Will Americans Stand Up If The DOJ Goes After George Zimmerman

reply to post by muzzleflash


It does not surprise me one bit that you totally get that guy. I mean if anyone could...??? It would definitely be you.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
Watching the Sunday morning news talk shows this morning, and saw where Al Sharpton and others are calling for the DOJ to check into civil rights violations by George Zimmerman.

Now I have a few questions about this. Americans

1. Is it not True the FBI found that there was no racial bias or profiling by Zimmerman?

2. If so, how and what can they charge him with, seeing that the Florida courts found that this is not racial or that he profiled Martin?

3. If The DOJ does pursue these type charges, will Americans raise up and raise hell like the Martin supporters?

My view if the FBI found no racial or profiling on Zimmerman's part, there is no basis to bring these type charges up.

I also think that many people of all races or color, are getting wise and are tired of the Government over stepping their bounds are this just might spark something more than they are ready to handle just yet.

i could go on and on about this but i''l leave it here and ask for your options and would really like to see some hard facts if possible.

edit on 14-7-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

I don't agree with the verdict at all! But I'm against the DOJ going after Zimmerman, or continuing to investigate. The case is over, the jury made their decision. As much as I'd love to see Zimmerman behind bars, it's wrong for the DOJ to overstep, and I would not want them to have this power over any of us.

If we let DOJ get away with this, imagine what else they will do.

Originally posted by VisualQuanta

. [color=gold] Drop your morals, its the LAW!

I think people here may be far more ignorant than I feared.

This comment fits perfectly step (24)
from the last ten years.


Mike

2003-2013 (24). Fool, bemuse and corrupt the younger members of society by teaching them theories and principles we know to be false.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by GrantedBail


I understand that you suddenly are upset with me for no reason other than my statements on this particular topic?
We have agreed so jubilantly in the past, I didn't realize that it was only 'skin deep' for you. That a simple disagreement would lead to such a fallout.

I am patient and will await you to come to your senses and I will accept your apologies happily.

This very animosity building up culturally and being randomly projected onto people one "associates with team X or Y" is why I am most fascinated with this entire current issue and all of it's many ramifications.

I suppose it is mostly the Constitutional aspects and the many misunderstandings which interest me the most. And I do admit I am sort of surprised by the level of cognitive dissonance the common public exhibits, not just about this but pretty much everything these days.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

It does not surprise me one bit that you totally get that guy. I mean if anyone could...??? It would definitely be you.

Well yeah English decryption is easy.

I spend most of my time with dozens of languages worldwide from the cuneiform to hieroglyphics or whatever. Greek Latin Phoenician Hebrew Hanzi Kanji Sanskrit etc.
I study symbolism and look into the hidden messages within everything if I cannot help it.

It's all on the table in my view.
So of course I can understand people who use English.

Everyone should consider having high standards. Raises the quality of life after all.

DOJ ... I'm going to laugh! They need to investigate themselves! What about double jeopardy? Can't charge someone twice for the same crime. Hey, Holder, you're next! Your part in fast n furious warrants you jail time!

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
Watching the Sunday morning news talk shows this morning, and saw where Al Sharpton and others are calling for the DOJ to check into civil rights violations by George Zimmerman.

Now I have a few questions about this. Americans

1. Is it not True the FBI found that there was no racial bias or profiling by Zimmerman?

2. If so, how and what can they charge him with, seeing that the Florida courts found that this is not racial or that he profiled Martin?

3. If The DOJ does pursue these type charges, will Americans raise up and raise hell like the Martin supporters?

My view if the FBI found no racial or profiling on Zimmerman's part, there is no basis to bring these type charges up.

I also think that many people of all races or color, are getting wise and are tired of the Government over stepping their bounds are this just might spark something more than they are ready to handle just yet.

i could go on and on about this but i''l leave it here and ask for your options and would really like to see some hard facts if possible.

I think that the govt should just leave George Zipperhead to the rest of us. No sweat. This thing could be sorted out by lunch, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything.

In responding to the OP's questions...

Is it not True the FBI found that there was no racial bias or profiling by Zimmerman?

Not quite accurate. It is probable that Zimmerman did not racially profile Martin, but he did profile him as a potential crime suspect. Even if Zimmerman is the most racially prejudiced person on the planet, his prejudice would have no basis on the case. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was waiting for a black person to come into the estate so he could harass him, he was acting as the 'eyes' and 'ears' of the neighboured, and it would not have mattered what colour the person was whom aroused his suspicions. Zimmerman was very zealous of his position as the neighboured watch.

If The DOJ does pursue (human rights) type charges, will Americans rise up and raise hell like the Martin supporters?

This is not a question to ask. Again, this case was not about 'human rights'. This case is quite simple really. It's about the ambitious and zealous activity of a neighboured watch security guard acting like he had the powers of a cop. He approached a young man he was suspicious of (even though advised not 'to follow' the suspect) and got into a scuffle and fist fight and from the evidence of his injuries, looked to have been losing the physical confrontation, at some point during the physical confrontation Zimmerman's gun was fired into the chest of Martin at close range. It is not a human rights issue.

We only have Zimmerman's statements and the physical evidence of injuries, scrapes and scuffs to go on. Zimmerman has to account for how the gun came to be released from its holster. He stated that Martin made a grab for the weapon, but that he (Zimmerman) got to it first and fired a single shot. We have a second witness whom stated that he saw a black person sat on top of someone and was pummelling them.

So, the trial rests entirely upon how and why the gun was freed from its holster. The physical evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, and the 2nd witness statements seem to corroborate Zimmerman's account. If Zimmerman had followed the 'expert' advice of the Dispatcher, he would not have set in motion events that led to the trial. We have to take Zimmerman's statement that Martin grabbed for the gun at face value, as Martin himself cannot give his account.

It doesn't matter what alternative scenario we can all think up, the trial has to go on the evidence. Zimmerman was unprofessional in ignoring the Dispatcher's advice, after that, only the physical evidence of injuries and the 2nd witness statements matter. The prosecution could never prove that Zimmerman simply withdrew his weapon and fired because Martin was pummelling him and made no attempt to grab for the gun, which if proven, would have put a different slant on the trial, and Zimmerman would be facing and possibly convicted on a manslaughter charge.

I don't doubt that for many people the verdict sticks in the gullet and is extremely disappointing, but the lack of evidence to support any of Martin's actions, or to support any harassment or racial prejudice claims, really made the trial moot. I'm ready to be convinced if there is an elsewise argument or evidence I have missed.

Has anyone noticed that the people who do not accept the verdict or believe the way this bad situation took place or that it was not self defense are the exact same people who are the first to call some of us Birthers and disregard the fact that our Piece of Sh** living in the white house is constitutionally qualified. Is there a connection mentally that hard FACTS just don't register mentally with these people?

Originally posted by WormwoodSquirm
The less you watch the stupid news the better of you will be. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury in the USA. GAME OVER. Sharpton and others can go fly a kite.

Well they got Sharpton as a front guy. Now Al can remember when the cops would just pick up any black guy off the street and charge him and southern juries were stacked ect ect. So naturally they are going to overreact.....besides that's his job now.....act like its 1965 Selma Alabama every time a white person has this sort of interaction with a black.

So Al could just really be an anachronism.......break only in case of fire hoses and police dogs. So Ill give Al that but man if its still clouding your vision in 2013.

The FBI says Zimmerman isn't a racist. So I don't know how the DOJ can go after Zimmerman at the request of the NAACP, when in fact the incident in Florida wasn't racist in nature.

FBI records: agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist

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.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

Maybe the DOJ and Holder should go after those who are actually calling for racist hate crimes ..

Trayvon Rally Leader To Crowd - "Kill Every F'n Cop "

During the “Justice for Trayvon Martin rally” in Portland, Oregon, one man tells the crowd that every 28 hours a young black person is killed by a “security guard who’s trigger happy” or a “racist who’s talking and killing young black boys.”

edit on 7/15/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

reply to post by elysiumfire


Sorry but i dissagre! I don't think it is fair first of all to say "he was acting like a cop" that is a low blow, and there are a lot of people who think about becoming a cop but for some reason or another it just doesn't work out. The second problem is that those who do aspire to become a cop try to pay close attention as to how a cop would handle a situation like this because they have a respect for the law. I personally would be asking my self this question before deciding, and trying to make sure I am justified. This should be a good thing!

The next problem in your post is you said he was told not to follow Martin by the 911 dispatcher! If you were watching the trial the 911 dispatcher was for one, very young, two stated he did not have the authority to give commands or instructions that were "Orders" so Zimmerman had no legal requirement or obligation to obey a 911 "request" not to follow but still said "OK"

Last everyone seems to think he was stalking Martin, and that Zimmerman lied, when actually at the time he was asked by the dispatcher not to follow Martin, Zimmerman said "OK". The next thing the dispatcher asks was "what direction was Martin running" Naturally, If you cannot see because of the layout of the complex you would try to get to a vantage point that would allow you to see and provide that info to the dispatch. It was on his way back to his truck that Martin, who had plenty of time to just go home,(300ft)away, could have ended it. But in stead, being the little punk that he was, decided that he was going to teach "whitie" a lesson.

If this exact situation happened to an officer, even if off duty, in plane clothes, it would not have turned out any differently. In fact the officer would have probably not even let it get as bad as it did before shooting! and there would not have been a single word said about it. We have cops down here and just about everywhere today who don't even think about shooting first and asking later. Why should a person who has a right to carry and defend themselves be held to a different standard? If you look at the law, it is suppose to be no difference if you are a cop or civilian when it comes to use of deadly force!

I beleive vehnemetly that EVRYONE accused should get there day in court in front of a jury.

Be it a serial pedophile muderer or a failing to pay taxes.

No execeptions.

That court should be free of Goverment Influance and free of media Influance and the court case based soley on facts with the burden of proving guilt on the procecution.


The system is not perfect but its the best we have.

If a Jury finds you not guilty that should be it. The goverment SHOULD NEVER interfer with a jury verdict EVER.

This case never was about 'human rights' or the 'right of self-defence'. I don't think it matters if you have or haven't a 'right' to defend yourself in an aggressive argument or physical confrontation...you are going to do so regardless. Yet, while we are on the subject, the so-called 'right' to self-defence primarily pertains to not having to facing criminal charges and a subsequent trial by your peers should you survive the encounter.

Nevertheless, you still may have to go on trial to prove you had no other options for your actions and their subsequent outcome. Having the right to self-defence does not mean you will never have to face questions regarding your actions, it means that there is a lawful procedure to exonerate you if the evidence bears out your testimony and that the relevant agencies, parties, or jury is convinced of your account. Only then does your right to self-defence become pertinent, and that punitive punishment upon you is either deferred or dropped entirely.

XTexan:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is also prevalent in Natural Law, and Common Law.

Now, it is with interpretations like these, which I have trouble accepting. In order for 'self-evident truths' to be real, you have to prove their case for them having a self-existential reality of their own, that they exist regardless of man's existence. Not by any stretch of the imagination can this be proved. In fact, the only way they can be supported is by invoking the supernatural intervention and divine existence of a 'Creator' who has showered his creation with so-called 'inalienable rights'. This does not make them real or true, or that a 'Creator' actually exists. No. The story being told by the statement of 'self-evidence' and the appeal to a divine Creator, is that a bunch of men got together and basically worded a statement, having no evidence whatsoever to support their claim.

In other words, they claimed these things for themselves, by themselves, in a fit of self-granting. A divine Creator wasn't present at the writing of these words. Inalienable rights don't exist, and they cannot be proven to exist. The legislature behind lawful self-defence is more powerful and pertinent, than the founding statement, because it confers the right to self-defence after examination of one's actions, and if they accord to the law, you will be found 'not guilty' of committing a crime.

Zimmerman is free because of the prosecution's direction of proceeding to trial, and because of the lack of evidence that would convict him of wrong-doing. Rights have no bearing on this case.

NorEaster:

I think that the govt should just leave George Zipperhead to the rest of us. No sweat. This thing could be sorted out by lunch, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything.

Yeah, why bother with a trial? Why bother about a lawful verdict? Let's bring some form of retribution upon 'Zipperhead' regardless. In fact, why don't we do away with law and order, they only get in the way of righteous revenge. They are such annoyances.

Standby for the NSA to 'leak' a cell phone conversation (edited and fictitious) - this will allow plan b.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I've read this whole thread and I think I've starred just about every one of your posts you've made. Just like you I had little to no concern over this trial up until the other day when the verdict came down. The verdict was not guilty read NOT GUILTY. That is NOT the same thing as innocent. In any case now that the verdict has come down this whole dumb fiasco should be dropped. The man can go write a book about how he got away with murder or what ever and he is supposed to be untouchable. Yet we got all these emotionally charged people calling for his head and wanting to circumvent the rule of law.

I am extremely upset at the way people are acting about this case. The people involved have absolutely ZERO to do with your personal life, you should read the verdict agree or disagree with it then move on with your life. Staging protests, death threats, emotionally charged outlashes on forums, and potential riots is not the way to do it. Why are people so damn upset over this stupid trial but not at the NSA spying on them? Or the government losing a boatload of guns in Mexico to a bunch of drug cartels? These are real things that have happened that can and do effect many Americans yet there is no where near the public outrage over them as this stupid debacle.

P.S. To anyone who calls me a Zimmerman supporter or a Martin supporter, you just missed the entire point of my post.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I've read this whole thread and I think I've starred just about every one of your posts you've made. Just like you I had little to no concern over this trial up until the other day when the verdict came down. The verdict was not guilty read NOT GUILTY. That is NOT the same thing as innocent. In any case now that the verdict has come down this whole dumb fiasco should be dropped. The man can go write a book about how he got away with murder or what ever and he is supposed to be untouchable. Yet we got all these emotionally charged people calling for his head and wanting to circumvent the rule of law.

The law steps up by degrees. You say in this case that "not guilty" its not the same as innocent. By law even if Zimmerman was provocative and in this case hardly provocative using a public sidewalk, Mr. Martin superseded any level of justifiable force that could be called commensurate with Mr. Zimmermans actions. At that point the nature of the encounter changed to the question of felonious assault and the weight of law shifted in favor of Zimmerman. At that point, by the rule of law, Mr. Zimmerman was no longer bound to observe decorum but was allowed by law to use force commensurate with what was unjustifiably being dished out to him.

You really have to show undeniable cause and the use of force as response to clear and present danger when you use preemptive force. That's the law. The prosecution didn't even try to show that Mr. Martin responded in kind to a clear and present danger to his person. The jury decided under the definition of the law that Mr. Zimmerman was justified to act as he did in the face of clear and present danger.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by hypervigilant

They have repeated 1000 + times over and over, that he DID go ask the kid what he was doing, then left. And the kid came back and snuck up on him and attacked him.

i have to correct you, they repeated a 1000, times that he only spoke to he only spoke to TM right before TM busted his nose.

watch the reenactment. he was on his way back to the truck and when he reached the T, TM came out from behind him out of the bushes, and ask GZ why he was following him, and if he had a problem. GZ said he told TM didn't have a problem and while he was saying this TM hit him and they started fighting.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


It seems a good % if not majority of the people screaming the loudest about the Martin trial are those who know the least about what happened at and during the trial. Have you noticed that?

It's nothing subtle. It doesn't require a lot of detective work, eh? The statements made are often directly contradicting the established evidence and testimony of witnesses and investigators alike. As if the trail never even happened and we've learned nothing beyond what the media said happened as the version, 1 day before the trial began.

If would be nice if people who choose to be a part of the topic at least trouble themselves enough to LEARN the topic beyond the 'fury inducing' media version, which was meant to have precisely that impact.

Thanks for sharing a moment of logic with the re-enactment and holding to established evidence, not media guesswork and their efforts to stir the emotions and stoke the hate simmering out here.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by hypervigilant

They have repeated 1000 + times over and over, that he DID go ask the kid what he was doing, then left. And the kid came back and snuck up on him and attacked him.

i have to correct you, they repeated a 1000, times that he only spoke to he only spoke to TM right before TM busted his nose.

watch the reenactment. he was on his way back to the truck and when he reached the T, TM came out from behind him out of the bushes, and ask GZ why he was following him, and if he had a problem. GZ said he told TM didn't have a problem and while he was saying this TM hit him and they started fighting.

Ok thanks.
So I guess he just followed him without saying anything than?

If that is so than I stand corrected. I appreciate your clarification.
Forgive me for avoiding the media in this case for the most part as I find both FOX and CNN highly bias in this issue and cannot trust either.