Zimmerman Not guilty

[Berzerker]

Form, SS edited his post in response to your edit

 

[Janusi]

I'm getting a little confused. Do you lose your right to self-defense if you aren't armed with a gun?

 

[timtofly]

A gun is not the only weapon available to humans.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm getting a little confused. Do you lose your right to self-defense if you aren't armed with a gun?

Do you lose it if you are?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Not Guilty?

Haha, this is America. Zimmerman isn't home free yet.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-doj-investigation,0,4338518.story

The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.

The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation....

That email address, which is now in operation, is Sanford.florida@usdoj.gov.

Eric Holder is really gunning for this guy. Zimmerman needs to get a job on Wall Street if he wants relief.

I'm surprised his tax records haven't been leaked yet.

 

[warpus]

I thought you could only charge the same person with the same crime once? What would he be charged with in this case?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Boring my pants of with his existence.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I thought you could only charge the same person with the same crime once? What would he be charged with in this case?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/u...trayvon-martins-death.html?ref=ushttp://&_r=0

The Justice Department said Sunday that it was restarting its investigation into the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin to consider possible separate hate crime charges against George Zimmerman.

Evidently a crime isn't necessary to be charged with a hate crime.

Can we call this a race-based circus yet? Or does it need special balloons and stuff?

I wonder how long they can keep the investigation open so George Zimmerman can have "who is under federal investigation" inserted after his name in news reports for years to come.

 

[timtofly]

I thought you could only charge the same person with the same crime once? What would he be charged with in this case?

Hopefully not the same line of prosecution used during the first trial.

More than likely a wrongful death suit, but in Florida, it may be a mute point.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I thought you could only charge the same person with the same crime once? What would he be charged with in this case?

There is a federal safety net when the local authorities are either incompetent or deliberately let off someone who committed a hate crime, or a crime where someone's civil rights were violated. The last such case which comes to mind is when those two men were let off after murdering an undocumented immigrant in Pennsylvania.

Men convicted of hate crime sentenced to 9 years in prison

CNN) -- Two Pennsylvania men convicted of a hate crime in the beating death of an undocumented Mexican immigrant were each sentenced Wednesday to spend nine years behind bars, according to a U.S. District Court statement.

Derrick Donchak, of Shenandoah, and Brandon Piekarsky, of Shenandoah Heights, were found guilty in federal court in October of several charges, including hate crimes and depriving the victim Luis Ramirez of his civil rights.

The two were acquitted of murder charges in state court and convicted of simple assault.

During the federal trial, witnesses testified that racist language was used before and during the attack and that Ramirez was kicked in the head repeatedly after he fell down. The defendants, they said, didn't want immigrants in their neighborhood and repeatedly ordered Ramirez to leave.
Attorneys for the defendants said the encounter had been no more than a fight fueled by testosterone and alcohol.

Three former Pennsylvania police officers were also charged, accused of trying to cover up the incident.

In January, a federal jury found former Shenandoah Police Chief Matthew Nestor and officers William Moyer and Jason Hayes not guilty of conspiracy to obstruct a federal investigation in Ramirez's July 2008 death.

Nestor, however, was found guilty of falsifying reports, and Moyer was convicted of lying to the FBI.
Hayes, who was also accused of falsifying police reports, was acquitted of the two charges against him.

I don't think a 9-year sentence is sufficient for murdering someone, but it is better than nothing.

I wonder how long they can keep the investigation open so George Zimmerman can have "who is under federal investigation" inserted after his name in news reports for years to come.

He was actually "under federal investigation" until the state of Florida finally decided they had enough evidence to charge him under that ludicrous "stand your ground" law.

 

[classical_hero]

The federal case is a clear witch hunt. There was no evidence that he was racially motivated. Hate crimes are an abomination to free society.

 

[timtofly]

The parents really have no where else to turn. They should probably just forget their son was shot at close range.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The federal case is a clear witch hunt. There was no evidence that he was racially motivated. Hate crimes are an abomination to free society.

It's funny how so many from the far-right seem to really fear and despise hate crime laws.

But in this particular case, I don't think you have much to worry about. I haven't heard about an expert yet who thinks there is sufficient grounds. But they are basing that on evidence presented during this trial. If the feds come up with other witnesses who can show that George Zimmerman was more racially motivated than he was based on the evidence we now know it could be sufficient to proceed, especially with the expanded hate crimes law that Obama signed in 2009.

The hate crimes law President Barack Obama championed and signed in 2009 makes it easier to pursue a federal criminal case against George Zimmerman over the death of Trayvon Martin.

But whether or not the the ongoing Justice Department investigation into Martin’s killing results in a prosecution under the statute — which many experts doubt it will — the measure may soon grab the legal spotlight anyway: There’s a growing sense that one of several simmering challenges to the hate crimes law will be taken up by the Supreme Court.

That’s because the expansion Obama green-lighted in 2009 is under attack by conservative legal activists who contend the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the authority it now claims to prosecute race-based hate crimes anywhere they occur, even when the events in question have none of the traditional elements used to invoke federal jurisdiction.

When Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the East Room in October 2009, it was the first-ever inclusion of crimes based on sexual orientation — an issue so controversial it lingered in Congress for more than a decade — that grabbed the headlines.
But that addition wasn’t the only notable change to the law. The other was the removal of a longstanding requirement that such crimes have some connection to interstate commerce, or to “federally protected activities” such as voting or applying for federal benefits.

The decision to allow prosecutions without what lawyers call a “federal nexus” was an “extremely important” development, said a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official Samuel Bagenstos.

“The problem federal prosecutors had pursuing hate crimes in the past was that the victim had to be involved in a federally protected activity,” said Bagenstos, now a law professor at the University of Michigan. “….We ended up arguing sometimes that walking on a public street was a federally protected activity.”
And so the fact that the deadly encounter between Zimmerman and Martin took place in a gated community, on private property, would have made it difficult to prosecute Zimmerman under pre-2009 laws — but not under the statute passed four years ago.

Of course, said Bagenstos, that would not necessarily be the biggest problem in prosecuting Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watch activist acquitted of murder charges in state court on Saturday. The former No. 2 in the Civil Rights Division said a major concern would likely be the lack of direct evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race in the confrontation that ended with him shooting Martin.

“The standard paradigm to prove racial intent is the defendant made statements about the victim’s race, or an attack by a group of people who went out together looking for a person of a particular race,” Bagenstos said. “It’s difficult to prove a case like this where two people were involved and there are no other witnesses: One is dead, and the other one doesn’t have to testify.”

There is also the matter that the judge specifically forbade the prosecution from using the phrase "racially profiled" despite them thinking they had more than sufficient reason to do so. While it may not be sufficient grounds to appeal the verdict, it could come into play with a civil rights violation case or even a civil case.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Double post.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont like criticizing jurors, I dont want juries thinking about "us" when deciding cases and I'm not impressed by "activists" trashing jurors when it dont go their way.

and I still believe jurors should know the range of sentences attached to charges and should do the sentencing, not politicians and judges

 

[Formaldehyde]

So apparently:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Its ok to shoot someone if they're black and wearing a threatening hoodie.

To summarize the thread so far, the Zimmerman supporters claim race had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was entirely the threatening hoodie while being worn by someone who coincidentally wasn't white, Hispanic, Asian, or native American.

 

[Antilogic]

I dont like criticizing jurors, I dont want juries thinking about "us" when deciding cases and I'm not impressed by "activists" trashing jurors when it dont go their way.

and I still believe jurors should know the range of sentences attached to charges and should do the sentencing, not politicians and judges

This is where the real shift has been in the last couple decades, with mandatory minimum sentencing and stuff like that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Fortunately, jurors have not had anything to do with sentencing except for whether to inflict the absurd death penalty. That was the role of the judge until the "law-and-order" conservatives took it almost completely out of their purview because they were too "liberal". And this is the tragic result:

 

[Berzerker]

your graphs show the results of the drug war

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is certainly an element of it. But so are the effects of draconian "law and order" criminal statute changes which started with the Reagan administration that affected all sentences, not just those having to do with drugs.