Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTank77
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...rtin-protests/
They'll spend over five grand before the trial on working with people rallying to try and influence Zimmerman's proceedings, but after they wont lift a fucking finger when it came to the riots and violent attacks on bystanders by people seeking "justice". If their job is to "keep the peace" involving political rallies and such, then they've done a piss poor job.
The political stain in this situation is pretty fucking apparent. Five thousand dollars, minus whatever was spent in salary, spent supporting public pressure on Florida State officials to put Zimmerman away, zero dollars spent on ensuring Zimmerman was, oh I don't know, not slandered in the media, or sent death threats, or at the very least; not coming dangerously close to stepping all over Double Jeopardy by seizing Zimmerman's firearm without cause, before opening a separate federal inquiry on a crime outside of Federal jurisdiction. They haven't actually charged him with anything, because they don't have any evidence, but apparently the Federal government can now seize your private property if they "suspect" you did something with it.
This is scary shit, that goes way beyond a street scuffle. This is a serious overstepping of bounds and abuse of a system that is meant to protect people's rights, not just people the government finds it advantageous to throw their support behind.
|
I have read that link, thank you very much - unlike yourself, however, I have actually given consideration to what those phrases actually mean rather than jumping on one word or one phrase out of context. "Working" a march/demonstration/protest means you have people deployed there doing their job (i.e. stopping things getting out of hand), and "protest deployment" is likely to be related to law enforcement support - for the very simple reason that a protest is not a pre-packaged entity that you can deploy. Neither of those means they actually organised the bloody protests, demonstrations or marches in the first place, and you are claiming they did so without any shred of evidence whatsoever simply because it suits your narrative of "federal government screwing Zimmerman over" to do so. I've always held the view that you are a rational, sensible person - please don't give me grounds to reconsider that.
Also, regarding the rest of your post, a few questions:
1) How do you know the CRS hasn't had people working to try and stop the events of civil disobedience? More to the point, what makes you think that they would actually have a chance of stopping them if people are genuinely that pissed off about it? That's for the police to deal with. You are assuming they haven't done anything based solely on a very narrow FOI request by a website whose conclusions are being challenged by their own commenters.
2) How is the federal government supposed to control what the media prints about a person in light of the 1st Amendment?
3) You do realise that during a live investigation law enforcement agencies do have the right to seize items which could amount to evidence, provided it is linked to the investigation and until a decision to charge or otherwise is made? It's pretty standard procedure, and applies equally to federal investigations as to state ones. Otherwise, law enforcement would have a hard time investigating anything as they'd only be able to "suspect" a person had done something and hence not take anything. I trust you can see the flaw in your logic there.
4) How can you say, with absolute certainty, that there is nothing to support the possibility of a federal charge? Have you seen all the evidence? You will forgive me if I'm somewhat sceptical of that.