It would not be the first time, nor the last.
It was a case where three civil rights workers were murdered by the fucking Ku Klux Klan while attempting to register black voters in Mississippi.
In the Zimmerman case, there is zero evidence that Martin was doing any sort of civil rights work, zero evidence that Zimmerman wanted to stop or interfere with the civil rights work Martin wasn’t doing, and zero evidence that the Ku Klux Klan was involved. Absolutely nothing whatsoever remotely similar to the Zimmerman case.
Bah. That line should end with “the Mississippi Burning case”.
I didn’t realize that Trayvon Martin was Jewish.
I take back all my comments about the case. He definitely deserved to die.
Um… Yeah, that’s logical. The government overreaches, and, because of that, Trayvon Martin deserves to die.
Ibn Warraq: haven’t you, yourself, been in the forefront of arguing against assigning guilt on an irrelevant basis? If someone says something stupid about all Muslims, because some very few Muslims commit crimes, you are one of the readiest to point out how unjust that is. But now, you engage in it yourself, in one of the most odious ways possible?
Nasty…
Are you referring to the above post?
If so, that was meant as a joke.
Apologies to any who thought otherwise.
OOOPs. I apologize also. I thought it was real. I should have known better, and, again, I’m sorry.
(It is notoriously difficult to know a joke from a serious post, and, worse, I may be somewhat humor impaired.)
Huh. I stand enlightened.
As the one poster linked 18 USC 249;
Given the requirements here, the criminal charge, if filed, will be fatal to the govt., no chance for a conviction, period.
(b) Certification Requirement.—
(1) In general.— No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that—
(A)the State does not have jurisdiction;
(B)the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
(C)the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
(D)a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
I posted this in a duplicate thread that was closed and from this as well as the rest of the article, it sounds like race was a factor in Zimmerman’s actions and that could certainly be considered in a civil rights actions - by definition.
But the (possible) response by the Feds is the same and the racial motivation is definitely there, and I can’t be the only one who thought of MB on hearing the news.
Like I said in the General Questions thread (before it got locked), the prosectuors are grasping at straws. Presumably, it is not a hate crime to kill someone who is trying to harm you. The prosecutors couldn’t prove that Zimmerman wasn’t defending himself. (If they could, he would have been convicted of at least manslaughter.) Why would federal prosecutors be able to do any better a job? Oh yeah, and they’re also reporting that the FBI has already looked into this, and determined that racism wasn’t involved.
I agree with the idea that this is mainly the professional racists trying to keep the pot stirred, because that’s how they stay relevant these days.
This is the craziest thing I have heard in a long time. “Professional racists” is about right Diceman.
“professional racists”?
You mean like George Zimmerman?
I think he means Al Sharpton. George Zimmerman is an unprofessional racist.
Now that the trial is over I assume he’ll turn pro.
Is it really crazier than “guy shoots unarmed teenager and doesn’t get arrested until the shooting becomes the subject of nationwide protests?”
It was my understanding that:
a) The law specifically prohibited his arrest and
b) The police did not feel there was anywhere near enough evidence to charge and convict him anyway. It turns out they were 100% right about that.
I’d been following this case only tangentially until recently but based on the facts presented, I’m more concerned this case went to trial at all. The prosecution’s case was very, very weak.
If you’re looking for crazy, how about: “In the subsequent trial, the prosecution’s case is so woefully inadequate as to fully justify those who argued that the arrest never had legal merit, and was simply done out of political expediency.”
It wasn’t woefully inadequate (though clearly it wasn’t strong.) A very weak case would have been dismissed at the conclusion of the state’s case, the state having failed to make a prima facie showing of guilt. People have been convicted (generally of lesser crimes) on much less evidence.
No, the potential federal response is not the same. I invite you to research the matter and come back to tell us why you’re wrong.
Racial motivation is not definitely there. At least one former federal prosecutor says it does not exist. Cite.
*Because Zimmerman is a private citizen, he can only be charged with a hate crime in terms of civil rights violations under federal law, said David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor in Florida who now is in private practice.
To successfully prosecute Zimmerman, the Department of Justice would have to show that Zimmerman “caused the death of Trayvon Martin solely motivated by/because of his race or color,” Weinstein told CNN in an e-mail, adding: “This element was absent from the state trial and quite frankly doesn’t exist.”*
And, from the same article linked above, Obama is already in CYA mode on this one…
Separately, the White House said President Barack Obama would play no role in deciding whether federal charges are filed.
Obama spokesman Jay Carney said “cases are brought on the merits and the merits are evaluated by the professionals at the Department of Justice.”*