Skip to comments.Whitehouse.gov petition: No Double Jeopardy for George Zimmerman
Posted on 07/15/2013 11:08:15 AM PDT by justlurking
Petition for the DOJ to allow the American Justice system and due process to stand. No double jeopardy for George Zimmerman.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[" 5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
However, it only has 299 signatures, and needs 100,000 by 8/13.
No, I don't think it will make any difference. But, here's a chance for your to express your opinion.
I don’t believe this is “Double Jeopardy” Its a civil injury trial. Burden of proof is markedly different. Remember they did this with O.J. too? Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. They are not talking civil liability, they are talking civil liberties.
No the petition is not to end a civil trial, it is to stop the DOJ from simply trying the case again.
The Florida “stand your ground” law seems to preclude a civil trial.
In NO State of the Union is it disallowed to use lethal force to prevent your death or injury if you cannot get away from your attacker. DoJ is overreaching.
Just giving more info to Axelrod’s political data base. Do you think the petition will sway 0’s political motivations regarding this case?
Hey—368 now. Wouldn’t it be great to get millions? An “Arab Spring” on line. Do they have that many drones to take us all out?
And it’s also a chance for the WH to easily get a list of those who oppose its race war. Sorry, not making it more convenient for them.
freeangel, See ntnychik’s post at #8.
This is a different America now, sad to say.
I kind of think that ALL FReepers are targets anyway.
I thought that "civil rights" charges were limited to LEOs only. As for "civil liability" charges, I thought that Florida's "stand your ground" & "self defense" legislation precluded any civil charges (get out of jail card as it were!).
I could be wrong as I heard this stuff on the Internet! Dangerous, I know...
Please see; Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) and Heath v Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) for a discussion of the Blockburger Rule and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine.
I suspect we are all targets, but why make it easier for them?
Sorry all, I should have combined all three gigantor pings.
Multiple polls linked:
(Poll) Do you agree with the Trayvon Martin Verdict?
Justice Brennan in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959,) cites Chief Justice Taft in the early case of Fox v. Ohio:
“...[T]wo sovereigns had, within their constitutional authority, prohibited the same acts, and each was punishing a breach of its prohibition. A unanimous Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, held:
“We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. . . . Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.
“It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each....”
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)
As summarized by Justice Stewart in U.S. v. Wheeler, 435 US 313 (1978):
“Bartkus and Abbate rest on the basic structure of our federal system, in which States and the National Government are separate political communities. State and Federal Governments ‘[derive] power from different sources,’ each from the organic law that established it. United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382. Each has the power, inherent in any sovereign, independently to determine what shall be an offense against its authority and to punish such offenses, and in doing so each ‘is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.’ Ibid. And while the States, as well as the Federal Government, are subject to the overriding requirements of the Federal Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause gives Congress within its sphere the power to enact laws superseding conflicting laws of the States, this degree of federal control over the exercise of state governmental power does not detract from the fact that it is a State’s own sovereignty which is the origin of its power.
Youre already in the database, possibly for various reasons but, certainly for posting here at the secret VRWC forum.
Signed. Just 900 so far.