View Poll Results: Two simple choices

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Zimmerman

    1 9.09%
  • Ambassador Stevens Killers

    10 90.91%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Who should our Govt be arresting?

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    We have no idea how many recources are being used to bring the murderers of Ambassador Stevens to justice....I believe that this process is "sub-rosa" .
    Zimmerman/Martin - a totally different thing....
    So, yes - this is a lousy poll - no vote from me, as usual..

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    09-08-13 @ 02:07 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Zimmerman has already had his day in court, they cannot go after him again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.
    there's the chance of a civil rights trial, and I'm guessing he'll get arrested for something else down the road ...

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    09-08-13 @ 02:07 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Well, if there were no real differences between criminal acts and civil liabilities then we would not have criminal and civil courts. We would only have "criminal" courts because everything would be a crime worthy of restrictions on your liberty rights.

    However, regarding Federal civil rights cases, I admit that I find them suspect in any case where a Not Guilty decision has actually been rendered. By this I mean that I think they have validity in cases when either a State fails to prosecute, or a trial ends in a hung jury and a State decides not to try again. This is why the Federal laws were originally passed, due to examples where evidence clearly showed a crime but police failed to arrest, States failed to prosecute, or jury's failed to reach a final decision. I DON"T think it should be used when a jury HAS rendered a decision by a finding of Not Guilty. That's why I stated in my prior post that I didn't think the DOJ would end up filing a case against Zimmerman, despite all the "sound and fury."
    Rodney King? Could happen again ...

  4. #24
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,554
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by windowdressing View Post
    Rodney King? Could happen again ...
    Gee, lets see? Rodney King issue had video evidence showing exactly what happened. President George Bush Sr. said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids.

    When the President states he is unhappy, the DOJ responds.

    Anything different in this case? No video evidence. Not even an eye-witness to the start of confrontation. President Obama also states "The jury has spoken." We even have a juror who indicates the first vote was 3 for conviction and 3 for acquittal. Apparently after discussion the three who were originally for conviction became convinced that the state had not met it's burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    By the way, that's exactly how fair trials are supposed to work.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    09-08-13 @ 02:07 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Gee, lets see? Rodney King issue had video evidence showing exactly what happened. President George Bush Sr. said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids.

    When the President states he is unhappy, the DOJ responds.

    Anything different in this case? No video evidence. Not even an eye-witness to the start of confrontation. President Obama also states "The jury has spoken." We even have a juror who indicates the first vote was 3 for conviction and 3 for acquittal. Apparently after discussion the three who were originally for conviction became convinced that the state had not met it's burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    By the way, that's exactly how fair trials are supposed to work.
    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 ...

  6. #26
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,554
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by windowdressing View Post
    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 ...
    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.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 07-21-13 at 11:10 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  7. #27
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by windowdressing View Post
    there's the chance of a civil rights trial, and I'm guessing he'll get arrested for something else down the road ...
    Because idiot liberals don't like pet causes that don't go their way. Apparently, the Constitution means nothing to them.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #28
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,306

    Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    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.
    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?
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-08-14 @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,325

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Who is Stevens Killers?
    God love ya, low information voters!

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    09-08-13 @ 02:07 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Because idiot liberals don't like pet causes that don't go their way. Apparently, the Constitution means nothing to them.
    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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •