Federal review looms in boot camp death

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by Gunny, Oct 14, 2007.

  1. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The Feds have no right sticking their nose into this simply because some Civil Rights activists squeal and want to make it about race.

    And they may as well strike the protection from double jeopardy from the Constitution. There's no such thing.
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    There is double jeopardy, but it is limited to charges for THE SAME CRIME. State charges are different from Federal charges. No different from Michael Vick getting zapped by the State after taking a plea in the Federal case.

    I think they absolutely should look into it. Dogs die and everyone calls for Vick's blood. A black kid dies and you say we shouldn't be, at least, sceptical of the all-white jury that acquitted despite the videographic and other evidence? Now, I'm not saying that the verdict made no sense because I didn't hear the testimony. But I think it certainly warrants questions being asked.

    Doesn't make sense to me.
     
  3. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    What if it were an all-Jew jury? Then of course whatever decision they made would be fine by you.
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I understand the semantics played in order to punish people for the same crime at different levels.

    And you're right ... a kid dies and the jury acquits the accused based on the evidence ... I see no reason to go witchhunting simply to appease certain activists who can't fathom the concept that it wasn't some racially-motivated crime.
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    It's not "semantics". Whether I agree with it or not, it IS the law. And you agree that the States can't tell the Feds what charges to bring. Right?

    Also, I don't believe for a second that it's "appeas[ing] certain activists". what I think is that the verdict didn't pass the smell test. There's nothing wrong with investigating it given the history of black people historically being denied any kind of justice in certain areas.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I tried to think of some smartass comment to respond to this statement, but it really deserves none. That's just a dumb thing to say.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I don't think there's ever been an "all-Jew jury" in this country. But then again, Jews don't have a history of lynching blacks.

    You feeling nostalgic for those days, WJ? Tough.
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Got ya covered. ^^^^ :eusa_dance:
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    It IS semantics. I understand it is the law. That was my point. The law is a joke because it says one thing but practices another based on semantics.

    When the verdict doesn't pass the "smell test" of "certain activists," then yes it IS appeasing them. It isn't suspicious just because the jury was all-white and the victim black. Using that as a basis for accusation is just about as racist as it gets.
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I'm hardly an activist, GL. In fact, I'd be the first to take on race hustlers of any stripe. But this verdict just seemed wrong. And I think that's a far bigger issue than whether the Feds and States have the right to separate charges and whether double jeopardy should have kicked in.

    Interestingly, part of me doesn't like the concept that separate charges can be brought for the same underlying event. It's never quite felt right to me. On the other hand, there's been such a long and tortured history of white juries convicting blacks for crimes on little evidence, and acquitting whites who commit crimes against blacks, that, perhaps, it's a necessary evil.

    It still isn't semantics, though. ;)

    I think it's far worse when the state brings charges against someone for killing dogs (admittedly a low-life, vile thing to do) when the guy has already taken a plea and received punishment. At least here, if there's any punishment, it won't be duplicative.
     

Share This Page