Ah. So all this time, when you and I have been discussing grand juries, you don't actually know what the hell they are. That's funny. Let me explain. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether or not a criminal trial is going to take place. They're initiated by the prosecutors office. But the jury, which is to say a group of random citizens, makes the determination as to whether or not an indictment is to happen. So, as applied to the current issue, the prosecutor (i.e the expert in criminal law) wanted to prosecute. If he didn't want to prosecute, he wouldn't have convened a grand jury. He was not allowed to do so because a group of laypersons didn't let him. So when you say you are pretty sure that the people who decide whether or not a criminal trial is to occur are experts on the law, you are demonstrating that you are definitely not an expert, and in this context, have apparently relied on entirely inaccurate assumptions.
I'm laughing a little right now. Thank you for being so blunt with your ignorance. It's gratifying.
If by "ignoring" you mean that I've directly commented on that fact at least half a dozen times - and at least once directly to you - then yes, I suppose I have been "ignoring" that.
I've given you the statute on self defense. Explain to me, as if you were a juror in this grand jury, why, based on the information we have, and the statutes at issue, you would choose not to indict.