Let's talk about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and how unbelievably fucked up this all is

You can cut through the woods.

It doesn't matter what race Zimmerman identifies as. The racism here is an entrenched, institutional part of the justice system: If you want to be nearly assured of getting the death penalty, kill a white female; if you want to give yourself good odds of never being charged, kill a black male. Doesn't matter the race of the perpetrator.

I agree that it doesn't matter. was just perplexed when I saw the guy's photo

quote sounded like armed vigilante was their only option once thieves got past the gate.

texassparkle's bio: "I'm a conservative activist. I blog at The Houston Chronicle, RightWingNews, Newsbusters, and my own site."

so yeah, trolling.

xp Rashada doesn't sound like he approves of what Zimmerman did. He just has an opinion about the security of his housing development.

from all accounts it honestly sounds like zimmerman is mentally unstable, paranoid and completely unfit to carry around a weapon. and racist as hell, of course, but i get the sense that a factor in the institutional protection for him is happening because the police force that should be arresting him feels guilty that they ever let him have his power in the first place.

also MEGA RACISM, but i can't stop thinking about how CREEPY this guy's specific brand of sociopathy is.

also heavily annoyed that signing petitions for his arrest or just signal boosting in general isn't happening at a millionth of the same pace as jason russell's funtime-let's-all-kill-an-irrelevant-warlord campaign last week.

DOJ apparently taking over the case

also phone records show Martin had called his girlfriend minutes before the shooting, her name is being withheld at the moment but she has stated how Martin said how Zimmerman was pursuing him, he put his hood up because a guy was watching him?

this is so totally fucked, all of it

this is so terrible. I started to listen to the call but I just can't. I hope the DOJ gets this asshole into a federal prison ASAP.

What is the federal angle on the case?

the state is too pathetic to lock up its dangerous citizens?

you have really never heard of white latino/hispanic as a category? it's basically a race v. ethnicity question i.e. what matters more to people as a meaningful moniker/identifier.

many xps

sincerely, your whitish-tannish-sometimes olive-complected latino correspondant

(fyi I know that's not specifically a valid federal case, I'm just mad)

The Department of Justice's statement said:

"The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation. The department also is providing assistance to and cooperating with the state officials in their investigation into the incident. With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids – the highest level of intent in criminal law. Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-doj-investigation-20120320,0,6763029.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-doj-investigation-20120320,0,6763029.story

whoops, beat me to it

That police chief really is a piece of work. He really does have no sense of what a fool he sounds, I guess.

right so hate crime law I guess? IDK on one hand I guess I'm glad the feds will take this away from fla, but otoh wouldn't it be pretty hard to demonstrate that this was actually a hate crime? I mean obv the fact that the kid was black is a big part of why he is now dead, but it looks more like Zimmerman was a paranoid racist asshole who imagined he was protecting his gated community, not a guy out to intimidate black people in general.

Not necessarily hate crime law, counselor, you should know better!

i mean, i really have no idea -- is pursuing someone with a loaded weapon a clear indicator of malicious intent? i think there it's clear that zimmerman saw martin as criminal because he was black, and that he pursued martin because he thought he was criminal.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/trayvon-martin-case-sent-to-grand-jury

but can you string those together and argue that zimmerman pursued and shot martin because he was black? that's certainly how i see it going down but i don't know if that's enough to make a case xp

what "federal civil rights statutes" would cover this besides hate crime laws?

Maybe a failure to charge Zimmerman amounts to some 14th amendment equal protection/due process violation?

no way

Way. It's a tough argument, but doable.

as i understand the case, one of the biggest problems any possible prosecution faces is that while lots of people saw/heard the lead-up and immediate aftermath, george zimmerman is the only direct, living witness to the encounter and shooting itself. he made sure of that. his version of events is therefore all anyone really has to go on, absent forensic evidence that might seem to dispute it. i mean, zimmerman says trayvon martin attacked him. even if we have every reason to doubt his character and state of mind, i suspect that his story will be awfully difficult to unambiguously disprove in a court of law. all the hypothetical prosecution seems to have at this point are a few witnesses who say they heard trayvon call for help (or think they heard trayvon, or w/e).

if this case ever does go to trial, it's going to be very interesting to see what a jury makes of it. half suspect that a hung jury would be the outcome every time.

i mean, i really have no idea -- is pursuing someone with a loaded weapon a clear indicator of malicious intent? i think there it's clear that zimmerman saw martin as criminal because he was black, and that he pursued martin because he thought he was criminal.

(not personally but) legally speaking, i don't think it's at all "clear that zimmerman saw martin as criminal because he was black". i imagine that the defense's argument would be that zimmerman saw martin as a criminal because he was behaving "erratically" or "suspiciously".

honestly, i'm disappointed that the DOJ is apparently only (?) investigating the possibility of a hate-crimes prosecution, rather than pushing for a murder/manslaughter charge.

With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids – the highest level of intent in criminal law. Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws."

loading the deck a little here, no?

if this case ever does go to trial, it's going to be very interesting to see what a jury makes of it.

What a jury will make of this concerns me, frankly.

george zimmerman is the only direct, living witness to the encounter and shooting itself. he made sure of that. his version of events is therefore all anyone really has to go on

so one could conceivably kill anyone, on a whim, and as long as no-one else saw it claim it was self defense and get away with it? really? for real?

Murder and manslaughter aren't federal crimes, are they? Those prosecutions are left to the state. The federal case would be for violating his civil rights (by making him dead).

Yeah, I don't think this should be investigated as a hate crime even though it's pretty clear that race was a factor. But I'm starting to feel like any possible justice that gets done as a result of this tragedy will be tangential to the incident in question.

even if we have every reason to doubt his character and state of mind, i suspect that his story will be awfully difficult to unambiguously disprove in a court of law.

Trials . . . do not work that way?

well, that's the risk you run when you get courts involved btwn perps and justice /dredd

his version of events is therefore all anyone really has to go on, absent forensic evidence that might seem to dispute it.

was there forensic evidence taken from the scene?

i think the local cops forensically investigated that the guy killed was black, unsure as to how much further it went tbh

i am going to be for real here i don't care how it's done i want that dude in jail. jenny's point brings up the larger issue that is so upsetting from reading about this case, though; gated communities and institutionalized racism and the irony that white people think black people are so scary when really black people are terrified of white people because look what happens.

Bringing a federal charge of civil rights violation in a murder case has always been an end run around local prosecutors who are sitting on their hands. Yes, it is a convoluted way to get justice, but it works.

If local prosecutors fail to bring this to a grand jury, or the grand jury fails to indict, I think bringing a federal charge would be OK by me. It is so fucking obvious what happened and Zimmerman is lying his head off.

send in gene hackman imo

there are a billion and one factoids going around about this -- has it been mentioned that martin was on the phone when this happened?

the girl on the phone apparently told him to run and he wouldn't

xp There's also circumstantial evidence - what was in Trayvon's pockets, the phone call to his girlfriend, the 911 call. Plus credibility arguments that the defense will make about Zimmerman - he's a racist, paranoid lunatic. Plus discrediting the prosecution by showing evidence of all the shoddy police work. It's not just about witnesses and forensics.

Yeah, horseshoe, I just... I'm worried about a Florida jury convicting a guy for "standing his ground" and "protecting his community."

Via one of the bloggers at John Cole's place:

"Stand Your Ground" Law Goes Too Far

You can’t say we weren’t warned.

Back in 2005, opponents of Florida’s first-of-its-kind “stand your ground” law said it wouldn’t be long before we’d see shootouts in the streets — all in the name of self-defense.

Prodded by their NRA masters, lawmakers waved off those predictions as exaggerations. Then they overwhelmingly passed a bill that took the “castle doctrine” to infinity and beyond. The “castle doctrine” used to mean you could use deadly force if someone attacked you in your home. “Stand your ground” not only absolved the homeowner of any obligation to retreat, it extended that concept outside the home

Gov. Jeb Bush couldn’t sign the bill fast enough.

I haven’t heard of any fatal disputes over the grocery check-out line, but in 2010 an unarmed man was shot and killed at a park near Tampa in a dispute over skateboarding rules. The victim’s 10-year-old daughter watched her father die. A judge is currently considering whether the shooter merely stood his ground.

In 2008, a 15-year-old boy was killed during a shootout between two gangs in Tallahassee. Nobody was held accountable for the crime because a judge, citing the law, dismissed the charges.

And in January, a former Broward County sheriff’s deputy shot and wounded a homeless man inside a Häagen-Dazs ice cream shop in Miami Lakes. He said the man was threatening him and his family. Police said charges were unlikely in that case as well.

In fact, the number of justifiable homicides has significantly increased since the law went into effect, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

From 2000 to 2005, an average of 13 killings by private citizens were deemed justified each year. Between 2006 and 2010 that average increased to 36 killings per year. The highest was in 2009 at 45.

That first bit is a big xp to contenderizer about what kind of evidence is at play.

Also, the first defense should be "prosecution," obv. And the defense will try to discredit the prosecution. Yikes, I need a do-over.