Heartland

I think the thing that really grates is the different application of the law. A man was tried, and found not guilty. Now the USAG is considering whether to file a suit claiming that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights (killing someone would seem to be an extreme case of civil rights violations, but no matter).

It follows, therefore, that every instance where someone is being accused of a crime against a person is also a violation of civil rights law, so every instance where someone is acquitted of the charge should presumably invite scrutiny from the AG.

Every instance.

Is the USAG's attitude informed by the difference in the colours of the skin of the people involved? Why wasn't OJ Simpson accused of civil rights violations? If I steal from you does it make a difference that I'm anglo and you're not?

Well yes, it does. As a white male I'm less likely than a black counterpart to serve time in prison, to be stopped and searched, to be profiled. The law needs to be applied evenly, and it isn't. Nothing wrong with the law itself - but we can't do much about peoples' prejudices.

agree Jose, however, some people that got even small power will act eventually like idiots, and there's not psychological test that couldn't be passed by psychopaths.

Bartek wrote:"It is only when people get passionately involved, when they get angry, that they get things done."
we (I) call that revolution, which is exactly what i was writing about.

No no no I'm talking about non-violent protest, civil disobedience, this sort of thing. Definitely not armed revolt.

Bartek wrote:i don't get it there, so what was the point of starting this thread here, on a discussion forum where people ... talk, not act?
and this coolly sitting discussion the facts is what we should do, or at least ought and try, because is lot easier to pull a trigger than to convince someone to put gun away.

Yes, true. I should have said "social change is not accomplished only by coolly sitting discussing the facts"

Couple of interesting articles here that suggest that the prosecutor in the case might have screwed the pooch:

IT director who raised questions about Zimmerman case is fired

Did investigators blow the Zimmerman case?

Would have been avoided if Mr Zimmerman had taken the advice of the 911 operator who informed him to stay in his car.
He bit off more than he could chew and was getting a beating when Mr Martin was shot.
He was a neighborhood watch participant and was a regular caller to the PD in Sanford.
At the end of the day, a 17 year old boy was killed.

Would have been avoided if Mr Zimmerman had taken the advice of the 911 operator who informed him to stay in his car.
He bit off more than he could chew and was getting a beating when Mr Martin was shot.
He was a neighborhood watch participant and was a regular caller to the PD in Sanford.
At the end of the day, a 17 year old boy was killed.

Garbageman wrote:Would have been avoided if Mr Zimmerman had taken the advice of the 911 operator who informed him to stay in his car.
He bit off more than he could chew and was getting a beating when Mr Martin was shot.
He was a neighborhood watch participant and was a regular caller to the PD in Sanford.
At the end of the day, a 17 year old boy was killed.

That's exactly it in short. All of this is due to American weapons law.
And the worst is, that Zimmerman even got his weapon back after all.
What he did was, IMO, at least wantonly negligent ... if you have a weapon
with you, you know what can happen ...
Compare this with killing a person with your car - you were at least rid of your driving liscense, even in the US (and for lesser reasons).