yall Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I don't question that. I'm just saying...you don't usually hear Hispanics calling black people "coons." Maybe it was his white half that used the racial slur.
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Maybe it was his white half that used the racial slur. I'll look for Sharpton to point that out when he is approaching the podium tomorrow.
Rob's House Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I know it's not to get to the bottom of field agents murdered with illegally purchased weapons that were exported to Mexican drug cartels with complete departmental knowledge. Or to answer Congressional subpeonas. Of course not, that would be silly. It's to prosecute isolated local crimes with racial undertones and national media attention.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 That's because you haven't the foggiest idea what the purpose of the DOJ is. Yeah, you're really stupid. You don't see the hook that could bring the DoJ into this case not to mention why people in the area would want the feds to get involved in this case.
Rob's House Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Yeah, you're really stupid. You don't see the hook that could bring the DoJ into this case not to mention why people in the area would want the feds to get involved in this case. What is the hook, dipshit?
....lybob Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 What is the hook, dipshit? The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1]
Rob's House Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] Nice try Lybob. Swing & a miss, but nice try. I want to hear what BFMF has to say on the subject.
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] Equal protection? Seriously? Constitutional scholar, you're not.
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Equal protection? Seriously? Constitutional scholar, you're not. I believe this is the same reason Sandra Fluke wants free contraception. So all women have equal protection.
....lybob Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The co-authors of Florida’s controversial self-defense gun law say it shouldn’t protect shooters like George Zimmerman, who killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin last month.“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said former Republican Sen. Durell Peaden, a state lawmaker who sponsored the Stand Your Ground law in 2005, The Miami Herald reports. Of Zimmerman, he added, “He has no protection under my law.” In a case that has drawn national attention and a look from the Justice Department, Zimmerman has insisted to police that he shot Martin, a 17-year-old student with no criminal history, in self-defense on Feb. 26 as the two wrestled on a suburban street in Sanford, Fla. The 2005 Florida law protects shooters who claim self-defense in a wide range of places, including on the street or in a bar. According to the law, a person who believes their life is danger or could be seriously injured in any place they have a right to be “has no duty to retreat” and “has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” But Zimmerman, a neighbor watch volunteer, forfeited the self-defense protections when he decided to pursue Martin before killing him, Peaden said. “The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden, according to the Herald. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.” Peaden and his co-author state Republican Rep. Dennis Baxley, say their law protects law-abiding people but nowhere does it say that a person has a right to confront another. of course what the !@#$ do they know they only wrote the law.
B-Man Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 of course what the !@#$ do they know they only wrote the law. and they certainly can speak to that... Of course, your response has nothing to do with the 14th Ammendment........ .
....lybob Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 and they certainly can speak to that... Of course, your response has nothing to do with the 14th Ammendment........ . so?
Rob's House Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 of course what the !@#$ do they know they only wrote the law. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on your initial 14th amendment argument because despite being a terribly weak argument there was at least some semblance of a logical thought process. Your follow up failed to reach such a lofty standard.
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) so? Posted Today, 12:42 PM Rob, on 22 March 2012 - 11:52 AM, said: What is the hook, dipshit? Remember this? The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] Edited March 22, 2012 by 3rdnlng
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) What is the hook, dipshit? The hook would be the fact that he followed the kid down the street while muttering a racial epitaph to the dispatcher. Had the local police done their job the DoJ wouldn't have to get involved. This is an obvious racial killing given the evidence we have at this point and if the local police are going to let it go on grounds of "self defense" it's time for the big kids to come in. The odds of them being able to prosecute a case are pretty long given their limitations in the case but at least they are letting the black community know they are being heard. Edited March 22, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan
....lybob Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I gave you the benefit of the doubt on your initial 14th amendment argument because despite being a terribly weak argument there was at least some semblance of a logical thought process. Your follow up failed to reach such a lofty standard. I don't need a follow up to a snide remark- if you or Tom had made a point I might follow-up, but lets recap DOJ has a civil rights division and equal protection under the law falls under that rubric.
RkFast Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I love how since the shooter was Hispanic and cant be properly demonized, that now its the police's fault.
Rob's House Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The hook would be the fact that he followed the kid down the street while muttering a racial epitaph to the dispatcher. Had the local police done their job the DoJ wouldn't have to get involved. This is an obvious racial killing given the evidence we have at this point and if the local police are going to let it go on grounds of "self defense" it's time for the big kids to come in. The odds of them being able to prosecute a case are pretty long given their limitations in the case but at least they are letting the black community know they are being heard. The only thing obvious here is that you're a !@#$ing retard. Before we get into the DOJ's role let's start with the assumptions you've pulled straight out of your ass. First, how do we know this was a racial killing? We don't. I saw a piece on this case last night and it sounded to me like he said "these !@#$S always get away with it". Do we just take your preconceived notion that he muct have meant blacks when he said !@#$s. Is there no other possible inference? Second, you have no !@#$ing idea what transpired. Nor do I. For all you know the kid was up to something nefarious, saw the guy following him, attacked him, and during the attack the guy pulled out his gun and shot him. You don't know. The cops who know a hell of a lot more about the situation and the law than you don't yet believe they have a strong enough case to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. So the only actual FACTS you're basing your assumption on is that the kid was black and the guy was pursuing him prior to whatever altercation took place. So to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any time a black kid is shot by someone who isn't also black, and the local cops don't prosecute right away, The Attorney General of the US should stick his nose in the middle of it. Or is it only in cases that the national media picks up and exploits? And I love your assertion that it is the role of the DOJ to pursue a local law enforcement case that is light on facts with long odds on prosecution to make sure the black community "knows it's been heard." If it was a white kid who got shot do you think for half a second Eric Holder would give two ***** and a good god damn about this case? Would you be calling for his involvement? Should they prosecute a guy they didn't think was guilty to appease the white community's need to be heard? Also, if the local cops are in dereliction of duty wouldn't it follow that the state would pursue this before jumping straight to the !@#$ing feds. Why don't you look up the word "Federalism" and get back to me. After you do that how about citing a source from which the DOJ would derive the authority to pursue this in the first case, because the court isn't very receptive to the "we overreached the bounds of our authority because we thought it was for a good cause" argument. At least ...lybob made an attempt, futile though it may have been, to address this key issue.
Adam Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The only thing obvious here is that you're a !@#$ing retard. Before we get into the DOJ's role let's start with the assumptions you've pulled straight out of your ass. First, how do we know this was a racial killing? We don't. I saw a piece on this case last night and it sounded to me like he said "these !@#$S always get away with it". Do we just take your preconceived notion that he muct have meant blacks when he said !@#$s. Is there no other possible inference? Second, you have no !@#$ing idea what transpired. Nor do I. For all you know the kid was up to something nefarious, saw the guy following him, attacked him, and during the attack the guy pulled out his gun and shot him. You don't know. The cops who know a hell of a lot more about the situation and the law than you don't yet believe they have a strong enough case to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. So the only actual FACTS you're basing your assumption on is that the kid was black and the guy was pursuing him prior to whatever altercation took place. So to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any time a black kid is shot by someone who isn't also black, and the local cops don't prosecute right away, The Attorney General of the US should stick his nose in the middle of it. Or is it only in cases that the national media picks up and exploits? And I love your assertion that it is the role of the DOJ to pursue a local law enforcement case that is light on facts with long odds on prosecution to make sure the black community "knows it's been heard." If it was a white kid who got shot do you think for half a second Eric Holder would give two ***** and a good god damn about this case? Would you be calling for his involvement? Should they prosecute a guy they didn't think was guilty to appease the white community's need to be heard? Also, if the local cops are in dereliction of duty wouldn't it follow that the state would pursue this before jumping straight to the !@#$ing feds. Why don't you look up the word "Federalism" and get back to me. After you do that how about citing a source from which the DOJ would derive the authority to pursue this in the first case, because the court isn't very receptive to the "we overreached the bounds of our authority because we thought it was for a good cause" argument. At least ...lybob made an attempt, futile though it may have been, to address this key issue. I agree- we know little, but based on the hand picked evidence that has been presented, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman. The phone calls played really make it look like he was pursuing Martin and not just defending himself. The fact that he pulled a gun during a confrontation doesn't help him either- that is an aggressive action.
Rob's House Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I don't need a follow up to a snide remark- if you or Tom had made a point I might follow-up, but lets recap DOJ has a civil rights division and equal protection under the law falls under that rubric. I wanted to wait for BFMF to respond before giving you a substantive explanation. I'll keep this simple. While it has been determined that the equal protection clause protects people rather than classes of people, it's primary function is to protect people against LAWS that give disparate treatement. It could be used to challenge unequal enforcement of otherwise valid law, but this is not a case that would lend itself to such application. You'd need to establish a strong pattern of unequal treatment of individuals by the state. For this you would need to demonstrate that under virtually identical fact patterns different people received different treatment on the basis of race. There is no evidence of this here and thus it would be a VERY tenuous argument just to justify DOJs involvement, let alone application to the facts of this particular case.
Recommended Posts