quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

As if this thread didn't need anymore gasoline thrown on it, I'd like to ask a question to all those in the Treyvon Martin camp: what if it were you who were charged with a crime for defending yourself, was decreed not guilty, but then had to contend with a major government official and a large subset of the population wishing to subvert Constitutional law because they felt it was "right"? If I stalked someone, ended up killing them, and lied through my teeth about the circumstances, but then was lucky enough to be found "not guilty", I think I would expect that there would be some public outrage.

There's a reason they put the "double-jeopardy" provision in, and that's to prevent exactly what's happening here. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, the jury has voted, and it's done. Accept it. Because if this is allowed to continue, we'll have a legal precedent for mob rule. Is that what you want? Without public outcry unjust laws would not get changed. Yes, people could be apathetic and just "accept it" when someone gets away with murder. But should they? There is definitely a case and a need for double jeopardy. There is no way that a person should be tried over and over for the same charges. On the other hand, the person that is on trial does get "do overs" in the form of appeals if they are found guilty. The state does not get that luxury. So what happens when people feel strongly that justice was not met in a particular verdict? You make a noise about it in hopes that changes can and will be made to fix the problem. Yes, the jury ended up with a unanimous vote. But in the initial vote it wasn't unanimous. Several of the jurors felt that Zimmerman should be held accountable in some fashion, but none of the options that they were given could "legally" accomplish that. That needs to be changed so that the next Zimmerman is held accountable when they take the life of a kid walking home from the store.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law.

In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

quote:

Is there a statute of limitations on investigating cases?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

As if this thread didn't need anymore gasoline thrown on it, I'd like to ask a question to all those in the Treyvon Martin camp: what if it were you who were charged with a crime for defending yourself, was decreed not guilty, but then had to contend with a major government official and a large subset of the population wishing to subvert Constitutional law because they felt it was "right"?

There's a reason they put the "double-jeopardy" provision in, and that's to prevent exactly what's happening here. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, the jury has voted, and it's done. Accept it. Because if this is allowed to continue, we'll have a legal precedent for mob rule. Is that what you want?

Its not double jeopary since its a different charge.. and.. well if he truly isnt a racist then they wont have any other evidence to support any further action, will they? But according to a Zimmy family member (cousin?) who was interviewed by the cops last year, (Zimmy molested her for 10 years from when she was 6 to 16yo) that he & his family are indeed racist.. Oh yeah, and there was that Arab-American co-worker that Zimmy harassed too..
So.. ya know.. if Zimmy has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear..

"Witness 9 did claim that Zimmerman "only likes black people who act like white people.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57473051-504083/witness-9-in-trayvon-martin-case-claims-george-zimmermans-family-is-racist/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-bullied-colleague-complaint/story?id=16658024

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

>sighs< Okay, I'll bite. Where are the citations on him molesting his cousin? And the Arab-American coworker. And remember, only stuff that can fly in a court of law. There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't valid in our system of justice.

I dont know what the feds will come up with as evidence or not or what they will actually do or not.. just all this talk about Zimmy not being a racist is not apparently true.. I dont have any sympathy for the guy, especially given he has "gotten away" with so much shite in the past, even before Martin.. sooner or later, at some point Karma is gonna bite his ass.. he thinks its all "God's plan", after all..

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law.

In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

Is there a statute of limitations on investigating cases?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now you want to convict him because after clearing him they are going to beat the woods for another excuse to prosecute him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now you want to convict him because after clearing him they are going to beat the woods for another excuse to prosecute him.

The man is an arsehole, Bama. It was always bound to happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003



If I stalked someone, ended up killing them, and lied through my teeth about the circumstances, but then was lucky enough to be found "not guilty", I think I would expect that there would be some public outrage.[/color]

Without public outcry unjust laws would not get changed. Yes, people could be apathetic and just "accept it" when someone gets away with murder. But should they? There is definitely a case and a need for double jeopardy. There is no way that a person should be tried over and over for the same charges. On the other hand, the person that is on trial does get "do overs" in the form of appeals if they are found guilty. The state does not get that luxury. So what happens when people feel strongly that justice was not met in a particular verdict? You make a noise about it in hopes that changes can and will be made to fix the problem. Yes, the jury ended up with a unanimous vote. But in the initial vote it wasn't unanimous. Several of the jurors felt that Zimmerman should be held accountable in some fashion, but none of the options that they were given could "legally" accomplish that. That needs to be changed so that the next Zimmerman is held accountable when they take the life of a kid walking home from the store.

quote:

The man is an arsehole

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

Its not double jeopary since its a different charge.. and.. well if he truly isnt a racist then they wont have any other evidence to support any further action, will they? But according to a Zimmy family member (cousin?) who was interviewed by the cops last year, (Zimmy molested her for 10 years from when she was 6 to 16yo) that he & his family are indeed racist.. Oh yeah, and there was that Arab-American co-worker that Zimmy harassed too..
So.. ya know.. if Zimmy has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear..

"Witness 9 did claim that Zimmerman "only likes black people who act like white people.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57473051-504083/witness-9-in-trayvon-martin-case-claims-george-zimmermans-family-is-racist/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-bullied-colleague-complaint/story?id=16658024

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law.

In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The feds have had to get involved in cases where the local authorities covered up blatant crimes like the killings of civil rights workers in the South during the60s.

It was never intend to be used *against* a minority as punishment for getting off in a fair trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law.

In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wasnt SYG instructions given to the jury?

The Stand Your Ground law was in the instructions given to the jury (page 12), which acquitted George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. But it was among a list of laws in the instructions.

http://wlrn.org/post/role-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-zimmerman-verdict

Your source is editorializing. The instructions pertained to the use of deadly force in the context of self-defense.

The substantial majority view among the states, by a 31-19 margin, is no duty to retreat. Florida is thus part of this substantial majority on this point. And most of these states took this view even before the recent spate of “stand your ground” statutes, including the Florida statute. ~Volokh

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
The answer was because that is what the medical evidence showed. Now, why would someone that is right handed use their left hand for a sucker punch? The rather obvious answer is because Zimmerman was hanging on to Martins right arm to detain him.

quote:

This is also backed up by Rachel's testimony of hearing Martin yell, "Get off! Get off!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
The answer was because that is what the medical evidence showed. Now, why would someone that is right handed use their left hand for a sucker punch? The rather obvious answer is because Zimmerman was hanging on to Martins right arm to detain him.

No, that's not the obvious answer. Maybe he had his phone in his right hand so the left was free. Maybe he just prefers his left for some things (I'm the same way, and so is George, who shoots with his right hand despite being left). Inventing a conclusion and claiming it as the "obvious answer" is hardly evidence of anything.

quote:

This is also backed up by Rachel's testimony of hearing Martin yell, "Get off! Get off!"

No it's not. For one, the "Get off!" has multiple versions to it. Originally it wasn't said at all, then it was "I think I maybe heard a little bit "Get off", and it *could* have been Trayvon saying it...then at trial, it was Trayvon yelling "Get off!"

And that was after the supposed "bump" which she kept claiming was George hitting or bumping Trayvon, but under questioning was forced to admit she had no idea what it was, that it could have been Trayvon punching George in the nose.

So again, there is zero evidence of George attempting to detain Trayvon. It's entirely a fabrication, based off an incredible leap from the most ridiculously uncredible testimony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And saying on the stand that "creepy ass cracks" means a Caucasian person, then telling Piers Morgan after that it doesn't mean a white person. People who claim George has inconsistent statements seem to be willingly blind that George has nothing on Rachel where it comes to statements changing.