Obama Files Federal Charges Against Zimmerman

[n david]

Originally Posted by houston

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of...ment-president

Listen up....I'll say it once: that's a good statement from Obama. I hope the actions of his Justice dept reflect what he said... that the Jury has spoken. No need to have a black president request his black attorney general to prosecute a Hispanic man over the death of a black young man.
If this happens, they may as well call it the FUBU Just-us dept. For Us By Us, Just Us.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by n david

Listen up....I'll say it once: that's a good statement from Obama. I hope the actions of his Justice dept reflect what he said... that the Jury has spoken. No need to have a black president request his black attorney general to prosecute a Hispanic man over the death of a black young man.
If this happens, they may as well call it the FUBU Just-us dept. For Us By Us, Just Us.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Listen up....I'll say it once: that's a good statement from Obama. I hope the actions of his Justice dept reflect what he said... that the Jury has spoken. No need to have a black president request his black attorney general to prosecute a Hispanic man over the death of a black young man.
If this happens, they may as well call it the FUBU Just-us dept. For Us By Us, Just Us.

[Pressing-On]

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: In general, the Justice Department doesn't investigate civil rights violations that is committed by one individual against another, unless that individual works for the State or Federal government. A violation of civil rights usually involves the State, the Government violating someone's civil rights. George Zimmerman can't really alone violate the civil rights of an individual even if he were to be guilty of the crime.

There ought to be a Justice Department investigation, but it needs to focus on Prosecutor Corey in this case. She really violated civil rights in this case.

She submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. She, by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She's known for overcharging, she's known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn't going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I've seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I've seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor, [Angela] Cory. (Huckabee, July 14, 2013)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...disbarred.html

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I heard Dersowitz say those things, very telling, hopefully she has met her match in O'Mara, as the defense team pursues the sanctions.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Double jeopardy is an often misunderstood concept in American Law. The rule merely states that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime in the SAME COURT. Liberal Justice Department officials often charge Americans with crimes from which they have previously been acquitted by filing federal charges on a similar crime in a federal court.

Now, compare that claptrap with the actual law -

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Article V, Bill of Rights)

Nothing there about it's okay to try someone for the same crime as long as it's in another court.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now, compare that claptrap with the actual law -

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Article V, Bill of Rights)

Nothing there about it's okay to try someone for the same crime as long as it's in another court.

They aren't going after GZ for the same crime he was acquitted of. That would be double jeopardy. They are looking at a Civil Rights charge - TM's civil right to walk down the street, etc. This was what the passion vocalized during and after this trial - a boy walking home with Skittles.

The DOJ will have to check to make sure no part of the civil rights issue was already litigated during the Zimmerman trial.

The psychobabble drivel on this issue is ridiculous. I heard someone commenting in this fashion - "One of the things the law has not kept pace with is the progress we have made on race and how our brains on race, the brain science of how race works, is actually much more subtle and complex than what the law currently recognizes. 98% of our brain works subconsciously, and I am not saying we should criminalize that. But, the standards haven't kept pace with social science."

I just threw up in my mouth.

Another thing that is mudding the waters is the issue of GZ's "profiling". Although he never profiled race, he did profile the clothing as typical of what they found young men, black or otherwise, to be wearing when engaging in acts of robbery, etc.

So, we are back here at the TSA, where outrage over the profiling of Middle Eastern looking people brings us to touching children inappropriately, checking inside women's underwear and an elderly woman being forced to remove her diaper.

A world gone mad!

[odooley6985]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They aren't going after GZ for the same crime he was acquitted of. That would be double jeopardy. They are looking at a Civil Rights charge - TM's civil right to walk down the street, etc. This was what the passion vocalized during and after this trial - a boy walking home with Skittles.

The DOJ will have to check to make sure no part of the civil rights issue was already litigated during the Zimmerman trial.

The psychobabble drivel on this issue is ridiculous. I heard someone commenting in this fashion - "One of the things the law has not kept pace with is the progress we have made on race and how our brains on race, the brain science of how race works, is actually much more subtle and complex than what the law currently recognizes. 98% of our brain works subconsciously, and I am not saying we should criminalize that. But, the standards haven't kept pace with social science."

I just threw up in my mouth.

Another thing that is mudding the waters is the issue of GZ's "profiling". Although he never profiled race, he did profile the clothing as typical of what they found young men, black or otherwise, to be wearing when engaging in acts of robbery, etc.

So, we are back here at the TSA, where outrage over the profiling of Middle Eastern looking people brings us to touching children inappropriately, checking inside women's underwear and an elderly woman being forced to remove her diaper.

A world gone mad!

Who cares if he profiled? He isnt a cop!!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

Who cares if he profiled? He isnt a cop!!!!

Too much coffee or not enough?

He can profile as Neighborhood Watch. That was part of his job. He was trained to "watch". That will always involve some profiling.

Don't tell me you don't evaluate situations as to whether or not they are dangerous or safe. We all do it every day.

When I lived in Houston as a single woman, I purchased a new car. I was weighing between the Z-28 and a Camero. Having known, at least, 5 people who had trouble with their Z-28's, I opted for the Camero. Never had a problem with that car and I owned it for 7 years. Did I profile the Z-28?

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They aren't going after GZ for the same crime he was acquitted of. That would be double jeopardy. They are looking at a Civil Rights charge - TM's civil right to walk down the street, etc. This was what the passion vocalized during and after this trial - a boy walking home with Skittles.

The DOJ will have to check to make sure no part of the civil rights issue was already litigated during the Zimmerman trial.

The psychobabble drivel on this issue is ridiculous. I heard someone commenting in this fashion - "One of the things the law has not kept pace with is the progress we have made on race and how our brains on race, the brain science of how race works, is actually much more subtle and complex than what the law currently recognizes. 98% of our brain works subconsciously, and I am not saying we should criminalize that. But, the standards haven't kept pace with social science."

I just threw up in my mouth.

Another thing that is mudding the waters is the issue of GZ's "profiling". Although he never profiled race, he did profile the clothing as typical of what they found young men, black or otherwise, to be wearing when engaging in acts of robbery, etc.

So, we are back here at the TSA, where outrage over the profiling of Middle Eastern looking people brings us to touching children inappropriately, checking inside women's underwear and an elderly woman being forced to remove her diaper.

A world gone mad!

Did he really "profile" the hoodie? I'm genuinely asking because I can't remember that happening. As far as I can tell, GZ saw someone leisurely walking in rainy weather, between houses, looking in a window (or possibly looking in a window), then staring down GZ, approaching his truck, circling his truck, placing his hand in his waistband while doing so, then running off. Where did the hoodie come into play here? Did he say that TM matched the description of a previous burglar and bring the hoodie into that conversation? I'll have to re-read the police reports.