Shot for getting skittles

As Justice Department investigates shooting of Florida teen, doubts arise about federal charges

Lawyers at the department said Tuesday that while the investigation into the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin would go forward, it would be difficult to prosecute the case under federal law. Civil rights law protects against “hate crimes” or actions by police officers, but Martin’s shooting may not have either of those elements, two officials said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the probe is still under federal review.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...eral-charges/2012/03/20/gIQAzGeRQS_story.html

Besides, your mom isn't a hoor.

She pays me.

It's not that I'm aware of. Good thing I didn't say that. However we've already established that, legally, you cannot provoke an attack and then claim self defense under the Stand Your Ground law.

Confront in what way?

If he's just going to go up to Martin and ask Martin who he is then how is that a problem?

Now if he's going up and he's the one to get physical with Martin then that would be a confrontation.

Well, yeah...but that's the Justice Department's Civil Rights cops...not the FBI.

There's no way they'll get Zimmerman on violating Martin's Civil Rights IMHO.

But you did imply it.

And you just implied it again in responding to my post.

"calling someone's mother a prostitute constitutes provocation" in other words the person calling someone's mother a prostitute couldn't claim self-defense if attacked

If that's not what you were trying to imply why did you even make that example?

You don't think giving chase to someone who was doing nothing illegal counts as confrontational?

ummmm you do realize that the FBI is part of the Department of Justice? And you do realize that the FBI is involved in the case? And it's the FBI that would do the report on the hate crimes aspect?

And it isn't the FBI that decides to put someone on trial it is the Department of Justice.

Did y'all listen to the tapes?

Okay, maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying that calling someone's mother a prostitute doesn't count as provocation under the use of force statute that you posted?

Maybe he's running up to him to give him a Skittle he dropped.

But seriously.....

It depends. But does it raise to the level of provoking a fight? It may or may not.

Yes that's what I'm saying.

Words can't hurt you. No matter what someone says to you, you've got no business attacking that other person. If you don't like what they are saying then you leave or you sue them for slander.

The exception would be if you're being threatened with death or great bodily harm. Then you could be preemptive in defending yourself but you would need some witnesses or video tape to help back up your side of the story. (short of the other guy admitting he said he was going to kill you)

Well, what kind of stuff did you think the statute was talking about when it said "Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,.."

If insulting someone or chasing after them for no reason doesn't rise to the level of provocation, then what does?

See, I didn't say insulting someone gives them the right to assault you. I said that it greatly limits your wiggle room with regards to claiming self defense if you end up killing them.

Unless you killed him, and there were no witnesses. Then they would have to take your word for it, at long as you kept your story straight, since they couldn't even arrest you without probable cause that it wasn't self-defense.

I'm afraid you've got that backwards. The burden of proof is on the State. In this country, it's innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Then I suggest you file a Freedom of Information Act request. They, the FBI, have to prove nothing to me or you.

Only by yo Mr. 2+2=4,
but 1+3 doesn't

It was my understanding that it was two separate investigations. One looking into the murder angle, and the other looking into the civil rights violation angle.

No one says it does, moron.
What many of us do say is that it implied the motivation and perceptions behind his actions which lead to a kid being dead.
I suppose that's another lie I'm pulling out of my ass, huh?

Think back to your history. Think of all the murders committed in the Deep South during the 1960's. When State juries failed to convict, the Feds didn't prosecute for murder because they didn't have jurisdiction. They prosecuted for violating the victim's civil rights.

If memory serves, it was the same deal with the Rodney King debacle. The Police Officers weren't charged with Assault. They were charged with violating Mr. King's civil rights. The Feds don't have jurisdiction for a murder prosecution in this instance.

Not even in cooperation with State authorities?

Exactly. All too often, people tend to get their emotions involved when there is a case like this and completely forget about 'burden of proof' and 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. Hopefully they're never in a position to make these kinds of decisions.

I believe he will be prosecuted, but the government will quickly overplay its hand if it starts pursuing the hate crime angle.

Hearsay is commonly defined as "an out of court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted."

The trouble with hearsay is that you often CAN'T cross-examine the person who said the actual statement.

In this case, though you can cross-examine the girl who had the conversation with Martin about her recollection of the statement, her bias, and so forth, you can't cross-examine her with any effectiveness about the statement itself and its reliability.

From what I understand, most of which has come from skimming the thread, at least part of what the girl might offer is the stuff that Martin told her, not just, "I was talking with him on the phone when I heard sounds of struggle and the line went dead."

So let's say hypothetically, she says "Martin told me 'This crazy guy has been following me and threatening me.'"

The lawyer can ask a bunch of questions to the tune of "Witness, you were Martin's girlfriend/good friend, right?" and try to get her to seemed biased that way. Or a bunch of questions trying to show that she doesn't remember exactly what was said, or that she didn't come forward with this information from day 1.

But the lawyer can't really fundamentally shake the testimony that this is what Martin said, even though Martin might have been lying to the witness, mistaken, etc.

All this raises a Confrontation Clause issue, as discussed earlier.

A judge might not allow it on that basis.

A judge might allow it if the prosecution goes, "We're not offering it to show that it's in fact true that there was a crazy guy following Martin. We're offering it for some other purpose, such as to show why Witness did what she did," and the judge buys that argument. Because that would take it out of the general hearsay rule.

A judge might also allow it if the judge feels it falls within one of the various hearsay exceptions. I don't know if Florida law on evidence is analogous to federal law, but earlier I mentioned the "dying declaration" exception.

Another one this could fall under is "present sense impression."

To make a long story short, you're being too critical of Zombie here.

Define cooperation.

Are you asking if the State can use any evidence uncovered during the Federal investigation? I assume you could, but it would be highly unusual, especially if the Feds are looking at Zimmerman on other charges. My experience, which has only been two times, is that the Feds and State/Local Law Enforcement and Prosecutors don't play well together.

The Fed's usual MO when they're looking at someone is to tell the States to get bent and build their own case.

Not so easy there......

If you and I are standing near each other and all you're doing is threatening me with great bodily harm or death and I pull out my gun and shoot you I'll PROBABLY be arrested and more then likely charged with murder if there are no witnesses or video.

I can't just say you were threatening my life and I get off because the only one who could dispute my words, you, is dead. If we could do that then lots of people would be using that tactic to kill others and get away with it.

I've got to show self-defense came into play. For this scenario I need witnesses or videotape to help bolster my case. Especially if you don't have a weapon.

I'm not saying I would get charged in such a situation but it's not as black and white as you're attempting to make it.

This is why I said "you would need some witnesses or video tape to help back up your side of the story. (short of the other guy admitting he said he was going to kill you)".

Now before anyone brings up Zimmerman:

#1 He was in a fight. Bloody nose. Bloody back of the head. Shirt was wet and had grass on it indicating he was on the ground at one point. We also know the 911 calls said there was a fight.

#2 The police took him to the station after the shooting and interviewed him. His claim of self-defense was good enough at that point for them not to arrest.

#3 If no evidence of a fight was present he probably would have been arrested. Note I said probably.

And as I said the defense, any competent defense, will automatically object and file motions to get this witness barred from the case and if the judge still allows it and Zimmerman is convicted this will be one of the things in the appeal they will file on his behalf.

Link.

I would say that part of that might have been politics and also that since then, there have been federalization of a lot of traditional local crimes.

It also has to do with double jeopardy. You can't get tried at the state level for murder and then again at the federal level for murder.

Since the state would typically assert jurisdiction first, it would lock the feds out from trying a person for murder a second time.

However, you can get tried twice for offenses stemming out of the same occurrence/set of facts.

This is an example of that. Once the Rodney King Four were acquitted of assault charges at the state level, no level of government can bring charges for assault out of that same incident.

However, violation of the person's civil rights is another story.

Not 100 percent sure that is true.

For instance, if the Feds thought that Zimmerman were violating Martin's civil rights, they could bring the murder in on supplemental jurisdiction.

We know he says he was in a fight, and showed X symptoms that strongly suggest he was in a struggle.

It's not impossible that in realizing what he did, he figured he should put together a self-defense claim by putting blood on himself, and throwing himself to the ground.

Agreed, with the caveat that there is little chance of the witness being barred entirely, as she can attest to background noises that she heard during the phone call and such without running afoul of the hearsay rule, I'd think.

In terms of what an appellate court might do with all this is just super-speculative because we know if there are grounds for charges, let alone fully know what she will be alleging he said, etc.

AFAIK, the Feds don't have jurisdiction to prosecute for murder unless it occurs on Federal property. Otherwise, it's a state charge.