No, there is no "federal civil lawsuit" being brought against Zimmerman. Nor would a civil lawsuit brought by anybody have anything to do with double-jeopardy. Nor does Vetteman understand what a civil lawsuit is, and why the fear that the evil Obama- Holder biumverate might initiate one against Zimmerman is absurd bordering on impossible.
you oughta know that this, in itself, isn't conclusive in any way.
You can call me whatever you'd like if it makes you feel better about being uninformed. But you have to admit it's strange that someone who dislikes being shown to be wrong as much as you do, wouldn't instead just use the time to find out what's right.
Why are we talking about Holder? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about Zimmerman?
You may wish to re-cast it that way now, but in fact you were talking specifically about Zimmerman when I came in. You were denying that his past had anything to do with his present, and you were asking if there was a civil suit against him.
Then he'll be acquitted, which is as it should be.
That's the strange part of this case. The way we find out if a killer's story is the correct one in this country--if someone is disputing it--is to have them tell it in front of a bunch of theoretically impartial people and see if it holds up. Being asked to do that is not an act of persecution, it's the very baseline application of our system.
Another one going full Vetteman.
ha, that was about zimmerman? even so, my response holds up: simple numbers of calls in themselves don't support a definite conclusion. doesn't matter who made the calls, or what the color of people were. it's circumstantial. the potential for explantory arguments is high.
also i'd go on to say that zimmerman's past is as relevant is martin's past. that sort of character history might be brought up in trial, and it makes for great tv, but it shouldn't matter.
i wouldn't call any of my responses heroic, but thanks for the vote of confidence
