I get it. No worries.Originally Posted by mnealtx
Try specifically here.I'll check the Zimmerman thread and see if anything posted in the last couple hours since I read it help to further address my questions.
I get it. No worries.
Try specifically here.I'll check the Zimmerman thread and see if anything posted in the last couple hours since I read it help to further address my questions.
Thanks for the link - and wow, that was a way back in the thread!
Seems messed up that Gov't can re-try you for a case that the State found you not guilty on.
Any civil protection Zimmerman may have due to Florida law doesn't apply against Fed-dot-gov either, does it?
Mike
Only because the common understanding of double jeopardy is incomplete. I'm sure the same is true in your profession: all sorts of things the average person thinks he understands but doesn't... quite... get it.
Correct. Federal courts have their own rules of evidence and everything...Any civil protection Zimmerman may have due to Florida law doesn't apply against Fed-dot-gov either, does it?
I understand that Fed-gov is a different, separate entity in that regard...still just *seems* wrong from a moral point.
Does the FBI investigation showing it wasn't racially motivated give Z any legal protection against a CR trial, or is it only applicable as evidence?
Mike
I'm sure that Koon and Powell would agree.
An aside: The idea that one must be specially anointed in order to grasp the spirit of the foundational documents of the nation in which one is assumed to be qualified to exercise one's franchise emanates penumbras all over what's wrong with this double-wide these days.
Tangentially related: I think offenses by bureaucrats, elected officials, and officers of the court should be punished by doing them like Giles Corey with copies of the USC and CFR.
Meh, it's a Kel-tec. That's a rounding error in his lawyer bill.
With the way mob justice is gunning for him, he probably wants more rounds on hand now anyway.
Zing!
But that works both ways. Kids are being raised by school systems that are teaching them to believe the Bill of Rights means something different than what you and I read when looking at the same words.
A bunch of guys a lot closer in time to the writing of the BoR (and some a lot closer to writing the BoR) signed off on and Alien & Sedition Acts. When even the Framers can have such wildly varied interpretations of simple phrases like "freedom of speech" it's not hard to understand that over time those phrases required someone to define them. In our system, that someone is the courts.
I'm mostly just ranting. I still like the peine forte et dure idea with the law books. We need to put some model legislation together and start off with some states where that will fly. It should be a pretty easy sell in Helena or Cheyenne, I think.
Reply With Quote