Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
27. Because he was legal on both fronts ......
Sat Mar 24, 2012, 12:11 AM
Mar 2012

... and his attorney (probably rightly) believed that the Grand Jury would give greater weight to the self defense approach. They did, and no-billed him.

Here in my county, if a homeowner shoots a thief in the act of escaping, the grand jury will more likely shake his hand and buy him a beer. We don't have many thieves around these parts. I've lived here 15 years and I have never even heard of a home invasion or car-jacking in my area. There is an occassional robbery or burglary, but it is generally someone who knows the victim(s) are unarmed.

None of what I have posted here is meant as any defense of Zimmerman. I hope justice gets done.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I remember that very well -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2012 #1
Joe Horn = Free sadbear Mar 2012 #2
Would have been no billed without Castle Doctrine anyway ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #3
Cold blooded murder and racist too - he thought they were "black" jpak Mar 2012 #4
Does the phrase "All White Jury" ring a bell? jpak Mar 2012 #10
So you claim to know who was on that Grand Jury? ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #11
And Joe Horn Had Support From Our Resident Gun Militants, As Well. (n/t) Paladin Mar 2012 #5
The horror! The simple act of *not* home invading or burglarizing could have prevented this outcome. Chuck Bobuck Mar 2012 #6
Horn was told by 911 operator to NOT go out and confront anyone. LisaL Mar 2012 #7
Advice from an emergency telecommunicator is never legally binding. Chuck Bobuck Mar 2012 #8
Then its not binding in Zimmerman's case either. LisaL Mar 2012 #9
It never was. Those who claimed it was were wrong ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #12
He killed two repeat felons in the commission of a felony .... BOHICA12 Mar 2012 #13
But these people were not stealing from him and his life was not in danger while he was sitting in LisaL Mar 2012 #14
The laws in Texas are different ...... oldhippie Mar 2012 #18
He can protect his own property with deadly force. LisaL Mar 2012 #21
As I said, you can protect third person's property ... oldhippie Mar 2012 #25
Why did his lawyer not argue that it was perfectly legal for him to kill people over LisaL Mar 2012 #26
Because he was legal on both fronts ...... oldhippie Mar 2012 #27
No, they were breaking into his neighbor's house and BOHICA12 Mar 2012 #19
Even fanatical gun fans think this was a really dumb and bad shoot. I am glad this cost him... Logical Mar 2012 #15
I don't know why it would cost him anything to defend himsel, since grand jury refused LisaL Mar 2012 #16
He had two attorneys. Many discussions of thousands of dollars in substantial legal fees Logical Mar 2012 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author LisaL Mar 2012 #20
Your post is rightwing, paronoid bullshit. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #22
Well we do agree on Zimmerman BOHICA12 Mar 2012 #23
Untrained, rogue individuals should not be allowed to declare themselves judge and executioner. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2012 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Just a reminder: before G...»Reply #27