U
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First they could charge him with multiple accounts of murder. It's not as if the crime actually has to be plausible to be brought against someone. I would assume in a realistic way it would like be manslaughter charges. It's clearly not Murder 1 and you'd have to stretch to get it to Murder 2 (unless there is some law I'm unaware of where patrolling your neighborhood armed is like driving drunk and simply ups your crime arbitrarily) .
If he gets acquitted he gets acquitted. This concept that we should have trials if the person is unlikely to be found guilty, or shouldn't have trials because the person is likely to be found guilty is bullshit.
Face it, the Liberal Minority Coalition wants an eye for an eye without regard to innocence or guilt.
Sean the "country" will not be paying for it, the local jurisdiction will be paying for it. And to follow your theme, if you do it for this case you have to do it for all of them. So yes it will cause cities and counties and states to go broke.
All of these circuses going on all over town and not one, not a single new, piece of evidence has surfaced. Oh, all sorts of ideas, innuendos, and theories have been floated out there. The press has done it's job manufacturing and manipulating what little evidence there is in the public domain.
The Governors appointed prosecutor might convince a grand jury to bring charges, but what charges will/can they bring? Manslaughter....maybe. And if it were to go to trial I can almost assure you that unless there is some unknown evidence out there Zimmerman will be acquitted. (Without some new and provocative evidence there are probably only two counties in Fl where they could load up a jury enough to get a conviction, Broward, and Palm Beach.)
Ishmael
Sanford doesn't have their own prosecutor. They use the county's.
I was speaking generally, not specificlly of Sanford, about the effect of taking everyone accused of a crime to trial, reguardless of what the evidence shows. It would collapse the entire system.
Everyone accused of a crime goes to trial. Unless the accused decides to plea bargain because the evidence against them is so overwhelming.
Everyone accused of a crime goes to trial. Unless the accused decides to plea bargain because the evidence against them is so overwhelming.
Horse shit. There are plea bargains, dismissals, and filings of no lo prosecu. An accusal does not automatically end with a trial or a plea bargain.
Ishmael
Assmeal
Everyone accused of a crime goes to trial. Unless the accused decides to plea bargain because the evidence against them is so overwhelming.
Face it, the Liberal Minority Coalition wants an eye for an eye without regard to innocence or guilt.
The Librul Minority Coalition wants to see Zimmy's fate decided by a jury, your insistence on "blanket exoneration for white shooters" notwithstanding.
The Librul Minority Coalition wants to see Zimmy's fate decided by a jury, your insistence on "blanket exoneration for white shooters" notwithstanding.
It's "nolle prosequi."Forgot about the dismissals and no lo prosecu's huh idiot?
If you read my first comment on this subject you will understand what I am saying. Everyone that is accused of a crime most certainly does not go to trial. There has to be evidence of a crime and evidence that points to a particular person.
Remember, he's a teacher too.![]()
Face it, the Liberal Minority Coalition wants an eye for an eye without regard to innocence or guilt.