Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NAACP to petition the DoJ over Zimmerman verdict

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Zimmerman isn't out of the woods yet...

They are saying Zimmerman violated Martins Civil Rights

Petition

NAACP Petition
edit on 14-7-2013 by Zaanny because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Let it go, he is innocent.......you can only bring up a Civil Lawsuit now. All you can get it cash money.
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by parkwoods21
Let it go, he is innocent.......you can only bring up a Civil Lawsuit now. All you can get it cash money.
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)


Not correct. This is Civil RIGHTS...not Civil Suit. it would would entail a criminal prosecution on the Federal Level. The same way the Rodney King cops were acquitted and then retried for Civil Rights in a whole separate trial on the same event to a conviction.

If at first you don't succeed...try try again, I guess.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Look up the 5th Amendment.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by parkwoods21
 


I agree with you, but when has this DOJ ever held the constitution up?

Didn't the Martin's already get 1 million dollars from some kind of suit? Looking pretty snappy in court, I'd say.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaanny
 


For the love of God, the man was found not guilty. By a jury of his peers. Based on evidence that clearly shows he was not guilty.

Double jeopardy much?

Two lives were already ruined. Creating a further divide of America and persecuting someone who has been found innocent in a court of law is ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Ameilia
 


Are the NAACP people going to call Zimmerman a white-hispanic? Like CNN has?

Only WHITE people can derail someone of color's "civil rights".
edit on 14-7-2013 by Happy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
They need to sell those trade marked I am trayvon hoodies while the irons hot. After all the family isnt getting the payday ol sharpton promised them.

This is pathetic the man has been cleared they literally threw everything at him and nothing stuck. Let him be he has been found innocent by a jury and put through hell. And for those who said that gun rights and race played no issue in his being charged the tweets from the affiliated organizations kinda proves otherwise.

Not idolizing the man just happy he has been cleared maybe the next wannabe gangster will decide not to attack the wannabe cop after all if for anyreason you find yourself in a situation where your life is percived to be at risk this could be your living hell if the attacker is a different color than you.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I am confused as to how he could have violated his civil rights,
in the case where the police officers beat a man, they work
for the city and in that case were violating his civil rights along
with his rights as a human to not be beaten by that many armed
men while he was defenseless.

In this case its two people, one older than the other but neither
employed by the state or county, i really don't get it.....
anyone shed some light on which civil rights could be violated
in a case like this, other than the obvious he killed the boy,
which is what the trial that just ended was over.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Look up the 5th Amendment.

I thought that too, but look up the cops who were convicted for violating Rodney King's Civil Rights. That was their second trial for the same event following a Not Guilty Verdict. I didn't write the law. I just watch them abuse it.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Show me the different sovereignties like they used in that case that they would in this case.
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by parkwoods21
 


When you're starting from the basis of first having replied with a one liner to go look up an amendment? No offense, but do your own homework. I happened to be a teen and living in the L.A. area during the King riots. It was an intense time and the fact there were two trials of the same men for the same act after the first one came up as an acquittal (and triggered the riots) is a matter of public record.

I did happen to find the specific federal law they got them with and the NAACP must be looking at for this.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.


Now that alone is usually taken to just mean cops because that is how it's normally applied. However, he's stated he was acting in the position of a neighborhood watch person. Whether they claim him or not, may not matter depending on precisely what he's said on that and how he's said it. I had to poke around a bit to get a clear definition of just how far down they can take this for a prosecution....but it's not a good thing if they want to be creative and really want to get him.


Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
(Emphasis by me)
Source: FBI Civil Rights Statutes as Enforced

Now if this were ATS or something, I might be thinking this Government is known for bending a few rules and regulations when it suits their purposes. The prosecution of the L.A. cops a second time showed they CAN do this if they choose to and the circumstances are right. How far, if at all, are they prepared to bend the regulations to fit the circumstances on what the NAACP is calling for? That would be the question I believe.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Now show me were that takes away your 5th amendment. Neighborhood watch isn't a security guard.
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by parkwoods21
 


almost positive that florida has a clause where if your not guilty by self defense you get immunity from being charged in civl matters and courts
www.leg.state.fl.us.../0776/Section s/0776.032.html

Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
i am almost positive that he has immunity from prosecution,and with a court case saying the killing was justified (self defense) its different from the oj trail where he was just saying he didnt do it(and his was in ca)

so i think the lawsuits that will be relevant will be how much money zimmerman is getting from the media and any one else he can sue



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Neighborhood watch isn't a law enforcement agency. They could perform citizens arrests and that's it. Look just realize he is off the hook. It's a done deal.

Excuse me? I'm sharing with you what the law is relating to what the NAACP is calling be done. *I* not missing anything to "realize" and your making it personal is out of line.

Neighborhood Watch MAY be enough under the terminology quoted in the statute above, as shown on the FBI website for a creative and determined Government to push the issue. We're about to see how much juice the NAACP has.

The thread is about this call by the NAACP and that is what I'm discussing. You make it sound wildly inappropriate to even chat about the fact they are calling for it or the fact they are absolutely not kidding about it. There is precedent, unfortunately. It's a real thing that could come into play.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by parkwoods21
 


onegen.org... to be fair to the wrabbit he was atleast half right,he is not covered by double jepoardy due to the fact of diffrences in sovrenty (ie state v federal) this link tries to explain it better then i can


For most Americans, it was the Rodney King trial that introduced the reality that people acquitted for an accused crime at the state level could be prosecuted under the federal system for the same acts. The police accused of beating Mr. King were acquitted of state charges and the federal Department of Justice then charged the officers in federal court and convicted them of violating Mr. King's civil rights. The reason why this is allowed is because of dual sovereignty of the state and federal governments. The Supreme Court ruled in 1959's Bartkus v. Illinois that a person could be prosecuted by bothfederal and state authorities for the same crime and that the prosecutions could even cooperate, and that these actions would not violate the double jeopardy protections of the fifth amendment. The Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." It's important to remember that when the this provision of the Bill of Rights was enshrined into our Constitution, the only federal crimes were treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. The Founders had no reason to protect the populace from double prosecution by state and federal governments. Forgetting serious crimes like murder or arson, the Founders certainly could never have imagined that sellers of unpasteurized milk for example might be committing state and federal felonies.
but it also goes on to state that it would be quite hard for them to prove that it was a civil rights violation



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Yes... I do figure it would take some bending and fudging...but then, not every case has had the President of the United States himself saying if he had a son, he'd look like the victim. I'm thinking if there is enough pressure, a call to Holder gets creative minds to making creative arguments. I wish the NAACP hadn't even gone this direction, but they are absolute experts with the law and making things like this work where odds say it's not likely.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
http://_national_report_dot_net_/obama-files-federal-charges-against-george-zimmerman-following-acquittal-in-shooting-murder-of-trayvon-martin/ unconfirmed sources so take that for what it is claim that Obama is already filing civil rights charges in the case.....


Just when we thought the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case was over after Zimmerman’s acquittal, the Obama Administration has taken the steps needed to file federal charges, thus sidestepping the well established double jeopardy, against Zimmerman. Unidentified sources within the Administration have confirmed that Obama, and Justice Eric Holder at the Department of Justice have filed charges against Zimmerman for “violating Trayvon Martin’s civil rights”. Double jeopardy is an often misunderstood concept in American Law. The rule merely states that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime in the SAME COURT. Liberal Justice Department officials often charge Americans with crimes from which they have previously been acquitted by filing federal charges on a similar crime in a federal court.
so take that with a big grain of salt until we can get confirmation but i figured it was relevant to the discussion



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



This should settle that.
edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join