FBI considering hate crime charges against Zimmerman #1

[stmarysmead]

Yes, and we are discussing whether hate charges will or should be filed.

In every court of law, comparisons are drawn to other legal cases. If GZ can be charged, the topic of whether Ooley should also be investigated is appropriate to the discussion.

This case does not exist in a vaccum. The grief of onefamily does not trump another. Are we to pretend that a disparity in the treating of two SYG cases will not be noticed by the public, the lawyers...and it is already in the MSM media.

It is fair to ask why TM's case should have Fed chargesif Dolley's doesn"t? We don"t need to discuss any more About the Dooley case than that.

 

[stmarysmead]

Every case which goes to trial does not cite precedent. Some cases set precedent where none existed before. However, the law which gives the Federal Goverment jurisdiction in hate crime cases is well established by precedent.

Then the Dooley case should be investigated too.We all need to be equal before the Law. And if it is NOT, then there should be mo charges against GZ.

Or do we now if unequal treatment under the law? If we need to know if GZ was a racist, we also need to know when the races are reversed.

Withnall due respect, we all want a color blind society and that it what Hate crime laws are supposed to,exist to promote. That should work in all directions.

 

[zenreaper]

Right, you are absolutely right. A person has no rights when they come up against someone with a gun. I can see it all clearly now.

Maybe the laws should be changed to no more concealing weapons. If you have a license to carry it should be fully visible just like a police officer. I mean if you are going to do the job you just called LE to do, why not have that gun out so people will know they have no right to defend themselves against you. There you have it. TM would have never died had the gun been fully visible because he would know for sure if he moved one inch or didn't answer GZ's questions, GZ would probably shoot him. That would have leveled the playing field.

If you claim GZ had a right to defend himself because of fear, TM should have been afforded the same right. We know he was already fearful and GZ found him hiding. Carrying a gun requires a great deal of responsibility. One of those would be to let LE do their job and not decide to pursue "your" suspect on your own disregarding a direction from LE. He was not helping people, he was creating his own confrontation. jmo

<modsnip> First, if you assault someone with a gun, no, you DON'T have any rights. Did TM assault GZ? Sure looks that way. As for no more concealing guns, why not? Why SHOULDN'T a person worry about ATTACKING someone else? All that would do was make the vunerable people easier for criminals to spot.

I am curious as to where you found evidence that GZ "found" TM where he was hiding, as the evidence I am aware of is pretty clear that TM approached GZ.

 

[annalia]

This was in reference to a post that was deleted about a case where a Black man killed an unarmed white teen.

But the Dooley case is more pertinent. It is a SYG case in Fla. Only the races are reversed. Mr. Dolley is awaiting trial. My questions are:

1. should the Feds be looking into possible Hate crime charges in this case because it involes two different races

2. should the groups this Black man belongs to, his friends and enemies be equally scrutinized? shouldn't their be aninvestigation into evetything he has said or written to see if White Hate could be involved?

Both cases have tragic deaths, people grieving, only oneperson withnagun...should they not be treated the same by our government no matter WHAT SKIN HUE? We are all citizens.

3. And should all this and the media reports about Mr. Dooley's words and actions precede his trial as they have with GZ?

my bolding

Another illogical comparison.

First of all, theDooley case isn't about a black man who killed a white teen. The victim was a grown man with a wife and children. Dooley was also arrested within 48 hours of the shooting.

And the Dooley case has been in the media, the many reports preceded his SYG hearing and trial, perhaps you missed it but the victim's wife has also been shown in the media numerous times, it was hearbreaking to see and hear her when she spoke about her husband coming back from war, having survived war only to be gunned down right where he lives. I don't recall hearing complaints about it being unfair to Dooley.

Not every case is comparable to another, they all stand on their own with different details and merits.

And BTW, Trevor Dooley's SYG defense was just recently shot down by a judge, the judge ruled that Dooley was the aggressor. Maybe we should make it a conspiracy and say it was because of the victim's wife going in front of the media, or maybe we should make it a conspiracy and say the judge shot it down because Dooley is black and the victim was white?

Anyone can turn something into anything.

JMHO

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

IMHO.. Its more than sad we now know a straightline shot through the chest at an intermediate range is what killed an unarmed teenager who I suspect was attempting to get away from an out of control... EGO driven... crazed man with a gun..IMHO It is blatantly obvious GZ made a decision that night to hunt down Trayvon Martin.. IMHO a straightline shot to the heart using a hollowpoint bullet constitutes being cold blooded murder..GZ deserves to spend the rest of his natural born days locked up behind bars. JMHO

ITA with you, Emeralgem...it's more egregious than I first thought. It does appear GZ is the one who is out of control and has been since at least 2005, when it appears all his troubles started and he has yet to recover....In the end it will be the FBI who gets the final word if this is a hate crime or not..if it comes out to be a hate crime, GZ will probably face the DP...it would elevate the murder II charge...I don't believe it will go that way...but GZ should be kept away from society...He's a danger...

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

BBM

I've asked before, and I'll ask again, what evidence exists that TM attacked or initiated a confrontation that didn't come from George Zimmerman? I'm not asking about evidence that certainly exists as to who got the upper hand in the physical aspect of this confrontation, but what witness or reasonable circumstance exists that compels the statement that TM attacked GZ?

If an accused murderer's statements have serious problems regarding WHEN he says the confrontation happened, WHERE he says the confrontation happened, and, to a certain extent, HOW he says the confrontation happened, is it reasonable or logical to accept as absolute WHY he says the confrontation happened?

There is none, Papa...only the words of GZ who I believe lost credibility, he should not be believed and anything he states should be scrutinized...he's already proven to me to be a liar...

 

[tehcloser]

Then the Dooley case should be investigated too.We all need to be equal before the Law. And if it is NOT, then there should be mo charges against GZ.

Or do we now if unequal treatment under the law? If we need to know if GZ was a racist, we also need to know when the races are reversed.

Withnall due respect, we all want a color blind society and that it what Hate crime laws are supposed to,exist to promote. That should work in all directions.

Not every crime is a hate crime just because it happens between two different races. This one is being investigated to see if it is. The Dooley case is not. For every Dooley, I'm sure we can find a Zimmerman where hate charges were not sought either. But this is about Trayvon.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

He was out in the driveway. He Could have stayed inside. He could have waited for police. Why didn't he stay inside like you want GZ to stay in his car?

Do we know if e ever bullied anyone, what medications he was on...if he ever used ethic slurs against Whites? Maybe the Feds should be pursuing this? If he DID...he might have profiled this nice White teen. Would he have shot a Black teen?

We want ALL hate crimes treated equally, right? Is it fair that GZ has received scrutiny that this Man has not?

You can't apply it straight across the board..it's on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the crime, the racial undertones...you just can't compare one case to the other when there are different facts in each case. Same for the DP, it's on a case by case decision depending on how egregious, heinous, horrendous the crime is...that is my belief..

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Many many problem with this post, lets start at the beginning. First, if you assault someone with a gun, no, you DON'T have any rights. Did TM assault GZ? Sure looks that way. As for no more concealing guns, why not? Why SHOULDN'T a person worry about ATTACKING someone else? All that would do was make the vunerable people easier for criminals to spot.

I am curious as to where you found evidence that GZ "found" TM where he was hiding, as the evidence I am aware of is pretty clear that TM approached GZ.

BBM

It looking less and less that way with TM only having one small mark on his ring finger of the left hand! Had he beat the beejesus out of GZ, I'd expect his prominant hand to be full of bruises...so it doesn't appear the way GZ claims..I believe TM did not do as GZ states...

 

[Lovelymountains]

BBM

I've asked before, and I'll ask again, what evidence exists that TM attacked or initiated a confrontation that didn't come from George Zimmerman? I'm not asking about evidence that certainly exists as to who got the upper hand in the physical aspect of this confrontation, but what witness or reasonable circumstance exists that compels the statement that TM attacked GZ?

If an accused murderer's statements have serious problems regarding WHEN he says the confrontation happened, WHERE he says the confrontation happened, and, to a certain extent, HOW he says the confrontation happened, is it reasonable or logical to accept as absolute WHY he says the confrontation happened?

In a legally well established instruction to juries, judges may instruct that if a jury finds that a witness lied in one instance, they may disregard that statement and everything else the witness said in his testimony. I believe that in GZ's statements of which we know the content although much has been withheld, there are numerous claims which can be easily disproved. Ergo he lied, so all of his testimony if he takes the stand, can be discounted. His statements have been withheld from the public, IMO, because they contain confessions of guilt. They have also been catagorized as containing inconsistencies which is a rather nicer way of saying he lied.

The most important and glaringingly deficient claims, IMO, in the witness testimony so far is how it begain and how it ended. Given the small part of GZ's history which we know, and IMO there is much more to be revealed, it is logical to assume he was the agressor. We know for a fact that he was the murderer. He admitted it. We have a definite idea as to his motive. So I hope that the DOJ takes up where the SA leaves off.

 

[Lovelymountains]

BBM

It looking less and less that way with TM only having one small mark on his ring finger of the left hand! Had he beat the beejesus out of GZ, I'd expect his prominant hand to be full of bruises...so it doesn't appear the way GZ claims..I believe TM did not do as GZ states...

Yes, I think you're right. And I don't think it will escape a jury's notice that TM didn't have a mark on him; Quite unusual, IMO, for a person who started a fight and beat someone within an inch of his life, anecdotes aside. (I don't think unrelated anecdotes are considered evidence, nor are they admissable in a trial.) Well there is that teeny, tiny mark on the ring finger of his left hand, not even on the knuckle...and the hole in his chest. The standard is what a reasonable person would deduce. I deduce that GZ was the agressor and at no time did TM land a blow sufficient to even have a mark on his knuckles.

 

[persnickety]

Yes, I think you're right. And I don't think it will escape a jury's notice that TM didn't have a mark on him; Quite unusual, IMO, for a person who started a fight and beat someone within an inch of his life, anecdotes aside. (I don't think unrelated anecdotes are considered evidence, nor are they admissable in a trial.) Well there is that teeny, tiny mark on the ring finger of his left hand, not even on the knuckle...and the hole in his chest. The standard is what a reasonable person would deduct. I deduct that GZ was the agressor and at no time did TM land a blow sufficient to even have a mark on his knuckles.

Thank you for your post.

 

[gxm]

I think it is a safety net to hold rogue State judicial districts accountable in hate crimes. It allows the Feds to intervene in many more questionable local cases than before, the way I interpret that law...
Wonder if the Daniel Adkins case is on their radar since he was mentally disabled.

Yes. I understand that, but IMO hate crime legislation violates basic human rights because it does not protect all citizens. For instance, say there is a husband who kills his wife in a fit of hateful rage (both the same race) and, because he is well-liked and respected in the community and has many friends in high places, he is either found not guilty or receives a light sentence perhaps without even spending any time in jail. Where is the recourse to right this wrong? The hate crime legislation doesn't protect this victim; instead it singles out specific people for special protection. IMO, this is a serious violation of human rights because the law clearly doesn't protect everyone. Further, IMO, it seems an awful lot like double jeopardy, and it has a unsettling similarity to a public, government-sanctioned lynching.

If the feds really are jumping through hoops to dig up any little bit of racially insensitive dirt they can find on GZ, then IMO Americans should take a very hard look at and question the integrity of hate crime laws.

IANAL, JMO, OMO, and MOO

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

A crime motivated by racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation, or other prejudice.

Hate crimes are based, at least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding a particular status of the victim. Hate-crime statutes were first passed by legislatures in the late 1980s and early 1990s in response to studies that indicated an increase in crimes motivated by prejudice. Approximately 30 states and the federal government have some form of hate-crime statute. Many localities have also enacted their own hate-crime ordinances.

The precise definition of hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property. In all states, the victim's actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay.


more
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hate+Crimes

 

[leanaí]

Yes, I think you're right. And I don't think it will escape a jury's notice that TM didn't have a mark on him; Quite unusual, IMO, for a person who started a fight and beat someone within an inch of his life, anecdotes aside. (I don't think unrelated anecdotes are considered evidence, nor are they admissable in a trial.) Well there is that teeny, tiny mark on the ring finger of his left hand, not even on the knuckle...and the hole in his chest. The standard is what a reasonable person would deduce. I deduce that GZ was the agressor and at no time did TM land a blow sufficient to even have a mark on his knuckles.

He could have hit him with the Ice Tea.

 

[Aedrys]

He could have hit him with the Ice Tea.

There is no proof that the ice tea ever left his pocket. Surely it would have been found on the ground or still in TM's hand if he hit GZ with it. I have not seen anything in evidence to suggest that. All I have seen is that ice tea and skittles were in his pocket.

 

[Aedrys]

Yes. I understand that, but IMO hate crime legislation violates basic human rights because it does not protect all citizens. For instance, say there is a husband who kills his wife in a fit of hateful rage (both the same race) and, because he is well-liked and respected in the community and has many friends in high places, he is either found not guilty or receives a light sentence perhaps without even spending any time in jail. Where is the recourse to right this wrong? The hate crime legislation doesn't protect this victim; instead it singles out specific people for special protection. IMO, this is a serious violation of human rights because the law clearly doesn't protect everyone. Further, IMO, it seems an awful lot like double jeopardy, and it has a unsettling similarity to a public, government-sanctioned lynching.

If the feds really are jumping through hoops to dig up any little bit of racially insensitive dirt they can find on GZ, then IMO Americans should take a very hard look at and question the integrity of hate crime laws.
IANAL, JMO, OMO, and MOO

BBM. Or maybe Americans should take a hard look at themselves if racism is still such a huge issue that these laws are needed.

 

[HiHater]

He could have hit him with the Ice Tea.

Then the can should be dented to some degree, there should be blood on it, something. The can of iced tea was removed from his pocket (on the hoodie), so if there was evidence of this, I'm sure we would know it.

JMO

 

[persnickety]

He could have hit him with the Ice Tea.

Somehow I don't believe that happened. First off, the can was in Trayvon's hoodie's pocket and only came out when he was rolled over to start CPR. Secondly, I would imagine if the can of tea had been used as a weapon, you would have seen a dent in the can or at the very least something written in the police reports about it.

 

[magnolia]

Yes, I think you're right. And I don't think it will escape a jury's notice that TM didn't have a mark on him; Quite unusual, IMO, for a person who started a fight and beat someone within an inch of his life, anecdotes aside. (I don't think unrelated anecdotes are considered evidence, nor are they admissable in a trial.) Well there is that teeny, tiny mark on the ring finger of his left hand, not even on the knuckle...and the hole in his chest. The standard is what a reasonable person would deduce. I deduce that GZ was the agressor and at no time did TM land a blow sufficient to even have a mark on his knuckles.

You are incorrect. TM had an abrasion on his left finger. An abrasion is a wearing, grinding, or rubbing away by friction.


I think it's very possible Trayvon abraded his finger (rubbed away by friction),on the concrete sidewalk while continually beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete.

IMO