Notice that A,B,C, and D are "or"s. Seems as if Holder could pull out C as justification.
But, not only would the feds have to prove what FL couldn’t prove, but they would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z killed Martin because of his race.
Not profiled him because of his race, not suspected him of casing the place because of his race, not for running or skipping because of his race, but honest to goodness pulled the trigger on Martin BECAUSE he was black. There is no fucking way any lawyer could say that with a straight face. What even piss poor evidence is there of that?
Put it this way: This story at any rate has more in common with Mississippi Burning than with Bonfire of the Vanities. (Yes, even though the latter prominently featured a Sharpton-standin.)
[QUOTE=18 USC 249]
(a) In General.—
(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever… willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of a firearm… because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
[/QUOTE]
I inserted only the relevant portions to Zimmerman. See you must willfully cause bodily injury because of actual or perceived race. Profiling? Fine. Yelling “nigger, nigger”? Fine. You can only be convicted if you killed the guy because of his race.
Only a fool thinks he can understand a statute without being familiar with the caselaw that interprets it. Are YOU familiar with that case law? I suspect that the NAACP IS familiar with said case law.
No, you’re the one claiming that the statute means something other that what it would appear to mean from the language used, and you seem convinced that there is some legal authority known to the NAACP that supports your absurd position. I am flat out saying that legal authority does not exist. Cite it and prove me wrong.
I’m stating as a legal proposition that statutes, especially deliberately vague statutes like the Civil Rights Act, are designed to made clear only upon application through case law and to try to ferret out their meaning simply by a cursory reading is as foolish as trying to diagnose oneself using the internet. If you can’t see that, I don’t think there’s any further help I can offer you.
The NAACP is full of shit in this instance. I can’t find a single 18 USC § 249 prosecution that fails to explicitly allege – as it must, under the statute – that the physical violence was directly and primarily motivated by the victim’s race.
Accord, e.g., US v. Hatch, No. 12-2040, Tenth Circuit 2013; US v. Maybee, 687 F.3d 1026 (2012).
Well, deltasigma? You have a single case that DOESN’T so allege?
There’s nothing vague about the statute. And you’re utterly wrong here. I’m on PACER now looking through a multitude of district court cases, and it’s the same story.
So put up or shut up. Where’s the case law that allows prosecution if you “… racially profile someone and that leads to their death?” It’s surely not 18 USC § 249 et seq.
First, section 249 isn’t the whole civil rights act now is it Bricker? So you have no idea WHAT the NAACP had in mind. BTW, I hope you don’t use such pedestrian tactic IRL. That would be very sad.
Second, I have no intention of wasting my time researching this.
Third, it’s a moot point anyway since I only have access to the statutes but not USCA, Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, etc. However I suspect that advocacy groups like the NAACP will be more than capable of advancing the legal arguments.
I don’t need to. Because when someone commences a federal prosecution, the first thing on the table is an indictment, which specifies the exact sections of federal law alleged to have been violated by the accused. So my tactic “in real life” is to demand that an accusatory instrument allege with specificity the criminal acts the government intends to prove.
So your tactic here is to shrug and say that the NAACP must know what they’re talking about, and you unreservedly endorse their expertise.
I say they’re full of shit.
And we’re in Great Debates, which means you can’t just hide behind “It’s my opinion.”
Do you know of any federal statute that imposes criminal liability when the nexus between racial animus and violence is as attenuated as it is here? Name it, or shut the fuck up.
What the NAACP has in mind was that Martin was a young black man and therefore innocent of any wrongdoing. Allegations that he did anything wrong means that you and Zimmerman are racist and he was killed only because he was a young black man.
I was listening to BBC and the assumption was that Zimmerman was in the wrong and the only way he got off was with 12 equally racist jurors. I assume that’s the same assumption that the NAACP is making.
