with mary jane and womens jewelery.

While Zimmerman's background may be relevant to determine his actions on that evening, Martin's would not. In self-defense, the one making the claim may only take into account that which he had knowledge of at that moment, your cherry-picking of their alleged pasts withstanding.

I disagree. If Zimmermans account is factual or mostly factual, there is a high likelihood that he wouldn't have had to defend himself had Trayvon not escalated the verbal confrontation to physical.

Zimmerman on the 911 call was petrified when mentioning that Trayvon was comming to check him out. Plus, he knew the cops were on the way. Trayvon did not.

Your disagreement has no legal merit.

Martin's background has zero relevance to the case unless ZImmerman had information about him specifically that would enhance his belief he was in danger.

None, zero, nada.

Zimmerman's background would only be relevant for impeachment purposes under cross-examination,at trial, but can be a factor for a decision to indict or charge. However, it cannot be used in the case-in-chief at trial.

I'm not talking about any legal merit.

All I'm saying is that I hope Angela looks into both of their backgrounds for her to get a better idea of their overall charactor.

Hypothetical: If Trayvon had a history of assualt or Zimmerman had a history of shooting troublemakers without cause, you'd better believe it would be relevant, especially in sentencing.

TM's history is irrelevant as to whether he was a victim of a crime unless that history was known to Zimmerman at the time of the attack and was the basis for his self-defense claim.

Zimmerman's history, outside of actual criminal convictions, is irrelevant to sentencing.

DJBROW THATS WHY I USED THE WORD HYPOTHETICAL

Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:

Except you say "hypothetical" right after you spent a month trying to use TM's past as some sort of justification for him deserving to be killed!?

Now it's hypothetical 

Disco. I used hypothetical for that sentence only as it would pertain to Angela's perception of each persons charactor.

I personally believe Zimmerman is a better person than what he is portrayed and after reading Trayvons tweets, I personally believe he is worse than portrayed. I'm not saying he didn't have good qualities, I'm saying sometime in the last few years he started heading down the wrong path.

Have you read his tweets?

Do you KNOW those are his tweets are you just believing what someone tells you or that someone tells you they are?

Just like that photograph of Martin flashing the gang sign. You know those were retracted right, because of lack of verification it was him.

Do you KNOW what Zimmerman's verision of events are or just what you have been told?

This is what I mean by cherrypicking. I don't KNOW what happened and am not in a position to make a judgment until I have a better idea, which may never happen.

Your hypo is still wrong re: Martin.

It doesn't matter what Martin's past is re: a self-defense claim by Zimmerman unless he knew about that past. Let me illustrate with two real life examples:

Example 1: John Smith heard John Doe say he was going to a car to get his gun and come back and shoot him. John Smith previously knew that John Doe had shot someone. John Doe went to his car to retrieve his phone so he could come back and call the police. In the dark, John Smith told John Doe to "drop it or he would eat a bullet." John Doe raised the phone and said "over my dead body." John Smith, believing he was raising a gun, shot John Doe, killing him.  John Smith succesfully argued self-defense.

Example 2: John Smith and John Doe had a physical altercation. John Smith heard John Doe say he was running to his car. John Smith feared John Doe was going to get a gun. John Smith walked back towards the house with hands in his pockets. It was dark and John Smith could not see clearly. John Doe screamed, "I will kill you." John Doe actually had a gun when he screamed that but John Smith was not aware of that at the moment. John Smith shot him. John Smith was convicted of 2nd degree murder, despite arguing self-defense or manslaughter.

The difference in these cases was the awareness of the shooter of the other individual.

I'm 95% sure this is his account

Since I already told you the context of my hypothetical comment, why should I respond further?

I only brought that up for Angela to consider when trying to evaluate the charactor of both people in her own mind. Nothing legal!. Do you get it now?

1) You have no verification of this.

2) Even if they were, there is nothing terrible in those.

99% sure this is his main twitter account