Someone please explain how Zimmerman can be tried by the Fed?

[mrplunkey]

I know - I just dont think that SD realizes that Holder isnt thinking about charging Zimmerman with the same crime he was just found not guilty of.

What Holder is considering is a clever way of putting Zimmerman in double-jeopardy, without explicitly charging him with the same crime.

If the jury was only given the opportunity to choose murder in the second degree, then yes -- there would be some room to argue. But the jury also could have found him guilty of manslaughter.

In the absence of a manslaughter conviction (or similar lesser conviction), it is implicit that the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of any form of criminal murder. A more clever prosecutor would have realize that the battle was lost and not asked for manslaughter. That would have left enough ambiguity for the feds to step in and continue prosecuting Zimmerman.

 

[-SD-]

PS you guys gotta stop yelling "unconstitutional" at everything you dont agree with.

Yea we wouldnt want the constitution getting in the way of things, my bad rob

 

[75th]

Yea we wouldnt want the constitution getting in the way of things, my bad rob

Or we wouldnt want to cry wolf about stuff being unconstitutional when its obvious that its not. Might not pay attention when something that is unconstitutional actually occurs. Just sayin.

 

[75th]

In the absence of a manslaughter conviction (or similar lesser conviction), it is implicit that the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of any form of criminal murder. A more clever prosecutor would have realize that the battle was lost and not asked for manslaughter. That would have left enough ambiguity for the feds to step in and continue prosecuting Zimmerman.

Shocked that we agree.

 

[mrplunkey]

Shocked that we agree.

Well hell. Let me re-think my position then.

And yes, I'm just joking. I'd only do that if I found myself agreeing with RedScam(TM). I can't violate my underlying beliefs in Plunk-o-Pathy.

 

[75th]

Gotta have standards I guess.

 

[-SD-]

Or we wouldnt want to cry wolf about stuff being unconstitutional when its obvious that its not. Might not pay attention when something that is unconstitutional actually occurs. Just sayin.

highly unusual for a sitting president and attorney general to interject into a local law enforcement case, that sort of thing gets my attention.

 

[mrplunkey]

highly unusual for a sitting president and attorney general to interject into a local law enforcement case, that sort of thing gets my attention.

That's a huge red flag.

 

[redsamurai]

PS you guys gotta stop yelling "unconstitutional" at everything you dont agree with.

that's not happening anytime soon.

 

[Dial_tone]

In the absence of a manslaughter conviction (or similar lesser conviction), it is implicit that the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of any form of criminal murder. A more clever prosecutor would have realize that the battle was lost and not asked for manslaughter. That would have left enough ambiguity for the feds to step in and continue prosecuting Zimmerman.

Admit defeat and watch the Feds do what you couldn't?