Do you have adblock enabled?
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 548
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15997 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»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-21 09:54:42 PM  

tirob: Autistic Hiker: 

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.

Can't place a burglar's tool on Martin by any stretch of the imagination, but if he had one, it would sure explain why Zimmerman reported Martin reaching into his waist just after the two first saw each other.


I find the explanation that Zimmerman, who lied to a judge about his financial condition, would also lie about this, to be the more persuasive explanation.
 
2013-07-21 09:59:50 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.


Assuming that Zimmerman "racially profiled" Martin, simply because Martin had darker skin than Zimmerman, is stupid. It's also a racist assumption.

Of course, we now know that out of the two people involved in the confrontation that night, one of them was blatantly racist and using racial slurs.

If anyone was racially profiling in this whole situation, it wasn't Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-21 10:06:47 PM  

Autistic Hiker: tirob: Autistic Hiker: 

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.

Can't place a burglar's tool on Martin by any stretch of the imagination, but if he had one, it would sure explain why Zimmerman reported Martin reaching into his waist just after the two first saw each other.

I find the explanation that Zimmerman, who lied to a judge about his financial condition, would also lie about this, to be the more persuasive explanation.


That's your privilege.  If this were the only evidence that Martin was carrying a jimmy when Zimmerman first saw him, I might even agree with you.  But I don't think it is, as I mentioned in an earlier reply to you.  I was a warm advocate of prosecuting Zimmerman for a long time before this trial started, and I still think that the state of Florida did right to bring charges.  But one of the things I have acquired from the evidence that has come out over the past 17 months is a strong suspicion, based on circumstantial evidence, that the reason for most of Martin's actions during the last ~5 minutes of his life resulted from a desire he had to avoid being arrested for possession of a burglar's tool.
 
2013-07-21 10:13:49 PM  

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?


Because the constitution clearly states "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
 
2013-07-21 10:19:53 PM  

hardinparamedic: Nabb1: Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

I never knew that Trayvon Martin was your patient for you to diagnose him with a psychiatric condition. Why didn't you speak up before this tragic incident? You're the real monster here.

Stop pretending there are any heroes in this situation.


Trayvon suffered from IamaChildWithNoDadatHomeThrombosis
 
2013-07-21 10:29:27 PM  

Autistic Hiker: all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.


omitting evidence that TM attacked GZ.

Autistic Hiker: it is simply not credible that Martin was taking skittles and tea to a break-in.


Assumes criminals never carry objects not related to a crime to the reconnaissance of a crime.

AutisticHiker: he point is that Zimmerman jumped to a set of conclusions regarding Martin's intent and demeanor that he had no right to make


jumping to a conclusion is not a crime.
 
2013-07-21 10:37:50 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Autistic Hiker: all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.


Really? He could of ran home - I mean the evidence shows against it - he didn't run home, instead he confronted Zimmerman. If he was scared as the media wants you to believe, he would of ran home, after all he wasn't shot in the back.
 
2013-07-21 10:41:09 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: 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.

Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.


When you are trying to troll for comments, it is best to also try to double up on the dumb ass-ery.

So what you want to say is this:

Stand your ground had nothing to do with it?  Your dumb.
 
2013-07-21 10:47:35 PM  

Misconduc: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Autistic Hiker: all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.

Really? He could of ran home - I mean the evidence shows against it - he didn't run home, instead he confronted Zimmerman. If he was scared as the media wants you to believe, he would of ran home, after all he wasn't shot in the back.


I think you quoted the wrong person.
 
2013-07-21 10:58:36 PM  

Nem Wan: Skyrmion: cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.

Yes, it would be allowed under the "separate sovereign" exemption to double jeopardy. However, this exemption is controversial, and has historically been regarded as unjust by civil liberties groups like the ACLU. Many people would like to see the issue brought up again in the Supreme Court.

If this was called double jeopardy, then would federal and state prosecutors have to flip a coin on who got to try the case? Let's say someone shoots an eagle within city limits. The city or state will want to convict for the illegal weapons discharge and whatever else, while the feds uniquely will want to charge for the killing of a federally protected bird. How do we convict the person for everything they did if only one of these jurisdictions can try him?


That's a good question, and I just don't know enough law to know the answer. Historically, with the state / federal cases it has always been the state getting first crack at it, but I don't know why it would have to be that way. As for state / state cases like someone getting shot across a state border, I did some googling but couldn't find an actual case where it came up.
 
2013-07-21 11:01:53 PM  
I am starting to believe there will be a lot of farkers whose gravestone inscriptions will be an argument about this case.
 
2013-07-21 11:28:41 PM  

This text is now purple: Millennium: To proceed with a case here, the feds would have to argue that Florida's charges only covered the actual shooting, and not the events that preceded it.

The state case involved the preceding events. 2nd degree murder is a "depraved heart" case, so the preceding actions were part of the state case.


I didn't say it was a very good argument, just that it could be made.

Murder (of any degree) is about malice aforethought, of which "depraved heart" is only one specific type. I think the prosecution did in fact try to argue this type, though. In any event, they could argue that while the preceding events certainly served as evidence for that argument, they were not, in and of themselves, the actions for which Zimmerman was being tried. The weakness in this argument is that it leads to the question of why he wasn't tried for them before.
 
2013-07-21 11:54:56 PM  

youncasqua: We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.


First I've heard anybody claim Zimmerman chambered a round in his gun while on the phone with the police.  Citation?
 
2013-07-21 11:56:31 PM  

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.


Let me guess, your problem is that they don't really defend the 2nd amendment.  With their limited resources why should they when there's the NRA with it's single issue and huge resources that can do it.
 
2013-07-22 12:03:54 AM  

Latinwolf: 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.

Let me guess, your problem is that they don't really defend the 2nd amendment.  With their limited resources why should they when there's the NRA with it's single issue and huge resources that can do it.


If that was their position, it would be an understandable and even admirable position.
 
2013-07-22 12:30:42 AM  

ChicagoKev: youncasqua: We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

First I've heard anybody claim Zimmerman chambered a round in his gun while on the phone with the police.  Citation?


You won't find one. People have mistaken the sound of him unlatching his seatbelt as the sound of him chambering a round. There was a always a round in the chamber as evidenced by the fact that Zimmerman had a full magazine AND a round in the chamber to begin with. The facts just do not support J4T, so their arguments are completely based on emotion and sheer speculation.
 
2013-07-22 12:35:42 AM  
Zimmerman, fark yeah! I hope he sues Florida and wins big. Fools.
 
2013-07-22 12:39:13 AM  

Latinwolf: Let me guess, your problem is that they don't really defend the 2nd amendment.  With their limited resources why should they when there's the NRA with it's single issue and huge resources that can do it.


That's what most claim, sure, right up until the point  Heller was handed down and the ACLU had a fit over it. Which was, mind you, the point I'd had enough of it and ceased to be a member on the local, state, and federal level.  Heller's individual-right construction should have been the ACLU's position to begin with, since an individual-right construction is both stronger and broader, and more resilient against casual infringement. Under  Miller's group-right construction, for example, a federal law banning women from owning and using firearms actually would pass constitutional muster, interestingly enough.

Now, for the fact the ACLU's nominal position is to support  any decision or policy position that strengthens and broadens civil liberties, and prevents potential policy abuses and infringements (especially unequal protection),  and the fact any ACLU member worth their salt will tell you it's against not  merely actual abuses but also the  potentialfor abuse that must be safeguarded, the organization's decision to advocate  Miller'sconstruction over  Heller's is contradictory to their stated mission and ideals, but at least in my opinion hypocritical.
 
2013-07-22 12:45:20 AM  

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."


Wait, they called Zimmerman shooting Trayvon a "transaction?" That may be as wrong about that as they are about your point.
 
2013-07-22 12:51:58 AM  

ChicagoKev: youncasqua: We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

First I've heard anybody claim Zimmerman chambered a round in his gun while on the phone with the police.  Citation?


Zimmerman's buddy testified that not only did he keep one in the chamber, he kept his clip full. He would have had to fire a shot(or just eject a bullet for the hell of it?[if that's a thing]) to "chamber a round".
 
2013-07-22 12:58:32 AM  

kortex: Zimmerman, fark yeah! I hope he sues Florida and wins big. Fools.


Zimmerman, with the first of his settlement checks.

i232.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-22 01:44:05 AM  

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


By publicly biatch-slapping Holder and the Race-Baiters, they are effectively "defending" not only Zimmerman, but the rights of all Americans.

Looks in the republican dictionary :

Race Baiter :  Anyone who looks in the history books and notices racism perpetrated by whites (specifically) and actually talks about it. Also, anyone who claims that racism exists today.

Well, friggen sign me up and give me my 'race baiter' badge.



Nah, your definition is totally off.

A "race-baiter" is any person or entity who intentionally and surreptitiously  creates, manipulates, exaggerates, or amplifies a given event or circumstance with the goal of creating or intensifying interracial / interethnic strife, tension, resentment, mistrust and hatred in order to capitalize on the on the ensuing chaos and societal division for political or financial gain, or other ulterior motives.

Race-baiters can be of any race or ethnicity, and oftentimes are not even members of the group(s) whose "causes" they pretend to champion.

Of course, the strife need not be racial or ethnic. There is no shortage of charlatan hucksters who line up to profiteer from any form of social unrest and division, whether it be related to gender, sexuality. religion, culture, nationality, class, or other forms of socially contrived tribalism. If there is political or financial profit to be gained via societal division, they will exploit it.

Obviously, the only reason these strategies "work" is because "the people" are demonstrably gullible, and human nature is, sadly, all too predictable.

Race-baiters are like tree shakers: They don't care which tree they shake, they're only interest is in reaping the harvest - the fallout of the the tumult. Some of these "shakers" are lowly grifters seeking to gain fame, recognition or money, while others are bright enough to see that any society that is divided can be easily manipulated to achieve larger, often nefarious political goals - the latter being far more pernicious.

The attacks of 9-11-2001 are a fine example of the latter, as these events were used as capitai to build a crescendo of irrational animosity among Americans against peoples and nations that had little or nothing to do with these events, yet we were mesmerized by the carefully orchestrated "us vs them" illusion, and conned into supporting and financing unjust slaughter and conquest .

Are you old enough to remember the blatant lies that were fed to us in order to achieve the artificially induced emotional public support required to prosecute these politically contrived crimes?

Manipulation through misdirection.

And back to the case at hand: Was this really a "racial" issue? Did the events that transpired that night REALLY hinge on the RACES of the parties involved? Or is that merely an illusion being pounded into the collective psyche by those that seek to divide us - AS A PEOPLE - for political advantage and societal manipulation?

Do you still want to wear that "race-baiter" badge?
 
2013-07-22 02:13:18 AM  

Piestar: transaction


It's lawyer shorthand for "facts and circumstances underlying the original charge"
 
2013-07-22 02:27:56 AM  
Geez, everyone, especially black people should just forget the whole Zimmerman thing and go back to killing black people, which they do extremely well.  Way better than white, Hispanic or any other people.
 
2013-07-22 02:42:01 AM  
Best to drop it. Let Zimmerman look over his shoulder for a while in fear everywhere he goes, only to one day have a black man provoke a fight with him and shoot him because he 'feared for his life'. The heavy sentence his killer receives (assuming he is even apprehended alive) would remove any doubts about the joke that is Florida 'justice'.
 
2013-07-22 04:18:14 AM  

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

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


Wow. That's is one sad, pathetic attempt at trolling.
 
2013-07-22 06:02:40 AM  

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

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

A lot of them. Teens do stupid stuff, and usually the parents have no idea. I helped pull a prank in high school that today would have had me up on hundreds of federal terrorism charges and probably gotten me sentenced to effectively life in prison despite there being no possibility of physical harm to others.

Even back then I could have been charged with at least a few federal crimes and I knew that. Five of my friends were charged with computer crimes,


So because you and 5 of your friends were criminals you think "a lot" of teenagers are criminals.

I counter your anecdote with one of my own.  No one in my high school was ever arrested.  Some of them did do stupid and occasionally illegal things, but no one was ever arrested.

But I guess that's because we weren't stupid.
 
2013-07-22 07:11:19 AM  

Amos Quito: And back to the case at hand: Was this really a "racial" issue? Did the events that transpired that night REALLY hinge on the RACES of the parties involved? Or is that merely an illusion being pounded into the collective psyche by those that seek to divide us - AS A PEOPLE - for political advantage and societal manipulation?


1. It developed into one very soon.
2. No.  But many people here--I was one of them--came to perceive that race was a factor in them.
3. I doubt it, at least in the absence of evidence that this is so.

There is an illusion among some people here that is as at least as old as this country that relations between blacks and whites are excellent and always have been, and that they always will be provided that those nasty outside agitators (all of whom have private agendas of course) don't butt in and poison blacks' minds against the whites who have always been their friends and protectors.  Your post leads me to believe that you may be under this illusion yourself.  If you are, you're in good company:

http://www.amazon.com/Lanterns-Levee-Recollections-Planters-Civiliza ti on/dp/0807100722

A book I recommend that deals with this subject among others.
 
2013-07-22 08:52:09 AM  
There are lots of bankers on Wall Street far more deserving *snicker* of Mr. Holder's *snort* attention.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-07-22 09:12:48 AM  

Kome: 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.

One of the jurors said it was a factor influencing her decision in spite of it not being brought up by the lawyers.


I also believe it was in the jury instructions.
 
2013-07-22 09:23:49 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: derp


For a person of obviously limited intellect, you type very well.

Your ability to say "nuh-uh" when someone logically refutes your muddled opinions is impressive.
 
2013-07-22 09:29:30 AM  

47 is the new 42: Kome: 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.

One of the jurors said it was a factor influencing her decision in spite of it not being brought up by the lawyers.

I also believe it was in the jury instructions.


A reference to Zimmerman's right to stand his ground was, indeed, in the self-defense portion of the jury instructions.
 
2013-07-22 10:03:52 AM  

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."


SCOTUS has reversed itself in the past. Therefore, even SCOTUS admits that SCOTUS isn't infallible. If it is possible for SCOTUS to reverse itself, then it is valid to disagree with what has previously been handed down. One might be bound by the past rulings, but it does not mean that one cannot challenge these past rulings. I understand that a government-worshiping cultist can't grasp the idea that a "Supreme" court isn't actually a Divine and infallible entity, but it isn't. Was SCOTUS irrevocably correct in Plessy v. Ferguson? If so, they should have upheld four of the five cases that went into Brown v. Board of Education and reversed Gebhart v. Belton. Instead, they heard Brown v. Board of Education and overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
 
2013-07-22 10:36:04 AM  

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

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


Zimmerman took a black girl to his prom.
 
2013-07-22 10:38:55 AM  

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

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

Zimmerman took a black girl to his prom.


His racism is still real to me dammit!!

bigbaddie.com
 
2013-07-22 12:11:02 PM  

vygramul: A reference to Zimmerman's right to stand his ground was, indeed, in the self-defense portion of the jury instructions.


That doesn't mean it was a part of the case or a part of Zim's defense. This was a straight up self defense case as indicated by Zim's attorney's from the beginning.
 
2013-07-22 12:42:37 PM  

chewielouie: kortex: Zimmerman, fark yeah! I hope he sues Florida and wins big. Fools.

Zimmerman, with the first of his settlement checks.

[i232.photobucket.com image 635x348]


wow is that Dave Gahan with Martin Lawrence??
 
2013-07-22 01:07:32 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: A reference to Zimmerman's right to stand his ground was, indeed, in the self-defense portion of the jury instructions.

That doesn't mean it was a part of the case or a part of Zim's defense. This was a straight up self defense case as indicated by Zim's attorney's from the beginning.


This is exactly why I rail against saying that SYG is a law.
 
2013-07-22 01:46:00 PM  
Does the ACLU not remember what happened during the Los Angeles riots?  The officers were brought up on federal charges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

"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."

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.
 
2013-07-22 01:57:22 PM  

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


By publicly biatch-slapping Holder and the Race-Baiters, they are effectively "defending" not only Zimmerman, but the rights of all Americans.

Looks in the republican dictionary :

Race Baiter :  Anyone who looks in the history books and notices racism perpetrated by whites (specifically) and actually talks about it. Also, anyone who claims that racism exists today.

Well, friggen sign me up and give me my 'race baiter' badge.


Nah, your definition is totally off.

A "race-baiter" is any person or entity who intentionally and surreptitiously  creates, manipulates, exaggerates, or amplifies a given event or circumstance with the goal of creating or intensifying interracial / interethnic strife, tension, resentment, mistrust and hatred in order to capitalize on the on the ensuing chaos and societal division for political or financial gain, or other ulterior motives.

Race-baiters can be of any race or ethnicity, and oftentimes are not even members of the group(s) whose "causes" they pretend to champion.

Of course, the strife need not be racial or ethnic. There is no shortage of charlatan hucksters who line up to profiteer from any form of social unrest and division, whether it be related to gender, sexuality. religion, culture, nationality, class, or other forms of socially contrived tribalism. If there is political or financial profit to be gained via societal division, they will exploit it.

Obviously, the only reason these strategies "work" is because "the people" are demonstrably gullible, and human nature is, sadly, all too predictable.

Race-baiters are like tree shakers: They don't care which tree they shake, they're only interest is in reaping the harvest - the fallout of the the tumult. Some of these "shakers" are lowly grifters seeking to gain fame, recognition or money, while others are bright enough to see that any society that is divided can be easily man ...


I don't think you read my post carefully enough.
 
2013-07-22 02:00:39 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Autistic Hiker: my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.

Yes it does, case closed.


Hmm, I thought there was some argument to you, but I suppose not. There is a difference between noticing someone using race as a determining factor for judging a person vs someone using race as a determining factor for judging a person.
 
2013-07-22 02:07:34 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: A reference to Zimmerman's right to stand his ground was, indeed, in the self-defense portion of the jury instructions.

That doesn't mean it was a part of the case or a part of Zim's defense. This was a straight up self defense case as indicated by Zim's attorney's from the beginning.


Is it fair to say that Zimmerman got himself into a situation where he was forced to kill someone to defend himself? To me that sounds like he committed manslaughter but not murder.
 
2013-07-22 02:42:45 PM  

Alleyoop: But we have to keep retrying him...

[www.at40.com image 210x210]

until we get the verdict we want!


I would love to hear Sharpton's comments on the below case.  How is this one not just as relevant? Could the baby been Obama's baby? Why aren't they picketing this crime, too, if race isn't an issue?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-hunt-young-boys-baby-mom-s h ooting-article-1.1296312
 
2013-07-22 05:44:20 PM  
I love that they said this, considering they wanted civil rights charges against him.

"Last night's verdict casts serious doubt on whether the legal system truly provides equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of race or ethnicity," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement on July 14, the day after the Florida jury's verdict. "This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime."
 
2013-07-22 10:17:46 PM  
Only so someone can snatch it an make it better.

static4.demotix.com l3.yimg.com
imageshack.us

/first two are hot
//last one is not
 
2013-07-22 10:45:36 PM  

tirob: Amos Quito: And back to the case at hand: Was this really a "racial" issue? Did the events that transpired that night REALLY hinge on the RACES of the parties involved? Or is that merely an illusion being pounded into the collective psyche by those that seek to divide us - AS A PEOPLE - for political advantage and societal manipulation?


1. It developed into one very soon.


Thanks to the tireless work of the race-baiters

2. No.  But many people here--I was one of them--came to perceive that race was a factor in them.

Again, Thanks to the tireless work of the race-baiters

3. I doubt it, at least in the absence of evidence that this is so.


I wish others were as open-minded and diligent to details as you have been, "Tirob the Honorable".


tirob: There is an illusion among some people here that is as at least as old as this country that relations between blacks and whites are excellent and always have been, and that they always will be provided that those nasty outside agitators (all of whom have private agendas of course) don't butt in and poison blacks' minds against the whites who have always been their friends and protectors.  Your post leads me to believe that you may be under this illusion yourself.


I'm bewildered as to why my post would leave you with such an impression. I am fully aware of the interracial atrocities and inequalities of the past - and not only to blacks, but to countless others, and not only in the Americas, but all across the history of mankind. For example, during Medieval times the WHITE peasants of Europe were viewed and treated by the Lords and Royal classes in ways that were comparable to the treatment of black slaves here in the Americas: They were quite literally seen as the "property" of the lords on whose land they were born, and when the land was sold, the peasants were included in the sale as part of the assets of the property.

But I'm also not so naive that I try to view and judge these events from the modern perspective: Times change, people change, societies evolve, and while we still have a l-o-n-g way to go before we achieve "paradise" (wishful thinking), there is no question that we have made tremendous strides toward justice and equality - not only in interracial relations, but in the areas of gender, sexuality, religious and cultural tolerance, etc.

In my lifetime (I'm 50-ish) I have had the pleasure of witnessing tremendous social advances in many areas. Black congressmen, blacks sitting on the supreme court, a black attorney general, a black PRESIDENT??? Yeah, we've come a LONG way, and the same can be said for the advancements made by other minorities and women - not to mention sexuality and sexual preference.

I understand very well that these changes did not come easily or without resistance - change requires that people step out of the comfort of long-held traditions, beliefs and practices, and many paid a high price in the struggle. And while we should applaud the progress made, we should also understand that TIME is a key factor in societal evolution, as it is far easier for those of new generations to accept a changing paradigm than it is for the members of older generations who have been long grounded in the traditions of their forebears, and tend to be "set in their ways".

When such progress is made it works toward unity - toward building a sense of kinship - seeing ourselves as one nation, one people that can unite in purpose, sharing common dreams and working toward common goals - that is a GOOD thing.

When I see incidents like the GZ / TM affair arise, and see various individuals and groups work to use such as leverage to DIVIDE us, artificially exaggerating or details to reinforce our DIFFERENCES to serve their nefarious agendas, it irks the hell out of me. True, some of the details were murky at the outset, but soon we saw both the race-baiters AND much of the media intentionally pumping out false information  - the obvious goal being to reopen old wounds and rekindle dying embers into raging flames.

While some of this was clearly the result of "innocent" presumptions and genuine misunderstandings, much of it was the product of sinister manipulation (NBC's cleverly edited version of GZ's call to police, for example). As time went on, and a clearer picture of what actually transpired became apparent - before, during AND after the trial, it soon became obvious that much of the indignant rage surrounding the case was misplaced - and we would EXPECT to have seen those that had been leading the cry for "justice" to back off (if not apologize) for their words and actions.

But we didn't. AFTER the open, public and televised trial was concluded, we saw the agitators RAMP UP their rhetoric - INCLUDING both President Obama and AG Holder - persons who have been sworn to uphold, protect and defend the constitution and the RULE OF LAW. These are the TOP law enforcement figures in the nation, and yet there they are, deriding the verdict of the jury and openly implying that justice was NOT served - in the face of overwhelming evidence AND A VERDICT that said exactly the opposite.

The natural result was to FURTHER encourage the strife and division as it bordered on "legitimizing" any vindictive action taken by angry mobs.

WTF, tirob? How can this be interpreted other than to say that the goal of these race-baiters - including the "pros" like Jackson and Sharpton, the "officials" like the AG and the POTUS and the media has never been the pursuit of "justice", but to divide and rule?

While we can be grateful that riots and mass mayhem have not materialized (yet), the tension in the air remains very thick, and those involved in the case - GZ, his attorneys, their families and quite possibly the members of the jury all have good reason to fear for their lives as threats pour in.

THANKS OBAMA! You're supposed to be the leader of the nation, to work toward uniting us as ONE PEOPLE yet you and yours are doing the exact opposite - you're reinforcing our differences, and unnecessarily and unjustly creating strife and division.

WE CAN DO WITHOUT THAT, Mr. President, SIR. Thanks just the same.


tirob: If you are, you're in good company:

http://www.amazon.com/Lanterns-Levee-Recollections-Planters-Civiliza ti on/dp/0807100722

A book I recommend that deals with this subject among others.


I'll have a look at the book. I don't know whether you'll ever see the rambling rant I wrote above, but if you do, I hope it clarifies my perspective.

Good evening.
 
2013-07-23 12:31:19 AM  

Amos Quito: THANKS OBAMA! You're supposed to be the leader of the nation, to work toward uniting us as ONE PEOPLE yet you and yours are doing the exact opposite - you're reinforcing our differences, and unnecessarily and unjustly creating strife and division.


Yes, our first black President who had to release  multiple copies of his birth certificate, and engage in apologia for the Constitutionally-guaranteed free speech of his pastor, took some time out of his schedule to tell Americans how he's personally seen and been the recipient of racial prejudice in the United States. Truly, he is history's worst monster.

Seriously, just copypasta the N-word a few dozen times in all caps and post it, bold-face. You really aren't fooling anyone at this point.
 
2013-07-23 02:02:25 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Amos Quito: THANKS OBAMA! You're supposed to be the leader of the nation, to work toward uniting us as ONE PEOPLE yet you and yours are doing the exact opposite - you're reinforcing our differences, and unnecessarily and unjustly creating strife and division.

Yes, our first black President who had to release  multiple copies of his birth certificate,



And this has WHAT to do with race? Had Obamadaddy been a BLACK Cleveland autoworker, the son of a share-cropper who was in turn the son of a share-cropper, this COULD NOT have been an issue.

But Obamadaddy was in fact a Kenyan.

Kenyan is a nationality, not a race.


that bosnian sniper: and engage in apologia for the Constitutionally-guaranteed free speech of his pastor,


If you make a habit of attending (in worship) the orations of gents that are infamous for making racist, seditious, and borderline treasonous statements, folks might just be inclined to believe that you agree with those statements.

Don't you think?


that bosnian sniper: took some time out of his schedule to tell Americans how he's personally seen and been the recipient of racial prejudice in the United States. Truly, he is history's worst monster.


chicos.laprensa.hn

that bosnian sniper: Seriously, just copypasta the N-word a few dozen times in all caps and post it, bold-face. You really aren't fooling anyone at: this point.


i1121.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 48 of 548 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report