Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

And the Zimmerman verdict is...

Page 8 of 13 [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

20 Jul 2013, 3:22 am

cyberdad wrote:
So under federal US Law it's still possible for this to be deemed a civil rights violation?


Possible, but highly unlikely, though that won't stop them from making noises like they're trying.

The only way the feds could get involved would be if they could come up with evidence of a civil rights violation by Zimmerman, which given the lack of evidence and murky circumstances, is an even harder case to make than the one the state prosecutors just whiffed on. They couldn't even make manslaughter stick, and the federal case would have to not only prove that he committed a crime, but that he did so for certain specific reasons, such as racism. It's just not going to happen.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Last edited by Dox47 on 20 Jul 2013, 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

20 Jul 2013, 3:25 am

cyberdad wrote:
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is the jury, in the Zimmerman case, could not really decide to apply punitive measures (as proposed by the prosecution) because there were no witnesses and therefore (crucially) no evidence to prosecute Zimmerman.


Do you need to be a lawyer to understand that no witnesses and no evidence don't really make a convincing case?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

20 Jul 2013, 8:23 am

cyberdad wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
a civil suite asured.but a federal civil rights trial,i doubt.
in the case of the california highway patrolman who was a seriel rapist.in those days there was no DNA,and the shrewed officer knew how to destroy evidence that was there.after his murder rape aquital,the angle on his federal rights civil rights conviction was:
an officer of the law taking radar late at night on remote highways and using a traffic stop to get a female under his control.so a goverment employee kidnapping a citizen without an arrest warrant.unless 62 in a 55 is a crime(no).
there was the civil rights angle.or the clear racial implications in the mississippi burning movie.Z confrontd T.V but did not kidnap him.with T's pot use,proving Z used racial profiling not facts as grouns to confront T will be hard

So under federal US Law it's still possible for this to be deemed a civil rights violation?
its possible but if you read my post its not likely.
in other cases where the feds did retry a case on civil rights grounds there was a civil rights angle.like the highway patrolman that used his badge,gun,handcuffs and flashing lights to kidnap women.so a goverment employee kidnaping a citizen is a clear violation of the violation of someone's civil rights.but zimmerman confronted but did not kidnap martin.

or the real life case that inspired the movie mississippi burning.where white men convicted of killing black men where given probation.obvious racism there.the feds would have to prove that zimmerman confronted martin only because he was a teenage black male.but with travon martins known marajuana use that could be hard to prove.confronting martin because he was a suspected drug user is not racial profiling


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Jul 2013, 1:47 pm

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is the jury, in the Zimmerman case, could not really decide to apply punitive measures (as proposed by the prosecution) because there were no witnesses and therefore (crucially) no evidence to prosecute Zimmerman.


Do you need to be a lawyer to understand that no witnesses and no evidence don't really make a convincing case?


One does if one is a Pinko Stinko Hate America Commie Loving Left Wing Liberal Democrast who has a Political Agenda.

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

20 Jul 2013, 6:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
One does if one is a Pinko Stinko Hate America Commie Loving Left Wing Liberal Democrast who has a Political Agenda.

ruveyn


Or is Australian, apparently.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

21 Jul 2013, 3:50 am

vermontsavant wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
a civil suite asured.but a federal civil rights trial,i doubt.
in the case of the california highway patrolman who was a seriel rapist.in those days there was no DNA,and the shrewed officer knew how to destroy evidence that was there.after his murder rape aquital,the angle on his federal rights civil rights conviction was:
an officer of the law taking radar late at night on remote highways and using a traffic stop to get a female under his control.so a goverment employee kidnapping a citizen without an arrest warrant.unless 62 in a 55 is a crime(no).
there was the civil rights angle.or the clear racial implications in the mississippi burning movie.Z confrontd T.V but did not kidnap him.with T's pot use,proving Z used racial profiling not facts as grouns to confront T will be hard

So under federal US Law it's still possible for this to be deemed a civil rights violation?
its possible but if you read my post its not likely.
in other cases where the feds did retry a case on civil rights grounds there was a civil rights angle.like the highway patrolman that used his badge,gun,handcuffs and flashing lights to kidnap women.so a goverment employee kidnaping a citizen is a clear violation of the violation of someone's civil rights.but zimmerman confronted but did not kidnap martin.

or the real life case that inspired the movie mississippi burning.where white men convicted of killing black men where given probation.obvious racism there.the feds would have to prove that zimmerman confronted martin only because he was a teenage black male.but with travon martins known marajuana use that could be hard to prove.confronting martin because he was a suspected drug user is not racial profiling


There appears to be contradictory statements made by George Zimmerman himself to the police that appear to incriminate him with second degree murder. If these were deemed inadmissible in his trial (as they were considered prejudicial at the time) perhaps these could be released for further scrutiny.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25 ... tatements/



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

21 Jul 2013, 3:53 am

Dox47 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
One does if one is a Pinko Stinko Hate America Commie Loving Left Wing Liberal Democrast who has a Political Agenda.

ruveyn


Or is Australian, apparently.


Rest assured, we have a healthy ratio of right wing gun nuts per head of population in Australia. I agree with NY Mayor Bloomberg that if guns were not freely available to mentally unstable individuals such as Zimmerman then tragedies such as these would not happen.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

21 Jul 2013, 5:56 am

cyberdad wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
a civil suite asured.but a federal civil rights trial,i doubt.
in the case of the california highway patrolman who was a seriel rapist.in those days there was no DNA,and the shrewed officer knew how to destroy evidence that was there.after his murder rape aquital,the angle on his federal rights civil rights conviction was:
an officer of the law taking radar late at night on remote highways and using a traffic stop to get a female under his control.so a goverment employee kidnapping a citizen without an arrest warrant.unless 62 in a 55 is a crime(no).
there was the civil rights angle.or the clear racial implications in the mississippi burning movie.Z confrontd T.V but did not kidnap him.with T's pot use,proving Z used racial profiling not facts as grouns to confront T will be hard

So under federal US Law it's still possible for this to be deemed a civil rights violation?
its possible but if you read my post its not likely.
in other cases where the feds did retry a case on civil rights grounds there was a civil rights angle.like the highway patrolman that used his badge,gun,handcuffs and flashing lights to kidnap women.so a goverment employee kidnaping a citizen is a clear violation of the violation of someone's civil rights.but zimmerman confronted but did not kidnap martin.

or the real life case that inspired the movie mississippi burning.where white men convicted of killing black men where given probation.obvious racism there.the feds would have to prove that zimmerman confronted martin only because he was a teenage black male.but with travon martins known marajuana use that could be hard to prove.confronting martin because he was a suspected drug user is not racial profiling


There appears to be contradictory statements made by George Zimmerman himself to the police that appear to incriminate him with second degree murder. If these were deemed inadmissible in his trial (as they were considered prejudicial at the time) perhaps these could be released for further scrutiny.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25 ... tatements/
yes previously excluded evidence could be used in a retrial


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Jul 2013, 8:17 am

vermontsavant wrote:
yes previously excluded evidence could be used in a retrial


Under the constitution no retrial under the same or subordinate charges are legal.

Zimmerman would have to be tried under a Federal "hate crime" law and he can only be charged of depriving that poor boy of his civil rights from racially motivated actions. By the way, this charge is extremely difficult to prove and the D.O.J. is very hesitant about undertaking such an action. Even that fascist Eric Holder has his doubts.

ruveyn



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

21 Jul 2013, 10:24 am

ruveyn wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
yes previously excluded evidence could be used in a retrial


Under the constitution no retrial under the same or subordinate charges are legal.

Zimmerman would have to be tried under a Federal "hate crime" law and he can only be charged of depriving that poor boy of his civil rights from racially motivated actions. By the way, this charge is extremely difficult to prove and the D.O.J. is very hesitant about undertaking such an action. Even that fascist Eric Holder has his doubts.

ruveyn
if you read my last couple of posts i said exactly that.i even gave some examples of previous civil rights conviction after murder aquitals and the circumstances that would make a civil rights conviction more likely.

yes inadmissible evidence from state trial can sometimes be use in a federal or civil trial.but also evidence deemed admissible in state criminal trial but be seen as irelivent in a trial strictley about civil rights.
you have made these statements about my post before.next time either read my previous posts or dont respond at all

thank you


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


OddButWhy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2013
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 637
Location: Penn's Woods

21 Jul 2013, 10:50 am

vermontsavant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
yes previously excluded evidence could be used in a retrial


Under the constitution no retrial under the same or subordinate charges are legal.

Zimmerman would have to be tried under a Federal "hate crime" law and he can only be charged of depriving that poor boy of his civil rights from racially motivated actions. By the way, this charge is extremely difficult to prove and the D.O.J. is very hesitant about undertaking such an action. Even that fascist Eric Holder has his doubts.

ruveyn
if you read my last couple of posts i said exactly that.i even gave some examples of previous civil rights conviction after murder aquitals and the circumstances that would make a civil rights conviction more likely.

yes inadmissible evidence from state trial can sometimes be use in a federal or civil trial.but also evidence deemed admissible in state criminal trial but be seen as irelivent in a trial strictley about civil rights.
you have made these statements about my post before.next time either read my previous posts or dont respond at all

thank you


It's the word "retrial." You might mean a new trial on different charges (e.g. Federal civil rights violation), but that is something different from a retrial, which is just what Ruveyn stated. I think you know this, your posts indicate familiarity with the legal concepts. But for those who hold out hope that Z can or will be retried for murder, no false hope should be offered. [/nitpicking]



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

21 Jul 2013, 11:00 am

OddButWhy wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
yes previously excluded evidence could be used in a retrial


Under the constitution no retrial under the same or subordinate charges are legal.

Zimmerman would have to be tried under a Federal "hate crime" law and he can only be charged of depriving that poor boy of his civil rights from racially motivated actions. By the way, this charge is extremely difficult to prove and the D.O.J. is very hesitant about undertaking such an action. Even that fascist Eric Holder has his doubts.

ruveyn
if you read my last couple of posts i said exactly that.i even gave some examples of previous civil rights conviction after murder aquitals and the circumstances that would make a civil rights conviction more likely.

yes inadmissible evidence from state trial can sometimes be use in a federal or civil trial.but also evidence deemed admissible in state criminal trial but be seen as irelivent in a trial strictley about civil rights.
you have made these statements about my post before.next time either read my previous posts or dont respond at all

thank you


It's the word "retrial." You might mean a new trial on different charges (e.g. Federal civil rights violation), but that is something different from a retrial, which is just what Ruveyn stated. I think you know this, your posts indicate familiarity with the legal concepts. But for those who hold out hope that Z can or will be retried for murder, no false hope should be offered. [/nitpicking]
the phrase i meant was a new trial on new charges.i spoke wrong and i admitt.the only time a deffendent can be retried for the same crime is if the defendent did or paid someone else to bribe a judge,jurror or DA.
But the defendent must have had knowlege or participated in the fix.if a rich kid is aquited because his dad gave the judge 100,000 dollars and son had no knowlege of it he still cant be retried.

the onlyb such happening of this was the trial of a mob hitman to whom mob bosses bribed the judge and jurry and murdered all of 1 witness.but that one witness was enough to put the hitman away.the luck was that it was on the judges death bed with nothing to loose that he admitted the fix was in.
look up the harry allaman trial in chigaco on google.i dont have specific link


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

21 Jul 2013, 1:34 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Rest assured, we have a healthy ratio of right wing gun nuts per head of population in Australia. I agree with NY Mayor Bloomberg that if guns were not freely available to mentally unstable individuals such as Zimmerman then tragedies such as these would not happen.


You have Zimmerman's psych profile?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jul 2013, 1:36 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
One does if one is a Pinko Stinko Hate America Commie Loving Left Wing Liberal Democrast who has a Political Agenda.

ruveyn


Or is Australian, apparently.


Rest assured, we have a healthy ratio of right wing gun nuts per head of population in Australia. I agree with NY Mayor Bloomberg that if guns were not freely available to mentally unstable individuals such as Zimmerman then tragedies such as these would not happen.


:roll:
You're saying that politically conservative gun owners are mentally unstable.
When was it released that Zimmerman was mentally unstable? The only questionable choice he made was getting out of his vehicle which hardly makes someone mentally unstable.
Guns are not free or available to the mentally ill per federal law.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

21 Jul 2013, 2:10 pm

Raptor wrote:
You're saying that politically conservative gun owners are mentally unstable.


I think he's actually saying that all gun owners are mentally unstable, but then again this is the guy who thinks that there was a strong case against Zimmerman, except for the whole no witnesses or evidence thing... :roll:


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jul 2013, 2:22 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
You're saying that politically conservative gun owners are mentally unstable.


I think he's actually saying that all gun owners are mentally unstable, but then again this is the guy who thinks that there was a strong case against Zimmerman, except for the whole no witnesses or evidence thing... :roll:


Probly so but this time he specifically said right wing gun nuts. I saw it as a divide and conquer tactic; go after the really naughty ones first then take the rest in smaller bites. Same as when they screech about "dangerous assault rifles" first then ultimately demonize the rest and go after them by order of evilness.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson