Apparent "hate crime" in Seminole County, Florida

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seems to me, and i know i've read this before, that all crime has a level of hate involved-that pretty much all crime is a hate crime. i doubt very many rob or murder out of love. regardless of motive, the punishment should fit the crime or crimes. more heinous, more time-but how does one judge the level of hate? is it fact or opinion to decide if something is a hate crime? and does investigating something as a hate crime engender racial or other stereotypes? should we attempt to stop categorizing the 'why'? does it give unsavory elements press for others looking for a place? in the end, does 'why' matter anyway? do we punish for act or motive? seems to me the former is really what matters. and quite often, there is no real reason why.
the shooter in oakland killed seven last i heard-has anyone suggested a hate crime? if not, why not? it obviously is one. but since it had random victims without a pattern, there's no effort. i think the only type of crime that it would be important to seek a pattern is when you have a serial killer on the loose, since they sometimes only seek women of a certain hair color or some such detail.

Right. The aspect of "hatred" being added to the crime means nothing - except it was the motive.

What's an "honor killing" as seen in a Muslim father killing his daughter because of disgrace - is that a "love crime"?

Besides the obvious fact that no one can truly know the inner thoughts of another - just what he or she chooses to express - the concept of hate crime prosecution is an absurdity as far as legal proceedings go.

[GenuineRisk]

Neither of these cases are a parallel to the Trayvon Martin situation because in both of the cases cited in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have been arrested. What started the furor over Trayvon Martin wasn't the shooting itself, it was the alleged non-handling of the shooting by the Sanford police.

The US has a pretty well-documented history of violence against blacks by other races being disregarded, or willfully covered up by authorities, especially in, but certainly not limited to, the South. That's what this furor is about, no matter what the media chooses to focus on. The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

I agree that the protests should be about that, and that is what bothers me most about this case. I am also bothered, however, by those that see this case as STRICTLY about race.

Ocala Mike

Genuine Risk the champion for racial equality and you can look at her threads on racism in this subse...err wait. NVMD.

You give a f.uck about racial equality. Otherwise you wouldn't vote for Obama. Blacks are being locked up in record numbers. GTFO with your Faux Mother Teresa routine.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

I agree that the protests should be about that, and that is what bothers me most about this case. I am also bothered, however, by those that see this case as STRICTLY about race.

Ocala Mike

The "coverup", the "lack of investigation", is what the family were initially alleging was about race. The death of a black teenager wasn't seemingly as important for a thorough, deep investigation as the death of a white teen would have been investigated. And anybody who lives in the USA and denies that's true in many cultures in the south doesn't have a handle on our culture since the civil war.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Neither of these cases are a parallel to the Trayvon Martin situation because in both of the cases cited in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have been arrested. What started the furor over Trayvon Martin wasn't the shooting itself, it was the alleged non-handling of the shooting by the Sanford police. The US has a pretty well-documented history of violence against blacks by other races being disregarded, or willfully covered up by authorities, especially in, but certainly not limited to, the South. That's what this furor is about, no matter what the media chooses to focus on. The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

but is race brought into that particular discussion to say that the arrest hasn't happened due to the race of the victim, when in fact the arrest hasn't happened because of the way a law is written? this is the first time i've seen anyone say that race is why there was no arrest. i thought race was mentioned as why zimmerman reacted as he did? in no way have i seen that the martin case is evidence of poor police work-instead, everything i've seen is a result of the police feeling they couldn't make an arrest because of the stand your ground law. and as i've said before, i don't know that if they did arrest there would be a conviction. i'd suggest that they compile all the evidence and put it in front of a grand jury to decide if there should be a move forward...and i'd also think that the law might need to be tinkered with for in future.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but is race brought into that particular discussion to say that the arrest hasn't happened due to the race of the victim, when in fact the arrest hasn't happened because of the way a law is written? this is the first time i've seen anyone say that race is why there was no arrest. i thought race was mentioned as why zimmerman reacted as he did? in no way have i seen that the martin case is evidence of poor police work-instead, everything i've seen is a result of the police feeling they couldn't make an arrest because of the stand your ground law. and as i've said before, i don't know that if they did arrest there would be a conviction. i'd suggest that they compile all the evidence and put it in front of a grand jury to decide if there should be a move forward...and i'd also think that the law might need to be tinkered with for in future.

That's why it's important to spread a wide net when you're reading about a story- various media outlets will shape the facts to fit the narrative they want to tell, whether it's NBC editing audio, or Fox doing softball interviews of a professional "friend" of Zimmerman.

The Sanford PD has had at least two instances of delaying arrest of a white attacker of a black victim, until the public furor got too great, and in those cases, one, caught on video sucker punching a homeless man, got off with a light sentence of one year probation, and the other two, who shot and killed an unarmed man, were cleared. Now, one could also argue that both instances, the corruption was due to the attackers having connections to the PD, but either way, it's still not right, and I can see why black residents would see it as whites covering up for their own, not just police covering up for their own.

And in this case, the police didn't do a drug and alcohol test on Zimmerman, though they did on Martin. Even though they had Martin ID'd and his phone number, did NOT ATTEMPT TO REACH HIS FAMILY. In fact, they sent him to the morgue as a John Doe and it wasn't until his father was able to file a missing person report, which, as we all know, you can't do until 24 hours have elapsed, that Trayvon's family was informed their child was dead. They were not given any chance to see him until he'd already been cleaned up for the funeral, and the police won't let them see the autopsy report.

Now, this might all turn out to be because the Sanford police are buddy-buddy with Zimmerman, and trying to protect their buddy. Just as corrupt, but not racially motivated. BUT- it was poor police work on behalf of the PD, and, especially in the listing of the already-identified Trayvon as a John Doe, it's hard for me to believe that they would have behaved the same about a white victim.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That's why it's important to spread a wide net when you're reading about a story- various media outlets will shape the facts to fit the narrative they want to tell, whether it's NBC editing audio, or Fox doing softball interviews of a professional "friend" of Zimmerman.

The Sanford PD has had at least two instances of delaying arrest of a white attacker of a black victim, until the public furor got too great, and in those cases, one, caught on video sucker punching a homeless man, got off with a light sentence of one year probation, and the other two, who shot and killed an unarmed man, were cleared. Now, one could also argue that both instances, the corruption was due to the attackers having connections to the PD, but either way, it's still not right, and I can see why black residents would see it as whites covering up for their own, not just police covering up for their own.

And in this case, the police didn't do a drug and alcohol test on Zimmerman, though they did on Martin. Even though they had Martin ID'd and his phone number, did NOT ATTEMPT TO REACH HIS FAMILY. In fact, they sent him to the morgue as a John Doe and it wasn't until his father was able to file a missing person report, which, as we all know, you can't do until 24 hours have elapsed, that Trayvon's family was informed their child was dead. They were not given any chance to see him until he'd already been cleaned up for the funeral, and the police won't let them see the autopsy report.

Now, this might all turn out to be because the Sanford police are buddy-buddy with Zimmerman, and trying to protect their buddy. Just as corrupt, but not racially motivated. BUT- it was poor police work on behalf of the PD, and, especially in the listing of the already-identified Trayvon as a John Doe, it's hard for me to believe that they would have behaved the same about a white victim.

Your claim and the claim by others that the medical examiner would not release the body to the family for 3 days is false: "According to the medical examiner. It picked up the body at the scene just after 10 p.m. Feb. 26 and notified a Fort Lauderdale funeral home 39 hours later that the body was ready. The funeral home, Roy Mizell and Kurtz, did not pick up the body for an additional 24 hours, the medical examiner reported."

"Volusia County spokesman David Byron said it would be impossible to find out the average length of time the medical examiner there keeps bodies, but said it can vary by several days, depending on circumstances — for example, if there’s a dispute among family members about what to do."

"Dr. Jan Garavaglia, medical examiner for Orange and Osceola Counties, said her office generally releases bodies in 24 to 36 hours."

"The Medical Examiner’s Office in Monroe County — the Florida Keys — said the average there is five days."

http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012...ust-the-facts/

There is a lot of other false information out there. WREG separates some of the fact from the fiction in this video:

http://wreg.com/2012/03/28/trayvon-m...-fact-fiction/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Your claim and the claim by others that the medical examiner would not release the body to the family for 3 days is false: "According to the medical examiner. It picked up the body at the scene just after 10 p.m. Feb. 26 and notified a Fort Lauderdale funeral home 39 hours later that the body was ready. The funeral home, Roy Mizell and Kurtz, did not pick up the body for an additional 24 hours, the medical examiner reported."

"Volusia County spokesman David Byron said it would be impossible to find out the average length of time the medical examiner there keeps bodies, but said it can vary by several days, depending on circumstances — for example, if there’s a dispute among family members about what to do."

"Dr. Jan Garavaglia, medical examiner for Orange and Osceola Counties, said her office generally releases bodies in 24 to 36 hours."

"The Medical Examiner’s Office in Monroe County — the Florida Keys — said the average there is five days."

http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012...ust-the-facts/

There is a lot of other false information out there. WREG separates some of the fact from the fiction in this video:

http://wreg.com/2012/03/28/trayvon-m...-fact-fiction/

And, even after the family had identified their son (via a photo), the body was still labeled as a John Doe, and even though the family had asked the body be released to them, Trayvon's body was not:

<<NATALIE JACKSON: OK, we haven’t received the autopsy yet, so everything we know about where Trayvon was shot comes from the person who prepared the body. And it was in the center of the chest. The release of the body—the parents knew where Trayvon was the next day, when they filed a missing person’s report. However, he was labeled a John Doe for three days, even after the parents identified [him] as [their] son. That is the problem. So that was a little bit of people not quite understanding what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain that?

NATALIE JACKSON: No, we can’t. The parents asked for the release of the body. He was labeled a John Doe. They would not release the body for three days.

JUAN GONZALEZ: So, in other words, they were informed by the next day that he was dead?

NATALIE JACKSON: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: But was that only after they had filed a missing person’s report?

NATALIE JACKSON: That is correct, after they had filed a missing person’s report.>>

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/3...ey_on_mounting

So, it's a situation where the police have already determined no crime was committed, and yet they refuse to release the body to the parents (or even properly identify it). Why not? There's no conflict over what to do with the body, and the police claimed there was no crime committed. So why delay, and why not label the body properly, since the police knew the identity?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And, even after the family had identified their son (via a photo), the body was still labeled as a John Doe, and even though the family had asked the body be released to them, Trayvon's body was not:

<<NATALIE JACKSON: OK, we haven’t received the autopsy yet, so everything we know about where Trayvon was shot comes from the person who prepared the body. And it was in the center of the chest. The release of the body—the parents knew where Trayvon was the next day, when they filed a missing person’s report. However, he was labeled a John Doe for three days, even after the parents identified [him] as [their] son. That is the problem. So that was a little bit of people not quite understanding what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain that?

NATALIE JACKSON: No, we can’t. The parents asked for the release of the body. He was labeled a John Doe. They would not release the body for three days.

JUAN GONZALEZ: So, in other words, they were informed by the next day that he was dead?

NATALIE JACKSON: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: But was that only after they had filed a missing person’s report?

NATALIE JACKSON: That is correct, after they had filed a missing person’s report.>>

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/3...ey_on_mounting

So, it's a situation where the police have already determined no crime was committed, and yet they refuse to release the body to the parents (or even properly identify it). Why not? There's no conflict over what to do with the body, and the police claimed there was no crime committed. So why delay, and why not label the body properly, since the police knew the identity?

Everything you posted is coming from the Martin family attorney. Do you usually believe what the attorney says? George Zimmerman's attorney says it was self-defense.

With regard to the release of the body, I don't see anything that says normal protocol was not followed. From the article I posted, it said that the coroner down there usually keeps the body for 24-36 hours. In this case, the coroner notified the funeral home that the body was ready after 39 hours. It's not the coroner's fault that the funeral home (who is employed by the Martin family) did not pick up the body for an additional 24 hours.

With regard to the whole John Doe thing, I know nothing about that. I do know that there has been a lot of misinformation about this case. Once all the facts come out, we will find out whether the police did anything wrong with regard to identifying the body, handling the body, and notifying the family. Just because the Martin family says something, it doesn't make it true. You don't believe everything you hear from the Zimmerman family, so why would you believe everything you hear from the Martin family?

By the way, the coroner's office always does a thorough investigation when a young person dies. So even if the police call the coroner to pick up a person's body that they think was killed in self-defense, the coroner will still do a thorough autopsy and investigation. There are plenty of times when the police do not file charges at first, but then end up filing charges after they get the report from the coroner. There are plenty of times when the coroner comes to a completely different conclusion than the police. When that happens, the case is usually re-opened.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That's why it's important to spread a wide net when you're reading about a story- various media outlets will shape the facts to fit the narrative they want to tell, whether it's NBC editing audio, or Fox doing softball interviews of a professional "friend" of Zimmerman.

The Sanford PD has had at least two instances of delaying arrest of a white attacker of a black victim, until the public furor got too great, and in those cases, one, caught on video sucker punching a homeless man, got off with a light sentence of one year probation, and the other two, who shot and killed an unarmed man, were cleared. Now, one could also argue that both instances, the corruption was due to the attackers having connections to the PD, but either way, it's still not right, and I can see why black residents would see it as whites covering up for their own, not just police covering up for their own.

And in this case, the police didn't do a drug and alcohol test on Zimmerman, though they did on Martin. Even though they had Martin ID'd and his phone number, did NOT ATTEMPT TO REACH HIS FAMILY. In fact, they sent him to the morgue as a John Doe and it wasn't until his father was able to file a missing person report, which, as we all know, you can't do until 24 hours have elapsed, that Trayvon's family was informed their child was dead. They were not given any chance to see him until he'd already been cleaned up for the funeral, and the police won't let them see the autopsy report.

Now, this might all turn out to be because the Sanford police are buddy-buddy with Zimmerman, and trying to protect their buddy. Just as corrupt, but not racially motivated. BUT- it was poor police work on behalf of the PD, and, especially in the listing of the already-identified Trayvon as a John Doe, it's hard for me to believe that they would have behaved the same about a white victim.

i do that, but fox isn't one of those that i read.
as for the rest, it's your opinion at this point that it could be racially motivated police work, but i've not seen one fact that bears that out. probably more a case of the police treating this as a non-crime under the stand your ground law. change the law, which in turn changes the scope of investigations. i have no doubt the scene was treated as a crime scene, but perhaps not as a murder scene. of course hindsight shows there's more to the story.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i do that, but fox isn't one of those that i read.
as for the rest, it's your opinion at this point that it could be racially motivated police work, but i've not seen one fact that bears that out. probably more a case of the police treating this as a non-crime under the stand your ground law. change the law, which in turn changes the scope of investigations. i have no doubt the scene was treated as a crime scene, but perhaps not as a murder scene. of course hindsight shows there's more to the story.

I never said you got your info from Fox, any more than I said you did from NBC; I just used those as pretty blatant examples of a media outlet shaping a story to fit a pre-shaped narrative (though in the NBC case, someone did get fired, and rightfully so; it was a stupid thing to do).

Yes, hindsight is showing there may be more to the story; the thing is, had the story not been picked up by the public and carried forward, none of the stuff coming out might ever have.