Please excuse the omission, it was not intentional.
acting in self-defense is not unlawful. A jury of his peers concurred.
Concocting federal charges based on an anti-concept is irrational. Not only wastes valuable resources but perpetuates the fallacy that one race of people are entitled to extra rights. That is also irrational. asked and answered twice now.

me: "The DOJ launched a review of the shooting earlier this year and Holder said that they would take proper action if they had evidence of a civil rights crime."
you: "What reason do they have not to?"

Your question is framed as a foregone conclusion. Such as, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest they move forward (the Fed), give even ONE reason they should not.
I can think of a dozen.
There was nothing in the framing of my question to suggest a foregone conclusion. Although you have said you have read several Rand books, you have not explicitly said you were an Objectivist. I was curious. and argumentative, because I'm disagreeing with your statements on other posts regarding "racism." This follows the same basic road. Please, feel free to let us know that you respect the jury's verdict and accept Mr. Zimmerman is innocent. If not, then put your reasoning out there.

I am making no statement as to your character. Where did you get that? I am quite surprised that you are making statements in agreement with those requesting the DOJ get involved in this case. Why? To what end? Did, for example, the DOJ get involved when OJ Simpson was acquitted for murdering two white people? Are you speaking out about black on black murder rates in Chicago, St. Louis, Oakland etc? Why is this case crucial to civil rights violations? It is an anti concept to me.

@khalling:

To be frank, I thought I was an Objectivist, but my experience here thus far calls into question the definition that I had or, at least, leads me to question what it means to claim to be a practicing Objectivist. But, your question is another assertion about my person when my question was unrelated to my character; therefore, it's irrelevant. So, if you'd like to engage in a rational exchange, as I believe is a practical tenet of Objectivism, then I'd ask you to not bring my character into question when I have not used authority as a premise in a discussion. Is that acceptable to you?

I didn't say that the jurors should or shouldn't be overruled. I'm asking for the specific argument that you folks have against them from continuing their attack on Zimmerman.

“The most fundamental of civil rights—the right to life—was violated…”
I am sure it is only a statement in frustration that 6 people did not agree with the mob. Justice has been served by the 6 people who listened to the evidence, weighed the facts as they have been presented, and deciding with their own minds a verdict based on their understanding of the law and the information provided. Is it justice that calls that he must pay? That there must be a cost levied upon him for the death of the young man. It is only revenge that they seek, not justice. Their blind arrogance leads them to believe that their judgment to be superior to all others.
Also, is it correct for me to infer that at any time death has occurred that it is a violation of civil rights? That leads down a whole new rabbit hole…

? How can you say that the jurors should be over-ruled? There is no logical right to "civil rights crime." Mr. Martin did not have claim to extra-ordinary rights. Are you an Objectivist, Adam???

Once you get a Not Guilty verdict it's Game Over from the perspective of the prosecution. The only way around this Constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy is to prove jury tampering, or something like that. If you can prove jury tampering, then by all means throw the tamperers in jail and re-do the trial.

The NAACP was behind this whole thing from the beginning... they found something they could trump up and gain traction and they sure as hell aren't going to let the truth or justice get in their way now. It's too bad people can't see the ridiculousness of this agency for what it is. The word "disgraceful" comes to mind.

There is no length those who hate will not go in order to take out their personal hatred on other folks. If race is the "key" to their hate, or if "age" or "wealth" -- it doesn't matter. Those who hate (which is the defining characteristic of the left / liberal / progressive agenda), will have no problems finding a target for their hate to attack.

Now the real show begins. How about Holder investigating the civil rights of the innocents killed in the gang violence? It will never happen because it doesn't further the power of those with the agenda.

I woke up this morning to find an email from Move On asking me to sign the petition from the head of the NAACP to Holder and the DOJ to start the civil rights investigation. Don't ask me how I got on their mailing list but it's always nice to get an idea what the other side is up to.