Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

Well... in most states, you can sue in civil court in this scenario... for things like "Wrongful Death / Negligent Homicide". The standard to win is much lower than in criminal court. That's how you got a Not Guilty OJ Simpson in criminal court, but was found Negligent in his wife's death in civil court.

Which is crazy. Either you're guilty or you're not.

However, in florida, there's statute that if you're found not guilty of murder (for justified defense), then you're immune to further lawsuits AND, if someone did try to sue you, and the court sides with you... then the LOSER would have to pay for your court & attorney fees.

Makes sense. Apparently not all legislation in Florida is horrible.

 Crimson wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... in most states, you can sue in civil court in this scenario... for things like "Wrongful Death / Negligent Homicide". The standard to win is much lower than in criminal court. That's how you got a Not Guilty OJ Simpson in criminal court, but was found Negligent in his wife's death in civil court.

Which is crazy. Either you're guilty or you're not.

However, in florida, there's statute that if you're found not guilty of murder (for justified defense), then you're immune to further lawsuits AND, if someone did try to sue you, and the court sides with you... then the LOSER would have to pay for your court & attorney fees.

Makes sense. Apparently not all legislation in Florida is horrible.

A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.

 cincydooley wrote:

Enlighten me.

Well, you linked that crazy Teaparty blog earlier...

Which is crazy. Either you're guilty or you're not.

The OJ trial is different in that its widely believed he did commit the murders and there was plenty of evidence to say he did, way more than there will ever be against Zimmerman. The jury was never able to focus on the case because the judge (this is my opinion here) wanted to use it as a platform for himself. A lot of really stupid stuff was allowed to happen in court that just didn't make any sense. The joke Chewbacca Defense essentially surmises the joke the trial became.

We can all probably rest assured that the Martins will try to sue (they might be waiting to see if the federal government presses civil rights charges right now). If they lose they'll be able to pay the bill through donations.

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Enlighten me.

Well, you linked that crazy Teaparty blog earlier...

Was it a tea party blog? I just googled. It was the first result.

I can't stand any of the news outlets. We get so little unbiased journalism that I take from both sides and find my only truth somewhere in the middle.

Relapse wrote:

A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.

Not guilty. He sure as hell isn't innocent!

And while I think that multiple cases on same issue are weird, I also think that Florida's self defence laws are crazy, so I just accept that American legal system as a whole is eldritch and bizarre. DoJ is fully within their rights to pursue the matter if they believe there is a case to be made.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

I can't stand any of the news outlets. We get so little unbiased journalism that I take from both sides and find my only truth somewhere in the middle.

Funnily enough, I find that most trustworthy source for USA related news is BBC...

I can't say I like the idea of "Well guys, we tried to convict him of murder and it didn't work. Lets try charging him with a civil rights violation!" Granted the State of Florida and DoJ are separate entities and can each bring their own charges, so it probably doesn't violate the letter of double jeopardy but it sure seems to violate the spirit of it to me.

 Crimson wrote:

Relapse wrote:

A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.

Not guilty. He sure as hell isn't innocent!

And while I think that multiple cases on same issue are weird, I also think that Florida's self defence laws are crazy, so I just accept that American legal system as a whole is eldritch and bizarre. DoJ is fully within their rights to pursue the matter if they believe there is a case to be made.

Well that's sort of the problem. How can they legitimately think there's a case to be made? Based on what? Something they're going to get from a tip line? Both the FBI and the jury in the trial found that they didn't believe his actions to be racially motivated.

He hesitated when the dispatcher asked what the race of the suspicious person was, indicated he had to check.
He has a documented history of advocating FOR a black homeless man against the police.

What are they possibly basing their "aggressive investigation" on? And why are they going to be wasting more money on it?

Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.

I mean, the press release about the "aggressive investigation" and tip line basically says they're doing it to appease all the people angry about the verdict.

 Crimson wrote:

Relapse wrote:

A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.

Not guilty. He sure as hell isn't innocent!

And while I think that multiple cases on same issue are weird, I also think that Florida's self defence laws are crazy, so I just accept that American legal system as a whole is eldritch and bizarre. DoJ is fully within their rights to pursue the matter if they believe there is a case to be made.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

I can't stand any of the news outlets. We get so little unbiased journalism that I take from both sides and find my only truth somewhere in the middle.

Funnily enough, I find that most trustworthy source for USA related news is BBC...

Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring or worse, are totaly fine with.

 LordofHats wrote:
Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.

So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.

So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.

Actually the ACLU has been on TM side of the fence.

I think they're taking up the SYG laws in Florida...

I imagine they might go with profiling him for wearing a hoodie but being honest, I don't see the point in making a federal case over a single instance of someone doing that. Maybe if Zimmerman reported 60 people to the police for wearing hoodies there'd be something but even then it seems more like something for a civil court than a federal trial.

Relapse wrote:

Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring..

If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.

So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.

Actually the ACLU has been on TM side of the fence.

I think they're taking up the SYG laws in Florida...

Oh FFS.

Seriously, SYG wasn't even at play here.

In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.

 cincydooley wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.

So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.

Actually the ACLU has been on TM side of the fence.

I think they're taking up the SYG laws in Florida...

Oh FFS.

Seriously, SYG wasn't even at play here.

I know... but, IT WILL NOT DIE! (IWND... w00t! a 40k reference!)

Seriously, I'm on the ball here...
Check this out:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/feds-want-zimmerman-any-way-they-can-get-him/

 Crimson wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring..

If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?

So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?

 Crimson wrote:


If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?

Right there... that's dangerous... and, I'll tell you why.

Whenever I hear, "if there's no evidence" or "if you have nothing to hide", it just makes my skin crawl...

That mindset is fine if your government is BOTH trustworthy and competent.

Lately, our government is lacking this...

Relapse wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring..

If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?

So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?

This is my biggest problem.

 cincydooley wrote:

Oh FFS.

Seriously, SYG wasn't even at play here.

Actually, jury was briefed on SYG laws for some reason.

In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.

 Crimson wrote:
In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.

We have that here to...

 Crimson wrote:
In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.

In this country we have double jeapordy laws designed to prevent someone from being tried for the same crime multiple times.

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Oh FFS.

Seriously, SYG wasn't even at play here.

Actually, jury was briefed on SYG laws for some reason.

In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.

They were NOT.

Before the case started (and waaaay before the jury selection), the defense briefly considered this. HOWEVER, since Zimmerman was on the ground, SYG doesn't even apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.

In this country we have double jeapordy laws designed to prevent someone from being tried for the same crime multiple times.

What I was referring to is that the appeal courts can review the lower court's rule if there are issues with the case (procedurally, or new evidences, etc...).

 whembly wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Oh FFS.

Seriously, SYG wasn't even at play here.

Actually, jury was briefed on SYG laws for some reason.

In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.

The were NOT.

Before the case started (and waaaay before the jury selection), the defense briefly considered this. HOWEVER, since Zimmerman was on the ground, SYG doesn't even apply.

It's becoming more clear with each post he makes, Crimson is either clueless or a troll.

Relapse wrote:

So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?

That is just your (and Fox New's) version of what is happening. You cannot know their motivations for this. Why did you trust that the jury and the judge in the criminal case acted fairly and impartially, but do not trust DoJ to do the same?

Relapse wrote:

It's becoming more clear with each post he makes, Crimson is either clueless or a troll.

Eh... give him a break. Who know's what news he get overseas and how it's filtered/analyzed.

Hopefully we can keep educating him.

Maybe he'll be nice enough to post some Finnish beauties here...

 Crimson wrote:

Relapse wrote:

So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?

That is just your (and Fox New's) version of what is happening. You cannot know their motivations for this. Why did you trust that the jury and the judge in the criminal case acted fairly and impartially, but do not trust DoJ to do the same?

Because maybe the DOJ is already not acting fairly and Impartialy? I gotta tell ya guy, you are not worth talking to about this anymore for reasons I just stated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

It's becoming more clear with each post he makes, Crimson is either clueless or a troll.

Eh... give him a break. Who know's what news he get overseas and how it's filtered/analyzed.

Hopefully we can keep educating him.

Maybe he'll be nice enough to post some Finnish beauties here...

Whembly, you are the watchdog of my fury. I will step back and give him a break.

 whembly wrote:

They were NOT.

Apparently this is from jury instructions.


I know that SYG was not actually used as defence by Zimmerman.