I'm not confident of the DOJ bringing hate crimes on Zimmerman here's why

[bigdarryl]

The Obama Administration has been afraid to address anything dealing with race so Im a little worried about them going forward.This is clearly a hate crime

[JRLeft]

1. SCOTUS will overturn it anyway. If was convicted.

[bigdarryl]

2. I've never heard of the court intervening on a Federal hate crime case

But you might be on to something this court will go against anything this Administration

[galileoreloaded]

3. I understand the FBI is on the record stating

It was NOT racially motivated.

[bigdarryl]

4. And if they said that there idiots just like the prosecution

In this case

[votingupstart]

5. i cant see DOJ entering the ring either

i think trying to come in at this hour would appear motivated specifically for the reason to prosecute zimmerman instead of appearing to uphold the rule of law. I dont know the technical term but something to the effect of a defense of political interference / etc - instead of the facts of the case.

(not a lawyer though)

[Igel]

6. Rather than blame the President, perhaps they'd look at the evidence and think, "Um ... No."

A lot of people were convinced that the evidence was clear and overwhelming for 2nd degree murder.

A few people said, "You know, it's just not all that. Plus the way the law's worded ..." But people were convinced.


Some people were convinced that the evidence was clear and overwhelming for manslaughter. Others, "Well, self-defense is a big hurdle to get over, reasonable doubt ..."

And the response was, "What reasonable doubt? That GZ killed TM?" And the conversation went downhill very, very quickly.

Remember this was a case that the local DA didn't want to bring. Maybe because she was biased, maybe because she didn't think they could win.

As the trial went on, witness after witness had two "spins" on their testimony: "That was *awesome*" with a few saying, "You know, I suspect this wasn't very credible" or "The person's showing doubt" or even "The prosecution has various ideas of what happened, so they're saying they're not sure."

The evidence wasn't evaluated with respect to does it prove things beyond a reasonable doubt; it was evaluated according to whether it fit a possible scenario in which TM was innocent or justified and GZ was guilty. People were constructing hypotheses they liked; this was an experiment and the jury was asked whether the prosecution's story was falsifiable. GZ's "not guilty" verdict was to be assumed, not proven.

Often people changed definitions to suit the goal. Or they overlooked trivialities that probably turned out to be crucial. No need to have a good story as to what happened for GZ to get off; just have to show that the prosecutor had no adequate and necessary story.

So when it "is clearly a hate crime" I have to wonder if "clearly" is the right word. I think people think it's a hate crime. I think people believe it's a hate crime. I think people want it to be classed as a hate crime. And I think some people need it to be a hate crime. I'm not sure that the DOJ could prove in a court of law that it is a hate crime--which is going to have very clear and strict legal definitions and requirements.