If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Dear Eric Holder; Your attempts at a federal case against George Zimmerman violates the double-jeopardy clause in the constitution and we will defend him if necessary. Sincerely - The ACLU   (aclu.org) divider line 557
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15974 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2013 at 12:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



557 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-21 01:30:40 PM

DamnYankees: vygramul: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.

Well, of course. They have a certain view as to what "civil liberties" means. What would you expect, that they defend you no matter what your case is if you walk into their office and claim its a 'civil liberties case'?


I have an old friend who had her public nudity/obscenity case defended by the ACLU and she had to work pretty hard to get them to take the case but once they did they were pretty rabid defenders. She was acquitted and was always thankful for their free help. Yes they are picky about which cases they take and sometimes take rather hopeless cases but left or right wing everyone should be happy that there are people like this who are willing to fight the government tooth and nail no matter how hopeless the case.
 
2013-07-21 01:30:49 PM

Madbassist1: LOL you're joking, right? You know ignorance is no excuse, right? If you assualt an off duty cop, you've still assualted (and will be prosecuted for) assualting a police officer.


Did I say anything about the charges being filed? People such as yourself want to make this out to be Zim seeing a uniformed officer and attacking and that's flat out ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to think that they would dismiss charges against a person for attacking an officer just because his daddy was an out of state magistrate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was a case of mistaken identity.
 
2013-07-21 01:31:00 PM
Obama and Holder need to stop propagating divisiveness and work to unify this country as they promised.  A good place to start would be to follow through with the promise to be the most transparent administration instead of the most backhanded and secretive.   They are missing or have already missed the opportunity for greatness.
 
2013-07-21 01:31:38 PM
What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

well, subtracting those that live in households that already include a parent's firearm.....? probably still more than you'd suspect
 
pla
2013-07-21 01:32:39 PM
RexTalionis : In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

Not quite... More like: "Don't think you'll win this by bankrupting the poor bastard, he'll have almost as many resources at his disposal as you will".

Prosecutors often decide whether or not to pursue charges based on knowing that the defendant will break down (financially, emotionally, physically) and cop a plea long before the trial even starts.
 
2013-07-21 01:33:49 PM

Madbassist1: Yeah, see Scott v. Sanford. Why would you disagree with SCOTUS?


Because  Scott v. Sanford is totally equivalent to  DC v. Heller, am I right?  DERP.

Hint: if there's any analogy at all to be drawn between these cases, the ACLU protesting  Heller would be somewhat akin to the KKK protesting  Scott.
 
2013-07-21 01:34:19 PM
Given the fact that Obama was the child of a Kenyan who raised by white folks in Hawaii, how on earth - beyond the color of his skin - is he in any way shape or form authentically "black?"

Hell, even Eminem is blacker than Obama by every measurable standard.

We have a "black president" in the same way Alberto Fujimori was authentically Peruvian.
 
2013-07-21 01:34:20 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Madbassist1: LOL you're joking, right? You know ignorance is no excuse, right? If you assualt an off duty cop, you've still assualted (and will be prosecuted for) assualting a police officer.

Did I say anything about the charges being filed? People such as yourself want to make this out to be Zim seeing a uniformed officer and attacking and that's flat out ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to think that they would dismiss charges against a person for attacking an officer just because his daddy was an out of state magistrate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was a case of mistaken identity.


Woah there, slick. I'm not making it out to be anything. You're reading that in all on your own. I'm just saying that if you assault a police officer, it dont matter if you knew the farker was a cop or not. Period.
 
2013-07-21 01:34:32 PM
 
2013-07-21 01:34:42 PM
If you dont want Zimmerman tried until he is convicted you are just qa racist. Everybody knows it, even Obama. And he's the president..
 
2013-07-21 01:35:15 PM
oneofthejonesboys.files.wordpress.com
This thread has mutated into a Free Republic circle jerk.
 
2013-07-21 01:35:18 PM
Good for them.
 
2013-07-21 01:35:33 PM

Jeep2011: I know so many people who for Zimmerman with all of the right wing bat guano crazy they can muster.


Wut?
Are you okay?
You sound tired.

Maybe you should lay off the bat guano.
 
2013-07-21 01:35:48 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.



Zimmerman is just your normal everyday guy stalking children after nightfall with a loaded firearm.  Race is the least of his issues...being a dangerous fool that starts confrontations only to end them with lethal force is far more serious.
 
2013-07-21 01:36:11 PM

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


They feel the same way about Heller v DC.
 
2013-07-21 01:36:38 PM

pho75: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

This has been a long time coming, and I personally know a number of conservative judges who have been waiting for the appropriate case to change this law. Just because the Supreme Court said it works one way a few decades ago, doesn't mean they got it right.

That said, this wouldn't be the right test case in my opinion.


Well, it looks like there's a chance we could get Roach v. Missouri:

In our brief, CAC demonstrates that the dual sovereignty doctrine is inconsistent with the Constitution's text and history, and we urge the Court to review the case in order to correct this significant error of constitutional interpretation.

It is expected that the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case after it convenes for the start of its October 2013 Term.
 
2013-07-21 01:36:56 PM

that bosnian sniper: Madbassist1: Yeah, see Scott v. Sanford. Why would you disagree with SCOTUS?

Because  Scott v. Sanford is totally equivalent to  DC v. Heller, am I right?  DERP.

Hint: if there's any analogy at all to be drawn between these cases, the ACLU protesting  Heller would be somewhat akin to the KKK protesting  Scott.


hurr durr. What does one have to do with the other? What's your farking point? My point (which you obviously missed) is that SCOTUS doesnt always get it right, and its nice that people can disagree and fight them.

WTF is your point, HURR DURR?
 
2013-07-21 01:37:31 PM

pla: RexTalionis : In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

Not quite... More like: "Don't think you'll win this by bankrupting the poor bastard, he'll have almost as many resources at his disposal as you will".

Prosecutors often decide whether or not to pursue charges based on knowing that the defendant will break down (financially, emotionally, physically) and cop a plea long before the trial even starts.


I see you didn't read the letter, because the ACLU said nothing about defending Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-21 01:37:40 PM

pho75: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

This has been a long time coming, and I personally know a number of conservative judges who have been waiting for the appropriate case to change this law. Just because the Supreme Court said it works one way a few decades ago, doesn't mean they got it right.

That said, this wouldn't be the right test case in my opinion.


Actually, it could be a good test case.  One of the elements of 2nd Degree Murder that the prosecutors was going after was the "hatred in heart" aspect of it.  In order to prove a civil rights violation, the Feds would have to prove the exact same element for which Zimmerman has already been acquitted.
 
2013-07-21 01:37:44 PM

JK47: Zimmerman is just your normal everyday guy stalking children after nightfall with a loaded firearm.  Race is the least of his issues...being a dangerous fool that starts confrontations only to end them with lethal force is far more serious.


You'd be right at home at a J4T rally.
 
2013-07-21 01:38:02 PM

RexTalionis: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Implying that the US Supreme Court is never wrong.
 
2013-07-21 01:38:04 PM

Dahnkster: [oneofthejonesboys.files.wordpress.com image 190x308]
This thread has mutated into a Free Republic circle jerk.


i257.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-21 01:38:20 PM
Didnt the president just say it would be impossible for them to do this?

or was I dreaming?

Why dont we, for once, throw an outrage fit AFTER something has happened?
 
2013-07-21 01:38:29 PM

Nabb1: Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

They aren't morons. While Obama was bearing his soul to the media, the government was getting the FISA court to rubber stamp renewal of domestic surveillance.


This.
 
2013-07-21 01:38:46 PM

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality.

Zim was a a bar with friends and saw some dude grab one of his peeps. Turns out the guy was a plain clothes undercover cop. The fact that the charges were eventually dropped should be a huge red flag that this wasn't what some of Team Trayvon want to make it out to be. Do you really farking think they'd drop assault on an officer charges if they were valid?


Not only that but a few weeks later the same bad ass undercover agents that assaulted Zimmermans friend pulled the same shenanigans with a real cop and got shot by the real cop.
 
2013-07-21 01:39:46 PM

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


For the purposes of the INTENT of the Constitution, the ACLU is correct.  The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right (Citizens United, anyone?).
 
2013-07-21 01:39:54 PM

Archimedes' Principal: As the American people argue over a case already determined by a jury, it takes the focus away from:

Benghazi and four dead Americans
The IRS
The NSA
The Patriot Act
NDAA
The Federal Reserve's QE3  propping up the stock market
Congresspersons tacking on pork to various bills, etc.



I don't see why we need to focus on the fact that we're a representative democracy.
 
2013-07-21 01:40:58 PM

macadamnut: Won't somebody just hurry up and shoot the idiot? It is their 2nd Amendment right after all.


Say that about the president....go on...I double dog dare you.
 
2013-07-21 01:41:44 PM

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Plessy v. Fergeson, Brown v. Board of Education

You get new justices on the court, it's worthwhile to try again.  Some people want to do that with Roe v. Wade.
 
2013-07-21 01:41:53 PM

baufan2005: As for the Civil Rights violations suit, they couldn't prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon out of hate.  How are they going to prove he did it specifically because of his race? That would be a complete waste of tax payer money.


Not to the race baiters! they get the division they desire
 
2013-07-21 01:41:57 PM

SithLord: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Yeah, Obama was really struggling with racial prejudice 35 years ago.  What a farkin' hack.


This post brought to you by the Don Cherry school of fine suits.
cdn.bleacherreport.net
losthatsportsblog.com

cdn.bleacherreport.net

i19.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-21 01:42:13 PM

Archimedes' Principal: Benghazi and four dead Americans


THE MAGIC WORD WAS SAID!

BENGHAZI!


farm5.staticflickr.com

EVERYBODY TAKE A SHOT!!!!!

resources0.news.com.au
 
2013-07-21 01:42:34 PM

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


yeah, cause YOU know the law better than the two senior executive attorneys who signed the letter.
 
2013-07-21 01:43:03 PM

Popcorn Johnny: You'd be right at home at a J4T rally.



Yes, because amateur policemen taking matters into their own hands resulting in avoidable murder is clearly a problem we can't agree on.
 
2013-07-21 01:43:52 PM

RandomAxe: Kalashinator, the 'gunwalking' sting projects, which were all stupid, started in 2006, under W.


Which they stopped because they could not track the firearms....then Holder resurrected the program knowing there was no way to track the firearms.

keep smoking the administrations pole...I'm sure they will give you a truncheon, a brown shirt, and maybe some nice boots for your cult like admiration of them.
 
2013-07-21 01:44:01 PM

jaytkay: Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members-

He borrowed Obama's time machine to start the program in 2006.


Then shouldn't the ACLU focus on having the schematics of Obama's Time Machine released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act?  Or does that not apply to Kenyan inventions?


/i keed
//seriously was thinking the gunwalking started up in '08
///before November
 
2013-07-21 01:44:18 PM

Plant Rights Activist: [img2.timeinc.net image 300x400]
hey guys, whats going on in this thread


4.bp.blogspot.com

Not much, chillin'.
 
2013-07-21 01:44:30 PM

JK47: Yes, because amateur policemen taking matters into their own hands resulting in avoidable murder is clearly a problem we can't agree on.


The only reason Trayvon is dead is because he returned to the scene and began a violent confrontation.
 
2013-07-21 01:44:52 PM

I sound fat: yeah, cause YOU know the law better than the two senior executive attorneys who signed the letter.


Dude, he spent the night in a Holiday Inn.
 
2013-07-21 01:45:10 PM

Dahnkster: But ah cain't say no prayers in skool!

[blog.jonolan.net image 640x800]


Welp, that just won my Favorite Demotivational Poster Ever Award.
 
2013-07-21 01:45:53 PM

drp: vygramul: I think it's more insane for people to champion either one of these award-winners since no one really knows what actually happened that night. Neither side is willing to accept even the HINT of a flaw. The Martin people don't think the suspicious jewelry reflects on his personality, and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality. They're all insufficiently skeptical about the events of that night.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

/ but keep farkin' that strawchicken


Not just them, you, too.

/not a high bar
 
2013-07-21 01:45:56 PM

Madbassist1: hurr durr. What does one have to do with the other? What's your farking point? My point (which you obviously missed) is that SCOTUS doesnt always get it right, and its nice that people can disagree and fight them.

WTF is your point, HURR DURR?


And, if you'll notice, my original post was  in no farking way whatsoever a comment on the Supreme Court's fallibility, but rather in what issues the ACLU advocates, the interpretations of those civil liberties the ACLU has chosen to advocate, and the policy positions taken based upon those choices and interpretations. That's especially so, when the ACLU's chosen position (such as endorsing  Miller'sgroup-right construction over  Heller's individual-right construction) facially contradicts their goddamn mission.

But of course, that would require things like "reading comprehension" and "critical thought".
 
2013-07-21 01:46:05 PM
Oh_Enough_Already:
i179.photobucket.com

'Welcome to Fark'.jpg
 
2013-07-21 01:46:16 PM

I sound fat: yeah, cause YOU know the law better than the two senior executive attorneys who signed the letter.


http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/377/case.html
 
2013-07-21 01:46:23 PM
George Zimmerman had his name changed to Ben Ghazi so the President and the media never mention him again.
 
2013-07-21 01:46:28 PM

hardinparamedic: Archimedes' Principal: Benghazi and four dead Americans

THE MAGIC WORD WAS SAID!

BENGHAZI!

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 299x225]

EVERYBODY TAKE A SHOT!!!!!

[resources0.news.com.au image 650x366]


Benghazi? In a Zimmerman thread? What a country website!
 
2013-07-21 01:47:02 PM

WTFDYW: [pisces.bbystatic.com image 500x500]
[cdn.media.discovermagazine.com image 850x688]
Just getting things prepared for you all.


Why would you make a beer that light?  You might as well just have some apple juice.

hardinparamedic: Stop pretending there are any heroes in this situation.


I think this is the most insightful comment to date on this case.  Everyone involved was an asshole.
 
2013-07-21 01:47:30 PM

thisisyourbrainonFark: hardinparamedic: Archimedes' Principal: Benghazi and four dead Americans

THE MAGIC WORD WAS SAID!

BENGHAZI!

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 299x225]

EVERYBODY TAKE A SHOT!!!!!

[resources0.news.com.au image 650x366]

Benghazi? In a Zimmerman thread? What a country website!


Benghazi is kind of a Godwin's Law in politics now.
 
2013-07-21 01:48:00 PM
You know. I found the words of Obama kind of weird. Your country (and mine) profile Muslim or Arab men on a regular basis, based on the idea that they might pose a potential threat to all of society. And everyone accepts that, black or white.
But,
Obama seemed to say (at least from what I read) that blacks are profiled simply because they're black. And that's not acceptable.
So, is profiling black Arab speaking Muslims acceptable or not acceptable?
 
2013-07-21 01:49:25 PM

indarwinsshadow: You know. I found the words of Obama kind of weird. Your country (and mine) profile Muslim or Arab men on a regular basis, based on the idea that they might pose a potential threat to all of society. And everyone accepts that, black or white.
But,
Obama seemed to say (at least from what I read) that blacks are profiled simply because they're black. And that's not acceptable.
So, is profiling black Arab speaking Muslims acceptable or not acceptable?


Wow. I have not noticed the irony of that.
 
Displayed 50 of 557 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report