Zimmerman may be charged with a hate crime

[JakeStarkey]

Ariux gets insulted, and he whines.

Man up and confront your inner doosh.

 

[Liability]

Ariux gets insulted, and he whines.

Man up and confront your inner doosh.

Ariyucks cannot man up. Impossible.

But when he confronts his inner douche, he discovers that it is also his outer douche.

He is all douche all the time.

Come on. You know that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Ariux]

Double jeopardy only protects you from being held in jeopardy against the same offence. [A federal charge and a state charge, by definition, are not the "same offence", because of dual sovereignty - one is an offence against a state, another, and offence against the United States. See Heath v. Alabama (1985).

That bullshit is another example of how trying to coddle the Afro animal population has stripped us of our Constitution rights and protections. An offense is the same offense, regardless of what level of government is charging you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I haven't even pieced together how this would work. Double jeopardy. They can't try him for the same crime twice, but apparently if you change what it's called, then you've changed the charge. Right?

Basically, it's a different crime both because the law he's being charged with violating is a different one, and because it's a different jurisdiction doing it.

Seems like a candyass dodge around Constitutional protections to me, but I suppose it's technically legit.

I'd love to know how they plan to prove he committed a hate crime if the state can't even prove he did it intentionally and maliciously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think it is a hate crime, and I need more information re: who is behind this, and why they think they have a case. It could just be some idiot in that department looking to make a name for himself.

Could be someone thinks Zimmerman will be stampeded into accepting a plea deal with prison time in the state case if he thinks he's facing a federal trial on acquittal, especially since the federal trial appears to carry the possibility of the death penalty.

After all, if he quits fighting it and takes a plea, then they can continue trying to use him and this case to advance gun control laws. As long as he keeps declaring his innocence and people keep rallying to him, he's fucking up that agenda.

 

[Cecilie1200]

State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

If that's true then the crime would satisfy the hate crime statute, would it not?

IF that's true, but that's an "if" that's never going to be proven true, at least not if the law is actually followed.

There appears to be absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman "profiled and stalked" anyone, and last time I checked, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I haven't even pieced together how this would work. Double jeopardy. They can't try him for the same crime twice, but apparently if you change what it's called, then you've changed the charge. Right?

It's not a charge of murder the charge is "hate crime." Different charges entirely so it's not double jeopardy.

I don't even see how the murder charge happened, since it was not premeditated.

This I can actually answer.

Premeditation would have made it FIRST-degree murder, with greater penalties.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder precisely because it was NOT premeditated.

Under Florida law, apparently, second-degree murder comes in two flavors:

1) Murder with a Depraved Mind - when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

2) Accomplice Felony Murder - when you are an accomplice to a person who kills another human being while engaged in the commission, or attempted commission, of statutorily enumerated felonies, regardless of whether they intended the death.

One assumes the first one is what the prosecutor is going for in the case of Zimmerman, since he hasn't been charged with committing or aiding in the commission of any other felonies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I despise the Orwellian "Thought Police" definition of 'hate crimes'.

Why should a white dude get a harsher sentence for killing a black guy than if that same white guy was to invade my Granny's home and kill her?
(we can transpose the words 'white' and 'black' if it makes anybody uncomfortable)

Okay - but this is a man's life. It's not abstract.

It's two men's lives. One who died already, and one who stands to lose his "life" to an accusation that his thoughts at one point in time were "hateful".

Dunno why you're putting quotation marks around life there. I believe the federal hate crime statute actually does carry the possibility of the the death penalty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Charging Zimmerman with a hate crime has less to do with Zimmerman than it has to do with the next person who is threatend by a young black thug. You take action at your peril. You might well find your actions that save your life then have that life taken from you by a government that objects to your fighting back against young black thugs.

In spite of the fact that I am regarded as a "leftist" by the right-wing faction of this forum I would be inclined to agree with you except for one thing; I have heard absolutely nothing to suggest that Trayvon Martin was doing anything wrong. He had gone out to a store and was returning home. The only thing I recall Zimmerman reporting in his 911 call is the individual he was following was "acting suspiciously," which is completely subjective.

Did I miss something? Is there any substantive reason to believe Zimmerman was observing anything overtly suspicious in Martin's behavior, e.g., looking in windows, trying doors, entering onto private property, etc.? Because without any such cause neither Zimmerman nor any police officer would have a right to accost and question Martin.

Briefly stated; if Martin was doing something to justify Zimmerman's attention and then Martin attacked Zimmerman for stopping him, then I'm on Zimmerman's side. Otherwise Zimmerman ended a young life without just cause and has visited tormenting misery on Martin's parents who seem like decent, law-abiding people.

Martin was wandering along slowly, at night and in the rain, along the backs of the townhouses, and apparently gawking at each of them. That actually is suspicious enough to have the neighborhood watch summon the police to clarify who you are and what you're doing in the neighborhood, particularly if you're not known to live in the area and extra-particularly if it's a gated community and you're not known to live there. It's pretty routine, and not a big deal, unless you decide to make it one. Trayvon Martin apparently decided to make it one.

You're very mistaken about what justifies the neighbors to be suspicious and what justifies the cops driving by and asking you a few questions. When my daughter was a teenager, she was once stopped by a cop on the way home from the corner convenience store just because it was late in the evening. He didn't detain her or anything; he just drove up next to her and asked her her name, if she lived nearby, why she was on the street at that time of night, and if her parents knew where she was. She could have refused to answer, I suppose, but it wasn't a big deal.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Double jeopardy only protects you from being held in jeopardy against the same offence. [A federal charge and a state charge, by definition, are not the "same offence", because of dual sovereignty - one is an offence against a state, another, and offence against the United States. See Heath v. Alabama (1985).

That bullshit is another example of how trying to coddle the Afro animal population has stripped us of our Constitution rights and protections. An offense is the same offense, regardless of what level of government is charging you.

"An offense is the same offense" - what offense is the same offense? Any? You can only ever be charged once for any crime?

They're two separate crimes. If you rob a post office in Indiana and take a man hostage from the robbery into Illionois and kill him there, are you telling me that if Illinois charges you with murder the federal government can't charge you with robbing a post office and Indiana can't charge you with kidnapping? That would be absurd!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

IF that's true, but that's an "if" that's never going to be proven true, at least not if the law is actually followed.

Is there some law saying George Zimmerman can' tbe charged with a hate crime?

There appears to be absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman "profiled and stalked" anyone, and last time I checked, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty.

That's for a jury to determine, not Cecillie1200.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Double jeopardy only protects you from being held in jeopardy against the same offence. [A federal charge and a state charge, by definition, are not the "same offence", because of dual sovereignty - one is an offence against a state, another, and offence against the United States. See Heath v. Alabama (1985).

That bullshit is another example of how trying to coddle the Afro animal population has stripped us of our Constitution rights and protections. An offense is the same offense, regardless of what level of government is charging you.

"An offense is the same offense" - what offense is the same offense? Any? You can only ever be charged once for any crime?

They're two separate crimes. If you rob a post office in Indiana and take a man hostage from the robbery into Illionois and kill him there, are you telling me that if Illinois charges you with murder the federal government can't charge you with robbing a post office and Indiana can't charge you with kidnapping? That would be absurd!

Actually, I think at that point, the whole mess would become federal jurisdiction first and foremost: you robbed a Post Office, you kidnapped and killed a federal employee while he was on the job (I'm assuming the man in your example was a postal employee), and you took him across state lines.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That bullshit is another example of how trying to coddle the Afro animal population has stripped us of our Constitution rights and protections. An offense is the same offense, regardless of what level of government is charging you.

"An offense is the same offense" - what offense is the same offense? Any? You can only ever be charged once for any crime?

They're two separate crimes. If you rob a post office in Indiana and take a man hostage from the robbery into Illionois and kill him there, are you telling me that if Illinois charges you with murder the federal government can't charge you with robbing a post office and Indiana can't charge you with kidnapping? That would be absurd!

Actually, I think at that point, the whole mess would become federal jurisdiction first and foremost: you robbed a Post Office, you kidnapped and killed a federal employee while he was on the job (I'm assuming the man in your example was a postal employee), and you took him across state lines.

LOL! Well your "thoughts" aren't actually what the law says, sorry. The federal government might get first crack at you in court but you can be charged in all three jurisdictions. If you kill a man in Mississippi by firing a gun across the state line from Louisiana you can be tried and convicted for murder in BOTH states and have to serve sentences in EACH - or - you can be acuitted in one state of murder and convicted in another - double jeopardy doesn't apply because in fact you are accused of two different crimes - one against the state of Louisiana and one against the state of MIssissippi. One requires elements of the murder occur in Louisiana and one requires elements of the murder occur in Mississippi - they are two distinct crimes.