(NOTE FROM OLDTIMEYTMAN: I’M SORRY FOR NOT POST MORE FREQUESTLY. MY BEAUTIFUL, LOVING WIFE DIED AND THE GRIEVING HAS TAKEN MUCH LONGER THAN I EXPECTED.
Supporters of Treyvon Martin are literally screaming for what in their minds passes for justice. In reality, justice was dispensed when Martin’s accused murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted of all charges by a jury.
Socialists, democrats and other “progressives,” are now leading an all-out charge to persuade the federal government to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. What a crock of B.S. This is nothing less than a thinly veiled lynching, It is also a complete violation of the Constitution.
The 5th Amendment says clearly “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”
An accusation by anyone, even someone so elevated in public life as the Attorney General of the United States, is not an indictment by a duly-constituted grand jury. Some may argue that a civil rights violation is not a capital crime, but when the punishment could be life imprisonment or even death, it becomes a capital crime.
Although the federal government and certain rabble-rousing elements in our society claim Zimmerman’s so-called crime is a civil rights violation, let’s get real. They are furious the murder charge against Zimmerman was not proved. So they are taking a second bite at the apple by calling for a civil rights trial. In my opinion, since the alleged civil rights violation happened because of the death, any further prosecution of Zimmerman is nothing more than persecution. It’s also called double jeopardy and is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
Most of the protesters against the verdict, say so-called stand-your-ground laws should be repealed because of the Zimmerman case. What most Americans, and especially the protesters, don’t tell you is that stand-your-ground was not used as a defense in the case. This was a straight self-defense matter. No-one is obligated to let someone beat him or her up without fighting back, even to the point of using deadly force.