Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Jul 14, 2013.
Can I just say that the state mandated double negatives for the past month have been exhausting?
Like those do you ?
Then you will want to consider the Reasonable Doubt instruction.
The Feds' is better.
I think it's worse than that, Bill. 108 didn't come back to respond when I asked him, but I strongly suspect that if he and some other posters like whitelake let their true feelings be known, this is what they really think:
GZ is a "creepy-ass cracker" who followed TM because he was black, therefore TM had the right to defend his black pride by looping back around to confront TM and punch him in the face. GZ had it coming, and instead of just laying there and taking the beating he deserved, he "cheated" in the fight by taking out his gun and shooting TM.
In other words, I think there are people who believe GZ's version of events but still think he should've been convicted anyway. As far as they're concerned a line was crossed by GZ when he followed TM, and another line was crossed when he pulled his gun. But TM didn't cross any lines, his actions were justified...even if he did hit GZ first.
I just knew race and ethnic relations in this country would go to the crapper as soon as Olson Johnson agreed to let the Irish have some of their own land.
Several different topics have been touched on in this thread but as of yet I haven't seen anyone make a case for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman.
Well, I can totally understand the sense in which we can speculate Martin might want to have hit Zimmerman, because... dammit, he really was just walking home from any indication. A cool-ish evening in a variable rain with a hoodie and no umbrella -- pretty much what a 17 year old might trudge through for a drink and candy and think it was a dumb idea by the time they are almost back to their dad's house. And here is this guy following him, for what? Really, is this what I've heard stories about my whole life, of some (apparently) white guy that's going to sweat me for being where I shouldn't?
I totally can step into that idea, the frustration and feeling of insult. But I also think that it's totally believable a 17 year old with all the attendant temperament and attitude of someone whose social media and texting life (not talking about evidentiary value here, just the facts themselves) were what his were might have also decided to take up the insult rather than walk away from it. Whether he "jumped" anyone or not, I could not speculate, probably "jumped" is Zimmerman's recall of "was standing and waiting where Zimmerman expected he was still just following someone" and wanting to call the guy out for following him.
It's all the stuff that happens after that that brings in criminal charges and self-defense. The things that brought them to within arm's reach of each other are things I think were, for both of them, legal actions, but also for both of them were, poor judgment.
Nobody can. Not that, and certainly not a hate-crime murder. It's shameless and vulgar pandering that the DOJ is even publicly "reviewing" or analyzing or whatever they're doing. A responsible DOJ would have turned around after the verdict and pointed right back to the FBI's report before the trial.
masta- I know atleast 8 people who believe just what you said-there issue is the gun-they want guns taken out of all our hands
I guess they're just humoring the low-information voters who are clamoring for ACTION!, because a white wannabe cop assassinated an unarmed black child on his way home from buying SKITTLES at the store, and got away with it because the jury was racist. Or...whatever.
They know full well that the low-informations are also woefully short on attention span and will be on to the next thing by next Monday, if not sooner.
Agreed. They want the guns taken out of all OUR hands. :yes:
I actually like New York's better than either Florida or the federal instruction, but it is wordy. http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Presumption.Burden.Reasonable_Doubt.pdf
You know what I learned? My parents were right when, 40 years ago, they told me:
1. Stay away from Strangers.
2. Avoid trouble whenever possible.
3. Keep my hands to myself.
No Fed trial. Seems double jeopardy to me. However, a civil suit should be allowed. If he's innocent of wrongful death then a jury will find him of that.
It isn't double jeopardy, because Florida and the United States are different sovereigns.
The issue is that the US does not have any legitimate case at all. They can't meet their burden on any civil rights or hate crime they want to bring.
I mostly agree. I do believe, however, that GZ ought to be able to argue immunity from civil liability now that he's been found not guilty by reason of self-defense. That may deprive the Martin family of a financial award they would have otherwise received, but I think that's part of the price for pushing this show trial that many argued the evidence did not support. If all had been willing to respect the original DA's (apparently correct) decision to decline prosecution due to lack of evidence, then I would have said wholeheartedly that civil pursuit was the way to go. As things stand now, I believe the criminal acquittal undermines GZ's civil liability, and everyone may need to just live with that.
Sorry, but I fully disagree in terms of what the 5th Amendment clearly means. The government has virtually unlimited resources to try and retry citizens until it breaks them financially. That's why they should only get one shot at it for the same crime (calling the crime by a different charge does not make it a different crime in my opinion). I understand the legal precedents for bringing civil rights charges when states have failed to seriously try violators, but whether anyone agrees with the verdict or not GZ got a fair trial under the rule of law. The Feds should not be entitled to a do-over just because they don't like the result.
Nothing to disagree with, it wasn't an opinion The 5th Amendment does not prohibit both a state and the federal government from prosecuting crimes related to the same transaction or occurrence. Don't take my word, though, ask Michael Vick, or the two cops convicted of violating Rodney King's civil rights.
Exactly, the same reason Mass. could try Tsarnaev for murder if they want despite the fact that the feds are charging him with 30 counts including using a weapon of mass destruction to cause death.
No, I totally understand the realities. I am merely stating that I believe, as a matter of principle, that retrying defendants who already earned acquittal fairly in state court is an unethical abuse of power by the federal government and is in direct conflict with the true intent of the 5th Amendment, regardless of any cute arguments the DoJ makes about different sovereignty.
Yeah, I can roll with that. I could totally see an argument for why a state acquittal should be binding on any subsequently initiated federal prosecution. Like, make them go first and set up some procedural mechanism by which one has to wait their turn without speedy trial issues, but don't let then sit on the fence. I can see the argument at least.