hey, quit with the psycho babble, give a LOGICAL argument and stay on point

@khalling:

With respect, you using the point system or not "against" me is trivial. I just considered those badges of intellectual cowardice belonging to the group, but I've concluded much worse about you. I consider you worse than a coward; I consider you intellectually dishonest and malicious.

I say this because, since you mention it, my opinion of you must be of some interest to you.

It's ironic that an association ostensibly based on reason is so hostile towards solicitations to demonstrate their rational prowess. Silly.

Thanks

It is not now, nor has it ever been right. But as I said in another post: haters will stop at nothing until they unleash their hate on their (current) target.

lo siento. I have no idea what your point is.

just so you know, I am not pointing you negative.

I'd like to give you more points for this

and you too, thanks

hey, thanks for your help with the youngster

Great.

Another Duke lacrosse farce....

Sad, but true.

AL isn't finished...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-sharpton-d......

Why would that stop Obama or Holder now?

Especially if they need another diversion from future scandals....

The prosecution would have given their right arm(s) to be able to introduce race into the trial...but they didn't have anything that even hinted at a racial (read: hate) crime.

I have listened to a zillion talking head lawyers on cable channels, and they all agree that there is no basis for a Civil Rights violation charge....

@j_IR1776wg:

We expect the DOJ to investigate and prosecute crimes. Experiencing surprise or disapproval of those activities is irregular. I'd like to know what is unusual about him being investigated or prosecuted. If that's "anti-reason," I'd like to be educated on my error.

You can get an ulcer arguing Reason against anti-reason. Adam's question "What reason do they have not to?" attempts to put you in a position of thinking for the DOJ. Adam should have to assert why he thinks the DOJ has a legitimate reason to do so. The opposite of the rule of law is the rule of whim. These "civil rights" laws are nothing more than a sop to the mob mentality.

He has the right to life and it would be a federal civil rights violation to kill him because he was black.

The Rodney King case is an excellent example of what Zimmerman might soon face at the federal level.

It isn't over and double jeopardy wont be the issue if Zimmerman is brought up on federal charges of violating Trevon's civil rights.

Remember the Rodney King case? I'm sure many of us were thinking about the L.A. riots as the Zimmerman not guilty verdict was announced.

It's important to remember what happened to the police officers in the Rodney King case after their trials in California

From Wikipedia:

"Four of the police officers from the LAPD who engaged in the incident were charged in Los Angeles County Superior Court with assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force for their conduct during the incident. After a judicial finding that a fair and impartial jury could not be impaneled in Los Angeles County, the case was given a change of venue to the city of Simi Valley, in Ventura County, where they were tried. On April 29, 1992, three of the four police officers, (Koon, Wind, and Briseno) were acquitted of all charges. The jury acquitted the fourth officer, (Powell), on the assault with a deadly weapon charge but failed to reach a verdict on the use of excessive force charge. The jury deadlocked at 8-4 in favor of acquittal.

The acquittals are generally considered to have triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which 53 people were killed, and over two thousand were injured. The riots ended after soldiers from the United States Army National Guard, along with United States Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton, California, were called in to assist local authorities and quell the riots.

On August 4, 1992 a Federal Grand Jury after hearing evidence from federal prosecutors, indicted the four officers on charges of violating King's civil rights. The four men were put on trial on February 25, 1993 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California located in downtown Los Angeles. On April 16, 1993 the trial ended with two of the police officers, (Koon and Powell) found guilty, and subsequently imprisoned. The other two officers, (Wind and Briseno) were acquitted."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King...

@khalling:

I'm asking you that if Zimmerman violated Martin's lawfully promulgated rights prior to the confrontation, then why wouldn't he be prosecuted for it?

In regard to laws that favor one demographic over another, my opinions are not relevant to your assertion that something is amiss in the situation.

Self defense is self defense. A jury upheld that. It is fact that race was a motive, indeed, the evidence points against it. Again, a jury agreed.
The DOJ did not pursue civil rights crimes in the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Why do you think? Oh, that's right. the attorney general explicitly said that they will not pursue any voting rights issues against Blacks.
What is your stance on laws that give one group of people more rights than the rest of the people?

This is now the Game in Soviet America.

Zimmerman was tried for 2nd degree murder and found innocent.
The charge of 3rd degree murder was thrown out.
The charge Manslaughter was included and Zimmerman was found innocent of that as well.

So he can no longer be charged with the crime of murder/manslaughter without facing Double Jeopardy.

So the some other charge, unrelated to murder/manslaughter will be trumped up on the federal level and Zimmerman will be found "guilty" in an even more egregious circus-like show trial.

If I were Zimmerman, I would be on the first plane out of Obamatopia and be seeking political asylum from a country which would not honor US extradition.

What reason do they have not to?

@khalling:

You omitted the "wow, just wow" from your quote, which is material. A conditional argument was presented; your wows are expressions of surprise; I challenged the surprise: if something was unlawful, why wouldn't it be pursued? It appears that the group of posters are in agreement with you that something is amiss; I welcome them to answer too.

Your claim that my question asserted a foregone conclusion is not rational.

@khalling:

You irrationally concluded that my question was part of an argument in favor of continued prosecution. Your behavior is an admission that you hold that a question is an argument. In light of that fact, one must conclude that your questions are arguments; therefore, your question about me is an argument against me.

My question still stands: what is the argument against continued prosecution?

@khalling:

The reference to self-defense is a straw man. The theory of civil rights violation rests on Zimmerman pursuing Martin because of Martin's race.

If it's against the law to do such a thing, why wouldn't the DOJ pursue it?