On Native GroundTRAYVON Martin Did not have to Die

Judged:

2

1

1

RazorHawg wrote:

Just drop it. Everyone is too hard headed to see the other's point, and there's nothing we can do to change it anyway.

Judged:

2

2

1

Boogle Eyed wrote:

<quoted text>Nah,

I looked at both sides and the evidence involved.

I'd be willing to bet my Pez collection Zimmerman will be doing 20 to life soon enough.

Judged:

1

1

1

Tray wrote:

Thats why states are passing SYG laws to stop this legal loophole.

Judged:

1

1

1

Boogle Eyed wrote:

<quoted text>
Stand Your Ground laws have nothing to do with civil lawsuits genius unless in this case Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerpunk because he murdered their son.

Judged:

1

1

1

RuffnReddy wrote:

<quoted text>The Alaska legislature has backburned it's vote on SYG laws until some of these controversial cases work through the legal systems. Many states, including Florida, are reviewing or will soon be reviewing their version of the law.
You probably noticed that the Rodriguez case in Texas went badly for the shooter. And I would expect the Arizona case to fall under scrutiny soon.
George never claimed SYG, there was never a SYG hearing where a judge could hear the evidence and make a decision. George was basically acquitted within five hours by "someone" with little or no knowledge or understanding of the confrontation/incident beyond what George (the shooter) explained. C'mon, they didn't even know who in the fk was in the morgue or how old he was when they cut George loose.
Who preempted justice?

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> You mean going in front of a judge, having a legally binding ruling set against you even though you have already been before a judge and jury and found not guilty is not double jeopardy? How can I be found guilty and be held responsible in a court of law when another court of law has already ruled I didn't commit the crime?

Judged:

1

1

1

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh My God. Why do rightwingers always whine and moan and try to get someone else to do their homework?
Look it up yourself. Jesus Christ Almighty.

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> You mean going in front of a judge, having a legally binding ruling set against you even though you have already been before a judge and jury and found not guilty is not double jeopardy? How can I be found guilty and be held responsible in a court of law when another court of law has already ruled I didn't commit the crime?

Judged:

1

1

1

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> Yes they do. They provide protection for victims of crimes who defend themselves. SYG laws are just the start hopefully before long we can see an open season on thugs with no bag limit. Hopefully before long we can go after the parents who train these little thugs in the first place.

Judged:

1

1

1

Guy Wiliford wrote:

<quoted text>
When you say you hope to see open season on thugs, I think that makes you the thug.

Guy Wiliford wrote:

<quoted text>
Remember O.J.? He was found not guilty of murder in his criminal trial, but later in a civil the families of his alleged victims won a multi-million dollar judgement against him for wrongful death.

Terry Buckeye wrote:

<quoted text>
Time and again you see stories about officers who risk their lives to save innocent people from harm.

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> You mean going in front of a judge, having a legally binding ruling set against you even though you have already been before a judge and jury and found not guilty is not double jeopardy? How can I be found guilty and be held responsible in a court of law when another court of law has already ruled I didn't commit the crime?

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>No, actually, they don't. I'd say that 20,000 molested kids a year would disagree with you, the same as 20,000 murder victims, LOL.
Police have no responsibility to protect individual persons.

Judged:

1

1

1

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not double jeopardy.
1) Criminal trials must find a person guilty beyond a reasonble doubt of all the elements of a particular crime.
2) Civil trials must find a person liable for damages to another beyond a PREPONDERANCE.
Therefore, if the state cannot prove legal criminal guilt, that doesn't meant that state proved you DIDN'T commit the crime, it only means that the state lacked the proff to convict you. The individual with damages from your act, still has the right of due process to recover damages from you regardless of how well the state did in criminal court.
That said, it's only double jeopardy when the state tries the same person for the same crime twice in CRIMINAL court. Civil court is not criminal court. Maybe you should go read the amendment to the constution which prohibits double jeopardy?
Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution states, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.."
It clearly states "OFFENSE" not civil liabilty.
That said, a person can be tried by the state and the feds in the same instance of a criminal act.
Say a black person kills a white person because he wants to make a public point about being racist murderer. The state will try the killer for murder, the feds will then try the same person for denying the victim their right to due process by killing them because of their race. Two separate crimes, two separate jurisdictions, two trials, one act...NOT double jeopardy.

Judged:

2

1

1

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> Just because something made it to being a law does not make it legal, that's why we have the supreme court strike down laws all the time for being unconstitutional. Why do you think so many states are including SYG laws with immunity from civil suits included? The supreme court is now telling states they can't over ride the bill of rights. I guess you don't see the pattern. "We the people" are getting tired of bowing down to thugs and letting the government strip us of our rights. Maybe one more blunt and it will all become clear to you.

Judged:

1

1

1

Tray wrote:

D.C. and Chicago infringed on the peoples right to keep and bear and just because they made a law to do this did not make it legal. To punish a person an another court after being found not guilty in a separate court does not make it legal or right. It is still two bites from the same apple no matter how you cut it.