Possible Civil Rights Case Against Zimmerman

[desert dude]

I think the government has shot its wad with Zimmerman.

The case to watch is Zimmerman's law suit against NBC.



http://news.yahoo.com/next-three-trials-george-zimmerman-155539718.html

"
It's unlikely that the government will pursue criminal civil rights charges in The case: The Times explains why.

Three former Justice Department officials who once worked in the department’s Civil Rights Division, which is handling the inquiry, said Sunday that the federal government must clear a series of difficult legal hurdles before it could move to indict Mr. Zimmerman. “It is not enough if it’s just a fight that escalated,” said Samuel Bagenstos, who until 2011 served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the division. “The government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted willfully with a seriously culpable state of mind” to violate Mr. Martin’s civil rights."

"A former U.S. Attorney explained to the Associated Press what that means in this specific case: "They'd have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street." That the killing occurred in a gated community may be enough to block any action by the Department of Justice."

​

 

[Doer]

Well, all true in Self Rule. But, I just heard the A Gen. say he has to "...protect his people."

I think I don't see it the same. There are anti-constiutional forces now. I don't assume the DEMs are for the America we know. I don't think any longer that they are just fuck ups. NO. I see a multi-generational design to not make it better.

Says the hired Sword Master: "We can't think they will all fight like fine gentlemen, can we, Sir?"

The Duelist - Alexander Dumas

 

[Impman]

I can go follow DessertDude around and talk mad shit to his face. Then if dessertdude pushes me and I punch him back. then dessertdude starts kicking my ass. He gets on top of me and begins banging my head into the sidewalk in a full mount. then DD says ' Im gonna kill you!'. In Florida I would have the legal right to kill DD. End of story. Im sick of hearing about how GZ was provoking a fight. SO? It is the fault of whatever IDIOTS voted in the "stand you ground law". Get off the hard drugs Floridians.

 

[desert dude]

I can go follow DessertDude around and talk mad shit to his face. Then if dessertdude pushes me and I punch him back. then dessertdude starts kicking my ass. He gets on top of me and begins banging my head into the sidewalk in a full mount. then DD says ' Im gonna kill you!'. In Florida I would have the legal right to kill DD. End of story. Im sick of hearing about how GZ was provoking a fight. SO? It is the fault of whatever IDIOTS voted in the "stand you ground law". Get off the hard drugs Floridians.

Imp, this case has nothing to do Florida's SYG law, it was simple self defense, SYG was not invoked.

The SYG law might have an impact on a civil trial though because it provides immunity from civil suit. Not to say that TM's parents won't try to do a civil "wrongful death" suit, but it looks like Z will be shielded from it.

 

[ChesusRice]

I can go follow DessertDude around and talk mad shit to his face. Then if dessertdude pushes me and I punch him back. then dessertdude starts kicking my ass. He gets on top of me and begins banging my head into the sidewalk in a full mount. then DD says ' Im gonna kill you!'. In Florida I would have the legal right to kill DD. End of story. Im sick of hearing about how GZ was provoking a fight. SO? It is the fault of whatever IDIOTS voted in the "stand you ground law". Get off the hard drugs Floridians.

So you advocate giving everyone a right to kill. I can just go up to anyone and provoke a fight. And if I start getting my ass kicked I can just shoot the guy. Thanks for making my point

 

[ChesusRice]

Imp, this case has nothing to do Florida's SYG law, it was simple self defense, SYG was not invoked.

The SYG law might have an impact on a civil trial though because it provides immunity from civil suit. Not to say that TM's parents won't try to do a civil "wrongful death" suit, but it looks like Z will be shielded from it.

There is no self defense when you are the provoker in a attack

 

[Rob Roy]

So you advocate giving everyone a right to kill. I can just go up to anyone and provoke a fight. And if I start getting my ass kicked I can just shoot the guy. Thanks for making my point

B-but but you have Harley...maybe even two. Nobody can kick YOUR ass!!

 

[Rob Roy]

There is no self defense when you are the provoker in a attack

Well congratulations. You just described why alot of people don't like government. Man there's hope for you yet!

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

There is with stand your ground...

Asking someone what they are doing there is not provoking a fight. Unless of course you like to fight, in which case anything can be a provocation to fight.

 

[Doer]

Well, it is interesting in that there is only one side of the story of how this happened. And as a Citizen, I say a lot of it stinks.

"There is no cure for stupidity and no law against it." Doer

To me, Martin could have invoked the SYG. There is another good reason, not to go there. If Martin was resisting being questioned in the dark that is SYG also.

But, we will never know.

 

[beardo]

It was nice to see that our leaders could take a break from their busy schedules of arming mexican cartels and terrorists in Syria and celebrating Independence day-the 4th of July in Africa, to stir up some racism.

 

[NoDrama]

and you also will be contributing to his prosecution fund as well....gotta love them taxes.

Have you signed the petition yet. I have at MOVEON.org

Even the ones who send Zimmerdude money won't be able to escape giving the prosecution some too, its called taxes.

Other than that, there is no "Prosecution fund", you can send them more tax money though, but you'll just get a refund.

Keepin it real for ya.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Divide and conquer.

 

[Julius Caesar]

and you also will be contributing to his prosecution fund as well....gotta love them taxes.

Have you signed the petition yet. I have at MOVEON.org

It is a shame internet petitions did not exist during the drafting of the constitution. I am sure the framers would have included them into the judicial process. Rather than bother with worrisome formalities such as indictments and arraignments, we could just take a poll.

 

[Rob Roy]

It is a shame internet petitions did not exist during the drafting of the constitution. I am sure the framers would have included them into the judicial process. Rather than bother with worrisome formalities such as indictments and arraignments, we could just take a poll.

Actually the constitution was ratified by a poll. Rather than all colonies (states if you will) providing consent, the federal UNITED STATES was formed by a coup. Only 9 of the 13 were "needed".

Of course the whole concept of a state speaking for an individual is as flawed as a federal government doing the same. A state although smaller than the federal government can no more provide an individuals consent than a federal government can.

You need a dose of Lysander Spooner reading. I suggest his essay on the Constitution of no authority, it's brilliant in its simplicity. Nice avatar though.

 

[londonfog]

It is a shame internet petitions did not exist during the drafting of the constitution. I am sure the framers would have included them into the judicial process. Rather than bother with worrisome formalities such as indictments and arraignments, we could just take a poll.

Maybe we can write them in as an amendment. That seems the only way to make the Constitution better anyway....seeing how it was not written for ALL the people in the beginning.

 

[Rob Roy]

Maybe we can write them in as an amendment. That seems the only way to make the Constitution better anyway....seeing how it was not written for ALL the people in the beginning.

No document can be written for all the people. The constitution wasn't written for all the people, nor can it morally bind any but those that agreed to it, and those few men are all dead. Thinking democracy will solve problems is an endorsement of gang rape.

Agreements between consenting people would be better than edicts given to people under the guise of authority.

Bottom line, there should be two laws for "all the people". The first is do no harm to others or their justly acquired property. The second is all people are responsible for their actions.

 

[Doer]

Bottom line, there should be two laws for "all the people". The first is do no harm to others or their justly acquired property. The second is all people are responsible for their actions.

My BUDDY! You are so confused here, I just want to break the glass of your cage.

We already have those laws. Those concepts and about a dozen more were the Magna Carta, 1252?

You simple don't acknowledge there is bad behavior.

1) do no harm to others (not always appropriate)

2) all people are responsible for their actions (not always possible)

So, what you hate for some reason is all the gray area in 1 and 2. That must be adjudicated regardless, in some way.

Drowning survival test?
Mortal combat?
Hired brutes as lawyers?

The Rule of Law?

You just don't get it. We have what you what. We have all that can be safely balanced.

 

[londonfog]

No document can be written for all the people. The constitution wasn't written for all the people, nor can it morally bind any but those that agreed to it, and those few men are all dead. Thinking democracy will solve problems is an endorsement of gang rape.

Agreements between consenting people would be better than edicts given to people under the guise of authority.

Bottom line, there should be two laws for "all the people". The first is do no harm to others or their justly acquired property. The second is all people are responsible for their actions.

I disagree that a document can't be written for all the people. I guess the founders thought as you do. I don't think the Constitution was written as a moral binding, but more so as to a legal one.

 

[Doer]

I disagree that a document can't be written for all the people. I guess the founders thought as you do. I don't think the Constitution was written as a moral binding, but more so as to a legal one.

There is no such thing as moral binding. Those are religions and strictures. Good one, Fog.

A nation constituted under the Rule of Law, constantly challenged and fought over. (with money, not blood)

Morals were strictly written out. Good behavior not depended on. Divine Reckoning irrelevant. Just balance the needs of the many against the in-alienable rights in a 3 legged, 10 rail Freedom train.

Should be easy enough. And it is...barely.