Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Despite outrage, federal charges uncertain in Zimmerman case
CNN ^ | July 15, 2013 | Carol Cratty and Tom Cohen

Posted on 07/15/2013 10:48:15 AM PDT by Errant

Washington (CNN) -- In the emotional aftermath of the Trayvon Martin killing last year, Attorney General Eric Holder signaled the unlikelihood of filing federal hate crimes charges against admitted shooter George Zimmerman.

"For a federal hate crime we have to prove the highest standard in the law," Holder said in April 2012, 45 days after Zimmerman shot the African American teenager in what was depicted by civil rights groups as a racially motivated killing.

In words that now sound prescient, Holder described to reporters that day how "something that was reckless, that was negligent does not meet that standard."

"We have to show that there was specific intent to do the crime with requisite state of mind," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: doj; holder; tm; zimmerman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: Errant

uncertain is an understatement.


41 posted on 07/15/2013 11:39:53 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Is there a federal common law of self-defense? Or is it written into the statute?


42 posted on 07/15/2013 11:40:23 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude
A sad day in the US when prosecutions are now based on mob outcries not the rule of law or facts

The fact that the mob has no legal grounds to exact their revenge upon Zimmerman only means that they'll resort to taking 'justice' into their own hands.

GZ will be a marked man for the rest of his days. He may not be going to a concrete prison, but his life from this point forward will be a prison itself. His only hope for real freedom, is to one day slip quietly out of the country and relocate to a place where no one knows him.

I'm not even sure that's possible, given today's interconnected world.

43 posted on 07/15/2013 11:45:22 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

I believe any law related to self-defense would come under state statues. I don’t know of any federal codes that pertain to citizens in that regard?


44 posted on 07/15/2013 11:47:30 AM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Taking into consideration the clock is ticking, I think they’re going to use this for all it’s worth; damn the torpedoes.


45 posted on 07/15/2013 12:01:14 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Errant
I believe any law related to self-defense would come under state statues. I don’t know of any federal codes that pertain to citizens in that regard?

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seems to me that the right of self defense is implicit in the 2nd Amendment, though radical libs would argue otherwise.

46 posted on 07/15/2013 12:07:11 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
I agree with you, but since that amendment speaks, of militias, it's all too easy for liberals to argue that it doesn't pertain to an individual, where state statues are specific.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (The Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Therefor, it is the States who have supremacy, even though most state AG's cowardly relinquish those rights to the federal government.

47 posted on 07/15/2013 12:20:00 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
GZ will be a marked man for the rest of his days.

If I were GZ, I wouldn't be too overly concerned about that, since coming future events will likely change the public's perception at large.

48 posted on 07/15/2013 12:25:34 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Errant
"For a federal hate crime we have to prove the highest standard in the law," Holder said in April 2012, 45 days after Zimmerman shot the African American teenager in what was depicted by civil rights groups as a racially motivated killing.

How can we possibly expect "justice" from the DOJ when the AG Eri Holder describes the Zimmerman case as "a racially motivated killing"? Nothing of the sort happened and the jury agreed.

49 posted on 07/15/2013 12:33:31 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for the American politburo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
so a question for all you legal eagles:

Since Obama and Holder injected themselves into this case early on, would that not open themselves up to a subpoena in a federal case? Not that they would actually testify but they would have to explain why to a judge would they not?

Secondly, the Judge in the trial excluded all of TM past, I believe correctly (except using a 5 year old picture of TM). In a civil trail, would not all of TM’s past be open to investigation?

just wondering...

50 posted on 07/15/2013 12:43:44 PM PDT by baldeagle390
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Errant
If I were GZ, I wouldn't be too overly concerned about that, since coming future events will likely change the public's perception at large.

I like your optimism. Sign me up!

51 posted on 07/15/2013 1:16:38 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Errant
...since that amendment speaks, of militias, it's all too easy for liberals to argue that it doesn't pertain to an individual, where state statues are specific.

Even better, many state constitutions specifically mention the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

52 posted on 07/15/2013 1:19:09 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Errant

“I believe any law related to self-defense would come under state statues. I don’t know of any federal codes that pertain to citizens in that regard?”

I don’t either. There may be no plea for self-defense for a “hate crime” under federal law.


53 posted on 07/15/2013 9:23:09 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson