b

The prosecutor did make the decision. That wasn't good enough though.

No. The initial decision seems to have been wrong. If it was right, why then did the special prosecutor, after reopening and pursuing an investigation , decide to lay charges...?
she has to feel the evidence will allow her to win the case.

The initial decision was the PROSECUTORS. I think it was needing investigation, but it was the prosecutors decision. I did not threaten boycotts or tweeting the wrong address of the alleged assailant.

rickyp wrote:No. The initial decision seems to have been wrong. If it was right, why then did the special prosecutor, after reopening and pursuing an investigation , decide to lay charges...?
she has to feel the evidence will allow her to win the case.

Because she is a politician who likes to make controversial decisions such as charging a 12 year old as an adult for killing his 2 year old brother. Further, she is up for reelection next year, which is probably about the time this case would go to Court.

bbauska wrote:"Hotheads" should not be the ones making the case to charge or not to charge. It should be the prosecutor handling the case. But wait... The prosecutor did make the decision. That wasn't good enough though.

No, it wasn't. The prosecutor is human, and can make mistakes. People are allowed to publicly disagree with a government official and campaign for a change, right?

As to SYG, I have said that is should be reviewed. Not by the media, not by community organizers, not by anybody but the legislature of Florida.

Or a court, you forget that courts have that function as a balance against elected politicians. If the Florida legislature show no signs of wanting a review, people are allowed to publicly disagree with their governement and campaign for a change, right?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Further, she is up for reelection next year, which is probably about the time this case would go to Court.

So, if it's just politics, she'll be shown up in court at just the time to blow her campaign out of the water, right?

Personally I think it's wrong to have directly elected prosecutors, it serves to pervert justice to have someone who leads the decision-making who has to rely on popular support. But that's a problem with your system and a distrust of professionalism in high positions of power, not with this particular prosecutor, isn't it?

b

As to SYG, I have said that is should be reviewed. Not by the media, not by community organizers, not by anybody but the legislature of Florida.

You really don't like citizens involving themselves in a discussion about the laws that affect them? (The media, the fourth estate, serving as a forum of that debate and the voice of that debate.)
They are suppossed to just shut up and let their betters in the legislature make the decisions for them and accept what ever they come up with?

NO! The citizens are to elect the representatives that make the laws. They are to put forth initiatives to change laws. Remember Prop 86? Wasn't that citizens trying to make the legislature follow the desires of the people? As I recall you didn't like that...

BTW, Your spelling has been getting better again. Thank you.

While I'm not a big proponent of referendum, I am a proponent of citizens participating in public debate. I beleive thats a basic principle of democracy .
Elected representatives are not magically endowed with wisdom and knowledge. They are simply elected to act as arbiters on behalf of the populace because direct democracy is difficult to impossible in a large population...
However informing, influencing and petitioning the representatives to act in a certain way is the basic right of the population.
Why do you think they should give that right up ?

They should be involved in public debate. That is what we are doing here, for goodness sakes! If an elected official does not do the will of the people, then remove him/her via the ballot box.

I actually do not agree that the case should go to trial (as it stands). Why? Because the prosecutor did not use a grand jury. This stinks of a prosecutor looking to make a name for him/herself.

The purpose of a grand jury is to protect people from over-zealous prosecutors. Even if Zimmerman wins the case, he still loses the time the trial takes, and the money he'll have to pay in legal fees, which, for someone who isn't too well off, will be significant indeed.. If he is found guilty, then I'm all for punishment (or rather, restitution to the family). But the evidence should have been brought before a grand jury. Let them decide if there is a case. Otherwise, it sounds like, for a lack of a better word, a frivolous prosecution.

it's not a capital charge, so a Grand Jury is not required, as I understand it. How low is the bar for a Grand Jury, and how low should it be?

If it's a 'frivolous prosecution', the same applies as in my response on the 'political' nature of it - a public court trial will soon show that to be the case

Don't you have a system of legal aid for people who are on low means, by the way? If it's such a 'frivolous' case, can't he sue for restitution, seeing as that's apparently all you think criminal sanctions should be about?

Although, what about punishment, protection of the public, prevention, the principle of pour encourager les autres (sic) as reasons for sanctions? How do you 'restitute' a family for the death of a son anyway?

Zimmerman has raised over $200,000 via the web for his legal defense fund.

bbauska wrote:They should be involved in public debate. That is what we are doing here, for goodness sakes! If an elected official does not do the will of the people, then remove him/her via the ballot box.

But that can't be the only thing that happens, or you can end up with an elective dictatorship. There should be a way to review decisions, to appeal them, etc. These are essential parts of liberal democracy and part of the rights that we in the West started to recognise from the 18th century. It's part of your 1st Amendment (which with the Due Process clause of the 14th applies to States as well as the Federal government) to be able to petition against the government. That includes all parts of the government, the legislature, the executive (which is where prosecutors sit) or the judiciary.

And removal of an elected poltician after a bad decision does not actually reverse the bad decision. Neither is it a sanction that can be applied to unelected bureaucrats (or to politicians who are in 'safe' positions due to party afilliation in heavily red/blue areas).

Ray Jay wrote:Zimmerman has raised over $200,000 via the web for his legal defense fund.

Good for him. he won't be too out of pocket if he wins then, clearly.

It will probably end up costing more than $200,000 ... but he'll probably raise more funds along the way.