April 09, 2012
— Ace This doesn't mean there won't be charges. It means only that the prosecutor has decided that she has enough information to make the call herself, and doesn't need a grand jury.
The special prosecutor already signaled she would probably not empanel grand jury, and now that's official.
Not sure what this presages. It would be a very easy move to dump this on to a grand jury-- putting the decision-power into its hands and, crucially, ducking the exercise of this power yourself.
But special prosecutor Angela Corey said Monday she will not bring the case before a grand jury.Corey said she continues to investigate the case, and that her decision to skip the grand jury should not be a factor in determining whether charges will be filed against Zimmerman, the Associated Press reports.
The decision now rests with Corey, who would provide no further comment. Corey has two choices left, according to CNN: File charges or drop the case.
My guess? This means she will likely charge Zimmerman.
Here's my thinking: Given the ginned-up firestorm here, it's the popular decision to charge him, and the unpopular decision to re-affirm that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with a crime.
If she was worried about making an unpopular decision, she could have dumped it off on the grand jury.
But if I know people -- and I've met a few -- she's angling for a career-making case and wants to make her bones here. Hence, she's keeping it in her office.*
On the other hand, she says it is her standard practice to not use a grand jury in a justifiable homicide case, because she feels in such cases the prosecutor can make the decision. So, maybe this means absolutely nothing.
* I guess I could make the opposite case and posit this woman is of unbendable integrity and thinks a grand jury would be unavoidably politicized and racialized, and hence is determined to soldier on with a Buck Stops Here mentality.
I don't know. I generally assume most people are basically good -- but not that good, and certainly not heroic. Heroism, I need to see some evidence of before I posit it as likely.
Ugh: Yes, there are still a fair number of racists running around.
We're Americans. We're supposed to make decisions based on the law and facts and actions, not based upon someone's identity.
A lot of people, on both sides, forget that, or never knew it to begin with. These cases quickly devolve into Racial Teams.
Posted by: Ace at
09:42 AM
| Comments (290)
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Brewer at April 09, 2012 09:45 AM (eV1I0)
What some of us were thinking in earlier threads is that she might just dump it off on the Feds- which would mean "Hate Crime" prosecution- in which case Z is well and truly screwed, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
Any feelings on that theory?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:45 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at April 09, 2012 09:45 AM (0xqzf)
yes, that would be a real head fake if she does end up charging him.
This is an extremely interesting development in any case. IMO she should let the grand jury decide.
Posted by: real joe at April 09, 2012 09:46 AM (KDLYC)
Posted by: toby928© at April 09, 2012 09:47 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at April 09, 2012 09:47 AM (0xqzf)
I think a Grand Jury wouldn't have been a dodge though. I think it would have been the best chance to avoid giving the race-baiters a chance to claim a whitewash took place. And in the inferno the MSM has whipped up, I think that is a fair "dodge" to take.
Posted by: krakatoa at April 09, 2012 09:47 AM (yC8lY)
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 09:48 AM (WkuV6)
He could "hide" in France!
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:48 AM (8y9MW)
On a happier note for Z, he's got a lot of deep pocket defendants for his civil $uit$ starting with NBC.
Posted by: eureka! at April 09, 2012 09:49 AM (LQIyD)
Posted by: soothsayer at April 09, 2012 09:49 AM (jUytm)
Or does she go with a minor charge that she's confident she can get a conviction for, but will never satisfy the race industry?
Seems to me she's going to re-affirm no charge for Zimmerman.
Posted by: frode at April 09, 2012 09:50 AM (8z3Pa)
Well- only if the evidence still points to him being innocent. We've made some claims here on the blog (and in the blog-o-sphere more generally), that are based only on publicly available information. She should have access to information (forensic evidence and the like) that is not available to the general public.
For all our proclamations of "I don't buy it" there's an unwritten-but-assumed footnote: "Based on currently available information."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:50 AM (8y9MW)
Really, White People? New Polling On Trayvon Martin Shows White Folks Not Paying Attention
http://tinyurl.com/6qyppzl
I guess with Tommy Hacky playing playing dirt detective for Current TV in the hopes that SOMEBODY will pay him to talk on tv, we just got distracted.
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 09:50 AM (Y+DPZ)
If she was worried about making an unpopular decision, she could have dumped it off on the grand jury.
----------------------
True. But if she is thinking there isn't any evidence to charge Zimmerman, but went to the GJ and they brought back an indictment, then she's stuck with a bad case.
Posted by: Jay at April 09, 2012 09:50 AM (3LaGb)
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 09:50 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at April 09, 2012 09:50 AM (DGIjM)
Posted by: tasker at April 09, 2012 09:50 AM (r2PLg)
Yes they are, I've helped 2 people (white, one even jewish) with their CCL permits because of this.
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 09:52 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at April 09, 2012 09:52 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Tex Lovera at April 09, 2012 09:53 AM (wtvvX)
At this point, it almost can't. Sharpton and Jackson and the MFM laid the fire, added kindling and gasoline, and handed FL a lit match. FL can either burn their hand, or set the blaze.
If, as I believe based on what I currently know, Zimmerman is not guilty, then there are ultimately only two outcomes (though one could occur at any of several points in the process):
1) Zimmerman isn't convicted.
2) Zimmerman is convicted.
If 1, then the race riots (likely) start.
If 2, then an innocent man goes to jail for a crime he didn't commit.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:53 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 09, 2012 09:53 AM (i6RpT)
Cops - charges, National Guard - no charges
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 09:54 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 09:54 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at April 09, 2012 01:52 PM (4df7R)
**********
I know it was one of you racist theocrats that did it! Admit it, scum!!!1!11!!!
Posted by: Shockwave! at April 09, 2012 09:55 AM (ggRof)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 09, 2012 09:56 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Not an Artist at April 09, 2012 09:57 AM (uRumV)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 09:57 AM (JE6wX)
The victim was a black teenager wearing a hoodie.
Seriously, with "hate crime," it doesn't often matter if you're actually guilty, because there's no evidence one way or the other. It's just if enough vitriol can be thrown your way to make the charges stick.
Hopefully, it won't happen, and if it did I would hope it got laughed out of court (based on what we know), but there is no guarantee that any of those things would happen.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:58 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Daniel Jeyn at April 09, 2012 09:58 AM (jBA6+)
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 09:58 AM (P6QsQ)
I would hope so.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:58 AM (8y9MW)
I assume most district attorneys/assistant district attorneys/public prosecutors are out to make a name for themselves and will do anything at all to forward their own self interest. Is that cynical? Possibly but it's also based on years of first hand observation.
I should note that I remain agnostic on whether or not Zimmerman should be charged.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:59 AM (VtjlW)
Tommy Hacktopher hardest hit
http://tinyurl.com/8y5dtgz
This issue must be hurting the SCOAMF more than helping
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 10:01 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: slatz at April 09, 2012 10:01 AM (RHbC1)
Where's the hate for a federal civil rights hate crime? From all real accounts, this guy was anything but a racist.
It is so adorable that you think there has to be hate to be charged with a federal civil rights hate crime.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:02 AM (VtjlW)
If you find out, be sure and let me know, right?
Posted by: Spike Lee [/i] [/b] at April 09, 2012 10:02 AM (JEpGb)
2) Zimmerman is convicted.
If 1, then the race riots (likely) start.
If 2, then an innocent man goes to jail for a crime he didn't commit.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 01:53 PM (8y9MW) .
They don't need a reason to riot !!!!!
Posted by: RUReadingthis at April 09, 2012 10:03 AM (V92KK)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 09, 2012 10:03 AM (N/cWt)
Interesting that this is not considered a "capital or other infamous crime'....
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 09, 2012 10:04 AM (lZBBB)
I assume that means you have never met Eric Holder?
Posted by: dfbaskwill at April 09, 2012 10:04 AM (71LDo)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:04 AM (JE6wX)
Shall we call her Mike Nifong?
and "Yes, there are still a fair number of racists running around." Yeah, no shit and they in charge.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:04 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: Movezig at April 09, 2012 10:05 AM (fURqt)
I should note that I remain agnostic on whether or not Zimmerman should be charged.
Me too. He might have committed a crime, he might not have. If he did, he should be charged.
Someone called it earlier that the real target here would be Florida's "Stand Your Grand" law. They are apparently going after that full on even though the reported facts in this case don't appear to have any relation to that law.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at April 09, 2012 10:05 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: soothsayer at April 09, 2012 10:05 AM (jUytm)
It must say "Trayvon a nagger". (Hey--I've learned my lesson this time.)
Posted by: randy marsh at April 09, 2012 10:05 AM (6RnvM)
Zimmerman is screwed.
Posted by: © Sponge at April 09, 2012 10:06 AM (UK9cE)
I generally assume most radicals are basically evil. Most non-radicals are basically good and want to be left alone.
The only question is deciding who is a radical.
Posted by: Obama2012 at April 09, 2012 10:06 AM (OhYCU)
You know, where you're sworn in, experts must actually know what they're talking about, and you get hardball questions along with the soft tosses
And evidence other than "according to the Martin family attorney" is actually entered
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 10:07 AM (Y+DPZ)
Jeez. Could this guy get a fair shake with a grand jury?
At this point, can he get a fair trial at all?
Posted by: Z Ryan at April 09, 2012 10:07 AM (tsC/8)
Jeffrey Toobin will have to shock the world again and say the judge is a racist and Zimmerman will be set free.
Posted by: Obama2012 at April 09, 2012 10:08 AM (OhYCU)
No. But they'd really like an excuse.
You and Al: it's an element of the charge which must be pled & proved BYRD.
Your naivete is so refreshing. How do you "prove" hate, mike? You don't. Just like any "thought crime" legislation- you simply assert your position, and then the defense has to disprove it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:08 AM (8y9MW)
Don't homicide charges generally require a grand jury indictment? I'm not familiar with Florida law.
I looked that up the other day and it seems that in Florida a grand jury is only required for charges that could result in the death penalty. This allows them to comply with the 5th amendment though as noted above I am not sure if the courts have ever defined what an "infamous" crime is.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at April 09, 2012 10:09 AM (JxMoP)
Maybe they were just putting his twitter name on the sign. That prank doesn't make anyone a racist.
When I was in college a bunch of drunk fraternity brothers changed one of those restaurant signs with moveable letters to read "Where is Betty Ford's other tit?"
That didn't make them misogynists or pro-cancer.
What a stupid thing to say. It was a prank.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:09 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: eureka! at April 09, 2012 10:11 AM (LQIyD)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at April 09, 2012 10:11 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:11 AM (JE6wX)
Good job, progressives.
Posted by: laceyunderalls really wants her own Empire at April 09, 2012 10:13 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: SmellOspring at April 09, 2012 10:14 AM (OhYCU)
It would be a bummer for their putsch to re-elect their boyfriend if Court TV watchers see all the MBM "facts" proven to be total bullshit, taking their credibility further into the shitter
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 10:15 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 02:11 PM (JE6wX)
I wonder what the Founders interpretation of 'Infamous' was....
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 09, 2012 10:15 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Jimbo at April 09, 2012 10:16 AM (O3R/2)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:16 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:17 AM (8y9MW)
What happened? Did someone take a shot at the Confederacy, or were people not letting him guide the conversation?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 10:17 AM (nEUpB)
Years ago we had a black conservative running against a black liberal for mayor. The liberals collected a bunch of their own signs and went to the conservative jewish temple and burned the signs and put a swastika on a tree one day before the election. They dropped the packaging that the "new" signs had come in. They weren't signs that were in people's yards they were new.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:17 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: Jimbo at April 09, 2012 10:17 AM (O3R/2)
Posted by: fact finder at April 09, 2012 10:17 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: toby928© at April 09, 2012 10:18 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:19 AM (CMM9V)
This blog is convoluted and ignorant, although ultimately it gets to the correct presumption. FYI, empanelling a grand jury would not be "ducking" the decision. Not even close. Prosecutors often prefer using grand juries, because grand juries have subpoena powers. You can make people testify before grand juries. Prosecutors alone don't have that power. Also, FYI, the prosecutor here could not be naive enough to believe that if she went to a grand jury it could absolve Zimmerman. The demographics of that county are what they are. With a grand jury an indictment would be a foregone conclusion. There are two relevant reasons why this particular prosecutor would not want to use a grand jury. First, in view of the demographics of that county, this prosecutor politically speaking has no choice but to bring up charges; ergo a grand jury would be superfluous. Second, with a grand jury the key witness obviously would be Zimmerman and Zimmerman's legal team undoubtedly won't waive immunity (meaning you can't use Zimmerman's grand jury testimony against him), and thus if you empanel a grand jury here it won't help a prosecution that for political reasons simply has to move forward.
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at April 09, 2012 10:19 AM (f8XyF)
For hate crimes legislation?
Seriously, mike: how do you prove "hate." Prove it. Show me unequivocal, unquestionable evidence of hate. I could have racist epithets all up and down my blog and/or twitter stream, and that wouldn't prove "hate," it would prove vulgarity. Similarly, I could have the cleanest past (on paper) you can imagine and still be a seething racist.
The very fact it is "hate crime" means it can't be proven. And that's the point.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:19 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 10:20 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: huerfano at April 09, 2012 10:20 AM (bAGA/)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:20 AM (JE6wX)
Tyler Perry's April 1 Facebook post about police pulling him over was no April Fool's joke: The highest-paid man in entertainment is accusing a pair of white Atlanta police officers of racial profiling.
Four days later, Perry's post boasts more than 117,000 "likes," 21,000 comments, and 12,000 shares. Atlanta police have launched an internal investigation, E! News reports.
Perry's predicament began when he admittedly made a left turn from a far-right lane -- a trick his security detail taught him, to make sure he wasn't being followed, Perry explained on Facebook.
second city cop
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:20 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: tasker at April 09, 2012 10:20 AM (r2PLg)
Actually, I saw that earlier today... I'll have to see if I can remember where, and then find the link. But, yes, apparently at least the Iced Tea portion of The Narrative is confirmed, and I believe the "Skittles" portion is, too.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:22 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:22 AM (JE6wX)
in the other corner, a "White tourist" is beaten badly and stripper by colored folks. ( and this happens OFTEN )
yes, let us now castigate racism--and be even-handed, balanced, etc
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, w/ an aspirin between his knees at April 09, 2012 10:22 AM (Dll6b)
And a profound miscarriage of justice whenever it is used to convict.
We aren't the Catholic church...we aren't penalized for our thoughts.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 10:22 AM (nEUpB)
You and Al: it's an element of the charge which must be pled & proved BYRD.
That's to be convicted, not to be charged.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:23 AM (VtjlW)
And after all of that, the cops let him go. Without a ticket, summons or warning. Just an apology for being so impolite as to think Tyler Perry should follow the traffic laws of mere mortals.
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:23 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Jimbo at April 09, 2012 10:23 AM (O3R/2)
did stay in holiday motel last night lol
the proscuter has to give zabransky a warrant becuase
people cant not go around shooting children for no reason
just becuase of racist pretty obvious if youre are not a retard
get a clue idiots
#JusticeForMeltron
Posted by: Jose Canseco's Gristle Encased Head at April 09, 2012 10:23 AM (+lsX1)
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send [him] away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at April 09, 2012 10:23 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 10:23 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: The Blog at April 09, 2012 10:24 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 09, 2012 10:24 AM (i6RpT)
While I don't dispute the view that the Special Prosecutor could dump off the posibility of a 'No Bill' on the Grand Jury... that's presupposing she wants to fold her tent and go home.
Does anybody think that she wants to end her fifteen minutes of fame early?
Face it, certain folks have a BIG DEAL out of the appointment of an S.P.
Well, all of that goes 'POOF' if the GJ says... 'nothing to see here, move along'.
And all hell breaks loose thereafter.
So, if the S.P. wants to put a notch in her belt, snatching that decision away from the Grand Jury is the surest way to make it happen.
However, just because you want a 'show-trial', doesn't mean that everything is going to go your way. So, while a successful prosecution would be a win... so would a gallant effort to 'obtain justice'.
Either way, the S.P. looks good.
And Mr. Zimmerman... ah hell, nobody gives a damn about him...
...he's a 'white' Hispanic.
And guilty... just ask the DBM, and the race hustlers.
Posted by: CPT. Charles at April 09, 2012 10:24 AM (oebc7)
Perry's predicament began when he admittedly made a left turn from a far-right lane -- a trick his security detail taught him, to make sure he wasn't being followed, Perry explained on Facebook.
second city cop
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 02:20 PM (TomZ9)
Soooo... famous guy gets pulled over for doing somthing illegal... because his security detail told him to do somthing illegal... and now its a National Case.
/facepalm
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 09, 2012 10:24 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:24 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: ex-SEAL Team 6-9 at April 09, 2012 10:24 AM (mwEw5)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, w/ an aspirin between his knees at April 09, 2012 10:24 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: pep at April 09, 2012 10:25 AM (YXmuI)
Ah yes...in my case Brooklyn Decker figures prominently, although Kate Upton is looking mighty good.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 10:25 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: tasker at April 09, 2012 10:25 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:26 AM (TomZ9)
Is this Seminole County? 78% white?
Posted by: toby928© at April 09, 2012 10:27 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 10:27 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: huerfano at April 09, 2012 02:20 PM
To Tommy "I'm White Enough to Hate Myself and Work for Obama 2012" Xtopher and the other white guilt pushers in the MBM;
Listen, you sanctimonious overpaid assholes, we've been having dialog on race now since I can remember. It's gotten old, it's gotten boring. Forgive the rest of us who don't live in white bread neighborhoods for being fucking human and not seeing those different from us the same way we see those similar to us. Want some fucking "breaking news"? You do it too, and you channel your inner guilt at getting paid big bucks to copy and paste Kos diaries or read teleprompters in front of a camera at the rest of us.
Stick to reports on Kim Kardashian's panty lines, it's the limit to what you can talk about without looking like total idiots
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 10:27 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 09, 2012 10:28 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, neither Morg nor I-Morg at April 09, 2012 10:28 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:29 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: ejo at April 09, 2012 10:29 AM (slp7M)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:30 AM (CMM9V)
The Sheriff said it to the media.
Posted by: toby928© at April 09, 2012 10:30 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:31 AM (JE6wX)
however it lands it's a win for law, and rule of law.
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:31 AM (TomZ9)
Allen, the use of epithets would be circumstantial evidence of hate. Circumstantial evidence is used every day to prove a state of mind when it is an element of the crime. Intent, recklessness, etc.
The problem with hate crimes is that you are punishing someone for a thought.
2 people are stabbed. The stabber calls one a scumbag, the other a racial epithet. He is punished more severely for the "hate crime" than for an identical act.
Posted by: real joe at April 09, 2012 10:32 AM (KDLYC)
Posted by: tasker at April 09, 2012 10:32 AM (r2PLg)
Ah yes...in my case Brooklyn Decker figures prominently, although Kate Upton is looking mighty good.<<<<
FREE THE UPTON TWO!
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 09, 2012 10:32 AM (N/cWt)
Prove that he hated them.
Wanted to kill them? Sure.
Wanted to kill them because they were black? Sure.
Hated? Hmmm... I haven't seen evidence for that. For all I know, he wanted to kill them because he believed they were a legitimate threat to his safety- which may be deluded, but certainly isn't "hate." And you can bet your rear-end that any decent defense attorney would come up with some similar argument (not necessarily the same) if hate crime charges really had to be proven "Beyond a reasonable doubt." Heck, some of them do it anyway- to get their clients declared "not guilty by reason of insanity."
My point isn't that people don't do things out of hate, it's that hate is an emotion- and purely internal. It leaves no physical evidence. We should not be in the business of prosecuting "hate" in the first place.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:33 AM (8y9MW)
What is AB?
and that situation you described has happened when? or where? Why would you as an apparent racist think this is a scenario worth describing? Please never sit on a jury where being impartial is a virtue. You don't even realize that you've just convicted a hypothetical person of a hypothetical crime while people here were actually suggesting someone is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. idiot.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:33 AM (CMM9V)
******************
Might be the best one yet.
It's even better when you misread it as #JusticeForMellotron, as I did.
Posted by: Waterhouse at April 09, 2012 10:33 AM (6qptC)
Posted by: tasker at April 09, 2012 10:33 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jean at April 09, 2012 10:34 AM (WkuV6)
Are you being purposefully dense?
Hate crime is a thought crime. There is no way around it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 10:34 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: tasker at April 09, 2012 10:34 AM (r2PLg)
what good would it do if we personally hate someone and decide because we hate someone it is good enough to be a force our own personal justice-vigilante? how far would our society last ?
or am i misunderstanding the argument (wouldn't be a first)
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:34 AM (TomZ9)
Of course if someone like GZ finds a parking spot at a crowded Walmart lot, and a black person can't find one, you'd find that beyond reasonable doubt to give him the death penalty for a hate crime
OJ Simpson : the reason you should never sit on a jury
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 10:34 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:34 AM (JE6wX)
In FLA,, and I assume in any state, the gov can take jurisdiction away from any city or county DA and assign it to an officer of the state. That's what Rick Scott did here. It is now a state matter
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, neither Morg nor I-Morg at April 09, 2012 10:35 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 02:29 PM (JE6wX)
Geez, mike, cool down!
There's a huge difference between the scenario you've just cited and the known facts of the Zimmerman case. Your example includes explicit and repeated racist behavior. There is no hard evidence in the Zimmerman case thus far presented to make this a "hate crime," except for the skin color of the deceased. Totally different ballgame, and near impossible to prove because it's a "thought crime." You can't prove what someone was THINKING, yet that's precisely what "hate crime" legislation attempts to do, even in cases where there are NOT overtly racist actions taken by the defendant.
Calm the hell down.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at April 09, 2012 10:35 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Soona at April 09, 2012 10:35 AM (2Z3Hb)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:36 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:37 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: tasker at April 09, 2012 02:32 PM (r2PLg)
===yes, I was just f+cking with Tsar N with my silly Forrest Gump reference
clever? Probably not. Amusing? Maybe.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, neither Morg nor I-Morg at April 09, 2012 10:37 AM (Dll6b)
if i dislike men in general and one fks with me and i kill him, should we add a hate crime?
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:38 AM (TomZ9)
Exactly. See, the thing is, if what you're prosecuting is "a thought," then circumstantial evidence will not do. When we prosecute someone for a real crime (burglary, murder, etc.), circumstantial evidence is not, alone, enough to do so. Yes- circumstantial evidence can be used to help prove "mindset" or whatever in the course of a real crime.
But what we're talking about with hate crimes legislation is the "mindset" itself- which means that "circumstantial evidence" should not be sufficient. Yet there is nothing for such laws except circumstantial evidence. Which means, in fact if not in name, that if the Feds decide to charge you with hate crimes, it's on you to prove them wrong, they don't actually bear the burden of proof like the should.
Mike can rant all he wants, but that's just basic human-nature type logic. You don't know what I was thinking, and (with so few they're statistically insignificant exceptions) there is no evidence beyond the circumstantial, yet we've written a law that makes those thoughts illegal.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:38 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:38 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:38 AM (TomZ9)
You seem to think that vehemence and vitriol is going to prove your point, but the only thing it is going to prove is that you are missing the point.
But keep at it; this is a place that is filled with people who will yank your angry little chain for hours just to see you sputtering with rage.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 10:39 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:40 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: lincolntf at April 09, 2012 10:40 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:40 AM (TomZ9)
I don't give a rats ass what someone is yelling at me while they are killing me. Murder (or for that matter assault) is the crime and is punishable on it's own why fog it up with BS.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 09, 2012 10:40 AM (tf9Ne)
If I murder a man and hate him, he is still dead.
Am I sentenced for the hate on top of him being dead? And if so, why?
Because if I hate him and don't murder him, I am not sentenced for anything and have committed no crime.
So it seems as if hate is only a crime when attached to another crime, and not a crime in and of itself.
So if it is not a crime to hate, how can I be guilty of a hate crime?
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 10:41 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 09, 2012 10:41 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:41 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 02:26 PM (TomZ9)
------------------------------------
It always seemed like you got a complaint of "police misconduct" from some goof you didn't charge and just gave them a warning -- in their mind they did nothing wrong and by you not giving them a citation you were just hassling them.
Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop at April 09, 2012 10:41 AM (M0NzJ)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:41 AM (JE6wX)
I suggest that you actually research the law instead of just making shit up. Intent is proved every day in court by statements and acts.
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 02:37 PM (JE6wX)
Again, mike, as has been mentioned upthread, you're talking about CONVICTION. You do not need to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to CHARGE someone with a hate crime. And given the heated nature of this case, if GZ gets the hate crime charge added on to any other charges, I worry very much that he won't get anywhere CLOSE to a fair trial. He won't anyway, but a hate crime charge would only add to the anger that's already seething.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at April 09, 2012 10:43 AM (4df7R)
I thinks she will charge him with involuntary manslaughter suggesting the shooting was justified but putting himself into the position to need to shoot was reckless. It will still result in an aquittal as there is no evidence, despite initially following Martin, that Zimmerman confronted Martin and not the other way around.
About 18 months from now The state will refuse to retry Zimmerman after a hung jury since everything has died down and everyone has gotten paid from a civil suit against the city for failure to train and supervise Neighborhood Watch groups or something similarly stupid.
Posted by: Rocks at April 09, 2012 10:44 AM (Q1lie)
@159: Yeah, I agree, "hate" is a totally BS crime. No one murders another because he loves him, except perhaps in some sort of truly twisted way.
How on Earth can we know objectively if "hate" was involved? And why is killing someone for the color of their skin and worse than for the $20 in their wallet?
"Hate Crime" legislation is typically liberal feel-good nonsense.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 10:44 AM (Iaxlk)
interesting, but if i ever get pulled over i will just be grateful to not have a formal penalty. and i'll even say ty!
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:44 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: polynikes at April 09, 2012 10:44 AM (eKmTe)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:45 AM (JE6wX)
@164: MWR, is a "Party Hobbit" akin to a Party Sheep?
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 10:45 AM (Iaxlk)
Yes. Intent is proved to a probable extent in relation to a real, physical act. That is, if I kill someone, and I said I was going to go kill them, there's plenty of evidence that I committed premeditated murder.
Hate crimes laws aren't about that. They're attempting to convict the mindset, not the act. What suffices to prove my probable mindset as regards a specific physical act does not suffice (logically) to prove my mindset beyond reasonable doubt- when the object of the inquiry is my mindset itself.
If you kill someone, your mindset only matters when it's a question of intent. But hate crime laws don't care about the physical act- that's why he might be able to be charged at the Federal Level even if the State doesn't have enough evidence for a trial. The hate crime laws only care about the mindset- an ephemeral, non-physical (BIRM) thing which cannot (being ephemeral) be proven "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 10:45 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Jimbo at April 09, 2012 10:45 AM (O3R/2)
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 10:46 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: nip at April 09, 2012 10:46 AM (uRVaX)
Posted by: Eric Holder at April 09, 2012 10:47 AM (JxMoP)
i would think any murder or torture as with ...anyway yes in some cases motive can be hate, but i would think any man that rapes and kills multiple women, men or kids has a hate on.so especially i hate humanity and want them to suffer
so hate humanity crime?
Posted by: willow at April 09, 2012 10:49 AM (TomZ9)
OT, but I thought it horrific enough that it should be noted:
I read on the Net that the apparent immediate cause of Whitney Houston's death was that she scalded herself in 150 degree bath water, and - because she was so hopped up on drugs - stayed in the water until she essentially cooked herself to death - to the point skin was just coming off of her body.
When will people finally learn to stay away from narcotics, no matter how good it makes them temporarily feel?
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 10:50 AM (Iaxlk)
mike, if a man in Alberta says he's going "coon hunting" he means racoons.
There are no blacks there.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 09, 2012 10:50 AM (N/cWt)
You seem to be sticking to your narrow point without actually reading what other people are saying.
And...you are adding a fair amount of vitriol that doesn't seem to be warranted. My guess is that your girlfriend dumped you or your dog died or maybe you didn't have enough coffee this morning, or is it that you had too much?
Whatever it is, you're being an ass.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 10:50 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 10:50 AM (P6QsQ)
I'm disturbed by the inference that an "infamous" event could get one arrested and tried and perhaps sent to jail even if that person is innocent of any wrongdoing. If that's the case, then our justice system could arrest any one of us if enough of whatever we've done is broadcast over a large enough populace. Our country is becoming a scary place to live.
Posted by: Soona at April 09, 2012 10:50 AM (2Z3Hb)
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 09, 2012 10:51 AM (QxSug)
I like that logic.
I might have to switch to .22 and risk charges of minor annoyance.
Posted by: jwb7605 at April 09, 2012 10:51 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 09, 2012 10:51 AM (i6RpT)
You want a Hate Crime?
Debbie Was-a-man Shultz's hair.
Her stylist should be locked up and the key thrown away, the bastard.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 10:51 AM (Iaxlk)
Really this is the stupidest law ever passed. It can only work by magically looking into someone's head.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:51 AM (CMM9V)
Whoa. Thanks CNN (snark) for elevating the level of discourse.
Posted by: Jimbo at April 09, 2012 10:51 AM (O3R/2)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:51 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: Rocks at April 09, 2012 10:52 AM (Q1lie)
IOW, vote for Obama
Posted by: Mark Lamont Hill on MSNBC at April 09, 2012 10:52 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:53 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 09, 2012 02:51 PM (i6RpT)
I never used narcotics, but I can report that the only extraordinary thing beer ever did for me was make me puke all over the entrance to a Korean bar during what we called a battalion "bombing run" when I was a Lt.
However, I realize that since the vast majority of people report far more positive experiences with beer and drugs than that, I should accept that I'm the exception. Still... even if it gives you pleasure, just look at the God awful damage the crap causes...
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 10:54 AM (Iaxlk)
I'd be interested to know how often grand juries are used in Florida in cases other than first degree murder. (Grand juries are only required in Florida cases where the defendant faces the death penalty.)
Posted by: Vermin at April 09, 2012 10:54 AM (dAIU+)
Stupidest shit ever.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:56 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: Jimbo at April 09, 2012 10:58 AM (O3R/2)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 10:58 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:58 AM (JE6wX)
As far as "white people not paying attention", after not being able to turn on my radio or TV without hearing the name Trayvon Martin, you can bet I was flippin stations pretty quick after a while. I didn't want to hear any more bullshit.
Posted by: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain at April 09, 2012 10:59 AM (bj+Nc)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 10:59 AM (JE6wX)
What it all boils down to is whether Corey is just going to drop the charges or set him up to be tried by mob rule. Either way the mob wins. It's going to be very hard for Zimmerman to feel safe, no matter what happens or where he goes. The race baiters and the MFM have made sure of that.
The US has become a very scary place to live.
Posted by: Soona at April 09, 2012 10:59 AM (2Z3Hb)
"Charlie Brown can be a little pushy but he's not an asshole."
I see what you did there, dagny... 
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 10:59 AM (Iaxlk)
And I was just arguing that there should be no such thing as a hate crime.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 09, 2012 11:00 AM (tf9Ne)
Since when does the left need evidence to do anything?
I believe that is the point others are trying to make. In the court of public opinion, the charge IS the evidence, and these people desperately want something bad to happen to George Zimmerman.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at April 09, 2012 11:02 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:02 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 11:02 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 02:58 PM (JE6wX)
Then you are being naive in the extreme, and this conversation is useless.
If you think for a moment that this has anything to do with what the law actually says, no matter how stupid hate crime laws are, then you are a fool.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 11:03 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:04 AM (CMM9V)
One of Governor Scott's smartest decisions to-date has been to appoint Ms. Corey to this case. She will not be swayed by public opinion. If she finds that Zimmerman has broken any laws, she will nail him to a wall. If not, it's going to be damn hard for anyone to make an argument that she is a soft-on-crime prosecutor.
Ms. Corey may, one day, seek higher office, and when she does, she will almost certainly have my vote.
My confidence in her is high.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 09, 2012 11:04 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: one who says hysterical at April 09, 2012 11:05 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:05 AM (CMM9V)
dagny is one of the bright ones around here, and because you don't recognize that you clearly aren't.
Are you having a particularly bad period? My wife tells me that sometimes the cramps can be debilitating.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 09, 2012 11:06 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 03:04 PM (CMM9V)
Remember, there is NO Voter Fraud in America. I heard a liberal on MSNBC say so. So it MUST be true.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 11:06 AM (Iaxlk)
Geez Louise. What are you, twelve?
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 11:06 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 09, 2012 03:00 PM (tf9Ne)
--------------------------------
I agree with you, Buzz. The advent of hate crimes brought in mutant strains of justice that one only saw in the book "1984". It's nothing but PC. And greater men than I have said that political correctness will destroy us all.
Posted by: Soona at April 09, 2012 11:06 AM (2Z3Hb)
Seminole County 11% black. What demographics?
I would suggest that the only reason to empanel a GJ is habit, or to get subpoena power. This prosecutor apparently is not in that habit, and there is no one to subpoena. Z is cooperating, the witnesses are either cooperating or unknown, and M is dead.
So, Ace; are you going to weigh in on Derbyshire?
Posted by: Jerome at April 09, 2012 11:07 AM (eQa5p)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 09, 2012 11:07 AM (piMMO)
Ms. Corey may, one day, seek higher office, and when she does, she will almost certainly have my vote.
My confidence in her is high.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 09, 2012 03:04 PM
That's good to know. Thank for the information in regards to Ms. Corey.
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 11:08 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: real joe at April 09, 2012 11:08 AM (KDLYC)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet maybe ex-hobo at April 09, 2012 11:09 AM (QTHTd)
Posted by: mama winger
No, dagny is. Once again, I love how this mob can fling
insults and then whine when they are flung back.
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 11:10 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: mama winger
No, dagny is. Once again, I love how this mob can fling
insults and then whine when they are flung back.
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 03:10 PM (JE6wX)
Well, I guess you HAVE to, because you keep hanging around. If any of us was treated like that, we'd all be out of here.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 11:12 AM (Iaxlk)
This is why the family is demanding that Zimmerman be arrested immediately. His arrest would open the door to riches without ever requiring that he be convicted of anything.
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at April 09, 2012 11:12 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: mob attacks at April 09, 2012 03:11 PM (OhYCU)
It must have been really hard for you...
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 09, 2012 11:13 AM (Iaxlk)
insults and then whine when they are flung back.
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 03:10 PM (JE6wX)
------------------------------------
Fuck off, Mike. I hate you.
Now go find a lawyer and have at it.
Posted by: Soona at April 09, 2012 11:13 AM (2Z3Hb)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:14 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 03:13 PM
The problem is not going against "the group here". The problem is that your arguments are hysterical and wildly over the top in relation to the discussion. You aren't coherent.
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 11:15 AM (P6QsQ)
insults and then whine when they are flung back.
mike
You remind me of a liberal I was arguing with a couple years ago.
He insisted on providing inaccurate numbers, each of which I attempted to refute with a (second sourced) link and the real figures.
That finally pissed him off enough to note that he was providing factual information which he heard from really reliable sources, and all I could do was respond with links I got from government agencies.
I guess he won. I consider that a hate crime.
Posted by: jwb7605 at April 09, 2012 11:15 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 02:29 PM (JE6wX)
Look everyone, you're a drooling racist and you didn't even know it.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:18 AM (CMM9V)
Don't project. What's incoherent about the fact that all elements of a crime must be pled and proven and that there is no evidence to support a hate crime charge against Zimmerman? Oh, yeah, the group think argument that you don't need evidence to charge someone. And you claim I'm incoherent?
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 11:18 AM (JE6wX)
Posted by: The Drizzle at April 09, 2012 11:19 AM (ysCLj)
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 11:20 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:22 AM (CMM9V)
IOW, you have no coherent rebuttal to my response to you and you can only insult. Let me repeat: What's incoherent about the fact that all elements of a crime must be pled and proven and that there is no evidence to support a hate crime charge against Zimmerman? Oh, yeah, the group think argument that you don't need evidence to charge someone. And you claim I'm incoherent?
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 11:23 AM (JE6wX)
I found the Corey hit piece online. It's from the Folio Weekly, the free on every corner "news and entertainment guide". It used to be you could only find their stories in print, although it's not fit to be used as cage liner.
http://folioweekly.com/folio0306wkl014.php
For some added fun, this is the cover story this week:
http://www.folioweekly.com/folio0403wkl014.php
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 09, 2012 11:24 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet maybe ex-hobo at April 09, 2012 11:25 AM (QTHTd)
Don't project. What's incoherent about the fact that all elements of a crime must be pled and proven and that there is no evidence to support a hate crime charge against Zimmerman? Oh, yeah, the group think argument that you don't need evidence to charge someone.
People were insulted by this:
"Oh, please! So if some asshole in AB tells everyone he is going to go
"coon hunting" and then goes and shoots up a bunch of black people, for
no reason, and then brags about it, you morons would find that it is
not racially motivated. Please never sit on a jury."
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 02:29 PM (JE6wX)
Don't conflate your insults into one sentence. No one suggested you didn't need evidence even it they don't believe you can really get "hate" evidence. I don't believe that you can. However, the annoyance came at your immediate and over the top attacks.
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:26 AM (CMM9V)
Mike -
You are well aware, I hope, that left-wingers with an agenda MAKE UP SHIT to further that agenda. Made up shit includes slander, libel, falsification of evidence, politically motivated prosecutions (i.e. NIFONG).
"Hate crime" laws have a much larger tolerance, practically speaking, for MADE UP SHIT. This is because if you get a few black witnesses saying that one white man used the "N" word before he shot a black person, it's their story against his. Unless that white guy can prove with hard evidence (video or audio) that he DIDN'T say it, he's fucked.
This is the same culture that celebrated the OJ Simpson acquittal. There is a well documented strain of racist tribalism that ignores matters of right, wrong, and justice.
Hate crimes legislation gives LIARS yet another tool to railroad people they don't like.
That is the point you are now deliberately trying to avoid.
So, address that point, or fuck off and whine by yourself about how poorly you're being treated.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at April 09, 2012 11:26 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: baldilocks at April 09, 2012 11:27 AM (T2/zQ)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet maybe ex-hobo at April 09, 2012 03:25 PM
Why thank you! I wish there were a shy and humble emoticon. I would use it right here >>>
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 11:29 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 11:29 AM (JE6wX)
We called bullshit. Stop acting all butthurt
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 11:29 AM (Y+DPZ)
Can a person be falsely accused of a hate crime? Yes or no?
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at April 09, 2012 11:30 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at April 09, 2012 11:30 AM (ZiYQG)
Posted by: HEP-T at April 09, 2012 11:31 AM (sqX5E)
However, in the Duke Lax hoax, for example they were going to give false evidence that came from poisoned sources, a false narrative, and a afro-centric-lib world view. I would suggest that morons would be a fine jury pool because they know and understand that liberals are out to fulfill the "meta-narrative" composed by people like you and that they should demand that all evidence be incontrovertible.
Perhaps you're Canadian who wanted to go raccoon hunting ran into a group like that in Baltimore? Is there evidence of that? Of course this is a hypothetical racist conservative not someone as enlightened and sanctimonious as yourself
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 11:35 AM (CMM9V)
he is not on white peoples side, no they see he is against them because they were born white.
Posted by: HEP-T at April 09, 2012 03:31 PM (sqX5E)
The inaction of the DOJ wrt to the blatant Voting Rights Act violation by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia on election day 2008 was a Declaration of War. Period.
Posted by: baldilocks at April 09, 2012 11:37 AM (T2/zQ)
Of course. And one can be guilty of the crime but not the hate enhancement or guilty of the hate enhancement and not the crime which would make him not guilty of anything. But once again, before a crime can be charged there must be evidence of each and every element of the crime, including any hate law enchancment. Where is the evidence to support a hate crime charge against Zimmerman? There isn't any.
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 11:37 AM (JE6wX)
Hate crimes were just a means for politicians to satisfy special interest agitators and as a workaround for double jeopardy
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 11:37 AM (Y+DPZ)
It's just background noise to me now.
Posted by: kbdabear at April 09, 2012 11:40 AM (Y+DPZ)
The inaction of the DOJ wrt to the blatant Voting Rights Act violation by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia on election day 2008 was a Declaration of War. Period.
****
I am beside myself that the NBPP put a bounty on the head of a U.S. citizen and not a damn thing was done about it. If the feds didn't do it, then Pam Bondy herself should have showed up in Sanford to serve the arrest warrants.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 09, 2012 11:40 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: baldilocks at April 09, 2012 03:37 PM
Baldilocks - completely OT - but yesterday I was sitting in my racially diverse church during Easter service when the pastor said, turn to someone you don't know and grasp their hand and tell them "He is risen indeed". Well, there was a lady in front of my that I did not know and she had a remarkable resemblance to the picture that is on your book jacket. And I gave her a hug and said "He is risen indeed! You by chance don't blog under the name Baldilocks, do you?" She said no. But I wished she had said it was you. That would have been a treat.
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 11:42 AM (P6QsQ)
Mike, you brought the ugly into it @78. Your pissiness is unwarranted.
Is Mike a Daywalker reg?
No wonder you guys have such a badass rep.
Posted by: Gem w/a PTO day at April 09, 2012 11:43 AM (zw+pb)
No, it was warranted. Wouldn't expect a member of the mob to agree.
Posted by: mike at April 09, 2012 11:50 AM (JE6wX)
This flatly is not true. Nifong, dude.
Charges were brought against 2 of the Duke lacrosse players. They were arrested and indicted. Their names were spattered across the national media as racist rapists. Their team was dragged down with them. The university, in a hurry to be on the "right" side, disowned them and promptly destroyed their educational careers.
And there was no credible evidence there.
Yes, it eventually fell apart, but a considerable amount of damage was done.
This is what people have been trying to explain to you. It is naive to think that these types of charges aren't brought without evidence. Most of the time, perhaps they are, but that does not preclude bad operators from abusing the system.
The rules of evidence don't apply to these people. And when you have laws that play fast and loose with the presumption of innocence, like hate crime laws, the danger is even higher of a politically motivated hatchet job on an innocent person.
Are you going to trust Eric Holder and his DOJ to show restraint?
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at April 09, 2012 11:52 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Trimegistus at April 09, 2012 11:52 AM (w4QuJ)
Posted by: walter at April 09, 2012 11:55 AM (oA4y0)
Additionally, Nifong made public statements that called the false allegations a "hate crime."
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at April 09, 2012 11:57 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 09, 2012 12:00 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: walter at April 09, 2012 03:55 PM (oA4y0)
What the heck are you going on about? No one thinks its cool for police to lie and subvert justice. Do you have evidence that was done in this case? And what do you mean the police "still want an all white country"? Both parties in this case are ethnic minorities.
Posted by: mama winger at April 09, 2012 12:04 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Avi at April 09, 2012 12:06 PM (J3gb4)
Someone said your naivete was refreshing and you responded by calling them an asshole. Right. No escalation there, you charmer, you.
If you were a regular you'd know I'm not, really, so that answers that question.
Posted by: Gem w/a PTO day at April 09, 2012 12:16 PM (zw+pb)
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 09, 2012 12:17 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Kevin at April 09, 2012 12:22 PM (3o64G)
Posted by: walter at April 09, 2012 03:55 PM (oA4y0)
Zimmerman wasn't the police so what would that, if it were true, have to do with the case anyway?
Posted by: Rocks at April 09, 2012 12:22 PM (Q1lie)
I doubt that because both George Jefferson and Archie Bunker thought hispanics to be below black people.
Posted by: Avi at April 09, 2012 04:06 PM (J3gb4)
I think most people, other than blacks, "support" Zimmerman because the evidence, what there is available, supports his story.
Posted by: Rocks at April 09, 2012 12:25 PM (Q1lie)
Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2012 12:31 PM (CMM9V)
Posted by: steevy at April 09, 2012 01:02 PM (7W3wI)
I'm done with this reverse racism BS. Fucking done.
Posted by: Cast Iron at April 09, 2012 01:22 PM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Psycho Mike at April 09, 2012 01:23 PM (acEq7)
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at April 09, 2012 02:17 PM (+8FZK)
*****
Corey is not one who bows to pressure.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 09, 2012 02:22 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: will munny at April 09, 2012 02:27 PM (2y9eJ)
A) Z threw the first punch or used fighting words.
OR
B) Z was on top of TM when the shot was fired.
Unless there is a big piece of non-public evidence, B) is pretty much out - one good witness + forensic + GZ statement .vs. one witness who changed statement and another who "just remembered" many new details.
A is a bit easier but no dispositive proof to contradict GZ police statement. TM's girlfriend's call ended at the start of the confrontation and is not particularly reliable. Still would be an easy defense for a first year law student.
Looking at the maps and photos they may be able to nail GZ with parking on the wrong side of the road.
Posted by: deadman at April 09, 2012 02:29 PM (dvEtf)
@deadman,
See Jerome Ersland tape. Who drew first? Jury's are very unreliable and unfortunately, very PC. Zimmerman will do time.
Posted by: will munny at April 09, 2012 02:53 PM (2y9eJ)
****
Only if he is charged.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 09, 2012 02:55 PM (piMMO)
That shot COULD have been the 'one good witness' blowing Martin off the top of Zimmerman, which would have made this a case of SYG. But, in this case, the 'one good witness' turned his back to make a phone call when the shot rang out.
It is hard to conceive of an event where the Zimmerman-Martin table turns in mere seconds from a situation where an observer could have used SYG to protect a stranger being held down and getting his skull bashed in to the bashee breaking free and killing the basher from some safe standoff distance.
Whatever.. law enforcement has the full record with forensics. They already know who was on top and if Martin's chest cavity was full of burnt power...
Posted by: Rmoney Voter at April 09, 2012 02:58 PM (7MFxV)
Posted by: will munny at April 09, 2012 03:04 PM (2y9eJ)
Posted by: someguy at April 09, 2012 03:16 PM (sEXZ/)
Mounting and pounding ones head on the sidewalk is life threatening in the extreme.
By any reading of the law Zimmerman walks ...no charges!
Take the heat.
What would Holder and OBlahBLah do if the colors were reversed?
Posted by: ConcealedKerry or SubMitt at April 09, 2012 06:30 PM (nonzP)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2328 seconds, 418 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 09, 2012 09:43 AM (8y9MW)