Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[Christo]

I'm trying to remember something. OJ's grand jury did not indict him. The judge ruled the jury was biased due to the media coverage or something. So OJ was charged some other way. Anyone remember that? I could be making this up. I just woke up thinking about this. I think Zimmerman could be no billed, ham sandwich and all.

IIRC the grand jury for OJ was dismissed (before they made any recommendation) due to excessive media coverage.I don't believe a grand jury is necessary to charge someone and bring them to trial.

Only capital crimes require grand jury indictment:

SECTION 15. Prosecution for crime; offenses committed by children.—

(a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=249639971&CFTOKEN=53678256

 

[Chaos Commish]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and no it's not. If it was, what a nightmare the hate crimes statute would be.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I'm trying to remember something. OJ's grand jury did not indict him. The judge ruled the jury was biased due to the media coverage or something. So OJ was charged some other way. Anyone remember that? I could be making this up. I just woke up thinking about this. I think Zimmerman could be no billed, ham sandwich and all.

IIRC the grand jury for OJ was dismissed (before they made any recommendation) due to excessive media coverage.I don't believe a grand jury is necessary to charge someone and bring them to trial.

Only capital crimes require grand jury indictment:

SECTION 15. Prosecution for crime; offenses committed by children.—

(a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=249639971&CFTOKEN=53678256

So if this goes the way of the OJ grand jury, then what?

 

[Christo]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

The Feds don't like to indict without a good shot at conviction. And to win they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin because of his race:

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249That's a pretty high hurdle.

 

[timschochet]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and no it's not. If it was, what a nightmare the hate crimes statute would be.

Glad you're so certain. But I've been listening to commentators on television with some expertise in the two federal acts I listed above who have a different opinion. (Oh and BTW: personally, I think the hate crimes act IS a nightmare. But it's on the books, just like Stand Your Ground. These are the laws we're stuck with.)

 

[identikit]

I'm trying to remember something. OJ's grand jury did not indict him. The judge ruled the jury was biased due to the media coverage or something. So OJ was charged some other way. Anyone remember that? I could be making this up. I just woke up thinking about this. I think Zimmerman could be no billed, ham sandwich and all.

IIRC the grand jury for OJ was dismissed (before they made any recommendation) due to excessive media coverage.I don't believe a grand jury is necessary to charge someone and bring them to trial.

Only capital crimes require grand jury indictment:

SECTION 15. Prosecution for crime; offenses committed by children.—

(a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

http://www.leg.state...FTOKEN=53678256

Is that true in California as well?I was just referring to the OJ situation.

No option to opt out of a grand jury and still go to trial in Florida, looks like..

 

[timschochet]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

The Feds don't like to indict without a good shot at conviction. And to win they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin because of his race:

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/249That's a pretty high hurdle.

Well, let's discuss it. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into a discussion about racism and society, or racism by the Sanford police: I'm only going to discuss what appear to be the facts of this case.)According to what I heard on TV, IF it can be proven that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that may be enough to indict and/or convict, based on the known facts of the case.

 

[Christo]

I'm trying to remember something. OJ's grand jury did not indict him. The judge ruled the jury was biased due to the media coverage or something. So OJ was charged some other way. Anyone remember that? I could be making this up. I just woke up thinking about this. I think Zimmerman could be no billed, ham sandwich and all.

IIRC the grand jury for OJ was dismissed (before they made any recommendation) due to excessive media coverage.I don't believe a grand jury is necessary to charge someone and bring them to trial.

Only capital crimes require grand jury indictment:

SECTION 15. Prosecution for crime; offenses committed by children.—

(a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=249639971&CFTOKEN=53678256

So if this goes the way of the OJ grand jury, then what?

To go to trial, the specially appointed state's attorney would have to submit an affidavit stating that there is sufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman.

 

[timschochet]

To my point- the following was reported a few days back on all the major news outlets:

Although the Justice Department two weeks ago publicly announced it would examine potential civil rights violations, the arrival of bureau agents represents a new phase in inquiries into the case.

A senior law enforcement official confirmed that one potential piece of evidence is records of Zimmerman’s prior 911 calls to police dispatchers.

This would seem to indicate that the feds are looking for a pattern of racial profiling by Zimmerman (which, IMO, is easily found, though some of you may debate that point.) If they find it, they can use this fact to charge him with a hate crime.

 

[Christo]

I'm trying to remember something. OJ's grand jury did not indict him. The judge ruled the jury was biased due to the media coverage or something. So OJ was charged some other way. Anyone remember that? I could be making this up. I just woke up thinking about this. I think Zimmerman could be no billed, ham sandwich and all.

IIRC the grand jury for OJ was dismissed (before they made any recommendation) due to excessive media coverage.I don't believe a grand jury is necessary to charge someone and bring them to trial.

Only capital crimes require grand jury indictment:

SECTION 15. Prosecution for crime; offenses committed by children.—

(a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

http://www.leg.state...FTOKEN=53678256

Is that true in California as well?I was just referring to the OJ situation.

No option to opt out of a grand jury and still go to trial in Florida, looks like..

An "information" is sufficient for a non-capital crime.That's the Florida Constitution.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

The Feds don't like to indict without a good shot at conviction. And to win they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin because of his race:

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/249That's a pretty high hurdle.

Well, let's discuss it. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into a discussion about racism and society, or racism by the Sanford police: I'm only going to discuss what appear to be the facts of this case.)According to what I heard on TV, IF it can be proven that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that may be enough to indict and/or convict, based on the known facts of the case.

Doesnt zimmerman have a history of mentioning race in his complaints to police ?

 

[Christo]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

The Feds don't like to indict without a good shot at conviction. And to win they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin because of his race:

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/249That's a pretty high hurdle.

Well, let's discuss it. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into a discussion about racism and society, or racism by the Sanford police: I'm only going to discuss what appear to be the facts of this case.)According to what I heard on TV, IF it can be proven that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that may be enough to indict and/or convict, based on the known facts of the case.

Read the statute and you tell me if what you heard on TV is a fair representation of its language.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Whites don't have civil rights. Pretty sure that is the message being sent.

message being sent by who?

I've been sending PMs to all the white FBGs letting them know they don't have civil rights.

 

[identikit]

I'm trying to remember something. OJ's grand jury did not indict him. The judge ruled the jury was biased due to the media coverage or something. So OJ was charged some other way. Anyone remember that? I could be making this up. I just woke up thinking about this. I think Zimmerman could be no billed, ham sandwich and all.

IIRC the grand jury for OJ was dismissed (before they made any recommendation) due to excessive media coverage.I don't believe a grand jury is necessary to charge someone and bring them to trial.

Only capital crimes require grand jury indictment:

SECTION 15. Prosecution for crime; offenses committed by children.—

(a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

http://www.leg.state...FTOKEN=53678256

Is that true in California as well?I was just referring to the OJ situation.

No option to opt out of a grand jury and still go to trial in Florida, looks like..

An "information" is sufficient for a non-capital crime.That's the Florida Constitution.

Ahh, Misread.

Thanks.

 

[timschochet]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

The Feds don't like to indict without a good shot at conviction. And to win they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin because of his race:

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/249That's a pretty high hurdle.

Well, let's discuss it. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into a discussion about racism and society, or racism by the Sanford police: I'm only going to discuss what appear to be the facts of this case.)According to what I heard on TV, IF it can be proven that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that may be enough to indict and/or convict, based on the known facts of the case.

Read the statute and you tell me if what you heard on TV is a fair representation of its language.

I did. I do. Of course, I'm only a layman. But based on the content of Zimmerman's 911 calls, it absolutely seems to apply.

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt zimmerman have a history of mentioning race in his complaints to police ?

From what I've read, yes. And this is why the feds may be able to construct a valid case here.If Zimmerman was following Martin that night due to the fact that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because, even in part, of Martin's skin color, then it can be argued from there that Martin would not have been shot to death that night if not for Martin being a black youth. Therefore Zimmerman is guilty of a civil rights act or hate crime and subject to prosecution.

This was the opinion of at least one legal expert I watched. I have no idea if it's valid. Sounds like it could be though.

 

[Christo]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

The feds got nothin'.

You don't know that. Also, they may not need anything beyond the basic facts of the case as we now know them. Armed Latino gets in confrontation with unarmed black youth. The black youth is shot dead. That may be enough for a federal indictment and trial.

The Feds don't like to indict without a good shot at conviction. And to win they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin because of his race:

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/249That's a pretty high hurdle.

Well, let's discuss it. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into a discussion about racism and society, or racism by the Sanford police: I'm only going to discuss what appear to be the facts of this case.)According to what I heard on TV, IF it can be proven that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that may be enough to indict and/or convict, based on the known facts of the case.

Read the statute and you tell me if what you heard on TV is a fair representation of its language.

I did. I do. Of course, I'm only a layman. But based on the content of Zimmerman's 911 calls, it absolutely seems to apply.

How? Profiling is not a hate crime. Willfully causing bodily injury to someone because of their race is a hate crime.

 

[Christo]

Doesnt zimmerman have a history of mentioning race in his complaints to police ?

From what I've read, yes. And this is why the feds may be able to construct a valid case here.If Zimmerman was following Martin that night due to the fact that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because, even in part, of Martin's skin color, then it can be argued from there that Martin would not have been shot to death that night if not for Martin being a black youth. Therefore Zimmerman is guilty of a civil rights act or hate crime and subject to prosecution.

This was the opinion of at least one legal expert I watched. I have no idea if it's valid. Sounds like it could be though.

That is not what the statute says.

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt zimmerman have a history of mentioning race in his complaints to police ?

From what I've read, yes. And this is why the feds may be able to construct a valid case here.If Zimmerman was following Martin that night due to the fact that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because, even in part, of Martin's skin color, then it can be argued from there that Martin would not have been shot to death that night if not for Martin being a black youth. Therefore Zimmerman is guilty of a civil rights act or hate crime and subject to prosecution.

This was the opinion of at least one legal expert I watched. I have no idea if it's valid. Sounds like it could be though.

That is not what the statute says.

the statue says an attempt to cause harm because of the "actual or perceived race" etc. I understand the distinction you are attempting to make here. Your claim is that even if Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that doesn't prove that the reason he shot Martin was due to Martin's skin color, and that the feds would have to prove the latter part is true in order to convict Zimmerman. Well, you could be right about this. Or you could be wrong, that the racial profiling is enough for a federal court to reach a conclusion. It all depends on how you interpret the law. You have a penchant for very strict interpretations, which is fine, but not all attorneys or legal experts share your strictness.

 

[Christo]

Doesnt zimmerman have a history of mentioning race in his complaints to police ?

From what I've read, yes. And this is why the feds may be able to construct a valid case here.If Zimmerman was following Martin that night due to the fact that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because, even in part, of Martin's skin color, then it can be argued from there that Martin would not have been shot to death that night if not for Martin being a black youth. Therefore Zimmerman is guilty of a civil rights act or hate crime and subject to prosecution.

This was the opinion of at least one legal expert I watched. I have no idea if it's valid. Sounds like it could be though.

That is not what the statute says.

the statue says an attempt to cause harm because of the "actual or perceived race" etc. I understand the distinction you are attempting to make here. Your claim is that even if Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that doesn't prove that the reason he shot Martin was due to Martin's skin color, and that the feds would have to prove the latter part is true in order to convict Zimmerman. Well, you could be right about this. Or you could be wrong, that the racial profiling is enough for a federal court to reach a conclusion. It all depends on how you interpret the law. You have a penchant for very strict interpretations, which is fine, but not all attorneys or legal experts share your strictness.

In order to secure a conviction the prosecution must introduce evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime. The elements here are (1) willfully causing bodily injury to a person (2) because of the person's race. There is no other way to interpret the law.

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt zimmerman have a history of mentioning race in his complaints to police ?

From what I've read, yes. And this is why the feds may be able to construct a valid case here.If Zimmerman was following Martin that night due to the fact that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because, even in part, of Martin's skin color, then it can be argued from there that Martin would not have been shot to death that night if not for Martin being a black youth. Therefore Zimmerman is guilty of a civil rights act or hate crime and subject to prosecution.

This was the opinion of at least one legal expert I watched. I have no idea if it's valid. Sounds like it could be though.

That is not what the statute says.

the statue says an attempt to cause harm because of the "actual or perceived race" etc. I understand the distinction you are attempting to make here. Your claim is that even if Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, that doesn't prove that the reason he shot Martin was due to Martin's skin color, and that the feds would have to prove the latter part is true in order to convict Zimmerman. Well, you could be right about this. Or you could be wrong, that the racial profiling is enough for a federal court to reach a conclusion. It all depends on how you interpret the law. You have a penchant for very strict interpretations, which is fine, but not all attorneys or legal experts share your strictness.

In order to secure a conviction the prosecution must introduce evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime. The elements here are (1) willfully causing bodily injury to a person (2) because of the person's race. There is no other way to interpret the law.

Actually, it appears there is. You may not agree with the interpretation. But you blanket statement that "there is no other way" simply isn't true, because I watched a former federal prosecutor last night on CNN intepret it differently than the way you have done.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Here you go Tim, making up for more of that institutionalized racism:

Institutionalized racism

Okay I know guys some kids having a bit of fun, everyone does it right...

I am sure you can certainly understand their actions...

 

[jon_mx]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

 

[timschochet]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

 

[Billy Bats]

Any new facts or evidence about the actual case?

 

[The Commish]

Hey you never know what the future holds. But your bet was for 4 hours. You'll lose that one.

Over/Under for Tim to bring up race, 4 hours.

You're right. I DON"T care about genuine discussion about when I bring up race. In fact it bores me. I was trying to lighten the mood.

I lost the four minute one, but I was well within the four hour one

 

[timschochet]

Hey you never know what the future holds. But your bet was for 4 hours. You'll lose that one.

Over/Under for Tim to bring up race, 4 hours.

You're right. I DON"T care about genuine discussion about when I bring up race. In fact it bores me. I was trying to lighten the mood.

I lost the four minute one, but I was well within the four hour one

What are you referring to?

 

[jon_mx]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

I am glad you aren't un a position to enforce laws..

 

[timschochet]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

I am glad you aren't un a position to enforce laws..

Me too. But it appears that those that are, will. And I'm having a little trouble understanding your motivation here. I understand you wanting to see that the law and justice are fairly administered. But are you actually rooting for this scumbag Zimmerman to get off? Why would anyone want that, based on what we know?

 

[Christo]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

I am glad you aren't un a position to enforce laws..

Me too. But it appears that those that are, will. And I'm having a little trouble understanding your motivation here. I understand you wanting to see that the law and justice are fairly administered. But are you actually rooting for this scumbag Zimmerman to get off? Why would anyone want that, based on what we know?

Link to anyone at the DOJ saying charges will be brought.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

I am glad you aren't un a position to enforce laws..

Me too. But it appears that those that are, will. And I'm having a little trouble understanding your motivation here. I understand you wanting to see that the law and justice are fairly administered. But are you actually rooting for this scumbag Zimmerman to get off? Why would anyone want that, based on what we know?

Dont you get it? its not about right or wrong , its about who can put on the better case. Who has the better lawyers. Who can get a jury to believe them and make the jury not believe the other side.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Just to be clear, still talking about an adult shooting an unharmed teenager, correct??

 

[SacramentoBob]

Any new facts or evidence about the actual case?

April 10th.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Taking bets on when this thread passes GMTAN in posts. They have 73,000 in two years. We have 7,300 in one month.

 

[timschochet]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

I am glad you aren't un a position to enforce laws..

Me too. But it appears that those that are, will. And I'm having a little trouble understanding your motivation here. I understand you wanting to see that the law and justice are fairly administered. But are you actually rooting for this scumbag Zimmerman to get off? Why would anyone want that, based on what we know?

Link to anyone at the DOJ saying charges will be brought.

Link to where I suggested that would happen? I wrote that experts on TV claim it's a possibility. I wrote that I trust that those in authority will enforce the laws. For someone who takes such a strict intepretation of everything, you're awfully quick to take my comments and draw your own conclusion out of them.

 

[renesauz]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

Except there is absolutely ZERO evidance that Zimmerman's actions had any racial prejudice at all behind them. ALl the relevant evidance on that matter shows the exact opposite. He was an equal opportunity zealot.Attack the police all you want...continuing to imply Zimm was racist is absurd.

 

[Fennis]

Whites don't have civil rights. Pretty sure that is the message being sent.

message being sent by who?

I've been sending PMs to all the white FBGs letting them know they don't have civil rights.

Thanks prior to yours I only was receiving the daily ones from Clinton.

 

[renesauz]

To my point- the following was reported a few days back on all the major news outlets:

Although the Justice Department two weeks ago publicly announced it would examine potential civil rights violations, the arrival of bureau agents represents a new phase in inquiries into the case.

A senior law enforcement official confirmed that one potential piece of evidence is records of Zimmerman’s prior 911 calls to police dispatchers.

This would seem to indicate that the feds are looking for a pattern of racial profiling by Zimmerman (which, IMO, is easily found, though some of you may debate that point.) If they find it, they can use this fact to charge him with a hate crime.

And if they do...I might just start a riot.

 

[timschochet]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

Except there is absolutely ZERO evidance that Zimmerman's actions had any racial prejudice at all behind them. ALl the relevant evidance on that matter shows the exact opposite. He was an equal opportunity zealot.Attack the police all you want...continuing to imply Zimm was racist is absurd.

I am not implying anything of the sort- legal experts on television are doing it for me. And as for your statement that there is ZERO evidence (similar to Chaos' statement that he is 100% convinced)- well, maybe the authorities will look at everything and agree with you. Or maybe they won't. The outcome is a bit unclear right now, which makes your certainty at this particular time a bit bewildering.

 

[Fennis]

To my point- the following was reported a few days back on all the major news outlets:

Although the Justice Department two weeks ago publicly announced it would examine potential civil rights violations, the arrival of bureau agents represents a new phase in inquiries into the case.

A senior law enforcement official confirmed that one potential piece of evidence is records of Zimmerman's prior 911 calls to police dispatchers.

This would seem to indicate that the feds are looking for a pattern of racial profiling by Zimmerman (which, IMO, is easily found, though some of you may debate that point.) If they find it, they can use this fact to charge him with a hate crime.

And if they do...I might just start a riot.

I don't get it.

 

[timschochet]

To my point- the following was reported a few days back on all the major news outlets:

Although the Justice Department two weeks ago publicly announced it would examine potential civil rights violations, the arrival of bureau agents represents a new phase in inquiries into the case.

A senior law enforcement official confirmed that one potential piece of evidence is records of Zimmerman's prior 911 calls to police dispatchers.

This would seem to indicate that the feds are looking for a pattern of racial profiling by Zimmerman (which, IMO, is easily found, though some of you may debate that point.) If they find it, they can use this fact to charge him with a hate crime.

And if they do...I might just start a riot.

Why? It might well be warranted. Don't know how you could possibly be sure at this time, one way or the other.

 

[Da Guru]

Taking bets on when this thread passes GMTAN in posts. They have 73,000 in two years. We have 7,300 in one month.

And 4500 of the posts are by only 5 members....just think if everybody did their share.

 

[Christo]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

I am glad you aren't un a position to enforce laws..

Me too. But it appears that those that are, will. And I'm having a little trouble understanding your motivation here. I understand you wanting to see that the law and justice are fairly administered. But are you actually rooting for this scumbag Zimmerman to get off? Why would anyone want that, based on what we know?

Link to anyone at the DOJ saying charges will be brought.

Link to where I suggested that would happen? I wrote that experts on TV claim it's a possibility. I wrote that I trust that those in authority will enforce the laws. For someone who takes such a strict intepretation of everything, you're awfully quick to take my comments and draw your own conclusion out of them.

You didn't say you trust that they will, you said it appears they will.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Its so frustrating reading peoples comments about the law and and zimmermans rights and saying he wont be proven guilty based on the laws in florida. How can any reasonable person even question if zimmerman is guilty of killing treyvon martin. Who cares if trey threw the first punch or pushed first .All that matters is he was minding his own business and zimmerman decided trey was doing something other than that. Then acted on it. Which led to treys totally unnecessary death.I couldnt even in good concience argue in zimmermans defense.Its disgusting that people do.Those that do come off like they have such little regard for human life.All they see is the way some words are written by some politician in 2005 and say thats all that matters.How many guilty scumbags go free on a technicality in court ? To many.A resonable person knows what happened the night trey was shot to death and if you dont theres something wrong with the way you`re wired.

 

[Fennis]

Taking bets on when this thread passes GMTAN in posts. They have 73,000 in two years. We have 7,300 in one month.

And 4500 of the posts are by only 5 members....just think if everybody did their share.

2500

 

[jonessed]

Just to be clear, still talking about an adult shooting an unharmed teenager, correct??

I'm pretty sure Martin was harmed.

 

[Chaos Commish]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

Except there is absolutely ZERO evidance that Zimmerman's actions had any racial prejudice at all behind them. ALl the relevant evidance on that matter shows the exact opposite. He was an equal opportunity zealot.Attack the police all you want...continuing to imply Zimm was racist is absurd.

I am not implying anything of the sort- legal experts on television are doing it for me. And as for your statement that there is ZERO evidence (similar to Chaos' statement that he is 100% convinced)- well, maybe the authorities will look at everything and agree with you. Or maybe they won't. The outcome is a bit unclear right now, which makes your certainty at this particular time a bit bewildering.

Where did I say that!? I said I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you link to your experts. I find dozens of articles but every time it's an expert they seem to think it is very unlikely standards can be met for a hate crime.Also, if Holder picks up the case, my cynical opinion is that it will be team Obama caving to the populist mob. Calling this a hate crime is absurd and ignorant, but the circus has fit that description so far, so...

 

[timschochet]

I can make an argument for anything. Thankfully, we live in a country where our laws protect us from being arrested just because someone can make an argument that you did something.

What's your point?

I am glad you aren't un a position to enforce laws..

Me too. But it appears that those that are, will. And I'm having a little trouble understanding your motivation here. I understand you wanting to see that the law and justice are fairly administered. But are you actually rooting for this scumbag Zimmerman to get off? Why would anyone want that, based on what we know?

Link to anyone at the DOJ saying charges will be brought.

Link to where I suggested that would happen? I wrote that experts on TV claim it's a possibility. I wrote that I trust that those in authority will enforce the laws. For someone who takes such a strict intepretation of everything, you're awfully quick to take my comments and draw your own conclusion out of them.

You didn't say you trust that they will, you said it appears they will.

ENFORCE THE LAWS. Enforcing the law does not necessarily mean charges will be brought. It might mean no charges will be brought. Again, what happened to your strict intepretations?

 

[timschochet]

If the local authorites either fail to indict Zimmerman or are unable to secure a conviction due to the Stand Your Ground law, the fact that the federal authorities are also investigating this matter means he could be charged with a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1969 Federal Hate Crlmes Law. This is the way that ultimately, the two police officers who assaulted Rodney King went to prison. If Zimmerman is indicted for either of these acts, it's my understanding that Stand Your Ground will afford him no protection whatsoever, as it is a state law.

Except there is absolutely ZERO evidance that Zimmerman's actions had any racial prejudice at all behind them. ALl the relevant evidance on that matter shows the exact opposite. He was an equal opportunity zealot.Attack the police all you want...continuing to imply Zimm was racist is absurd.

I am not implying anything of the sort- legal experts on television are doing it for me. And as for your statement that there is ZERO evidence (similar to Chaos' statement that he is 100% convinced)- well, maybe the authorities will look at everything and agree with you. Or maybe they won't. The outcome is a bit unclear right now, which makes your certainty at this particular time a bit bewildering.

Where did I say that!? I said I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you link to your experts. I find dozens of articles but every time it's an expert they seem to think it is very unlikely standards can be met for a hate crime.Also, if Holder picks up the case, my cynical opinion is that it will be team Obama caving to the populist mob. Calling this a hate crime is absurd and ignorant, but the circus has fit that description so far, so...

I wish I could link to the experts but they were on TV. Doesn't matter though? If the feds indict, there will be experts everywhere on all sides arguing about it. If they don't indict, it's a non issue.

 

[Christo]

Its so frustrating reading peoples comments about the law and and zimmermans rights and saying he wont be proven guilty based on the laws in florida. How can any reasonable person even question if zimmerman is guilty of killing treyvon martin. Who cares if trey threw the first punch or pushed first .All that matters is he was minding his own business and zimmerman decided trey was doing something other than that. Then acted on it. Which led to treys totally unnecessary death.I couldnt even in good concience argue in zimmermans defense.Its disgusting that people do.Those that do come off like they have such little regard for human life.All they see is the way some words are written by some politician in 2005 and say thats all that matters.How many guilty scumbags go free on a technicality in court ? To many.A resonable person knows what happened the night trey was shot to death and if you dont theres something wrong with the way you`re wired.

Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And @ you knowing what happened that night.