Feds take custody of evidence from Zimmerman trial

Post Reply New Topic

still no word on whether they will charge zimmerman on civil rights charges but there weighing the odds
full story on cnn.com

What the Justice (sic) Department is doing to Zimmerman is what liberals call a "witch hunt" when it is done to them. The fact is that Zimmerman can't be charged with a "civil rights" violation; only government officials or agencies, such as police, can be charged with such a thing. By definition, only organizations that have legal power over us can take our "civil rights" from us. In an irony that will completely escape postmodern liberals, it is Holder, the government official, with legal power over all of us, who is depriving Zimmerman of HIS Constitutional rights.

I hope Holder winds up in prison over this one; it's right where he belongs. He has NO right persecuting Americans. Even the ACLU, one of the most pathologically liberal organizations in the country, had to back off from the Zimmerman case. They understand, though uncomfortably, that they can be liberal or defend Constitutional rights, but not both. Continuing to persecute Zimmerman would have cost the ACLU the last shreds of credibility they have left. Unfortunately, Holder isn't intelligent enough to understand this.

That deserves a wath:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/ ... s_violated

very good point about Z not being a goverment official but
people of the state of rhode island vs. von buehloh established that private detectives are subject to the same probably cause statutes as police are.private detectives may still search a premisis without a warrant but it cant be used in a criminal court.

next logical; private security could be viewed as a second person goverment agent

This isn't Rhode Island. We think differently down here, particularly with our regard for individual rights, which don't seem to mean very much in the northeast. I don't know of any place in the South where a private detective can legally search private property with or without a warrant. It's one reason I wouldn't consider visiting the northeast for any reason.

That's stretching it and is disrespectful to Trayvon. I think the jury was correct in their verdict, but the whole thing was a tragedy.

great point and im glad you made it.however any state or federal appeals court has the perogative to alter or make new law.your right the klaus von bueloh case only has meaning in penal law for the state of rhode island.
that landmark case that put alan derschowitz on the map as america's best lawyer is something called president.which very important at appealet court level.if argued in court by derschowitz,bailey,cocran,baez calaber lawyers the rhode island case could be viewed a valid president to make new law in florida.

griswald V connecticut is the law of the land not just CT.

I'm not an attorney by any means. But I've never heard that private detectives have the right to search people's houses without a warrant.

The problem i have with it is that they are trying the person a second time for the same act after acquittal in the first trial, just with different charges. I believe this still constitutes double jeopardy, a violation of the 5th amendment.

Ghoti, this is correct. What the feds in particular do now to coerce a plea deal is to pile up literally hundreds of charges. If the defendant still refuses to take the plea deal, what the feds can do upon acquittal is bring the person to trial on yet more charges, and continue doing so until the defedant is ruined both financially and emotionally. This is NOT what the government of the land of the free and home of the brave is supposed to be about.

Trial by trial.

ruveyn

Yes, a fellow named Paul Craig Roberts wrote a book about just this matter titled "Tyranny of Good Intentions".

What do you mean you can't be liberal and defend the constitution? The defense of civil rights as constitutionally based has always been a liberal cause - even back in the day when it was championed by liberal Republicans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's not what I think that matters. The facts are that the US Constitution is a hybrid of right-liberalism emanating from The Enlightenment, and traditional, conservative English jurisprudence--what Ralph Waldo Emerson called double consciousness. An example is Thomas Jefferson, who wrote on the one hand that all men are created equal, yet on the other hand said that a government that governs least governs best.

Of course, there is also a left-liberalism that grew out of the more unsatisfactory elements of right-liberalism during the Progressive Era. Left-liberalism is absolutely anathema to the Constitution, as about ninety-nine percent of the left-liberal agenda is anathema to everything the Constitution stands for. If you don't believe me, read up on just what the Constitution permits the federal government to do compared to what it is doing now. The Constitution was actually written place limits on what the federal government could do, and particularly to keep it from getting involved in social issues.

This is why left-liberals developed the specious concept of the "living, breathing Constitution", which can mean anything they like, but in actuality means nothing at all. It's why the US Constitution hasn't been amended in almost fifty years; there is no longer any need to since it now means anything the liberal elites want it to--from permitting abortion to affirmative action.

As far as "civil rights" go, they too are anathema to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution--from affirmative action to the hoped-for "hate speech" laws. "Civil rights" are of a piece with so-called human rights, which guarantees all kinds of goodies to some people and the bills to pay for it to others, which is hardly equality before the law, or anything else. So-called civil rights laws are what Orwell wrote about, not the founding fathers. Under "civil rights", all animals are equal, but some are a lot more equal than others, which is what the entire Saint Trayvon affair is really all about--i.e., Bad White People have no right to defend themselves against black depredations.

/\ The left seems to prefer an À la carte constitution; take what they want separately and ignore or even re-interpret the rest to suite their needs at the moment.
They also believe that feelings and popular opinion, as dictated by the liberal media, should overrule rights.

Raptor, I agree. In an irony the left will never understand, Herman and Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent", which is about how the elites shape popular opinion by their control of the media, which is where most people get their information. I am referring to what the postmodernists call hyperreality. The irony is that the left are the ones manufacturing consent, and shaping reality--or rather hyperrreality--to their exclusive advantage.