NO GUN 4 U! (says Holder to Zim)

[RobertNashville]

I don't think so. The Rodney King case was a real different animal. 

1. (if memory serves) cops beat a man with batons and continued to do so after he was down. The incident, captured on tape, was pretty horrific to watch.  I also recall that the officers even boasted about it a bit immediately afterwords. Every cop I knew said those cops should go to jail and there was plenty of evidence but the jury had one or two holdouts.

 

2.  Thug jumps and starts beating a victim and the victim defends himself with deadly force.  Original investigation decided not to charge. That didn't satisfy the thug's parents or the race baiters so they threatened the State of FL until they decided to go shopping for a DA who would prosecute even though they knew they didn't have the evidence to justify the charge much less win. And then the big surprise; the jury saw that the emperor had no close and they found the victim not guilty.

 

The cops should have gone to jail form the first trial...they didn't.

Zimmerman should have been acquitted....he was.

 

Bottom line; no one should be charged twice for the same crime...NO ONE...the justice system should get one shot at convicting a person and if they can't get a jury convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that's where it should stop.

[TMF]

They would not be stupid enough to prosecute this and suffer another embarrassment. They're starting to pile up. They'll just keep this "investigation" open long enough so they can cow-tow to the racists animals and stoke the racial fires. When folks move onto the the next vogue topic they'll quietly close this one up.... maybe Kony 2014?

[Spiffy]

Has the federal government ever charged or arrested Z with a crime warranting the confiscation of property?

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around how they can decree that a local matter settled in a local court can be put on indefinite hold.

 

Hell I'm surprised they have called him a terrorist since he has terrorized the entire black population of the US and chucked his ass in Gitmo yet!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Z better make sure he doesn't step on any environmentally protected cockroaches, or put the wrong gas in his car or whatever.

[Paladin132]

Just a note about double jeopardy: it will not be in this case because he was charged with, what murder originally? The DOJ is investigating it from a civil rights point of view. If the DOJ were charing him with murder, that would be double jeopardy. 

[RobertNashville]

Just a note about double jeopardy: it will not be in this case because he was charged with, what murder originally? The DOJ is investigating it from a civil rights point of view. If the DOJ were charing him with murder, that would be double jeopardy. 

It's double jeopardy...just calling it a different crime for the exact same act doesn't change that.  The DOJ will continue to get away with it just like they get away with all the other unconstitutional laws but it's still double jeopardy.

 

Zimmerman killed Martin; he committed a homicide...no one has ever denied that.

 

He did so in justified self-defense; a jury said so making it justifiable homicide.

 

Making any claim now that justifiably killing Martin is a civil rights crime is horses**t. :)

 

Of course, Zimmerman is also a "white-Hispanic" and Martin was a choir boy who was just out doing good works.

[RobertNashville]

By the way; Buckeye Firearms Association is raising funds to buy Zimmerman a new gun!  :)

 

At the same time....

 

Trayvon's "parents" (and I use that term loosely) are concentrating on cashing in on Trayvon's name; I'm sure they are still grief-stricken however.

Edited July 19, 2013 by RobertNashville

[rugerla1]

We just need to invite GZ to an undiclosed location in TN and tell the NBPP to come and find him. If I were Zimmerman I would demand government protection due to the fact they started this mess by skipping the judicial process and putting his name out to the mis-informed.

I was thinking about this yesterday, about GZ getting some kind of protection (Not that I would trust the govt to really protect me if I was him). But, the verdict was Not Guilty and the sad fact that pisses me off is that our govt will spend more time, effort, and money to protect that murdering b%#@ that is gracing the cover of Rolling Stone, than they will to protect a man who has had his day in court by a jury of his peers.

[DaveTN]

Just a note about double jeopardy: it will not be in this case because he was charged with, what murder originally? The DOJ is investigating it from a civil rights point of view. If the DOJ were charing him with murder, that would be double jeopardy. 

Civil rights violations stem from the same incident he was charged with. If just changing the charge made it okay, they could come back and charge him with assault, or disorderly conduct. It’s double jeopardy; it’s a charge included in the original act, with no new evidence they did not have at the time. If the Feds wanted a bite at the apple, they should have tried him in federal court.

[TNMTBik3r]

By the way; Buckeye Firearms Association is raising funds to buy Zimmerman a new gun! :)
.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/19/brad-thor-offers-to-buy-george-zimmerman-a-new-gun-after-doj-puts-hold-on-trial-evidence/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

Brad Thor is offering to buy anything GZ wants.

[Caster]

Kel tec should make a "Taste the Rainbow Coalition" edition.  

 

[RobertNashville]

Kel tec should make a "Taste the Rainbow Coalition" edition.  

 

Well, KelTec would have to pay royalties to the egg donor mom since she is trademarking Trayvon's name for the marketing rights.  ;)

Edited July 19, 2013 by RobertNashville

[dats82]

We just need to invite GZ to an undiclosed location in TN and tell the NBPP to come and find him. If I were Zimmerman I would demand government protection due to the fact they started this mess by skipping the judicial process and putting his name out to the mis-informed.

 

What would that look like?  Given the government is the reason he's in this mess, if I were GZ, they would be the last sons of bitches I would ever entrust with my safety.

[ted]

Will he be able to carry again . Edited July 20, 2013 by ted

[TNMTBik3r]

Will he be able to carry again .

Yes, and he could go buy a new pistol today, he just isn't getting the one in evidence back (I assume until the federal charges are all dismissed).

[wjh2657]

"It's double jeopardy...just calling it a different crime for the exact same act doesn't change that.  The DOJ will continue to get away with it just like they get away with all the other unconstitutional laws but it's still double jeopardy.

 

Zimmerman killed Martin; he committed a homicide...no one has ever denied that.

 

He did so in justified self-defense; a jury said so making it justifiable homicide.

 

Making any claim now that justifiably killing Martin is a civil rights crime is horses**t. :)

 

Of course, Zimmerman is also a "white-Hispanic" and Martin was a choir boy who was just out doing good works."

 

Before everybody goes ballistic, I believe that no further charges against GZ are needed  nor are they Constitutional. He's a free man who had his day in court and won, that is the system .As to guilt or innocence, I wasn't at the scene nor was I in court, I have no basis for a solid opinion either way.

 

What bothers me is the constant referral to "Stand Your Ground" "Self Defense" and "Justifiable Homicide" as catch phrases. Later interviews with the jurors has brought to light that self defense and stand your ground were not even strong factors, if any factor at all, in this decision. Florida homicide  law was the basis for the decision. Under FLA law, GZ would have had to disembark his vehicle with intent to kill TM. This was never proven and I, for one, doubt that this was ever the case. He was never found " Not guilty by Justifiable Homicide" but was acquitted because the state did not prove "intent to Murder". The jury did not consider Manslaughter, under which the self defense provisions would have surfaced, because the entire trial was for murder. GZ's defense team had never been allowed to rebut a Manslaughter charge, where they would have presented  self defense as a valid factor . The jury did their job and did it right.

 

However, this is not a case of precedence for future Self Defense cases. It is a precedence for future cases involving "Intent to Commit Murder" cases. Which, by the way, seems to have totally escaped Eric Holder! If there is a problem with the law, it would be in the Homicide Statute, not in Self Defense or Stand Your Ground laws.

Edited July 20, 2013 by wjh2657

[DaveTN]

Yes, and he could go buy a new pistol today, he just isn't getting the one in evidence back (I assume until the federal charges are all dismissed).

What Federal charges?

[JRWnTN]

Just a note about double jeopardy: it will not be in this case because he was charged with, what murder originally? The DOJ is investigating it from a civil rights point of view. If the DOJ were charing him with murder, that would be double jeopardy. 

Actually, they could.  The double jeopardy clause only protects against prosecutions by the same government.  The Supreme Court has said a state and the federal government are "separate sovereigns" and each is entitled to prosecute for violation of its laws.  If someone robs a bank, he can be prosecuted for armed robbery under state law and for bank robbery under federal law.  

 

Plain old murder is not a federal crime, unless it is on federal property or involves a federal employee, etc.  But, there are other crimes, like using a firearm that has moved in interstate commerce to commit another crime.  Of course, there are violations of civil rights laws that may come into play here.

[TNMTBik3r]

What Federal charges?

Meant investigation and then any bs charges they throw at him.

[Paladin132]

Actually, they could.  The double jeopardy clause only protects against prosecutions by the same government.  The Supreme Court has said a state and the federal government are "separate sovereigns" and each is entitled to prosecute for violation of its laws.  If someone robs a bank, he can be prosecuted for armed robbery under state law and for bank robbery under federal law.  

 

Plain old murder is not a federal crime, unless it is on federal property or involves a federal employee, etc.  But, there are other crimes, like using a firearm that has moved in interstate commerce to commit another crime.  Of course, there are violations of civil rights laws that may come into play here.

 

Exactly, my point which I stated poorly, was that they will a) not try him again n the murder charge (as you point out it can not be applied here federally) and b) will not apply because the federal government is looking into charges of violation of federal civil rights statutes not murder.

 

Please excuse my poor online communications skills.  

[Paladin132]

Incidentally, didn't he officers in the King trial get charged with something other than assault (again, probably because it is not a federal crime to assault someone unless you do it in specific circumstances)? 

[RobertNashville]

...What bothers me is the constant referral to "Stand Your Ground" "Self Defense" and "Justifiable Homicide" as catch phrases. Later interviews with the jurors has brought to light that self defense and stand your ground were not even strong factors, if any factor at all, in this decision. Florida homicide  law was the basis for the decision. Under FLA law, GZ would have had to disembark his vehicle with intent to kill TM. This was never proven and I, for one, doubt that this was ever the case. He was never found " Not guilty by Justifiable Homicide" but was acquitted because the state did not prove "intent to Murder". The jury did not consider Manslaughter, under which the self defense provisions would have surfaced, because the entire trial was for murder. GZ's defense team had never been allowed to rebut a Manslaughter charge, where they would have presented  self defense as a valid factor . The jury did their job and did it right.
 
However, this is not a case of precedence for future Self Defense cases. It is a precedence for future cases involving "Intent to Commit Murder" cases. Which, by the way, seems to have totally escaped Eric Holder! If there is a problem with the law, it would be in the Homicide Statute, not in Self Defense or Stand Your Ground laws.

I agree that "stand your ground" was never an issue in this case; it's the press, Obama, Holder and those with an agenda that kept pushing that phrase but that was never part of Zimmerman's defense.  That said, I have to disagree a bit here (even though I'm not an attorney) as to "justifiable homicide"; it isn't  just a catch phrase.

Any killing of a person by another person IS a homicide.

If the homicide is not justified it is murder (of one degree/flavor or another).

 

If the homicide is justified it is not "murder" of any flavor; it is justifiable homicide.

 

I agree that he state did not prove Zimmerman intended to kill Martin but that's only part of the whole - Zimmerman's sole defense was that he killed Martin in self defense and that affirmative was accepted by the jury...if Zimmerman used deadly force appropriately (i.e. in self defense) then he cann't be guilty of murder of any degree and if you read the actual wording of the verdict, Zimmerman was found to be not guilty of the charge or murder 2 and of the charge of manslaughter  (both charges are just two different flavors of murder).

 

Perhaps a distinction without a difference. :shrug:

 

As to Holder, I would submit that he doesn't give a damn about the law...all he cares about is his very long standing agenda and he'll use any excuse to push it forward.

Edited July 21, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

Why doesn't the DOJ butt their noses into this?

 

You won't recognize me. My name was Antonio West and I was the 13-month old child who was shot at point blank range by two teens who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy's peers from Brunswick GA determined the teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty...too bad I was given a death sentence for being innocent and defenseless.

My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. Nor did President Obama take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation'...s history, but the media doesn't care to cover the story of my tragic demise, President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me - so he doesn't care and the media doesn't care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

There is not a white equivalent to Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me. There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer have my life.

Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon.

Thank you.

 

 

 DaveS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RichardR]

Dave,

I'm guessing because they believe that those black-teen's "didn't do nuffin" and are obviously being set up by racist white CIA agents to make black people look bad ...

Believe it or not, but I've heard that particular conspiracy theory an awful lot over the years from blacks to outright dismiss heinous crimes comitted by their fellow blacks.

In fact it's so common that I'd bet money that almost everyone on this forum has heard it used before.

[jtmaze]

That is the problem with the system. Everyone makes the team. Kids get sent to the next grade to get them out of the system.