Speaking of things that are crazy.
In theory, you’re right. In practice, I doubt an elected judge is going to be willing to take the heat for dismissing this case upon the standard motion once the State rests. I hope she would have granted JNOV had the jury returned a conviction, but we’ll never know.
Eh. It’s pretty common here, and only one incumbent has lost a seat in the 18th circuit since like 2000.
Relatively common in a routine case? Sure. But this is not a routine case. Hell, this case would never have even come to trial had there not been a political firestorm demanding it. No way a judge was going to dismiss it before a jury verdict..
I agree. The judge was hoping the jury would let her off the hook. As a matter of law, she should have dismissed second-degree murder at the close of the prosecution’s case.
There is no conceivable scenario where Zimmerman does this and is not indicted. Not even if the dead man were white and 30 years old with a mile-long rap sheet.
Deja Vu for poor Zimmerman.
Last year there were public demands for charges and an arrest. A few weeks later the Governor appointed a special prosecutor and Z was soon arrested and charged.
Now the same people are demanding Federal charges. Z must be shitting himself right now.
I agree the Feds will lose if they bring this to trial. Z has a positive history helping blacks. There was homeless black man beaten by a white guy in Sanford. Z worked with the NAACP to make sure the guy was charged. Z mentored under privileged black teens for years.
He sure doesn’t sound like a racist to me.
Yes, the poor thing. He wouldn’t even hurt a fly. I mean, except for that one time.
Well, three times if you count his ex-girlfriend and the cop he assaulted.
IA(clearly)NAL, but wasn’t this very nearly a clase of a scenario where Zimmerman did this and wasn’t indicted? It was my understanding that only puplic pressure forced this to go to trail in the first place.
You are correct, and I think BG is confusing his own personal desire for the way he thinks should be with the way things actually are.
I agree.
I think if they can find justifiable reason to indict and try Zimmerman with a reasonable belief that they will win, they should
I haven’t followed this at all except for the stray post or news story, but it seems that Zimmerman was racially biased from stuff I heard in the early days - even before the indictment/information (whatever they call it in Florida). And personally I would rather see a unanimous verdict from a full 12 person jury pulled from a more racially diverse jury pool than what I understand they were dealing with in the Florida case.
OK, maybe the jurors acted in good conscience and there was no appealable bias in the composition or selection, but that doesn’t equate to absolute fairness either.
Even if he was…and there is pretty good evidence that he wasn’t…racial bias is not enough to support a hate crime conviction. DOJ would have to prove Zimmerman killed Martin solely due to his race, and they can’t possibly prove that on the evidence presented in the State case, or with any other evidence known to exist..
How about the scenario where the prosecution bypasses the grand jury indictment and files charges with an Affadavit of Probable Cause? It’s often said that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But in this case it seemed that the ham sandwich would have been an easier sell than indicting Zimmerman.
you’re confusing hate crimes with civil rights violations - I’m pretty sure they’re completely different considering the fact that the civil rights legislation (1968) significantly pre-dates any hate crime legislation AFAIK.
Why don’t you go do a bit of research and come back and tell us why you’re wrong? You could start with the quote from the former federal prosecutor I posted earlier in this very thread.
Why don’t you look at the news quote I provide earlier and take it up with the NAACP? They seem to think that if you racially profile someone and that leads to their death, that should be actionable under the civil rights act. That is clearly not a hate crime by any definition under any state law of which I am aware, but feel free to provide a counter example. I’ll be waiting.
Because the NAACP is an advocacy group, not a legislative body. They have no legal authority to declare what the law is, and their position is clearly contrary to settled law.