Have I got a deal for you!
End FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!
Posted on 04/09/2012 9:00:31 AM PDT by rarestia
Headline only
It can be. This one isn't. States have grand juries too. The only grand jury that Corey could possibly have access to is a state grand jury. She MUST use one if the case is a capital offense (murder, essentially), and may, at her discretion, use a grand jury for lesser offenses.
She has the power to charge or indict lesser offenses without a grand jury.
Never a case that involved self-defense. She decides whether or not to charge those cases without presenting the evidence to a grand jury.
I'm sure she's used a grand jury. She has to, under the Florida Constitution, for a capital offense.
The prosecutor COULD charge him, but the grand jury is a prosecutor's friend. The GJ works for the prosecutor, by their assessment of whether there's enough quality evidence and/or likelihood of a guilty verdict being made to proceed with a trial.
We’ll get to see more of just what kind of person US Attorney General Eric Holder is when “[his] people” react to this.
She knew there was not enough evidence for the Grand Jury to return a Bill. But she wants to indict Zimmerman out of political convenience. Despicable.
Another minority Democrat victim of a tough on crime conservative Republican
I still think her choice is related to keeping the civil rights option open.
I think a inditement on ‘something/anything’ has to happen before those charges can be made.
I still think her choice is related to keeping the civil rights option open.
I think a inditement on ‘something/anything’ has to happen before those charges can be made.
I disagree. Prosecutors don’t like to lose high profile cases.
I used to be that way too, but eventually the world wore me down.
By not using the grand jury, she can declare they are not going to prosecute, yet leave the door open to change her mind later.
Wishful thinking on your part? See...
We don't know what her choice is, yet. All we know is she'll reach a conclusion without involving a grand jury.
-- I think a inditement on `something/anything' has to happen before those charges can be made. --
The feds can make an independent charge, but there has to be "hate" as THE reason for the offense, plus there has to be the offense in the first place. The feds CAN charge in the absence of a state charge; or even a second trial in addition to a state trial. There can be two convictions, two acquittals, or a mix. BUT, if the use of force is justified - if that is what the state finds, officially, the feds would be playing with fire to retry THAT aspect, and then pile "he did it because of HATE" on top.
Technically, the feds can do that - it'd be irrational, but the federal government is known for being irrational. All that said, I don't think the feds would do that, in this case. There is no evidence that supports prosecution - not a shred.
Doesn't matter. Obama weighed in on the case, so they HAVE to get a conviction to save his reputation.
I agree. I hope we're wrong, but unfortunately I agree.
Tawan Brawley, Duke LaCrosee were just practice runs, since then the the media and the racial jihadists have perfected their methods. This time they won’t stop until they get their way.
Not quite. Zimmerman claimed self defense. Under the Florida Stand Your Ground law, Florida statute 776:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
Emphasis mine.
Unless the police have good probable cause to believe that it was NOT self-defense, they are not allowed to arrest him.
Don't be too sure. Did the NAACP raise a fuss about how Clarence Thomas was treated? Did they say anything about attacks on Condi Rice? On Herman Cain?
Did NOW say anything about the vile things said about Sarah Palin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.