AnaTeresa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 132
well, technically....all of them?
re: Civil Rights
A lot of these rights are protections for citizens from the government. An individual person generally cannot violate another person's civil rights. Take freedom of speech, for example. This means that, within reason, you are allowed to say what you will. Another person cannot really restrict that. If they hit you to shut you up - that's assault, not a restraint on speech. The restraint would be if there was a city ordinance that said you couldn't talk about X topic.
Generally, civil rights are the idea of equality before the law.
Now, more broadly - as far as the basic human rights that all people have, then yes, an argument could be made that Casey violated those rights. However, we don't have laws based upon that, as those concepts are the backbone of different laws that we make, such as murder statutes, robbery, etc. Also, a lot of the punishment of crime is left to the states because of the way our civil rights were set up. They believed that the people were more likely to have justice served by more local-based governments.
I understand that people are frustrated with the ruling, but a civil rights violation is not likely to go anywhere. Other things, like a civil trial, or finding other criminal violations, would probably have more luck.