Will Americans Stand Up If The DOJ Goes After George Zimmerman

reply to post by VisualQuanta

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIDE YOU ARE ON.

Yes very astute this is the truth right there.
Now if we could all shelf our feelings no matter how strong and just plain not jump through the hoops it would speak really volumes about how wrong they are about their methods of control. we should let all threads of the subject sit and rot and not respond at all.

The secret rule of 3 is something that is used by master manipulators, and by authors, as well as professional hypnotists. It makes use of "suggestion" by embedding thoughts into the mind of persons who it is used upon. What it is simply is just writing or saying something to individuals at least 3 times. It sounds very simple and even harmless. But what happens is that it does have an effect upon the mind because of the way that the mind works.

www.angelfire.com...

Let's see have there been several cases lately where we will start think...guns are bad?

I was in there because of my own strong feelings, someone on here opened my eyes, we are playing a game...not our own.
I am out last word.

reply to post by VisualQuanta


Its upesetting people because trying to surpass a Jurys verdict is a slap in the face of the justice system!

Trying to by pass a trying or even trying to influance the public and hense the jury by haveing the president make a comment in favour of the victem dureing a ongoing trial is a competely wrong and inappropriate thing.


The the jury has decided! The trial is over! Thats it end of! That what a working justice system does!

Trying to make up a fake racsim claim (something the FBI cleared him off) or trying to take the law into the publics hands is NOT something a civilised country that values human rights does. It what you expect of Russia or some african dictatorship.

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Why would I stand up for a child killer?

Because the Jury found him not guilty.

A goverment has NO RIGHT to overturn a verdict or find a fake offence to charge someone else.

You seem VERY confused. Maybe read up a little?

The DOJ, if they conclude there were "Civil rights Violations"...and I doubt they will...but if they did, that would not be "overturning" the verdict...nor is a civil rights violation a "fake offence"...it is a very real offence.

That said, the DOJ has NOT said they will file charges, NOR have they said that they are opening some new investigation. They have said they will "review" evidence...and frankly they don't have the evidence to warrant a "civil rights violation", so at the end of the day nothing will come of it.

George Zimmerman benefited from being the only living witness to what really happened...the legal system doesn't have the evidence to contest it. That is just the truth, whoever's side of the argument you are on.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie


Shame on you holder! Shane on you obama!

Who is Shane?

Originally posted by Indigo5


You seem VERY confused. Maybe read up a little?

The DOJ, if they conclude there were "Civil rights Violations"...and I doubt they will...but if they did, that would not be "overturning" the verdict...nor is a civil rights violation a "fake offence"...it is a very real offence.

That said, the DOJ has NOT said they will file charges, NOR have they said that they are opening some new investigation. They have said they will "review" evidence...and frankly they don't have the evidence to warrant a "civil rights violation", so at the end of the day nothing will come of it.

George Zimmerman benefited from being the only living witness to what really happened...the legal system doesn't have the evidence to contest it. That is just the truth, whoever's side of the argument you are on.

The original investigation cleared him of Civil righst offences and said the case is clear of racsim.


There should be no need to dig it all up again. There hopeing to find something for the sake of hopeing to find something.

If I'm Zimmerman and the DOJ comes after me, I'm counter-suing them for the witch hunt that is taking place...

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by VisualQuanta

 

Its upesetting people because trying to surpass a Jurys verdict is a slap in the face of the justice system!

Trying to by pass a trying or even trying to influance the public and hense the jury by haveing the president make a comment in favour of the victem dureing a ongoing trial is a competely wrong and inappropriate thing.

Enough with the BS that a DOJ review to see if a Civil Rights Violation occured is the same as a 2nd degree murder trial.

OJ Simpson was fount not guilty in the murder of his wife...

He WAS found guilty in a CIVIL suit of "wrongful death"...

Different charges...

Originally posted by crazyewok

The original investigation cleared him of Civil righst offences and said the case is clear of racsim.


There should be no need to dig it all up again. There hopeing to find something for the sake of hopeing to find something.

No they didn't. Link please?

I am not even saying that there is any evidence for a Civil Rights Offense...niether is the DOJ, they are "reviewing" evidence.

That said...your statement remains bunk. Please show me the link where the DOJ declared there was no Civil Rights violation?

Originally posted by VisualQuanta

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
well i just saw on the news that the DOJ said they were going to investigate what a load of crap.
playing up to the race baiter's just to act like the are looking out for the black amercains or people of color.

Shame on you holder! Shane on you obama!

I'm sorry, but I don't like your approach to debate at all.

You seem to think that no one can have an opinion opposite to you and still be a rational person, yet you seem extremely unstable yourself. So outraged over something that has not impacted your life in anyway. This is why people are saying you are being played. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIDE YOU ARE ON.

well that's your opinion

why didn't you say that to all the other posters that seem to be way more unstable than i am. talking about killing GZ and wishing him dead. if it didn't violate T&C i could point out two or three at least. and if you read my posts carefully you will see, i stated many time that's your opinion.

and to your point remark,

So outraged over something that has not impacted your life in anyway.

are you kidding, each and every time someone is tried a in a court of law, each verdict or judges decision that is made affects every citizen of that state in one way or another. there may come a time in someones life that they are on trial and a lawyer may refer to this case, didn't you see the arguments in the court room over all kinds of stuff, they were pulling out case after case where a court or judge ruled this or that.

and i want even go into who is being played, it's apparent who is being played, by not recognizing just what has taken place with trial and the DOJ's involvement in it.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by VisualQuanta

 

Its upesetting people because trying to surpass a Jurys verdict is a slap in the face of the justice system!

Trying to by pass a trying or even trying to influance the public and hense the jury by haveing the president make a comment in favour of the victem dureing a ongoing trial is a competely wrong and inappropriate thing.

Enough with the BS that a DOJ review to see if a Civil Rights Violation occured is the same as a 2nd degree murder trial.

OJ Simpson was fount not guilty in the murder of his wife...

He WAS found guilty in a CIVIL suit of "wrongful death"...

Different charges...

You do realize that a civil law suit and a Criminal Civil Rights Violation are two different things.

Civil case is about paying out money, Criminal Civil Rights Violations are about a crime being committed by violating some ones rights. if they charge him, GZ could be facing life or death or less depending on the charges.


Just wanted to make a note to Indigo5 that i misinterpreted your post that i quoted and apologize, but i will let the post stand so others that may not know the deference can see it.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie


Shame on you holder! Shane on you obama!

Who is Shane?

spelling nazi!




now i'll go fix it.

ETA: i even gave you a star.

Somebody should tell Eric Holder it was UNNECESSARY to send arms into Mexico. That UNNECESSARY action caused many deaths.

Really getting ticked off about this witch hunt just because one side didn't get their way. Prosecution had a lot of time and infinitive money to get the job, and even with that they couldn't prove their case. People should be more ticked off at the prosecutions incompetency instead of the verdict.

Peace

Originally posted by GrantedBail
I swear to gawd this is the last comment I will make on this subject.

Here is what I think about you Zimmerman groupies:

From the get, you staked out your positions. Then your hate radio, blogs, websites, added fuel to your fires.

Any derogatory information that came out about Zimmerman was dismissed out of hand.

It was all about the "liberal media", the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and all that crap. These are people and institutions you despised even before this event.

You have been played like a fiddle. You are too ignorant to realize it. They are distracting you with some bs while Rome burns.

There is too much fluoride in your water. Get a freakin filter.

Everything you posted here is the opposite of common sense and truth.

1. calling those who (are not fans of zimmerman, but happen to fans of the legal system of innocent until proven guilty, self defense, and the right to bear arms, thus due process not mindless emotional reactions and gutting the justice system), derogatory knee jerk names just comes back at you full circle.

You are what you call others.

Not only this but the ones who post like this reveal themselves to those who are looking for the standard put downs and slanting of information, to not be an ordinary citizen posting.

2. The so called "fans" in your words, aren't putting the hate out, they're posting on the evidence, and our rights of self defense. Its the MSM and the media and Obama supporting knee jerk emotional reactions to override our constitution and legal system that is putting out the hate, even the death threats.

3. Those things dismissed out of hand, had to proven by the prosecution. They couldn't, he walked. It would be a crime against humanity, and destroyed the US legal system to try someone and convict without evidence, based on all these opinions.

Facts: It doesn't matter if you are a member of the citizen's watch, or a citizen, anyone legally carrying a weapon or not, 1. you have the right to walk on public streets without anyone attacking you and beating you.
2. If you're armed, or not, you have the right defend yourself from attack, even with lethal force. Even being beaten can kill.

This is the law.

By the way, I remember a time, when there was Hep C call girl living in the basement suite bringing onto my overpriced house rental, scores of mainly one type of nationality, men, going to the basement suite, landlord would do nothing, police would do nothing, and I didn't feel safe in my yard, anymore.

So I grabbed a notebook and ran out to greet two young men, who pulled up one evening, and in their religion and temple if you had your name published your whole family would lose standing.

So I ran out and said, I'm the neighborhood watch committee. Do you realize you are going to frequent a Hep C known prostitute? I require your name, number and liscence plate. Well, I was 8 months pregnant at the time.

They ran, but I have to say, if they had punched me, and I had a weapon and shot, it would still have been self defense.

Please note, this notebook was my new action, of course after asking them each this a couple times you can't harass them further, but i would take note, and keep a record of it, and times for the police because even that journal would become a legal document.

Everyone has the right to self defence.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by crazyewok

The original investigation cleared him of Civil righst offences and said the case is clear of racsim.


There should be no need to dig it all up again. There hopeing to find something for the sake of hopeing to find something.

No they didn't. Link please?

I am not even saying that there is any evidence for a Civil Rights Offense...niether is the DOJ, they are "reviewing" evidence.

That said...your statement remains bunk. Please show me the link where the DOJ declared there was no Civil Rights violation?

your are aware that the FBI has already done a investigation right?

here is one link,

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, after conducting three dozen interviews with witnesses said they found no evidence of racism on the part of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Lead detective Sanford Det. Chris Serino says the evidence suggests that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon due to his attire and the circumstances - but not his race.

Racism was not motivating factor in Trayvon Martin shooting, FBI says

now i can go get more if you want. assuming not answer this question.

if they investigated and didn't find any thing the first time, why after a not guilty verdict are they reviewing the case a second time?

Whether I agree or disagree with the verdict is irrelevant and has no bearing on the fact that if Federal charges are brought against Zimmerman, a very dangerous precedent will be set by the justice system and this slippery slope has far reaching implications.

Many cite the fact that the officers in the Rodney King incident faced Federal charges, let me share some knowledge:

After the riots, the United States Department of Justice reinstated the investigation and obtained an indictment of violations of federal civil rights against the four officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The federal trial focused more on the evidence as to the training of officers instead of just relying on the videotape of the incident. On March 9 of the 1993 trial, King took the witness stand and described to the jury the events as he remembered them. The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 32 months in prison, while Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno were acquitted of all charges.

During the three-hour sentencing hearing, the Federal trial judge, John Davies, accepted much of the defense version of the beating. He strongly criticized King, who he said provoked the officers' initial actions.
Judge Davies stated that only the final six or so baton blows by Powell were unlawful. The first 55 seconds of the videotaped portion of the incident, during which the vast majority of the blows were delivered, was within the law because the officers were attempting to subdue a suspect who was resisting efforts to take him into custody.
King's provocative behavior began with his "remarkable consumption of alcoholic beverage" and continued through a high-speed chase, refusal to submit to police orders and an aggressive charge toward Powell.

Davies made several findings in support of the officers' version of events. He concluded that Officer Powell never intentionally struck King in the head, and "Powell's baton blow that broke King's leg was not illegal because King was still resisting and rolling around on the ground, and breaking bones in resisting suspects is permissible under police policy."

Mitigation cited by the judge in determining the length of the prison sentence included the suffering the officers had undergone because of the extensive publicity their case had received, the impending loss of their careers as police officers, their vulnerability to abuse in prison and their having been subjected to two trials.

The judge acknowledged that having two such trials did not legally constitute double jeopardy, but nonetheless it "raised the specter of unfairness."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

According to Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz

“In general, the Justice Department does not investigate civil rights violations committed by one individual against another unless that individual works for the state or federal government,” Dershowitz said.

Dershowitz continued that “George Zimmerman can’t really alone violate the civil rights of an individual even if he were to be guilty of the crime.”

Source: www.theblaze.com...

It is also critical to highlight the following:
FBI records: agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist
Source: www.mcclatchydc.com...

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Setting a precedent where if many disagree with a verdict forces Federal criminal litigation is very dangerous and goes against the foundation of our system of justice and the Constitution.

reply to post by NickDC202



thank you, i've said it in more simpler terms, like if they do it to him they'll do it to you, or to that effect.
but maybe with your post people will see, what can and will happen if we are not vigilant.

we should hold their feet to the fire on this and make sure they don't overstep their bounds.

reply to post by Indigo5

He WAS found guilty in a CIVIL suit of "wrongful death"...

Sorry to be picky, but he was found to be 'responsible' for their deaths in the civil trial.

After being found 'not guilty' in a criminal trial, he continues to be not guilty of that particular crime.... forever.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Thank you for your kind note; I really appreciate what you wrote.

Originally posted by jam321
Somebody should tell Eric Holder it was UNNECESSARY to send arms into Mexico. That UNNECESSARY action caused many deaths.

Really getting ticked off about this witch hunt just because one side didn't get their way. Prosecution had a lot of time and infinitive money to get the job, and even with that they couldn't prove their case. People should be more ticked off at the prosecutions incompetency instead of the verdict.

Peace

Oh...I agree...the prosecution sucked...AND they over-reached with 2nd degree murder.

reply to post by Indigo5

Oh...I agree...the prosecution sucked...AND they over-reached with 2nd degree murder.

I don't know what else the prosecution could have done.
They had very little to work with. That is why the DA originally decided not to bring charges, lack of evidence.
Most of their witnesses benefited the defense.