QuickHitCurepon
Diamond Member
So, you are in favor of doing away with the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy if it suits your purpose? Careful you are starting to sound like a vigilante yourself.
What was it you said a couple of days ago about you defending our freedoms? I am beginning to feel like there are only certain freedoms you see fit to defend. That can be spooky. Suppose you do not see fit to defend the freedom of religion? If you do not believe in that freedom where would a person of faith stand in your view? And if we can pick and choose the freedoms we defend what happens when you say something obnoxious and the rest of us demand they throw your butt in jail?
Immie
It's a landmark case, and if the sophistication of the federal government is needed, then so be it. Sometimes extraordinary measures are needed.
It wouldn't be double jeopardy anyway as long as the feds don't try to prove manslaughter or murder.
You pay word games to justify shredding the Constitution? Shame on you.
It seems evident that your statements about defending American freedoms were little more than bravado and that you would spit upon the Constitution like Bush and Obama and their cronies.
Immie
Calm down. I don't entirely blame you for your position. I don't entirely like it either, but catastrophic injustices should be corrected. I don't know if the feds will do this or not, as most believe there is a lot of ambivalence whether they can or not. I am just stating common sense guidelines to show that it is still a real possibility, and I cited the Rodney King case to back me up, which for some odd reason you have totally ignored, even though you clicked on the reply earlier that was talking about King and double jeopardy.
The judge acknowledged that having two such trials did not legally constitute double jeopardy, but nonetheless it "raised the specter of unfairness."
I guess I need to repeat it for Immie's sake: Why then didn't double jeopardy preclude the officers from being charged in federal court? I know the cases are different, ok? But as long as the civil rights charges don't match the acquittals in any way, what's the problem?
Maybe it's fate. For the sake of all the Immies and half-Immies out there, maybe we need even a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this case and a little new ground in law to rest their troubled minds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King#The_officers
The officers
The Los Angeles district attorney charged officers Koon, Powell, Briseno and Wind with use of excessive force. Sergeant Koon, while he did not strike King, only having deployed the Taser, was, as the supervisory officer at the scene, charged with "willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault."
The California Court of Appeals removed the initial judge, Bernard Kamins, after it was proved Kamins told prosecutors, "You can trust me." The Court also granted a change of venue to the city of Simi Valley in neighboring Ventura County, citing potential contamination due to saturated media coverage.
Though few people at first considered race an important factor in the case, including Rodney King's attorney, Steven Lerman, the sensitizing effect of the Holliday videotape was at the time stirring deep resentment in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities in the United States. The officers' jury consisted of Ventura County residents: ten white; one Latino; one Asian. Lead Prosecutor Terry White was African American. On April 29, 1992, the jury acquitted three of the officers, but could not agree on one of the charges against Powell.[9]
Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley said, "The jury's verdict will not blind us to what we saw on that videotape. The men who beat Rodney King do not deserve to wear the uniform of the L.A.P.D."[30] President George H. W. Bush said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids."[31]
Los Angeles riots and the aftermath
The acquittals are considered to have triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the U.S. Army, Marines and National Guard restored order, the riots had caused 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damage to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as San Francisco, Las Vegas in neighboring Nevada and as far east as Atlanta, Georgia. A minor riot erupted on Yonge St., in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, as a result of the acquittals.
Federal trial of officers
After the riots, the United States Department of Justice reinstated the investigation and obtained an indictment of violations of federal civil rights against the four officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The federal trial focused more on the evidence as to the training of officers instead of just relying on the videotape of the incident. On March 9 of the 1993 trial, King took the witness stand and described to the jury the events as he remembered them.[32] The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 32 months in prison, while Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno were acquitted of all charges. ...