27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 05:28 pm
@spendius,
Yes. The 'double-jeopardy' guarantee of Constitutional rights does not apply as a Federal charge would not be for the same felony of which Zimmerman has already been found to be not guilty. If he is brought into a Federal court of law it would be on a charge of having violated Trayvon's civil rights by virtue ofkilling him. It's not a homicide charge, you see. A civil suit by the victim's family, alleging 'wrongful death' and seeking monetary damages would also be possible (as was done in the O.J. Simpson case) inasmuch as nobody's accusingZimerman of 'murder' (of which, again, he has been found not guilty) but merely of causing a wrongful death. No criminal charges, you see, just a demand for several millions of dollars.
BillRM
 
  2  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 05:50 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Are the Feds acting constitutionally in spending hard-working taxpayers money on a case that has been decided?


Yes sadly they could do so and have done so many times in the past as the two levels of governments allowed them to get around the double jeopardy clause in the constitution.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 06:52 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Yes. The 'double-jeopardy' guarantee of Constitutional rights does not apply as a Federal charge would not be for the same felony of which Zimmerman has already been found to be not guilty. If he is brought into a Federal court of law it would be on a charge of having violated Trayvon's civil rights by virtue ofkilling him. It's not a homicide charge, you see. A civil suit by the victim's family, alleging 'wrongful death' and seeking monetary damages would also be possible (as was done in the O.J. Simpson case) inasmuch as nobody's accusingZimerman of 'murder' (of which, again, he has been found not guilty) but merely of causing a wrongful death. No criminal charges, you see, just a demand for several millions of dollars.

Why don't they just keep charging him with Martin's killing, but change what they call it each time until they find some jury somewhere who will find him guilty.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 06:56 pm
@Brandon9000,
Can't do that. The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments to the US Constitution) guarantees that no defendant shall be tried twice for the same offense, once found not guilty by a jury. That's what's known as the "double jeopardy" protection. However, there is nothing that says he can't be charged for a different offense stemming from the same act.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 06:58 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
The Martin family might bring a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman, and they might also bring some sort of civil suit against that housing complex. I think the suit against Zimmerman would be motivated more by their need to see justice, and to prevent him from profiting from their son's death, rather than their desire to gain financially from this. That's the same sort of reason that Fred Goldman went after O.J. Simpson for the death of his son.

And I can understand and appreciate the outrage, particularly in the black community, that's behind the pressure they are currently putting on the Justice Dept..

Here a black, middle class, high school kid, barely 17 years old, just walking back from the store, and minding his own business, is profiled as a criminal, in large measure because of his skin color and attire, and he winds up being followed, and killed, by a man packing a concealed gun, all because of that erroneous racial profiling--everything else stemmed from that. And then that man walks free. That really doesn't seem right, or just, but that's the state of the law in Florida that the jury had to rely on for its verdict.

There is no question that there was a racial element involved in this profiling and this tragic, totally unnecessary death. Even Mark O'Mara admitted that this morning in an interview shown on The View. But the racial element appeared to stem mostly from Zimmerman's knowledge and beliefs about previous criminal perpetrators in that housing complex, and his anger at such types, and their ability to elude apprehension, rather than from more general racial animosity on Zimmerman's part. If race, and racial animosity, was not the primary factor underlying Zimmerman's motivations that night, I'm not sure this case meets the standard for a federal prosecution.

But I can see no harm in the Justice Dept. taking another look into the matter. I don't think the real concerns in the black community should be ignored. There are times that government should be responsive to the voices of citizens, and to the needs of segments of the population, that's a function of government. Racial tensions in this country still run high. This case hit a nerve for many people, and that injury was just exacerbated by Zimmerman's acquittal. So, I have no problem with the Justice Dept. taking another look at this case. If that will help to re-assure people that all avenues toward justice have been pursued, that's fine with me.

Personally, for me, this case ended with the criminal verdict--I accept that verdict. Given the laws of Florida, it was a reasonable verdict, despite its troubling aspects.


Brandon9000
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:02 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Yes. The 'double-jeopardy' guarantee of Constitutional rights does not apply as a Federal charge would not be for the same felony of which Zimmerman has already been found to be not guilty. If he is brought into a Federal court of law it would be on a charge of having violated Trayvon's civil rights by virtue ofkilling him. It's not a homicide charge, you see. A civil suit by the victim's family, alleging 'wrongful death' and seeking monetary damages would also be possible (as was done in the O.J. Simpson case) inasmuch as nobody's accusingZimerman of 'murder' (of which, again, he has been found not guilty) but merely of causing a wrongful death. No criminal charges, you see, just a demand for several millions of dollars.

Why don't they just keep charging him with Martin's killing, but change what they call it each time until they find some jury somewhere who will find him guilty.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Can't do that. The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments to the US Constitution) guarantees that no defendant shall be tried twice for the same offense, once found not guilty by a jury. That's what's known as the "double jeopardy" protection. However, there is nothing that says he can't be charged for a different offense stemming from the same act.

I was being sarcastic.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Try harder next time.
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:05 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

...Here a black kid, barely 17 years old, just walking back from the store, and minding his own business, is profiled as a criminal, in large measure because of his skin color and attire, and he winds up being followed, and killed, by a man packing a concealed gun, all because of that erroneous racial profiling--everything else stemmed from that. And then that man walks free. That really doesn't seem right...

How about the part where he beats Zimmerman until Zimmerman shoots him to save his own life?
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:09 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Try harder next time.

The intention of the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution was to prevent over zealous prosecutors from trying a defendant who had been found innocent over and over again until they got some jury somewhere to find him guilty for some reason. If the federal government charges him with Martin's killing again, but pretends that it's a different crime, they will be acting in exactly the manner that the Founders were trying to prevent when they wrote the double jeopardy clause into the Bill of Rights.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:11 pm
@Brandon9000,
Did he?

The dead can't talk..........

Where was the gun in view of him? Did he hit Zimmerman in an attempt to knock him out so he could run? Did he hit him in fear of his life?

How about that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:12 pm
@Brandon9000,
Your one-sided arguments are laughable at best. In addition to double jeopardy, there have been innocent people convicted of a crime - later to be executed or found through DNA that they were innocent and released.

There's always two sides to every story.

You suffer from myopia of the brain.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:24 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
FOUND SOUL wrote:

Did he?

The dead can't talk..........

Where was the gun in view of him? Did he hit Zimmerman in an attempt to knock him out so he could run? Did he hit him in fear of his life?

How about that.

I have no idea and I doubt you do either, but all of these are possible scenarios.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 07:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Your one-sided arguments are laughable at best. In addition to double jeopardy, there have been innocent people convicted of a crime - later to be executed or found through DNA that they were innocent and released.

There's always two sides to every story.

You suffer from myopia of the brain.

Yes, name calling really proves your arguments.

Now, why don't you actually address something I have really said, such as my assertion that if the feds charge him with Martin's killing again and merely rename the charge, it will be exactly the abuse the Founders had in mind when they wrote the double jeopardy clause.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 08:05 pm
@Brandon9000,
You wrote,
Quote:
The intention of the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution was to prevent over zealous prosecutors from trying a defendant who had been found innocent over and over again until they got some jury somewhere to find him guilty for some reason. If the federal government charges him with Martin's killing again, but pretends that it's a different crime, they will be acting in exactly the manner that the Founders were trying to prevent when they wrote the double jeopardy clause into the Bill of Rights.


You don't know what you are talking about. There's a difference between a criminal case and a civil case.

Oh yea, you're like David, the attorney, who doesn't know what double jeopardy is all about.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 08:21 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Try harder next time.

The intention of the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution was to prevent over zealous prosecutors from trying a defendant who had been found innocent over and over again until they got some jury somewhere to find him guilty for some reason. If the federal government charges him with Martin's killing again, but pretends that it's a different crime, they will be acting in exactly the manner that the Founders were trying to prevent when they wrote the double jeopardy clause into the Bill of Rights.


The intention of the double jeopardy provision is to prevent a defendant being charged for the same offense more than once. Period. It has nothing to do with "over zealous prosecutors." It has everything to do with safeguarding the rights of the accused. If the Federal government should see fit to try Zimmerman on a charge of violating Trayvon's civil rights, it would in no way be a pretense of saying "it's a different crime." He can't be tried for the killing of Trayvon again. That's the only charge of which he has been found "not guilty."

I doubt very much that the founding fathers were trying to do anything more than ensure that justice be done. The loophole -- if you want to call it that -- is there because under the double jeopardy provisions a murderer could be found not guilty by a dim-witted jury and walk out of the courtroom laughing his head off and telling the press, "Yes, I did it and I got away with it." He can still do that and there is no way that the police can now arrest him and try him again on the same charge, using is post-trial confession as evidence.Can't be done; that's double jeopardy. What can be done is for a parallel jurisdiction, the Feds, to bring an entirely different charge against the perp so that justice may be done. That isn't double jeopardy, being tried for the same crime.

The fact that the two separate charges stem from the same incident has no bearing on the legality of it.

I somehow suspect that you know and understand all this, Brandon, and are just playing dumb. It doesn't become you; you're not dumb.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 08:32 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I prefer to differentiate civil and criminal suits that are not looked on as double jeopardy - like in the OJ Simpson case.

Quote:
Simpson Civil Trial Explainer

A primer on the case


O.J. Simpson faces another trial in the 1994 murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. This time it's not his freedom but his bank account at stake as the families of the victims seek financial damages to compensate for the loss of their loved ones.

Simpson was acquitted of murder charges on October 3 and cannot be tried for the murders again in a criminal court. In the civil trial as in the murder trial, the plaintiff will be trying to prove Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend, with several key differences.


Here's a good answer on the difference between civil and criminal laws/suits.
Quote:
Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

According to William Geldart, Introduction to English Law 146 (D.C.M. Yardley ed., 9th ed. 1984),
"The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue - redress or punishment. The object of civil law is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss. On the other hand, in the case of crimes, the main object of the law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.”
BillRM
 
  3  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 08:40 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
It will be very interesting to see if the DOJ is so politically corrupted that charges will be green light when every legal expert in the country are stating that there are no grounds for doing so under the civil rights laws.

0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 09:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I prefer to differentiate civil and criminal suits that are not looked on as double jeopardy - like in the OJ Simpson case.


That's fine, Tak, but it's not what Boy Wonder Brandon was on about. He's raving about the possibility of a Federal charge even though Zimmerman has been cleared at the State level. He can still face criminal charges in Federal court. A civil case, as in the O.J. Simpson affair, is, of course, also possible, but that's a separate matter.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 10:07 pm

In my opinion, it is more likely than not
that Obama will choose to leave this alone now.
It is another embarrassment to him.

Zimmy deserves some peace of mind for himself,
but I 'd love to see this case be appealed to the USSC
against a federal judgment, on the basis of the self defense
elements of the HELLER case.

I 'd LOVE to see the USSC embellish and flesh out our 2nd Amendment rights, as indicated therein.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Mon 15 Jul, 2013 10:14 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:
Even if it implies murdering innocent black teens?
Probably not; that is not what has happened.
The black teen in question committed attempted murder.
There was nothing "innocent" about him.





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 05:41:35