Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press Writer
Sat Oct 13, 10:31 PM ET
PANAMA CITY, Fla. - Seven former juvenile boot camp guards and a nurse had barely processed an all-white jury's decision to acquit them in a black teenager's death before federal authorities announced they would review the case.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_us/boot_camp_death
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.
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.
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.
What if it were an all-Jew jury? Then of course whatever decision they made would be fine by you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree with your opinion that that is why they are probing with their nose. I think it needs some looking into. Second, tho I do agree that the feds play very fast and loose with this so-called double jeoardy provision. It is getting to the place where if a law enforcement person is caught holding a bloody knife, the jury will assume it is catsup.---- because the law can do no wrong.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.
That is a totally, and horribly STUPID Statement.What if it were an all-Jew jury? Then of course whatever decision they made would be fine by you.
Now who did they do THAT to? You? Me? one of your Jewish or hindu brethern???It's called the media.
Instead, they nail the Son of God to blocks of wood.
That is a totally, and horribly STUPID Statement.
I disagree with your opinion that that is why they are probing with their nose. I think it needs some looking into. Second, tho I do agree that the feds play very fast and loose with this so-called double jeoardy provision. It is getting to the place where if a law enforcement person is caught holding a bloody knife, the jury will assume it is catsup.---- because the law can do no wrong.
Cops litterally get away with murder every day.
All I'm seeing here are people saying it should be reviewed by Fed authority based on personal prejudices. Yours against law enforcement and the rest because apparently white people cannot be trusted.
Interesting, that last.
Another injustice that you are blind to??All I'm seeing here are people saying it should be reviewed by Fed authority based on personal prejudices. Yours against law enforcement and the rest because apparently white people cannot be trusted.
Interesting, that last.
