It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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)
Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Look up the 5th Amendment.
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.
(Emphasis by me)
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.
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)
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.
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.
but it also goes on to state that it would be quite hard for them to prove that it was a civil rights violation
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.
so take that with a big grain of salt until we can get confirmation but i figured it was relevant to the discussion
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.