  |
|
Re: Violence over George Zimmerman
Posted by **murray** on Jul 14, 2013 at 8:52:08 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Violence over George Zimmerman posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 14, 2013 at 8:40:16 PM:
******predict this
******
********
******
******hj
*****
*****Good. Did you object to the civil case against OJ Simpson?
****
****
****
****
****
**** A convincing argument would need to be made that Zimmerman's actions would have been drastically altered had the person acting suspiciously not been black...
****
****
**** For the verdict to be an ethical one, that is... It could be a statement verdict as we've seen in the past however...
****
****
****And if Eric Holder's involved, the ethics factor is torperdoed from the get-go...
***
***I'm trying to talk to you like an adult. Please make some effort to do so yourself.
***
***Now, you're simply wrong that "A convincing argument would need to be made that Zimmerman's actions would have been drastically altered had the person acting suspiciously not been black." That's not the standard. The question is whether Martin's civil rights were violated, not whether or not Zimmerman is a racist. OJ lost his case, but that wasn't based on whether or not his victims would have been treated differently if they were white.
***
***One thing that might hurt Zimmerman is that he would have to prove that Martin was "acting suspiciously" to a degree that his actions were reasonable. He can't simply make the assertion.
***
**
**
**
**
** If you're unfamiliar with the criteria set forth by the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2009, you should take a look at it.. There is a standard which has to be met involving clear-cut evidence of ill will or malice toward the victim because of race. creed, nationality, religion... Where is the evidence that Zimmerman would have acted any differently had the suspicious person not been black?
**
**
**Disagreeing with a jury's verdict is not nearly enough....
*
*
*Are you claiming that the only way something can be a violation of a person's civil rights is if it falls under that act? That must mean no one's civil rights were violated before 2009.
*
That is not what I'm saying at all...I'm saying a federal case has to have a basis according to the Act...
Of course there was an automatic basis when you had an all-white jury letting off Klan members accused of murdering black people in the 1960s...
Once again, is there anything to suggest Zimmerman would have acted any differently had the suspicious person not been black?
I am stating that lawyers quite familiar with civil rights cases are stating that a federal civil rights prosecution will definitely not be a piece of cake to pull off...Followup Messages:
- Re: Violence over George Zimmerman - **BlackMonk** - Jul 14, 2013 at 9:27:46 PM
Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store
Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 14, 2013