Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

Originally Posted by gssixgun

That sounds like "Lawyer Speak", You can not "Attack" you can use deadly force in defense of yourself or the "Defense" of another..

Very slight difference there but it is a difference..

Now working off of that premise, let's say I came out of my appartment at the time Trayvon, was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, do you think I legally could have shot him ???? Not knowing any of the preceding circumstances

Yes. In that case you would be on the attack. ATTACK: to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

I agree it is semantics.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Grand Juries are a joke. They are a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. If he can't get a true bill he's in the wrong line of work. They are all one sided and half the time they don't even pay attention to what is going on and treat the proceedings as some casual affair. Most of the time they use them as insurance so they can say well, the grand jury saw a case there.

I've not experienced this at all with a Grand Jury. I have spent hundreds of hours presenting testimony and evidence before a Grand Jury. I'd like to know where you have had this experience.