Zimmerman verdict in not guilty

[Abwx]

Obviously you can't read.

Right but you are not a reader as well :

If the earlier trial is a fraud, double jeopardy will not prohibit a new trial because the party acquitted has prevented themselves from being placed into "jeopardy" to begin with

 

[RabidMongoose]

You are trying to apply someone crossing state lines to the zimmerman case?

Do you have a case where the federal government went after someone after being found not guilty in a state court?

It's not about the same crime, but the same act. For example, Rodney King.

 

[Texashiker]

It's not about the same crime, but the same act. For example, Rodney King.

The second rodney king trial was civil, not criminal.

 

[RabidMongoose]

have you gone a single post in this thread without saying "de-assimilated"?

Yes.

 

[DCal430]

You are trying to apply someone crossing state lines to the zimmerman case?

Do you have a case where the federal government went after someone after being found not guilty in a state court?

The link states both federal and state can prosecute for the same crime. The link states this.

 

[DCal430]

Not how it works you moron. Quit the Internet. You're a failure.

You are an idiot. You have no idea how double jepordy works.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The second rodney king trial was civil, not criminal.

It was a federal action on civil rights violations. A couple of people ended up going to prison. It was criminal offense of civil rights violations.

 

[Texashiker]

The link states both federal and state can prosecute for the same crime. The link states this.

Do you have an example of a previous case?

 

[DCal430]

Do you have an example of a previous case?

http://www.tlgattorneys.com/2010/08...rosecution-by-a-separate-sovereign-authority/

 

[RabidMongoose]

Do you have an example of a previous case?

Rodney King.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Based on the high burden of proof I don't see how the Fed can charge GZ with a hate crime or violation of TM civil rights.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/justice_department_says_crimin.html

"The Justice Department would face significant challenges in bringing a federal civil rights case against Mr. Zimmerman," said Alan Vinegrad, the former U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. "There are several factual and legal hurdles that federal prosecutors would have to overcome: 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."

As to the last element, the confrontation between Zimmerman and the shooting victim occurred in a gated community, which may not fit the legal definition of a public facility.
Lauren Resnick, a former federal prosecutor in New York who successfully tried a man in the killing of an Orthodox Jew during the 1991 Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn, said the Justice Department could conceivably proceed under a theory that Zimmerman interfered with Martin's right to walk down a public street based on his race or religion. But that would be challenging, she said, because it would require prosecutors to prove, among other things, that trailing Martin on the street constituted interference.

"One could argue it did, if it freaked him out and he couldn't comfortably walk down the street -- there's an argument here," said Resnick, who is now in private practice.
But she said federal prosecutors were likely to encounter the same hurdles as state prosecutors in establishing that Zimmerman was driven by racial animus and was the initial aggressor, as opposed to someone who acted in self-defense.

"When you have a fact pattern where one person's alive, and one person's not, and the person alive is the defendant, it's hard to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt," said Resnick.
Samuel Bagenstos, a former No. 2 official in the Justice Department's civil rights division, said: "This is an administration that hasn't shied away from bringing hate crimes cases that are solid prosecutions based on the facts and the law, but from what I've seen this would be a very difficult case to prosecute federally because the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted because of Trayvon Martin's race. If you're trying to prove racial motivation, you are usually looking for multiple statements related to why he is engaging in this act of violence. I think it's a difficult case to prove."

 

[dali71]

You are an idiot. You have no idea how double jepordy works.

 

[Zebo]

@londo the FBI already ruled it was no racial element. They already tried. No way this goes to Federal court on civil right violations when FBI already said race played no role. Once again prosecution would be defense team lol.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What Obama and Holder wants; the DOJ shall deliver. :thumbsdown:

While the initial FBI investigation stated that race place no role; there is nothing preventing a "fuller" investigation to come up with a different concept/information and twist it to apply.
This is the potential of the full weight of the Federal Government being used in a miscarriage of justice to serve their master(s).

We saw what happened with the IRS when someone wanted to please.

anyone that speaks out will go down the garbage chute; Florida showed it in their cover up

 

[Texashiker]

While the initial FBI investigation stated that race place no role; there is nothing preventing a "fuller" investigation to come up with a different concept/information and twist it to apply.

If the federal government goes after zimmerman it will be wrong on so many levels.

Not only double jeopardy, but the trial would pit two minority groups against each other.

This is not a white vs black issue. It is a latino vs black problem.

 

[SSSnail]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/m-new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html

 

[Ichinisan]

OP: Fix the title. "Guity" is not a word.

 

[RabidMongoose]

If the federal government goes after zimmerman it will be wrong on so many levels.

Not only double jeopardy, but the trial would pit two minority groups against each other.

This is not a white vs black issue. It is a latino vs black problem.

It would not be double jeopardy. Stop talking about things that you have no idea about.

 

[Texashiker]

It would not be double jeopardy. Stop talking about things that you have no idea about.

In the eyes of the public it would be double jeopardy.

 

[RabidMongoose]

In the eyes of the public it would be double jeopardy.

No it wouldn't because that's not correct.

 

[ivwshane]

Police profile cars all the time.

Bank robbers driving a red 4 door car. I bet the police pull over every red 4 door car in a 10 mile radius.

And so what if Zimmerman profiled Martin. That did not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman.

The police are trained professionals zimmerman wasn't.

Would you like to move the goal post some more? Profiling by race is called racial profiling and is indeed racist, just because you think it's ok doesnt change that fact.

 

[DCal430]

Based on the high burden of proof I don't see how the Fed can charge GZ with a hate crime or violation of TM civil rights.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/justice_department_says_crimin.html

On the call with the 911 operator we can hear Zimmerman use the N word, so we know he attacked trayvon out of hate.

Your incessant trolling is starting to wear out. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Doppel]

You are an idiot. You have no idea how double jepordy works.

Don't you have a co-worker to poison?

 

[Doppel]

On the call with the 911 operator we can hear Zimmerman use the N word, so we know he attacked trayvon out of hate.

quoted. Prove this immediately or post reported for trolling.

 

[Texashiker]

Would you like to move the goal post some more? Profiling by race is called racial profiling and is indeed racist, just because you think it's ok doesnt change that fact.

So what? Is it a crime for someone to profile by race?

Lets say Zimmerman did racially profile Martin. Did that give martin the right to attack Zimmerman?

No it wouldn't because that's not correct.

I disagree.

The general public would see it as an act of desperation on part of the government.