# Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 29, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108 "2012-03-29T01:38:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 48
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/941 "2012-05-29T02:29:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They cannot. Like any question of fact, it must survive a threshold review by a judge. Please state specifically what representation Zimmerman made, and what federal decision maker relied on it. You are just being silly. You know that Zimmerman’s statement haven’t been released. We only know that the prosecution has said that he made false statements during his questioning. You should also know that a federal decision maker doesn’t need to actually rely on anything Zimmerman said for a 1001 charge to stick. Only that they might have used it. I don’t know why you think a judge would take heat on this case when Gaudin gives them cover to kick it to a jury. > [@](#): > > And please cite any case where the statement to federal authorities is as attenuated as it is here. Check out the King Case. Notice this involves lying to **State Livestock Inspector** about a valve. > [@](#): > > In February, the Washington Legal Foundation, a pro-business group, asked the Supreme Court to take a new look at statute 1001 in the case of an Idaho farmer, Cory King, who was convicted federally of lying to a state livestock inspector about where a valve on the property sent some water. Mr. King allegedly said the valve routed the water to the sprinkler system when in fact it sent water to a well, where it was later used for irrigation. The state didn’t pursue criminal charges, opting for a fine. > > At issue: Since Mr. King’s statement was made to a state official—someone with no connection to the federal government, the WLF says in a court filing—should the federal law against lying apply? Letting the conviction stand “would strip the statute of virtually all jurisdictional limitations,” the brief says. > > A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. Justice Department court filings argue that lying to the state inspector interfered with enforcement of federal drinking-water laws. The false statement “need not be made directly” to the federal government, said one Justice Department court filing. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/942 "2012-05-29T13:33:29Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You are just being silly. You know that Zimmerman’s statement haven’t been released. We only know that the prosecution has said that he made false statements during his questioning. > > You should also know that a federal decision maker doesn’t need to actually rely on anything Zimmerman said for a 1001 charge to stick. Only that they might have used it. > > I don’t know why you think a judge would take heat on this case when Gaudin gives them cover to kick it to a jury. Yes, I know they don’t have to actually rely on it. That’s fine. Why don’t you share what statements Zimmerman might have made that involves federal jurisdiction and which a federal decisionmaker might have relied upon? > [@](#): > > Check out the King Case. Notice this involves lying to **State Livestock Inspector** about a valve. Yes. I read the case. Water, irrigation, and riparian issues in general have a clear federal interest. No surprise there. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/943 "2012-05-29T15:34:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I know they don’t have to actually rely on it. That’s fine. Why don’t you share what statements Zimmerman might have made that involves federal jurisdiction and which a federal decisionmaker might have relied upon? > > Yes. I read the case. Water, irrigation, and riparian issues in general have a clear federal interest. No surprise there. Since the charge will be a federal hate crime, I suspect all of Zimmerman’s statement’s will be admissible. The FBI has already been interviewing the witnesses at Twin Trees. In this case the FBI, Judge and Jury are the decisionmakers. I’m not actually suggesting that it is desirable that the Feds do this, but I’m pointing out that they can if they want to. [http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/](http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/944 "2012-05-29T16:27:29Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Since the charge will be a federal hate crime, I suspect all of Zimmerman’s statement’s will be admissible. The FBI has already been interviewing the witnesses at Twin Trees. > > In this case the FBI, Judge and Jury are the decisionmakers. > > I’m not actually suggesting that it is desirable that the Feds do this, but I’m pointing out that they can if they want to. > > [http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/](http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/) What federal hate crime? I ask for a reason. What are the elements of the federal crime in question? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/945 "2012-05-29T19:51:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What federal hate crime? > > I ask for a reason. What are the elements of the federal crime in question? The news articles don’t say, but I assume 18 USC § 245 as amended by the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew\_Shepard\_and\_James\_Byrd,\_Jr.\_Hate\_Crimes\_Prevention\_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act) The amendments are critical, since they removed the requirement that Martin be engaged in a federally protected activity. A man has already been convicted for running a car with 5 Hispanic men off the road. [http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/175003/0/Frankie-Maybee-sentenced-11-years-for-federal-hate-crimes](http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/175003/0/Frankie-Maybee-sentenced-11-years-for-federal-hate-crimes) Obviously you would already know this, so you are apparently testing my Google skills. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/946 "2012-05-29T22:36:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What federal hate crime? > > I ask for a reason. What are the elements of the federal crime in question? I’m not comfortable living in a world where _Bricker_ has to ask \*us \*a legal question… ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/947 "2012-05-29T23:15:11Z")
> [@digs](#): > > I’m not comfortable living in a world where _Bricker_ has to ask \*us \*a legal question… Don’t worry. Lawyers never ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/948 "2012-05-30T02:04:32Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The news articles don’t say, but I assume 18 USC § 245 as amended by the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. > > [Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act) > > The amendments are critical, since they removed the requirement that Martin be engaged in a federally protected activity. A man has already been convicted for running a car with 5 Hispanic men off the road. > > [http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/175003/0/Frankie-Maybee-sentenced-11-years-for-federal-hate-crimes](http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/175003/0/Frankie-Maybee-sentenced-11-years-for-federal-hate-crimes) > > Obviously you would already know this, so you are apparently testing my Google skills. That would actually be 18 USC § 249. But OK. I agree that the feds could charge Zimmerman with violation of that section, alleging that he killed Martin because of Martin’s race, with a firearm that moved in interstate commerce. I don’t agree there’s any chance of conviction with the evidence we now know. But you argument is the decision to charge him or not could be influenced by his statements, and therefore any lie could be prosecuted under 18 USC 1001. So I’m asking you to identify, specifically, what statement Zimmerman made to the state authorities (or the FBI) that would be reachable under 18 USC 1001. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/949 "2012-05-30T14:04:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I’m asking you to identify, specifically, what statement Zimmerman made to the state authorities (or the FBI) that would be reachable under 18 USC 1001. You know that his statements to police haven’t been released. I only have the prosecution statements about Zimmerman’s statements to suggest that some of them are subject to 1001 prosecution since the jury will use them during a federal trial and that some of them are false or misleading. I also suspect that the ‘coon’ comment will be used to demonstrate racial bias and support the hate crime charge. The beauty part is that the feds don’t have win on the hate crime charge to get a conviction on the 1001 charges. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/950 "2012-05-30T17:30:07Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You know that his statements to police haven’t been released. I only have the prosecution statements about Zimmerman’s statements to suggest that some of them are subject to 1001 prosecution since the jury will use them during a federal trial and that some of them are false or misleading. > > I also suspect that the ‘coon’ comment will be used to demonstrate racial bias and support the hate crime charge. > > The beauty part is that the feds don’t have win on the hate crime charge to get a conviction on the 1001 charges. The state of Florida seems to have abandoned the claim that he said “coon.” The affidavit in support of the charging document alleges, under oath, that ZImmerman said “fucking punks.” Perhaps the feds can also try O’Sheen and Gilbreath for violation of 18 USC § 1001? You are right that they feds would not need a conviction on the hate crime charge to get a conviction under § 1001. But they would need to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ZImmerman lied. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/951 "2012-05-30T20:19:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The state of Florida seems to have abandoned the claim that he said “coon.” The affidavit in support of the charging document alleges, under oath, that ZImmerman said “fucking punks.” I never understood that part. It sounds like ‘coons’ to me. I could believe ‘goons’, but It doesn’t sound like ‘punks’ to me. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the feds can also try O’Sheen and Gilbreath for violation of 18 USC § 1001? I wouldn’t rule out 1001 charges against the witnesses at this point. > [@](#): > > You are right that they feds would not need a conviction on the hate crime charge to get a conviction under § 1001. But they would need to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ZImmerman lied. Since Zimmerman’s statement took three hours, plus the time for the reenactment , I don’t think finding grounds for perjury will be that hard. The trick is to talk that long and not lie. I also found on reading about Federal Perjury law that it doesn’t actually have to me a lie, but even misleading statements count as perjury. Apparently that comes up a lot in tax cases. I’m especially curious if Zimmerman said at any point that Martin touched this pistol during the struggle. It will be interesting to see if the Feds file charges before the election, but that should probably be a different thread. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/952 "2012-06-01T18:06:23Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I never understood that part. It sounds like ‘coons’ to me. I could believe ‘goons’, but It doesn’t sound like ‘punks’ to me. The audio in the link below sounds A LOT like he says “punks” to me, especially when that is the word I’m waiting to hear. > **[CNN: Expert Reports George Zimmerman Said ‘Punks’, Not Racial Slur](https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/cnn-expert-reports-george-zimmerman-said-%e2%80%98punks%e2%80%99-not-racial-slur/)** > > CNN's Martin Savidge told Brooke Baldwin that audio forensics expert Tom Owen determined George Zimmerman said punks on the 9-1-1 call he made the night he shot Trayvon Martin, not a racial slur as has been previously reported. If someone tells you before you hear it that the word is “coons”, you are much more likely to hear that as the mind is now primed to. See video below for an example. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/8T_jwq9ph8k/hqdefault.jpg "Why people believe weird things | Michael Shermer") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k&t=9m3s) ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/953 "2012-06-01T18:43:54Z")
I was watching the hearing and the judge decided that Zimmerman and his wife lied about the money in their paypal account during the bond hearing and revoked Zimmerman’s bond. He has 48 hours to report to the jail. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108.md?page=47)