Zimmerman may be charged with a hate crime

[Katzndogz]

Then if acquitted of the underlying crime in state court, there should be no federal prosecution for an independent hate crime?

Fat chance with that one.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then if acquitted of the underlying crime in state court, there should be no federal prosecution for an independent hate crime?

Fat chance with that one.

The prosecution will be for "denial of civil rights' or something.
This is what was used to convict Lemrick Nelson in the slaying of Yankel Rosenbaum after a jury of shvartzes in New York acquitted him of the actual murder.

 

[Ravi]

Then if acquitted of the underlying crime in state court, there should be no federal prosecution for an independent hate crime?

Fat chance with that one.

The feds would have to prove that a crime was committed AND that it was committed because of hate, as defined by federal hate crime law.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The best analogy I know of (and one that I have yet to have anyone on this, or any other, board sufficiently address) is the different level of punishmebnt involved in manslaughter, second degree, first degree and capital murder. In all four cases, a victim is dead. Yet, the defendant faces potential punishments ranging from as little as 3 years in prison, to 15-to-life, 25-to-life or the death penalty, depending entirely on what his "thoughts" were (i.e., his motive) in the commission of the crime.

[...]

The apparent flaw in that reasoning is the fact that the thought process which motivated a homicide is determined after consideration of all evidence, whereas the charge of "hate crime" presumes the thought process in advance of any deliberation. Thus one is charged with a thought crime.

Your logic is flawed here, Mike. There is no difference at all between either of the two cases - homicide or hate crime. In both cases, the intent of the actor is determined by the same method - inferring intent based on his actions, statements or any other evidence which may shed light on his intent in committing the crime. And, in both cases, that determination is not made until the case is being tried in court - long after the actual event. And, in both cases, the determination ultimately made involves intent prior to and during the act - whether the act is homicide or hate crime.

To compare a statement that "the intent motivating a homicide is determined after consideration of all the evidence," with a statement that "the charge of 'hate crime' presumes the thought process in advance of any deliberation," is a non sequitur and logically incorrect. You are not comparing two, similar aspects of the two different situations. Determination after the event is not the same thing as assuming something prior to deliberation. You might as well say something like, Hitting a home run in baseball depends on how easy the pitch was, whereas, scoring a goal in hocky can contribute to a hat trick. Makes no sense. Neither does your comparison.

Okay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then if acquitted of the underlying crime in state court, there should be no federal prosecution for an independent hate crime?

Zimmerman could be charged with Federal criminal civil rights violations, colloquially referred to as ‘hate crime’ laws.

Such charges are filed separate and apart from state criminal charges. The officers involved in the Rodney King beating, for example, were found guilty of Federal criminal civil rights violations after their acquittal in state court.

 

[Ariux]

Correct. The enhanced sentencing is predicated on action, not thought. One is indeed free to be an ignorant racist to his heart’s content, provided he take no action on that hate and ignorance. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992).

Yes, you are free to be an ignorant asshole. A freedom you have embraced. It makes little difference if the thought-crime sentencing is predicated on action, it's still punishment for one's thoughts (or, presumed thoughts).

Also, what qualifies as "action" can be as simple as the expression of one's thoughts, through the charge of Ethnic Intimidation. One time I used the word "******" to intimidate an Afro who was casing my car. Even though it was actionless self-defense, I could have been charged with a hate crime. I wanted to intimidate him to avoid a physical confrontation.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

In order for it to be a hate crime it would first have to be a crime.

Well no shit. That's what we have juries for genius.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

The inappropriate affidavit of probable cause that accuses Zimmerman of profiling doesn't say "racial profiling" nor does it make any effort to establish racial profiling. It's not true and if the prosecutor at any evidence of racial profiling, she would have put it into the affidavit. The Prosecutor might just pull out of her skanky **** that Zimmerman called police because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie. (Zimmerman called police because of Trayvon's behavior.)

Meanwhile, Obama/Holder goons casing the neighborhood to try too dig up anyone who'll say they've ever heard a racial comment from Zimmerman. They're trying to prove thought crime that they have no evidence occurred in the first place. Ain't it wonderful having n***** in government?

Killing someone isn't a thought crime.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not if he's acquitted of the underlying crime.

 

[bayoubill]

Not if he's acquitted of the underlying crime.

not sure if that's true...

as I recall, several of the officers who were acquitted on local charges related to the Rodney King beating were later convicted on federal charges for having denied King his civil rights...

this case may turn out to be similar to that... in more ways than one...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Not if he's acquitted of the underlying crime.

If he's convicted under federal law of the crime of:

"willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"

then he is convicted, it doesn't matter what the state courts do.



Just ask the NOPD. 4 of them thought they had gotten off because the state DA bungled the grand jury and the charges had to be dimissed. Then the federal government came in and they got what they deserve.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet, unless the media concedes that the Zimmerman trial is a complete embarrassment to the Prosecution, it's likely that Zimmerman will face federal hate-crime charges after being acquitted in court. The jurors will leave the courtroom saying Zimmerman should never have been charged in the first place, let alone doubly jeopardized under thought-crime charges by Obama/Holder. Afros and civilization are mutually exclusive.

Ariux and American civilization, culture, and values are mutually exclusive.

I went back and looked up the story of the acquittal of the sheriff and the deputies responsible for the killing of a prisoner in the Sabine County Jail almost twenty years. The feds then brought violations of civil rights and convicted all three of the losers.

Ariux needs to understand that we tried all-white governments for more than three centuries in North America, those governments failed to protect all of the citizens, and the Ariux's of the US brought where we are at on all by themselves.

Own it, Ariux, it is your future.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not if he's acquitted of the underlying crime.

not sure if that's true...

as I recall, several of the officers who were acquitted on local charges related to the Rodney King beating were later convicted on federal charges for having denied King his civil rights...

this case may turn out to be similar to that... in more ways than one...

That was the first time that I can recall that the federal court was used to void double jeopardy protections.

However, the officers were accused of violating King's civil rights under color of law. Had they not been police officers, it would not have been so easy to convict them. They were not convicted of any hate crimes.

It's creeping federalisim which increases the probability that if someone is acquitted in state court they can be retried in federal court and assure a conviction. If you get right down to it, even a conviction in state court won't mean a subsequent trial in federal court. The feds can always wait until the state court sentence is served, then rearrest and retry in federal court.

The expansion of federal powers now is going to become a monster in the future. It will mean a return to the same kind of multiple prosecutions to assure conviction that the government wants. We are moving back to a time before even the Magna Carta.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Not if he's acquitted of the underlying crime.

not sure if that's true...

as I recall, several of the officers who were acquitted on local charges related to the Rodney King beating were later convicted on federal charges for having denied King his civil rights...

this case may turn out to be similar to that... in more ways than one...

That was the first time that I can recall that the federal court was used to void double jeopardy protections.

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). In this case, a man hired people to kill his wife. She was kidnapped in Alabama and her body was dumped in Georgia. He was arrested in Georgia and pled guilty in exchange for a life imprisonment. Then Alabama charged him with murder and sentenced him to death. He claimed he could not be charged in Alabama since he already was charged and convicted in Georgia - the court rejected his claim because Alabama and Georgia are two sovereign entities and an offense in one is not an offense in the other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not if he's acquitted of the underlying crime.

not sure if that's true...

as I recall, several of the officers who were acquitted on local charges related to the Rodney King beating were later convicted on federal charges for having denied King his civil rights...

this case may turn out to be similar to that... in more ways than one...

That was the first time that I can recall that the federal court was used to void double jeopardy protections. However, the officers were accused of violating King's civil rights under color of law. Had they not been police officers, it would not have been so easy to convict them. They were not convicted of any hate crimes. It's creeping federalisim which increases the probability that if someone is acquitted in state court they can be retried in federal court and assure a conviction. If you get right down to it, even a conviction in state court won't mean a subsequent trial in federal court. The feds can always wait until the state court sentence is served, then rearrest and retry in federal court. The expansion of federal powers now is going to become a monster in the future. It will mean a return to the same kind of multiple prosecutions to assure conviction that the government wants. We are moving back to a time before even the Magna Carta.

It's not double jeopardy if that is your point. It is different jurisdictions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then if acquitted of the underlying crime in state court, there should be no federal prosecution for an independent hate crime?

Zimmerman could be charged with Federal criminal civil rights violations, colloquially referred to as ‘hate crime’ laws.

Such charges are filed separate and apart from state criminal charges. The officers involved in the Rodney King beating, for example, were found guilty of Federal criminal civil rights violations after their acquittal in state court.

Yeah, I mentioned this above.
Typically those are reserved for where juries have gone terribly wrong, e.g. Lemrick Nelson or El Sayyod Nosair .
It would be a gross miscarriage here to charge Zimmerman if the state ruled his shoot was justified.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi's opinion, based on all we have read and heard, seems sensible to me.

 

[theunbubba]

FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime | www.wftv.com

SANFORD, Fla. — WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

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.

/snip

But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.

Obama and Holder looking for something to push us into a race war so they can declare martial law. Just watch. They WILL try to.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime | www.wftv.com

SANFORD, Fla. — WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

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.

/snip

But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.

Obama and Holder looking for something to push us into a race war so they can declare martial law. Just watch. They WILL try to.

As far as I know the only President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus without consent from Congress was a Republican named Lincoln

 

[Ariux]

Ariux and American civilization, culture, and values are mutually exclusive.

Personal insults without substance are just plane stupid, idiot.

Ariux needs to understand that we tried all-white governments for more than three centuries in North America, those governments failed to protect all of the citizens, and the Ariux's of the US brought where we are at on all by themselves.

An all-white government worked spectacularly, making America by far the greatest country on Earth. But, whites have one fatal flaw. Whites are too nice. Whites thought it was somehow unfair that animals weren't well represented in the government.