Who should our Govt be arresting?

windowdressing said:

no disagreement on most of what you wrote ...I was responding to your post when you wrote that if someone is found not guilty the DOJ should leave them alone ... the cops were found not guilty ... that's all ... anyway, still could happen in this case ... you and I don't have all of the evidence to make the decision ... remember, the criminal and civil trials are not the same thing, and even the burden of proof is substantially different ... I'll wait, but, as I've said before, I don't think they'll do it, but they may drag it out to appease some folks and make GZ sweat a bit ...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood. Hmm, I was voicing my opinion in response to another members position on double jeopardy.

Please note, in the King Simi Valley trial the cops were not all found not guilty. Three were but the jury was hung on Officer Powell. In the Federal case, two of the three found not guilty were STILL found not guilty. Powell was found guilty of the violations, and the senior officer, a sergeant was found guilty of willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault.

Furthermore, I am not saying I had any power to make a decision. I am simply stating it is highly unlikely that the Feds will pursue a civil rights case where it seems clear there is no specific evidence which would serve to undermine the Jury's decision in the Zimmerman trial.

As for a civil case (I am not following the issue, nor did I previously follow the Zimmerman case at all), unless Zimmerman is/was determined to have been acting in self-defense, he can be sued in civil court if I understood Florida law allows.

windowdressing said:

there's the chance of a civil rights trial, and I'm guessing he'll get arrested for something else down the road ...

Click to expand...

Because idiot liberals don't like pet causes that don't go their way. Apparently, the Constitution means nothing to them.

Rainman05 said:

It should be arresting you for making stupid polls. 2 choices, both wrong and silly. At least put in a "mashed potatoes" or whatever option.

Now in all honesty: it should be arresting only those who have been found guilty in a court of law.

Click to expand...

Why would you arrest someone who has already been arrested and gone through the court system and been found guilty of the crime they were arrested for?

Phys251 said:

Who is Stevens Killers?

Click to expand...

God love ya, low information voters! :2wave:

Cephus said:

Because idiot liberals don't like pet causes that don't go their way. Apparently, the Constitution means nothing to them.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts? If you are, yes, it's true that the Constitution means nothing to them, but they're not liberals my friend.

CalGun said:

Just curious who our government is spending resources on bringing to justice?

Click to expand...

Zimmerman was found not guilty, and Ambassador Steven's killers are a product of our countless selfish interferences for personal gain. The US, of course, is concerned with neither.

CalGun said:

Wow there is some rocket science for ya; arresting people found guilty in a court of law? Hmm in my experience most of those people guilty in a court of law are already under arrest - so I'll give you a phat failure for a lame effort.

Click to expand...

radcen said:

Don't people usually get arrested before they go to court, not after?

Click to expand...

stonewall50 said:

Why would you arrest someone who has already been arrested and gone through the court system and been found guilty of the crime they were arrested for?

Click to expand...

Brain fail on my part. I realized it 10min after I posted... but I decided to let it be.

My bad, my bad.

windowdressing said:

Are you talking about Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts? If you are, yes, it's true that the Constitution means nothing to them, but they're not liberals my friend.

Click to expand...

Read what's been said in context, we're talking about the asshats who want to sue Zimmerman for civil rights violations.

It happens....

Rainman05 said:

Brain fail on my part. I realized it 10min after I posted... but I decided to let it be.

My bad, my bad.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

Only to the extent of my right to recover finanacial losses due to his action. If you cause finanacial harm, criminal courts won't deal that with unless it is the root crime itself (theft, burglary, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) and then only via liberty penalties (although some states have added restitution penalties).

Click to expand...

While you are correct in terms of what the courts presently do and don't do, it's still a situation of a defendant facing multiple trials for the same crime.

Maybe we should reform the system and allow for financial penalties as part of the overall penalty phase in criminal trials.

Captain Adverse said:

You can't see because you simply refuse to. The presumption of innocence is stressed simply to insure that the jurors are forced to start from that position, rather than the typical one of "he must have done something wrong or he wouldn't be here." Unless there is incontrovertible evidence of innocence (in which case there would never have been a trial at all) there is really no way to be certain a person is innocent simply based on evidence presented. All one can do is presume it and make the State show enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Therefore, you may be willing to continue to presume innocence but that does not actually make it true. He could be guilty as hell, just lucky there wasn't enough evidence to show it.

As for innocent people convicted? Yes it happens, and probably a lot more frequently then people believe. But we have an appellate system for that contingency which is free to examine any new information that arises. In the case of a "not guilty" verdict, we are prevented from retrial by the principle of doube jeopardy.

Click to expand...

If by " can't see because you simply refuse to" you mean that I refuse to buy into the spin and rationalization, then yes, you are correct.

While I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" myself, and try to adhere to it as much as possible, it is by and large a myth. Most defendants in court already have two strikes against them (figuratively) before the trials even starts.

Dooble said:

God love ya, low information voters! :2wave:

Click to expand...

I really want to know who this "Stevens Killers" guy is.

Or was that a horrible typo?