Trayvon Martin Case: George Zimmerman’s 10 Big Problems

[malaise]

http://www.africanglobe.net/headlines/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmermans-10-big-problems/#.T5P-ddWyKP1
<snip>
1. He incriminated himself by saying “they always get away” placing Trayvon Martin in the same category as the alleged many, real or imaginery, suspects either he or the Sanford Police had failed to deal with in the past. He profiled Martin as a thief demonstrating prejudice and ill disposition.

2. He profiled Martin as a thief and he could see that he was Black –Zimmerman states this in response to the 911 dispatcher’s question. Since he had not witnessed Martin committing a burglary or any other crime, he had concluded that Martin was a criminal simply because he was Black.

3. He profiled Martin as a criminal suspect because he was Black and was also wearing a hoodie; since many young African American males –and white ones too– wear hoodies, it means that Zimmerman was prejudiced against Black males that fit that category. Martin became the perfect prey once Zimmerman spotted him in the neighborhood.

4. Zimmerman’s prejudice towards Black males is known. He had called 911 previously 46 times before, to report suspects in the neighborhood. According to The Daily Beast, “starting in 2011, Zimmerman’s calls increasingly focused on what he considered ‘suspicious’ characters walking around the neighborhood—almost all of whom were young black males. On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about ’7-9′ years old, four feet tall, with a ‘skinny build’ and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.”
-----------------
A hate murder?

[jpak]

1. Yup - hate crime

Trayvon Martin was committing no crime when Zimmerman hunted him down and killed him.

Zimmerman's so-called "apology" was the uttering of a sociopath - no sincerity at all.

and a little too late.

yup

[pipoman]

2. I am not a believer in "hate laws"

Either someone committed a crime or they didn't. Most or at least many murders are based in a hatred of the victim. Is a murder committed because of bigotry any worse than a murder committed because the killer hated his BIL? Hate crimes are impossible to apply fairly since it goes to abstractions of intent, when only criminal intent needs to be present for successful prosecution of a crime. These laws are very similar to the crack laws.

[WingDinger]

4. Because Gov is charged with reducing it's institutional racism, and because

Killing random outgroup individuals leads to anarchy, hate crime penalties are warranted..

That is terrorism, of the same quality as El Salvador, or Nicaragua.

[bettyellen]

6. Exactly it's akin to terrorism because it's designed to put fear into

The community. What's more- many communities would look the other way when good old boys go after minorities. They would not arrest- let alone proscecute - anyone at all for these crimes 40-60 years ago. Sometimes law men were Klansmen were criminals.
Federal laws are needed to step in and make sure that local PDs serve ALL their citizens, not just their favorites. Sanford has a problem, I'm glad they are investigating them for bias here.

[pipoman]

9. I don't disagree about federal oversight

in a case such as what you describe. The problem is in speculating intent. We don't need vague duplications based entirely on intent beyond criminal intent. There are federal laws in place which allow for federal intervention when law enforcement and/or prosecution teams are biased or have a conflict of interest. Again I ask, what makes a murder any worse than a murder?

[WingDinger]

11. So, you see no utility in confronting terrorism, and it's adherents directly?

Hamstring them into hearing Breivik's slobbering recount of mass massacre. In essence, spreading his gospel of hate and terrorism?

While we maintain low tones?

[pipoman]

17. I'm tired of everything being labeled "terrorism"

this was a crime committed by one man against another. Analysis of why it was committed may be interesting but to use it as a vague indication of a crime beyond the actual crime will result in inequality of application.

[Scuba]

22. What about the next teenager? Isn't he terrified?

There's a reason for hate crimes to be treated differently that crimes of passion, crimes of greed, etc.

[pipoman]

31. Terrified of Who?

This guy is in jail. I haven't heard of a group he belongs to. Why is that? Is someone more dead if their murderer hated them?

[Scuba]

32. You haven't heard of the group? Funny, everyone else has.

[pipoman]

33. Really? Funny no mention of any group in the OP..

seems if there is some group affiliation it should have been at the top of this list, no?

No, this is the tragic story of one lone person who acted alone.

[LeftishBrit]

36. 'Is someone more dead if their murderer hated them?'

No, but others from their group are more intimidated.

I think the term 'hate crime' is possibly unfortunate. The point is not that the murderer or violent assaulter feels the emotion of hate toward their victim, but that they are using the crime to threaten others of the group. If Joe beats Bill up in a robbery or as the result of an angry quarrel, that is a crime against Bill. If Joe beats Bill up because he is black, or Jewish, or gay, or a benefit claimant, then it is a crime first of all against Bill, but is also a threat to other people who are black, or Jewish, or gay, or benefit claimants: 'Your group is a target; you may be next!'

Of course it's not always possible to prove intention, but that is an issue for the criminal law in general. It's generally seen as worse to commit a premeditated murder than to kill someone in the heat of the moment, and both are seen as worse than killing someone through negligence but unintentionally, even though the victim is just as dead in all three cases. If you cannot prove the worst intentions, then you have to convict only of the lesser crime; but that doesn't mean that intention is irrelevant.

[pipoman]

7. It is not equal protection

and unless the killer was wearing a klan outfit or rants on and on about a hatred of his/her victim based on race, religion, etc. it is speculation. This has nothing what so ever to do with governmental institutional racism, it has to do with intent of an accused. Do we prosecute hate crimes when any member of one ethnic group victimizes a member of another ethnic group? No, nor should we. "Hate Crimes" are the antithesis of civil libertarianism.

[WingDinger]

8. Here is my earlier post, in another thread.

My grandfather was murdered by a gang that was taking revenge on the first white person they encountered. they kicked, shot, stabbed him. This, for the interest of a crossing guard into the story of a little girl who was raped as a hazing to gain entry into gang. In broad daylight, right in front of their apt.

They had underagers do the killing. They killed random white person, so it would not be murder one. They were for the first time in history, let out on their own recognizance. My Grandmother, while in court, had to have two marshalls flanking her, or the crowd at the trime would lynch her in the courtroom. The family of one of the killers, took the whole family, parked outside the crossing guards home, and glared, for weeks.






There is an interest in stopping this kind of fear in a community. There are myriad reasons this is bad for civilization.

PS, that is MY grandfather
This was before hate crimes, and there were FOUR mistrials, and my grandmother finally said I cant do this anymore. They skated.

[pipoman]

10. And there are laws,

in most states and at the federal level for these types of offenses. To try to compound a penalty due to intent without a material factor (aggravated, against a minor, something material) is an open door for public opinion to disregard equal protection, inequality in application.

[WingDinger]

12. So, you are saying that hate crime legislation is fueling the reverse racism hysteria?

The fears of offending white privilege, and it's primacy?

[pipoman]

16. I'm saying it cannot be applied with any degree

of fairness.

[WingDinger]

24. What is fairness?

Fairness is what is good for society. If society has an interest in showing particular attention to those meaning and intending to cause collapse, at some level of society? They can attach harsher penalties. Who are you to tell society cannot do so?

Your death, after harsh words to a relative, is seen as Jerry Springer, no harm no foul. Trayvon, stalked and then killed, by a vigilante with concealed weapon, has MASS impact, AS HAS BEEN SEEN. Thus, if he can be shown to say, Fucki g Coons, and then hunt Trayvon, after saying OK, I will not follow further. Hate crime. And that designation, sends a message to any that would kill fellow Americans en masse. Or even simply consequence free hunting.

Society will lose BUSINESS, if anarchy, and the resulting chaos increase. Therefore, it has that right. Where does that right come from? It comes from the social compact. That structure that includes the social welfare state. And why you don't get to inject the poison to kill your guilty party.

[pipoman]

30. Still not getting it, eh?

Fairness is what is good for society.

No. Fairness in this context is equal application of the law. You are advocating some sort of vigilantism.

If society has an interest in showing particular attention to those meaning and intending to cause collapse, at some level of society?

This is one person who is accused of breaking the law and is now facing criminal prosecution for a crime. He is not "meaning and intending to cause collapse, at some level of society" in any meaningful way...I have heard nor seen anything..have a link? Would you then call for arrest and charging the Black Panther's leader who offered a "dead or alive" bounty on Zimmerman? Seems to fit your definition.

It is interesting you mention Jerry Springer. You seem to be advocating Jerry Springer Justice. I know that some people simply can not understand the basic tenants of criminal JUSTICE.

[GOPonziconz]

13. Most other western nations have hate laws. In Canada you cannot target people for their religion or

their sexual preferences, colour or heritage or you are charged with a hate crime!

People in Canada are 'live and let live' and manage to live for the most part, harmoniously

just as other western nations do.

They don't care what colour their neighbours are, where they come from or what religion

they practice, as long as the neighbour's dog doesn't shit on their lawn, they don't care!

I'm not saying they don't have problems, they do, but it's stopped before someone gets hurt

They protect their citizens from those who would do them harm.

[pipoman]

15. Yes, and someone is going to prison in the UK for calling a

politician a dirty name..no thanks. Just because Canada or the UK does something doesn't mean it is constitutional here, or right for that matter. It is too abstract of concept to result in equal application, therefore flies in the face of civil libertarianism, IMHO.

[malaise]

25. This hate crime is not going away - you know why

Because the police were part of the coverup

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/22/stephen-lawrence-new-public-inquiry

--------------
There are hate crimes and punishment must be swift.

[pipoman]

28. It doesn't require an abstract

law to charge and convict of a crime of conspiracy or civil rights violations if local law enforcement fails to act according to the law. I'm curious the actual conviction rate of "hate crime" charges..I'm guessing the conviction rate is low.

[GOPonziconz]

27. Civil libertarianism??? You think civil LIBERTIES are infringed on if you can't beat someone up

for their religion or colour? Sickening, and the US is not libertarian!

While I disagree with anyone going to jail for calling someone a dirty name on Twitter I agree with hate laws!

So if someone picks on you for being white, maybe Christian or whatever, that's okay?

That's wrong! If your kid gets swarmed and killed by vigilantes for being white you would scream 'hate crime' pretty loudly!

Why should anyone be able to beat someone up because of the colour of their skin? That's just stupid!

[pipoman]

29. Only someone who does not understand the concept

of civil libertarianism would think such a thing.

So if someone picks on you for being white, maybe Christian or whatever, that's okay?

It depends your definition of "picks on". If you are talking about non-threatening speech, then yes, it's OK. If you are talking about threatening speech, there are laws on the books for that. If you are talking about pushing someone physically, there are laws for that. What are you talking about?

That's wrong! If your kid gets swarmed and killed by vigilantes for being white you would scream 'hate crime' pretty loudly!

No, I would expect a charge of murder or what ever. I may expect the motive to be considered at sentencing and used to show criminal intent. Further, there is never a victim or family who believes the offenders punishment is harsh enough or swift enough. It is far more important that there is no ambiguity in application of criminal law.

Why should anyone be able to beat someone up because of the colour of their skin? That's just stupid!

Who, in the world, said any such thing?

[LeftishBrit]

35. Probably he isn't. He's been threatened with it.

In any case this has nothing to do with hate crime. It has to do with excessive legal reactions to people being rude on the Internet, as though that is worse than being rude in person.

I think the case you're referring to is nutty and authoritarian, and I certainly don't think that everything in our legal system is perfect (the expression 'the law is an ass' originated in the UK!); but hate crime is a totally different issue. It's not about rudeness, but about violent crime toward someone which is also intended to intimidate others.

[arely staircase]

37. motivation has always played a role in determining how severe society

considers a transgression. Murdering someone for money is considered a capital crime in many jurisdictions while flying into a rage and killing someone isn't. So hate crimes laws simply reflect society's determination that killing or assaulting for racist reasons is worthy of greater condemnation.

[zeemike]

3. And all 10 can be rationalized away by right wing supporters.

Just like the dispatcher telling him "we don't need you to do that"....he did not say "don't do it" so it was just a suggestion.

[WingDinger]

5. Cept he said OK.

Had he said, NO, I will continue following him, I am armed,, and I dont want him to get away, they would have issued an order, and a warning that he had been warned.

And we would be talking about CAPITAL OFFENSE.

[pipoman]

18. In most jurisdictions (I can't think of any)

a dispatcher has no authority. Their job is to feed information from the call center to officers. A dispatcher ordering you to do anything is a suggestion.

[WingDinger]

23. I personally, have been put on notice, by police dispatch.

Last edited Sun Apr 22, 2012, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Whatever that non 911 number is.

[pipoman]

34. I didn't say that they don't try to order people to do this or that,

but ultimately their order doesn't constitute a lawful order by a law enforcement officer in any jurisdiction I've worked. I have heard of an order being issued, ignored, then the recording of the order being used later to support the "reasonable person" threshold used in many criminal prosecutions. Ultimately, I believe this is how this particular 911 conversation will be used. 'Dispatch operator #6 is a reasonable person. Dispatch operator #6 advised the defendant not to pursue. A reasonable person would have followed this advice....etc.'. But there is no force of law behind the suggestions of dispatchers, even if the dispatcher actually words their suggestion as an order...which apparently didn't happen in this case.

[-..__...]

14. #4 is false (either deliberately or accidentally).

He didn't call "911 46 times"... on numerous occasions he called the non-emergency number.

There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.”

Also false... he called because he was "concerned for well being" of the child who was walking alone and unsupervised on a busy street...

http://motherjones.com/documents/327330-george-zimmerrman-911-call-history

[cr8tvlde]

19. a 7-9 year old walking alone?

Wow. That describes a 2nd or 3rd grader walking home from school. Happens all over America, black, white, yellow, red ... girls and boys ... many walk home from school. That's why they have Crossing Guards.

This guy is clearly not all there. He looks almost haunted...just MHO. No wonder they have "taken care of him" over the years. Well, maybe now he'll get the care he likely could never get outside the penal system. But he must be locked up, one way or the other, hate crime or not.

[-..__...]

21. Irrelevant to the OP

My post is referring to the deceitful manner in which the article was written.

There are plenty of other threads discussing Zimmermans psychological status /state of mind.

This isn't one of them.

Wow. That describes a 2nd or 3rd grader walking home from school. Happens all over America, black, white, yellow, red ... girls and boys ... many walk home from school. That's why they have Crossing Guards.

The call was placed @ 19:11:31hrs (7:11 PM).

What time does school let out where you live?... In Sanford, FL? What time do crossing guards get off duty?

7:11 PM on April 22nd (coincidentally, todays date)... what time does the sun set (if it wasn't dark out yet, it was close to it)

[WingDinger]

26. 8:20ish

[libodem]

20. yes

A hate crime. Trayvon was killed for being black. That sends a message of fear to the black community at large to keep out of white neighborhoods.

I'll wager a lot of families had talks with their teens about safety while walking about.

[pokerfan]

38. 11. Lying in court

11. When he addressed the Martin family he said: I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am and I did not know if he was armed or not which is a falsehood as according to his 911 call:

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.

12. Claiming that he's indigent at his bond hearing and not disclosing he had over $200K in his donor money PayPal account though $5,000 of it was used to post his bond], according to his attorney:
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/4/27/questions_remain_about_200000_in_zimmermans.htm