NAACP To DOJ: We Are Not Done Demanding Justice For Trayvon
"The DOJ launched a review of the shooting earlier this year and Holder said that they would take proper action if they had evidence of a civil rights crime."
civil rights crime. wow, just wow
civil rights crime. wow, just wow
I am sure it is only a statement in frustration that 6 people did not agree with the mob. Justice has been served by the 6 people who listened to the evidence, weighed the facts as they have been presented, and deciding with their own minds a verdict based on their understanding of the law and the information provided. Is it justice that calls that he must pay? That there must be a cost levied upon him for the death of the young man. It is only revenge that they seek, not justice. Their blind arrogance leads them to believe that their judgment to be superior to all others.
Also, is it correct for me to infer that at any time death has occurred that it is a violation of civil rights? That leads down a whole new rabbit hole…
Zimmerman was tried for 2nd degree murder and found innocent.
The charge of 3rd degree murder was thrown out.
The charge Manslaughter was included and Zimmerman was found innocent of that as well.
So he can no longer be charged with the crime of murder/manslaughter without facing Double Jeopardy.
So the some other charge, unrelated to murder/manslaughter will be trumped up on the federal level and Zimmerman will be found "guilty" in an even more egregious circus-like show trial.
If I were Zimmerman, I would be on the first plane out of Obamatopia and be seeking political asylum from a country which would not honor US extradition.
Remember the Rodney King case? I'm sure many of us were thinking about the L.A. riots as the Zimmerman not guilty verdict was announced.
It's important to remember what happened to the police officers in the Rodney King case after their trials in California
From Wikipedia:
"Four of the police officers from the LAPD who engaged in the incident were charged in Los Angeles County Superior Court with assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force for their conduct during the incident. After a judicial finding that a fair and impartial jury could not be impaneled in Los Angeles County, the case was given a change of venue to the city of Simi Valley, in Ventura County, where they were tried. On April 29, 1992, three of the four police officers, (Koon, Wind, and Briseno) were acquitted of all charges. The jury acquitted the fourth officer, (Powell), on the assault with a deadly weapon charge but failed to reach a verdict on the use of excessive force charge. The jury deadlocked at 8-4 in favor of acquittal.
The acquittals are generally considered to have triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which 53 people were killed, and over two thousand were injured. The riots ended after soldiers from the United States Army National Guard, along with United States Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton, California, were called in to assist local authorities and quell the riots.
On August 4, 1992 a Federal Grand Jury after hearing evidence from federal prosecutors, indicted the four officers on charges of violating King's civil rights. The four men were put on trial on February 25, 1993 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California located in downtown Los Angeles. On April 16, 1993 the trial ended with two of the police officers, (Koon and Powell) found guilty, and subsequently imprisoned. The other two officers, (Wind and Briseno) were acquitted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King...
We expect the DOJ to investigate and prosecute crimes. Experiencing surprise or disapproval of those activities is irregular. I'd like to know what is unusual about him being investigated or prosecuted. If that's "anti-reason," I'd like to be educated on my error.
I'm asking you that if Zimmerman violated Martin's lawfully promulgated rights prior to the confrontation, then why wouldn't he be prosecuted for it?
In regard to laws that favor one demographic over another, my opinions are not relevant to your assertion that something is amiss in the situation.
The reference to self-defense is a straw man. The theory of civil rights violation rests on Zimmerman pursuing Martin because of Martin's race.
If it's against the law to do such a thing, why wouldn't the DOJ pursue it?
The DOJ did not pursue civil rights crimes in the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Why do you think? Oh, that's right. the attorney general explicitly said that they will not pursue any voting rights issues against Blacks.
What is your stance on laws that give one group of people more rights than the rest of the people?
You omitted the "wow, just wow" from your quote, which is material. A conditional argument was presented; your wows are expressions of surprise; I challenged the surprise: if something was unlawful, why wouldn't it be pursued? It appears that the group of posters are in agreement with you that something is amiss; I welcome them to answer too.
Your claim that my question asserted a foregone conclusion is not rational.
acting in self-defense is not unlawful. A jury of his peers concurred.
Concocting federal charges based on an anti-concept is irrational. Not only wastes valuable resources but perpetuates the fallacy that one race of people are entitled to extra rights. That is also irrational. asked and answered twice now.
You irrationally concluded that my question was part of an argument in favor of continued prosecution. Your behavior is an admission that you hold that a question is an argument. In light of that fact, one must conclude that your questions are arguments; therefore, your question about me is an argument against me.
My question still stands: what is the argument against continued prosecution?
you: "What reason do they have not to?"
Your question is framed as a foregone conclusion. Such as, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest they move forward (the Fed), give even ONE reason they should not.
I can think of a dozen.
There was nothing in the framing of my question to suggest a foregone conclusion. Although you have said you have read several Rand books, you have not explicitly said you were an Objectivist. I was curious. and argumentative, because I'm disagreeing with your statements on other posts regarding "racism." This follows the same basic road. Please, feel free to let us know that you respect the jury's verdict and accept Mr. Zimmerman is innocent. If not, then put your reasoning out there.
To be frank, I thought I was an Objectivist, but my experience here thus far calls into question the definition that I had or, at least, leads me to question what it means to claim to be a practicing Objectivist. But, your question is another assertion about my person when my question was unrelated to my character; therefore, it's irrelevant. So, if you'd like to engage in a rational exchange, as I believe is a practical tenet of Objectivism, then I'd ask you to not bring my character into question when I have not used authority as a premise in a discussion. Is that acceptable to you?
I didn't say that the jurors should or shouldn't be overruled. I'm asking for the specific argument that you folks have against them from continuing their attack on Zimmerman.
With respect, you using the point system or not "against" me is trivial. I just considered those badges of intellectual cowardice belonging to the group, but I've concluded much worse about you. I consider you worse than a coward; I consider you intellectually dishonest and malicious.
I say this because, since you mention it, my opinion of you must be of some interest to you.
It's ironic that an association ostensibly based on reason is so hostile towards solicitations to demonstrate their rational prowess. Silly.
The Rodney King case is an excellent example of what Zimmerman might soon face at the federal level.
I have listened to a zillion talking head lawyers on cable channels, and they all agree that there is no basis for a Civil Rights violation charge....
Especially if they need another diversion from future scandals....
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-sharpton-d......
Another Duke lacrosse farce....