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 01:50:08 PM
The ACLU didn't care about double jeopardy in the case of the police officers sent to jail after the Rodney King riots (which started after they were acquitted of the exact same crime by a jury).

I get the feeling they're only pulling out the "double jeopardy" thing because they know it's won't apply to a civil lawsuit, any more than it did in the OJ case.

/thanks, ACLU, but we have enough enemies without "friends" like you
 
2013-07-21 01:50:24 PM

SeriousGeorge: Well it would probably be appropriate to accuse the ACLU of racism at this point.


sharpton's and jackson's heads would explode if someone did that
 
2013-07-21 01:51:27 PM

SithLord: George Zimmerman had his name changed to Ben Ghazi so the President and the media never mention him again.


Nice!
 
2013-07-21 01:52:20 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, because it's treasonous to disagree with the Supreme Court.

If that's the case, I guess I'm treasonous.  Kelo?  Raich?  Wickard v Filburn?  (to name a few)

/I'm not sure if the ACLU agreed or disagreed with those decisions, but I know how I feel about them and I think that SCOTUS was wrong
//I don't always agree with the ACLU, but when I disagree with them, it usually involves crosses as war memorials
///not religious
 
2013-07-21 01:52:23 PM
Obama and Holder have handled this poorly. They seem to be ducking out of doing the right thing by drawing this matter to a close because it would be hard for them, and that just isn't good enough.

Given the absence of conclusive evidence, this should never have been brought to trial first time round. To do it again just to placate people who are now wilfully choosing to be ignorant and butthurt is pathetic.

Move on.
 
2013-07-21 01:52:59 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Judges preside over trials, magistrates do not. Aside from that, if you think that a magistrate from Virginia could call Florida and get an assault on an officer charge dropped, you're nuts. The case was thrown out because of the evidence, that Zim had no idea he was grabbing an officer.

Well except the charges were not dropped they were "deferred" as part of a first time offender program where the offender agrees to go through a diversion program and if successful the charges are then dismissed, they were not dropped for "lack of evidence" as you claim.


Also you do not understand the judiciary legal community and how it works when one of their own has an issue, that is the  reason old no peener Zimmy got  the offender program due to daddies last job!

 
2013-07-21 01:53:09 PM
DOJ to ACLU: "My mind is made up. DO NOT CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS."
 
2013-07-21 01:53:11 PM

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--in order to track said cartel members--but resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and potentially an untold number of Mexican civilians/cops/military?  Which would make him an accessory to the murder of a US Federal officer and X number of citizens of a foreign country.  Which makes AG Holder even so much as looking at a case of enacting justice of gun violence kinda sorta super hypocritical?

Or was that that Neopolitan chick who used to be in charge of the ATF?  Honest question.


Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 
2013-07-21 01:53:24 PM

WTFDYW: I did not see in the letter where the ACLU said they would defend him.


And why didn't they mention Jesus in their letter?

It's because they secretly want to assassinate George Zimmerman and replace him with a 17 year old black kid.

And they hate America.

Because freedom.
 
2013-07-21 01:53:50 PM
George Zimmerman is a racist, and that is the most important fact in the history of the universe.  He is clearly a racist because he shot Trayvon Martin, who apparently was black.  No non-black person has ever shot, attacked, or even had an argument with a black person for any other reason than racism.  Evil white-people racism.  Trayvon Martin cannot possibly be a racist, because he is black, and there is no such thing as a black racist.  It's impossible, because slavery.

Some white people (i.e. "racists") have tried to characterize Trayvon as racist himself, because he referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker".  They are only doing or saying this because they themselves are racists who hate black people.  He may have used a racial slur, but there is no way he is a racist.  It's impossible.  Racism.
 
2013-07-21 01:54:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.

Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.


Study it out for farks sake!!
/study
//it
///out
 
2013-07-21 01:55:17 PM
"If you have any additional questions about this issue, please feel free to Jesselyn 
McCurdy, Senior Legislative Counsel at j­mc­curd­y[nospam-﹫-backwards]ul­cacd*or­g or (202) 675-2307."

um....  maybe its just me, but if you are representing a HUGE legal organization on a public matter and addressing the attorney general, perhaps a proofreader is in order.

unless Jessylen McCurdy is a verb now.  As in "Im going to to totally Jesselyn McCurdy and throw a fit about something that hasnt happened yet."
 
2013-07-21 01:55:23 PM

Tatterdemalian: The ACLU didn't care about double jeopardy in the case of the police officers sent to jail after the Rodney King riots (which started after they were acquitted of the exact same crime by a jury).


Yes they did. See my previous post:

Skyrmion: On April 4, 1993, in a close vote, the national board of the A.C.L.U. enacted a resolution opposing any exceptions to the American Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy. [link]

 
2013-07-21 01:55:29 PM

I sound fat: 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?


Once the outrage machine is running, it's very hard to shut off and it burns through fuel like crazy.
 
2013-07-21 01:56:40 PM

The Numbers: Obama and Holder have handled this poorly. They seem to be ducking out of doing the right thing by drawing this matter to a close because it would be hard for them, and that just isn't good enough.

Given the absence of conclusive evidence, this should never have been brought to trial first time round. To do it again just to placate people who are now wilfully choosing to be ignorant and butthurt is pathetic.

Move on.


Obama mentioned a few days about about how "the jury has spoken" and he could have ended it right there. He could have brought his personal thoughts onto something that wasn't already lost. I could understand how he was when the whole case started because the country couldn't even decide at the time if Zimmerman killed Martin from cold intent, accident or self defense. But the battle's already lost now. The fact he's President made his words swing a lot harder, whether he intended it or not
 
2013-07-21 01:57:43 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 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.



Only if you believe that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon and obeyed the dispatcher's request to stop and withdraw.  Can't have that both ways.  Not to mention it's self-serving to believe the uncorroborated account of the only survivor of a confrontation.
 
2013-07-21 01:57:48 PM
But I was told ACLU never defended gun owners!
 
2013-07-21 01:58:58 PM

Alonjar: 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.


Lately it's just a bait and switch. Or whatever "bearing" means.
 
2013-07-21 01:59:08 PM
Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.
 
2013-07-21 02:00:01 PM

cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

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


Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".
 
2013-07-21 02:01:00 PM

indarwinsshadow: ...And everyone accepts that, black or white.


No, just the loudest and most ignorant, who despite being a clear minority are the ones who get attention because their idiocy drives ratings and therefore profit. There's also a clear minority who categorically reject the idea of racial profiling, who get very little attention. The largest subset of Americans are too busy watching  Here Comes Naked Boo-Boo Idol Survival X-Treme Island to really give a damn.
 
2013-07-21 02:01:42 PM

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

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


I know the timing's off... but that looks like the Bush twins. Now THAT would be a story.
 
2013-07-21 02:02:18 PM

JK47: Only if you believe that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon and obeyed the dispatcher's request to stop and withdraw.  Can't have that both ways.  Not to mention it's self-serving to believe the uncorroborated account of the only survivor of a confrontation.


Trayvon's fat friend said that Trayvon was all the way home and that he threw the first punch. So, are we believing her or not, seems to change all the time depending on which story Team Trayvon is currently going with.
 
2013-07-21 02:02:26 PM

The Lone Gunman: Seriously, the trial is over. And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.


There is no civil trial. Florida's laws makes Zimmerman immune to civil lawsuits.
 
2013-07-21 02:03:32 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.


"He just kept saying, 'We didn't take your phone, you white b------, leave us alone,' '' said Tammy.
"I don't think it was racial. I just think they targeted anyone whose phone they could get.''

No, that doesn't sound racial.
 
2013-07-21 02:05:52 PM

Jackson Herring: was he still a hulking 6' 3" beast or what, I forget

.

Something like that...

th08.deviantart.net
 
2013-07-21 02:06:35 PM

Popcorn Johnny: JK47: Only if you believe that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon and obeyed the dispatcher's request to stop and withdraw.  Can't have that both ways.  Not to mention it's self-serving to believe the uncorroborated account of the only survivor of a confrontation.

Trayvon's fat friend said that Trayvon was all the way home and that he threw the first punch. So, are we believing her or not, seems to change all the time depending on which story Team Trayvon is currently going with.


She said Trayvon threw the first punch?
 
2013-07-21 02:06:57 PM

Vectron: Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.

"He just kept saying, 'We didn't take your phone, you white b------, leave us alone,' '' said Tammy.
"I don't think it was racial. I just think they targeted anyone whose phone they could get.''

No, that doesn't sound racial.


The funny thing is that if a white person so much as said the phrase "black biatch" to a black person (even without assaulting and robbing them as here) that story would generate more press and attention and outrage than the daily crimes of violence and mayhem perpetrated by blacks upon non-blacks every single day of the year all across the country.
 
2013-07-21 02:07:30 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.


Of course, funny enough, the article also mentions the cops were called, who actually arrested people and found  other stolen phones in the process. And, best of all,  nobody got farking shot to death. Amazing how that works, right?

And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted  anyways, even when castle doctrine  also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?
 
2013-07-21 02:09:00 PM
I'm missing something here. Is Eric Holder planning to bring charges against Zimmerman that would once again put him in jeopardy of "life or limb," as stated in the Fifth?
 
2013-07-21 02:09:42 PM

JK47: 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.


Because trying to see where someone went, so you can tell the real cops to go get them is "taking matters into your own hands".  You act as if Zimmerman tackled Trayvon while waving a gun around, that's not remotely what happened.  Zimmerman stayed in the vicinity of the T intersection for several minutes, it took Trayvon's return to that area to bring them back together.

It's amazing how the J4T crowd is up in arms about Zimmerman getting out of the car, but they don't say a word about Martin returning from his dad's house.  Even his best friend said he was by his father's house.  Get the facts ffs.
 
2013-07-21 02:11:02 PM

Skyrmion: She said Trayvon threw the first punch?


Yes, she said that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch.
 
2013-07-21 02:12:05 PM

that bosnian sniper: Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.

Of course, funny enough, the article also mentions the cops were called, who actually arrested people and found  other stolen phones in the process. And, best of all,  nobody got farking shot to death. Amazing how that works, right?

And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted  anyways, even when castle doctrine  also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?


It's hard to give a shiat about the infinitesimally small number of murders committed by blacks that fall into this category given the fact that black males between 15 and 25, who are just 3% of America's population, are responsible for 50% of its murders.
 
pla
2013-07-21 02:13:05 PM
RexTalionis : I see you didn't read the letter, because the ACLU said nothing about defending Zimmerman.

Believe it or not, you can write something that makes no mention whatsoever of leaking those naughty pictures to the press if you don't pay up - And yet, can quite clearly convey exactly that intent.

The lines - Read between them.
 
2013-07-21 02:13:35 PM

flondrix: 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.



Row v Wade will deal with itself soon enough as the viability clause will become a moot point.

OgreMagi: 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?).

They got CU about as best as they could(from a constitutional perspective) without amendments establishing a separate set of rights for official groups of people from singular people and public funding only campaign law. You might not like the decision, but it's reasoning is sound
 
2013-07-21 02:14:31 PM

See You Next Tuesday: Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Did he have one that night?  No.  Had he ever been arrested? No.  Had Fat Mexican? YES.  All three are irrelevant, much like your constant presence on this site.


More relevant:  Did Zimmerman KNOW that Martin was perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Basically, it's about what was clear that night.  It was unclear to Zim that Martin was a threat of any kind or had a gun.  It is clear that Martin wasn't committing a crime at the time.  It is clear that Zim had a gun and was well aware that, in all likelihood, he would win a confrontation.  It is clear that Zim was aware that he had a violent past (which Martin was unaware of).

Oddly enough, if Martin was armed and had killed Zim, the law would've been on his side.

Because of "Stand Your Ground".
 
2013-07-21 02:14:35 PM

that bosnian sniper: And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted anyways, even when castle doctrine also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?


This Florida thing? You should check out the Tampa Bay Times cataloging of Florida's fatal stand your ground cases:
Black perpetrators: 25 justified, 7 convicted.
White perpetrators: 39 justified, 30 convicted.

I'm not ruling out that there could be a racial bias to the way SYG laws are administered throughout the country. But it doesn't seem to be obviously manifesting in Florida.
 
2013-07-21 02:14:49 PM

Mentat: The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.


This.
 
2013-07-21 02:15:03 PM
People will believe anything.

My proof?  Mormonism

Faith is the bane of mankind.
 
2013-07-21 02:15:20 PM
Has anyone already pointed out the editorial gaffe in this letter from the ACLU:

"If you have any additional questions about this issue, please feel free to Jesselyn McCurdy..."

Mmm'k.
 
2013-07-21 02:15:41 PM
ACLU?

i have a raging CLU

www.silverfishlongboarding.com
 
2013-07-21 02:16:45 PM

pla: RexTalionis : I see you didn't read the letter, because the ACLU said nothing about defending Zimmerman.

Believe it or not, you can write something that makes no mention whatsoever of leaking those naughty pictures to the press if you don't pay up - And yet, can quite clearly convey exactly that intent.

The lines - Read between them.


Are you the same pla from metafilter?
 
2013-07-21 02:16:52 PM
Anyone tried to get through this yet? (just over 35 minutes)
Starts out weak, but then starts listing a lot of stuff that came out in the trial.
For some reason, the MSM failed to mention a lot. Or so it would seem.
Anyway, for those who need more - here 'tis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH_YuBtH40

Compelling? or Gut Wrenching. You be the judge.
/that's a pun
 
2013-07-21 02:21:34 PM
I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.
 
2013-07-21 02:21:47 PM

that bosnian sniper: And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted anyways, even when castle doctrine also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?


That actually hasn't proven to be the case in Florida

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.
• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.
• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.
• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants - a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.


From http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role- i n-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152

Which includes data from:http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data
 
2013-07-21 02:21:53 PM

rpm: Mock26: You should only have to face criminal or civil charges, not both.  I know that that is not how it is in this country, but that is the way that it should be. It is bullschitt that a criminal court can find you not guilty but then a civil court can find you guilty of the same crime.  How in all of Hades is that not double jeopardy?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" v. "Preponderance of evidence". There's differing levels of standards, and the trials are meant to resolve different things. I don't think the government should be allowed to bring a civil case however.


Yes, there are differing levels of standards, but it still results in being tried twice for the same crime.  Look a OJ Simpson.  Criminal court acquitted him of murder charges, yet a civil court ruled that he was responsible for their deaths.  One crime, two different rulings.  Sorry, but that is bullschitt and should not be happening in this country.
 
2013-07-21 02:22:23 PM

The Lone Gunman: See You Next Tuesday: Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Did he have one that night?  No.  Had he ever been arrested? No.  Had Fat Mexican? YES.  All three are irrelevant, much like your constant presence on this site.

More relevant:  Did Zimmerman KNOW that Martin was perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Basically, it's about what was clear that night.  It was unclear to Zim that Martin was a threat of any kind or had a gun.  It is clear that Martin wasn't committing a crime at the time.  It is clear that Zim had a gun and was well aware that, in all likelihood, he would win a confrontation.  It is clear that Zim was aware that he had a violent past (which Martin was unaware of).

Oddly enough, if Martin was armed and had killed Zim, the law would've been on his side.

Because of "Stand Your Ground".



Doesn't really matter who had the weapon in an affirmative defense of protecting yourself from harm. Just prove a reasonable person would have felt the same way and you're done.
 
2013-07-21 02:24:21 PM

clyph: I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.


Can you give a citation on points one through three? Getting in a fight on the bus and talking trash doesn't strike me as not-normal teenage behavior for a male.
 
2013-07-21 02:24:21 PM

The Lone Gunman: It was unclear to Zim that Martin was a threat of any kind or had a gun


Because having your head slammed repeatedly into the pavement isn't something you could reasonably believe would result in death or grievous bodily harm.
 
2013-07-21 02:24:47 PM

clyph: I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.


You take that back!

This is who he really was, the media TOLD US SO!


www.timeslive.co.za
 
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