Justice Department weighing civil rights case after Zimmerman cleared of all charges

Justice Department weighing civil rights case after Zimmerman cleared of all charges

www.foxnews.com

The Justice Department said Sunday that it will review the George Zimmerman case for possible civil rights violations, after a jury acquitted the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
As Zimmerman's attorney cautioned that his client's safety is at risk, the Justice Department responded to appeals from NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous and several lawmakers to keep investigating the defendant.
The department may find itself in a vulnerable spot. Last week, a conservative watchdog accused an obscure agency within the DOJ of helping sup

(visit the link for the full news article)

Please forgive me if this already got posted: I did a search.

Sounds to me like some political pressure is sure to have a hand in this. Just can't let it go now. This is not right in my opinion because our legal system found him not guilty. I guess to stop major riots and outburst of violence, a higher political power has to step in and make changes. I knew this went to fast and was going to see further consiquences. Wow talk about the power of the people. It does not matter anymore how innocent you are, if the people dont agree, your dead meat.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

They would be stupid to try this one, they would have to prove he violated his rights, if that could be done, then Zimmerman would be sitting in a cell right now....... Talk about grasping at straws, they are grasping at non-existant straws......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He was given a verdict of not guilty. However, this does not stop the family of the young man who died - suing Zimmerman in civil court for damages. Correct? I only took a handful of legal courses in college - so my memory might be hazy.

But I distinctly found it ironic, that in one case study - A man had shot and killed an intruder who was trying to break and enter into his home. He was found not guilty, in that he acted in self defense. (There were children in the house, so he could not escape from the house and call the police as is expected.) Then the family of the man he shot took him to court and sued him and was awarded a large settlement.

My biggest pet peeve with this case - is that if in a situation, you are expected to flee before using deadly force, if at all possible...
How is it that Zimmerman wasn't required to do the same? The young man who died, was much younger as I understand it, shorter and of slighter build, and weaponless...
Why wasn't Zimmerman required to flee, to withdraw from the altercation? He's not a police officer or anything, just head of the neighborhood watch, right? I don't know. It's a difficult case. But in the end, if the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. It's good enough for me.

But part of me rejoices that he will be taken to the cleaners by the family, and he will. There are always other alternatives to altercations than killing somebody. Beat the crap out of each other - yell till you draw a crowd - but don't kill each other over power-trips.

Cirque

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
He was given a verdict of not guilty. However, this does not stop the family of the young man who died - suing Zimmerman in civil court for damages. Correct? I only took a handful of legal courses in college - so my memory might be hazy.

But I distinctly found it ironic, that in one case study - A man had shot and killed an intruder who was trying to break and enter into his home. He was found not guilty, in that he acted in self defense. (There were children in the house, so he could not escape from the house and call the police as is expected.) Then the family of the man he shot took him to court and sued him and was awarded a large settlement.

My biggest pet peeve with this case - is that if in a situation, you are expected to flee before using deadly force, if at all possible...
How is it that Zimmerman wasn't required to do the same? The young man who died, was much younger as I understand it, shorter and of slighter build, and weaponless...
Why wasn't Zimmerman required to flee, to withdraw from the altercation? He's not a police officer or anything, just head of the neighborhood watch, right? I don't know. It's a difficult case. But in the end, if the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. It's good enough for me.

But part of me rejoices that he will be taken to the cleaners by the family, and he will. There are always other alternatives to altercations than killing somebody. Beat the crap out of each other - yell till you draw a crowd - but don't kill each other over power-trips.

Cirque

When being assaulted you can't always flee, that is why it's stupid to require people to flee before they can protect themselves. Police first reaction is not to flee, they reach for firearm even if the person is unarmed and in a wheelchair.

The lesson here should be, don't assault other people or you could pay with your life. Just like you don't break into someones home unless you want to risk losing your life.

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


trayvon was five inches taller, more muscular, more athletic, and eleven years younger. he knocked zimmerman to the ground with a punch to the nose then mounted him and continued to beat him. that is why Zimmerman was unable to flee,

im getting really tired of correcting people. i wish more people did their homework

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


If your on your back and some one is on top of you then you cannot flee. On the other hand Martin had 4 minutes from the time Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to the altercation to get 300 yards. He could have made that in less walking. His own friend even admitted he was right behind his dads girlfriends house and went back.
As for a lawsuit its unfortunate that you think that he should be taken to the cleaners because with the not guilty verdict if he is sued and loses the state has to pay it. Also on another note Ive noticed alot of people who comment about this case that obviously did not watch the whole trial. If they did and think this is about race or anything else must be racist themselves

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


Also when I was talking about watching the trial I didnt mean main stream media they didnt show everything and even tried very hard to skew what was going on. There were plenty of livestreams in the courtroom were you could watch everything