Another bite of the Zimmerman apple?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: JOD
I think I stand a better chance of being indicted on civil rights charges in the case than GZ. It's not going to happen, and even the mention of it is simple an appeal to folks who didn't like the outcome. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about the law knows it's a non-starter. I'm sure some will use this as a reason to rail against any and all actions categorized as civil rights crimes, something with which I strongly disagree. But there's obviously no case here.


There is always a Fed statue to worry about..but civil rights violation, based upon the evidence in the trial anyway, it not a possibility.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I think it's probably a done deal, but we shall see.
In the next week or so, a spokesperson from Justice will appear on our screens during the network news and announce that after a careful review of the facts of the case, the government has found no option other than to bring a criminal civil rights action against the hapless George.
I'm not being funny, either.
This case becomes more political by the day, and there will be elections in 2014.
This whole case should fade away and allow us to concentrate on dealing with the real problems we have in our country.
Won't happen.


You're not being funny, but you're stating something as if it's true, and then being outraged about it and claiming it's "political". Meanwhile, every rational report on the subject has said the same thing: there's no case, and charges won't be brought. Sure, it's "political". The lines of justice and politics have been blurred since the days of Aristotle, and I'm sure before that... Generally speaking though, the justice system works better than many folks give credit.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim74
Juror B37: "If he didn't go too far. ... He just didn't stop at the limitations he should have stopped at."

So in other words, the exact definition of manslaughter.

Manslaughter: The crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.


Not in FL not when applying the stand your ground statue. Most states he wouls stand a great probability of manslaughter....not FL.
 
I'm also disagreeing on the verdict, and I don't think he should stand trial for federal case.

What I think should have happen is a court case on whether Florida's "Stand your ground" law is constitutional (i.e. can state decide if murder is allowed, just like can state decide if same sex marriage, medical marijuana, reversing the separate of church and state, etc are allowed).

If the outcome of that battle make "stand your ground" unconstitutional and FL has to redraw a new law, then I think it "may" have a case trying GZ in a federal case.

Now if they find another non violent related case to throw at GZ on the federal or state level (i.e. if he lied about something and causes TM to die without appropriate medical treatment, or if he obtain the gun illegally, or if he lied to get onto the neighborhood watch), then by all mean throw those at him, but not about the death of TM or any fist throwing between them, that should be over.
 
On the contrary, I think the trial transcript gives ample evidence to support a federal civil rights action, should Justice be directed to bring one.
The thing is, for a federal prosecutor, merely gaining an indictment on a laundry list of charges is usually enough to compel a plea deal.
As has been famously said, a prosecutor can win an indictment of a ham sandwich.
 
Originally Posted By: walk23
GZ, under the Law is a free man, but I doubt he'll ever be free. Hope he uses the donations sent wisely b/c his ability to earn went to Zero.


I highly doubt he will have anything left once a civil case gets into gear. He would be sued into bankruptcy to settle for TM's parents' lost.
 
If I understand the purpose of the civil suit that may arise....

The 1st trial (if there's more than 1) covered actions and intentions arising from the altercation, beginning with the physical interaction. The timeline prior to their interaction was not considered by the jury in determining their verdict.

The 2nd trial, if there's a 2nd, will cover actions and intentions PRIOR to the altercation, beginning with the phone call GZ made to the police (and perhaps including prior calls made to the police as well) and NOT what transpired during the altercation.

I'm not making any judgements here, just trying to explain the difference civil suit vs criminal proceedings aspects of the trials...
 
So that gives him the right to keep following on foot another person that also legally there in the gated community? For his efforts he now has killed a person and will live wondering if someone will try to get payback. Also if you believe that Fox has been professional in its coverage must not have really been paying attention. Fox is every bit as unprofessional on its side of the fence as the mainstream media is.
 
Didn't TVM have a LOOOOOOONG rap sheet for just this kind of stuff. Prior convictions. No doubt in my mind he was up to no good. Like a pedifile running a ice cream truck..come here little kiddies...IN TVM case is was well off houses..
He had MANY past burglary charges. HE WAS IN AN AREA HE DIDN'T BELONG.
GUILTY!!!
I'M SORRY GZ IS GOING THROUGH THIS
 
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Didn't TVM have a LOOOOOOONG rap sheet for just this kind of stuff. Prior convictions. No doubt in my mind he was up to no good. Like a pedifile running a ice cream truck..come here little kiddies...IN TVM case is was well off houses..
He had MANY past burglary charges. HE WAS IN AN AREA HE DIDN'T BELONG.
GUILTY!!!
I'M SORRY GZ IS GOING THROUGH THIS


I'm going to disagree, even though i agree with the virdict Martin did have a right to be there, he was residing with family. He did not have the right to initiate physical contact.
 
I'll try really hard not to rehash the previous threads on this topic.
For you to write that the decedent was in an area he didn't belong is misguided.
What if a resident found you, or one of your children, in an area where he thought you didn't belong?
If you or your kids were confronted without any valid reason by someone who was no more than an amatuer, self appointed policeman, would you refuse to comply with their commands, and would you fight them off if they laid hands on you?
 
If you disagree with the verdict it means you are incapable of understanding that he was fairly tried and acquitted. You may think he was guilty of "something" and may want to convict him for a lot of his actions, but are you so dense so as not to realize that if any of those things had been crimes he surely would have been charged with them ?
His guilt or innocence is not just a matter of opinion. If you disagree, it's because you are wrong. Get over it and pay attention next time.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
In American law, the jury is the sole trier of fact.
One cannot be tried for the same offense twice unless the trial jury fails to reach a verdict.
One can, however, be charged with a different offense arising from the same set of events.
In this case, there is talk of bringing a federal criminal action against George Zimmerman.
Whether you agree with the verdict of the trial jury or not, and I don't, both sides had their day in court and Zimmerman was found not guilty of either murder or manslaughter.
I find it reprehensible that our Justice Department is actually considering charging GM under federal law, simply because some people believe that the trial jury reached the wrong result.
While I may feel that the jury erred, it is not appropriate to try this man again under a different statute.
This would not constitute double jeopardy as a matter of law, but it would be morally wrong as well as disrespectful of the jury system.


100% dead on right. It is DISGUSTING what they are doing( or thinking of doing ). Just so wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin. It sickens me.
 
Last edited:
Guess you missed my topic opening post.
Try going back and reading it.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
In American law, the jury is the sole trier of fact.
One cannot be tried for the same offense twice unless the trial jury fails to reach a verdict.
One can, however, be charged with a different offense arising from the same set of events.
In this case, there is talk of bringing a federal criminal action against George Zimmerman.
Whether you agree with the verdict of the trial jury or not, and I don't, both sides had their day in court and Zimmerman was found not guilty of either murder or manslaughter.
I find it reprehensible that our Justice Department is actually considering charging GM under federal law, simply because some people believe that the trial jury reached the wrong result.
While I may feel that the jury erred, it is not appropriate to try this man again under a different statute.
This would not constitute double jeopardy as a matter of law, but it would be morally wrong as well as disrespectful of the jury system.


+1
 
That remains unresolved.
Of course, TM isn't around to give his version of events.
Anyway, a jury of our peers has reached a verdict, and the issue should thus be put to rest.
I didn't sit in the jury box for the trail, nor did anyone else here.
Had I done so, I might well have voted to acquit George Z, based upon the evidence presented.
An acquital does not indicate an absence of guilt.
It merely indicates that the prosecution failed to pursuade the jury of guit beyond a reasonable doubt.
In any event, this case is now a settled issue, and should remain such, as I indicated in my original post.
 
Wearing a hoodie in a subdivision gets him no browny points with me. He dressed thuggish, probably talked smack to GZ playing the part he dressed. WHAT WAS HE DOING WALKING AROUND AT 2:00AM anyway? looking for a place to break in and steal stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dnewton3
  • Locked
dash cam saves careers
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
15K
Ratchetgrinder
D
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
The Critic
  • Locked
Need Help With Rental Home Lease
2
Replies
31
Views
13K
The Critic
D
  • Locked
You are no longer protected by our laws
Replies
18
Views
4K
oilyriser
W
  • Locked
Now Hear This !!
Replies
3
Views
662
thedawk
Back
Top Bottom