I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels. That doesn't mean, though, that as a nation we can't do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm still bouncing around with my staff, so we're not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.
In an otherwise affective "I Feel Your Pain, Because It's My Pain Too" speech yesterday, did Barack Obama just announce that federal hate crime charges against George Zimmerman will not filed? It sure sounded like it.
His claim that the federal government can't do much about institutional racism in general (it's a "traditional" states' thing) and the Zimmerman verdict in particular is pretty weak, to put it kindly. More compromising Millard Fillmore than Abe Lincoln, to be sure. (or, heaven forfend, John Brown.) The subtext of his remarks is that we should have one of those national conversations in lieu of hauling creepy-ass crackers into federal court. We acknowledge that evil exists in this world, but must remain serene in the knowledge that the younger generation to which his daughters belong are more tolerant than we are.
A Sardonicky reader named Eleanor, who is a California attorney, emailed me after Obama's remarks, noting that "under the dual sovereignty doctrine, the feds are not barred by 'double jeopardy' from bringing criminal charges against the acquitted Zimmerman based on the same facts
underlying the state case. Here's the federal civil rights criminal statute that Obama goes to extravagant verbal lengths to pretend is irrelevant to the "traditionally state and local" Zimmerman criminal case. It most emphatically is NOT."
The especially applicable points are in her bold:
United States Code
Karen here: So for all the apologists and wimps out there in TV Punditland who claim it would be just too, too hard for the feds to prove that George Zimmerman had racial animus in his heart when he stalked and killed Trayvon: there is nothing in the law that says they even have to. It not the perception that counts. It's the reality. The reality that a black boy is dead. That is evidence, in and of itself, of a hate crime. A thousand character witnesses insisting that Zimmerman was not a racist would not and could not factor into any federal case.TITLE 18 — CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I — CRIMESCHAPTER 13 — CIVIL RIGHTS18 U.S.C. § 249. Hate crime acts(a) In General (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin — Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person — (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and (B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if — (i) death results from the offense; or (ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. (2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability (A) In general — Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person — (i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and (ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if — (I) death results from the offense; or (II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. (B) Circumstances described — For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that — (i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim — (I) across a State line or national border; or (II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce; (ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A); (iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)— (I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or (II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce. (3) Offenses occurring in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States — Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs. (4) Guidelines — All prosecutions conducted by the United States under this section shall be undertaken pursuant to guidelines issued by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, to be included in the United States Attorneys' Manual that shall establish neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of any person.
(b) Certification Requirement (1) In general — No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that — (A) the State does not have jurisdiction; (B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; (C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. (2) Rule of construction — Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.
(c) Definitions — In this section — (1) the term "bodily injury" has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim; (2) the term "explosive or incendiary device" has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title; (3) the term "firearm" has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; (4) the term "gender identity" means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and (5) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
And then there is the issue of the Florida verdict not being in the anti-bias national interest. When it comes to hate crimes, the federal interest always trumps the state interest. The Florida jury does not get the last word, because Trayvon's death was not vindicated.
Here's the rest of the federal statute. Congress could have tailor-made it for the Trayvon Martin case:
(c) Definitions — In this section — (1) the term "bodily injury" has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim; (2) the term "explosive or incendiary device" has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title; (3) the term "firearm" has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; (4) the term "gender identity" means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and (5) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
(d) Statute of Limitations (1) Offenses not resulting in death — Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed. (2) Death resulting offenses — An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation. ( Added and amended Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Secs. 4707(a), 4711, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2838, 2842. )
AMENDMENTS
2009 — Subsec. (a)(4). Pub.L. 111-84 added par. (4).
SEVERABILITY
Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Sec. 4709, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2841, provided that: "If any provision of this division [see Short Title of 2009 Amendments note set out under section 1 of this title], an amendment made by this division, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this division, the amendments made by this division, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby."
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Sec. 4710, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2841, provided that: " For purposes of construing this division [see Severability note above] and the amendments made by this division the following shall apply:
" (1) In general — Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow a court, in any criminal trial for an offense described under this division or an amendment made by this division, in the absence of a stipulation by the parties, to admit evidence of speech, beliefs, association, group membership, or expressive conduct unless that evidence is relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.
" (2) Violent acts — This division applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim.
" (3) Construction and application — Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or association, unless the Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to —
" (A) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
" (B) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
" (4) Free expression — Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
" (5) First amendment — Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
" (6) Constitutional protections — Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. "
FINDINGS
Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Sec. 4702, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2835, provided that: " Congress makes the following findings:
" (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
" (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
" (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
" (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
" (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
" (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
" (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
" (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
" (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
" (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
" (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
" (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
" (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct 'races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
" (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
" (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes. "
For definitions of "State" and "local" used in section 4702 of Pub.L. 111-84, set out above, see section 4703(b) of Pub.L. 111- 84, set out as a note under section 3716 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Karen again: We don't need a celebrity White House task force or newspaper editorials celebrating the first black president's personal agony, allowing his personal narrative and struggles to be substitutes for enforcement of existing laws and initiation of official public policies.
Don't get me wrong. There was a lot to admire in the president's address. It was obviously tough for him -- he, who has always striven to rise above it all -- to give voice to some basic, ugly truths. The usual right wing suspects are predictably pouncing, going into self-victimizing overdrive. My own criticism, from the left, doesn't preclude my being moved by his words. But I was not moved to the point of forgetting that he has done little to nothing to alleviate black poverty during his tenure. As I noted in a previous post, it took him more than two years to finally admit the Congressional Black Caucus to his inner sanctum for a very brief meeting. He may have experienced racial profiling at some points during his own life, but it has not translated into the elimination of racial profiling for the rest of the brown and black population. As a matter of fact, he has done the exact opposite.
He directs his drone strikes against dark-skinned people. He has heartlessly refused to explain to the grandfather of one his American victims, a boy the same age as Trayvon Martin, why he was killed as he sat outside with friends eating pizza. Just a few days ago, Obama all but nominated one of the worst official racial profilers in American history as director of Homeland Security. He has deported more Hispanics than any other previous administration, and has "reluctantly" endorsed the institutionalized racial profiling in border states as proposed in the current immigration "reform" legislation. He has intensified the War on Drugs that disproportionately sweeps up minorities into a prison system that is the largest in the world. His Race to the Top education reform program has closed schools and laid off thousands of teachers in poverty-stricken minority neighborhoods. He has remained silent on the economic implosion of predominately black Detroit.
On the same day that former Obama consigliere, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced the firings of more than 2000 teachers in one fell swoop, first lady Michelle just happened to be in town schmoozing it up and smoothing it over. It was a private confab for yet another P3 (Public-Private Partnership: in which wealthy individuals get tax breaks via their greed-washing noblesse oblige and therefore don't have to pay more taxes for the maintenance of the government social safety net.) This one was orchestrated by Mrs. Rahm, all about how to "career-train" and mentor -- and let's not forget empower -- a select few lucky duckies among the thousands of evicted black youths who will soon be forced to walk to schools far from their own neighborhoods. The unlucky many will be in the direct line of gunfire from an epidemic of violence in that increasingly windy city. But if there's one thing the Obamas are good at, it's salving the liberal consciences of their backers as they maintain the neoliberal status quo and pretend to do something about what Michelle calls "gang-banging."
The first couple's image as caring, kind, uplifting meritocrats is well-crafted and camera ready. They supply the band-aids of do-gooderism to cover up some really nasty stuff, greasing the skids for the privatizers and charter school plutocrats. They are the gifted inspirational symbols for the very people they are helping to keep down. (If We Can Do It, So Can You! I've been "down there", but look at me now. So if you work hard, play by the same rules, you "should" be able to climb the ladder right behind me. We'll leave the door open for you, in any case. Your student loans will be through the roof, the Sequester is here to stay, and that chained CPI will eat right into your retirement. But we got the birth control covered. So you go, Girl!)
On the same day that former Obama consigliere, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced the firings of more than 2000 teachers in one fell swoop, first lady Michelle just happened to be in town schmoozing it up and smoothing it over. It was a private confab for yet another P3 (Public-Private Partnership: in which wealthy individuals get tax breaks via their greed-washing noblesse oblige and therefore don't have to pay more taxes for the maintenance of the government social safety net.) This one was orchestrated by Mrs. Rahm, all about how to "career-train" and mentor -- and let's not forget empower -- a select few lucky duckies among the thousands of evicted black youths who will soon be forced to walk to schools far from their own neighborhoods. The unlucky many will be in the direct line of gunfire from an epidemic of violence in that increasingly windy city. But if there's one thing the Obamas are good at, it's salving the liberal consciences of their backers as they maintain the neoliberal status quo and pretend to do something about what Michelle calls "gang-banging."
The first couple's image as caring, kind, uplifting meritocrats is well-crafted and camera ready. They supply the band-aids of do-gooderism to cover up some really nasty stuff, greasing the skids for the privatizers and charter school plutocrats. They are the gifted inspirational symbols for the very people they are helping to keep down. (If We Can Do It, So Can You! I've been "down there", but look at me now. So if you work hard, play by the same rules, you "should" be able to climb the ladder right behind me. We'll leave the door open for you, in any case. Your student loans will be through the roof, the Sequester is here to stay, and that chained CPI will eat right into your retirement. But we got the birth control covered. So you go, Girl!)
Up until his Friday afternoon chat, Obama rarely mentioned Poverty. He never mentioned fighting for poor people in his re-election bid, never campaigned in poor neighborhoods. He was fighting for the mythical middle class.... or at most, those who "aspire" to the middle class.
As matter of fact, on the very same day that he paid angst-ridden lip service to black poverty, he was sending out yet another fund-raising email blast to his "base" --
I will spend the next three and a half years doing everything I can to work with anyone -- Democrat, Republican, or independent -- to fight for middle class families.
But I'll tell you what: it would be a lot easier if I had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.
(The Money Ask is inserted here.)
Thanks,
Barack.
Circumstances (rising public criticism by that same Democratic base of his "hidden hand" approach to crises) finally dictated that Barack Obama once again acknowledge the color of his skin while acknowledging racism. It was also time for him to acknowledge that racism is not only morally repellant, it also happens to be against the law when people act upon it. We do have to make a federal case out of it.
An anonymous Florida jury may have spoken. But it shouldn't get the last word. Especially when Number B-37 admitted on national TV that her mind was made up from the very beginning and she blamed a child for his own death.
This whole thing was a mess from the beginning. Florida law and its gun regulations allow, even compel, such occurrences. Florida has been made a more dangerous place to live because of them. Even more so for a person of color. Something very like this will happen again. Political posturing, the media frenzy and increasing polarity assure it.
ReplyDelete@Karen--
ReplyDeleteGreat information from reader “Eleanor,” proving that the Federal government still has the authority and responsibility to re-try George Zimmerman, charging him at the very least with manslaughter.
However, I doubt that either Obama or Holder will have the cojones to do it.
As you might suspect, I have quite a number of friends who are gun owners and concealed-carry permit (CCP) holders. When discussing the Zimmerman trial with some of them over breakfast a couple of days ago, they were uniformly in Zimmerman's “corner” until I reminded them that he violated cardinal principles that should have been included in his CCP training. Principles of which we were all aware, and which we respected.
Zimmerman willfully provoked the events that caused Trayvon Martin to die and, therefore, he should be punished.
When I threw in the fact that Zimmerman makes all responsible CCP holders—like us—look bad, most came around to my point of view that Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter.
Why Zimmerman's CCP training did not come up during the trial is incomprehensible to me, though because I did not follow the televised trial, it's possible that it did up and the jury chose to ignore it.
@Zee
ReplyDeleteI didn't catch much of the trial, but I do recall seeing a tape of Zimmerman where he denied that he was familiar with the Stand Your Ground law when the police questioned him. Then during the trial there was testimony from a CCP instructor that the Stand Your Ground law is part of CCP training and that Zimmerman aced the class. I must have missed the part where the prosecution hammered that discrepancy home to the jury, or maybe they didn't. They seemed suspiciously inept, like an incompetent higher up was calling the shots for them.
It wouldn't be the first time Zimmerman lied during this trial. Earlier he told the judge that he didn't have funds for his own defense, as I recall, but then it was found that he had a secret stash raised online from the website he set up after the shooting.
Another thing that this trial has made me think about more is the increasing number of citizen patrols, neighborhood watch captains, and other volunteer law enforcers, as well as the many private police forces of various college campuses and industries. Who has what authority over us?
Did my friends and I have to obey any orders from the uniformed officer with the 'BNSF Police' decal on his vehicle when we were walking down a public dirt road to take a national forest trail? (near the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad line)
We have so many of these semi- or pseudo-law enforcement entities that I really don't understand my rights or their authority. Who needs to fear militias when you have these under-color and undercover vigilantes roaming the streets getting away with murder. It does seem to help make a case for CCPs.
Here's a Trayvon Martin tribute song called "Made You Die." It was released last year and is understandably gaining traction again after last week's verdict:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcmUAG210oM
Interactive guide to the lyrics:
http://rapgenius.com/Dead-prez-made-you-die-trayvon-martin-tribute-lyrics
One of the rappers in the Trayvon tribute, Yasiin Bey (a.k.a. Mos Def), was seen in a recent video voluntarily being force-fed Gitmo-style. It is deeply disturbing to say the least. Proceed with caution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ACE-BBPRs
@Outsida (Part One of Two)--
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information regarding the testimony of Zimmerman's CCP instructor. I was unaware of that. I'll see if I can “Google up” any details.
Still, in terms of proving Zimmerman's culpability for Trayvon Martin's death, it would depend upon which questions were asked of the instructor, presumably by the prosecution, who, as you observe, seemed none too competent.
If all they asked was “In your CCP training course, did you instruct Mr. Zimmerman on Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, and did he seem to understand it?”, that might not establish any culpability in the eyes of the jury.
Perhaps this line of questioning for the CCP instructor would have a greater impact:
“In your training course, did you teach Mr. Zimmerman that an all-important responsibility for CCP holders is to do their best to avoid any and all provocations or confrontations that might lead to violence, especially when armed?”
If the instructor's answer was “yes,” as I am sure it would be, then:
“In your training course, did you teach Mr. Zimmerman that another all-important responsibility is to never intervene, especially while carrying a handgun, in a situation that you don't fully understand? Did you teach Mr. Zimmerman that when observing suspicious behavior or even violence, that his sole responsibility would be to call the police immediately and otherwise stay out of the way unless his own life was in imminent danger?”
If the instructor's answer was “yes,” as again I am sure it would be, then:
“And the reason that these two “rules” are in place is because any number of bad things can happen to all involved if they are ignored?”
If the instructor's answer was “yes,” as again I am sure it would be, then:
“Did the 911-dispatcher tell Mr. Zimmerman that he need not further follow Trayvon Martin as police were on the way? In ignoring this request, did Mr. Zimmerman not a violate key element of your CCP curriculum?”
If the instructor's answer was “yes,” as again I am quite sure it would be, then:
“So, in your professional opinion as someone who is licensed by the State of Florida to instruct private citizens as to the circumstances under which they may use lethal force to defend themselves, did Mr. Zimmerman follow the training with which you provided him?”
Here, of course, the answer would be “no,” so:
“So again, in your professional opinion, did Mr. Zimmerman violate a number of important elements of the training that you gave him after you found him “fit” to carry a concealed handgun? And did 'bad things' occur as a consequence of these violations?”
At this point, who knows what the defense might do (probably object), but the seed of Zimmerman's partial responsibility for Trayvon Martin's death might be planted in the minds of the jurors.
That's what I would have asked.
Outsida (Part Two of Two)--
ReplyDeleteAs far as your question about “Neighborhood Watches” and “Citizen Patrols” go, I doubt very seriously that any such town- or city-sanctioned organizations would be other than specifically told NEVER to carry a firearm or other weapon when “on duty.”
http://www.sacsheriff.com/crime_
prevention/documents/neighborhood_
watch_04.cfm
(See the section on “Citizen Patrols.”)
They have no “arrest powers,” are NOT sworn law-enforcement officers, and you can ignore anything and everything that they might “demand” of you, unless one of them is stupid enough to point a gun at you in flagrant disregard of the law. Then, you have to do whatever your instincts tell you to do.
Regarding the Burlington Northern and Sante Fe railroad “cops,” well, the extent of their authority appears to depend upon the particular state in which you reside:
“BNSF Special Agents may have investigative and arrest powers both on and off railroad property if authorized by the state in which they are working. They carry interstate authority as provided by federal law (Title 49, USC, Section 28101.) This authority means that if railroad police are commissioned in one state, they can work in another, if that state has authorized railroad police, however to the limit allowed by the state they are in.” (My bold emphasis.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
BNSF_Police_Department
I'm reasonably sure that this is something that you could determine by contacting your own State Police or equivalent thereof. Just a thought.
What did the BNSF cops ask/tell you to do? They might have been overstepping their bounds! In which case, they should have been reported to “real” law enforcement.
I have a CCP simply because any number of threats can arise during which having a firearm at hand could be helpful. But “militias,” “pseudo-law-enforcement entities” and “vigilantes” are the least of my worries:
I often walk in the Open Space/National Forest area very near my home, though seldom alone. There are a number of strange personalities who choose to live up there in violation of the law, and who have been known to harass and threaten hikers. And in the same Open Space, a rabid coyote or hungry mountain lion are not unknown.
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/10381/abqnewsseeker/905am-rabid-coyote-found-in-cortez-colo.html
http://www.abqjournal.com/sports/25955/go/encounter-with-cougar-a-little-too-close-for-runner.html
Both Mrs. Zee and I have experienced random incidents in which people of uncertain identity have tried to force us off lonely roads at night. In these instances, one's car is actually the best defensive weapon available. But what happens if you are actually forced off the road and stopped? Would you prefer a tire iron or a 15-round Glock as your next line of defense, especially if you're out of cell 'phone range?
Unless, of course, one is a total pacifist, (it doesn't sound like you are) in which case the only option is total submission. And yes, I count such people as my friends, though they are a partial mystery to me.
It sure looked like a clear 'But For' case. But for Zimmerman getting out of his car after being advised not to, none of this would have happened. Unfortunately the American adversarial legal system is based on legal game playing starting with jury selection, and not on justice.
ReplyDelete@CitiZen--
ReplyDeleteYou have it exactly right. It's a clear-cut "But For" case.
Sadly, the Florida jury did not see it that way.
Maybe the next one--in a Federal court--will.
I have a big problem with hate crimes laws in general. We shouldn't be in the business of punishing the motivation, only the actual act. If we're going to add years to a sentence because of the motivation for a crime, then logically the motivation, in and of itself, should be worthy of a prison term. As abhorrent as I find racists, I don't think we ought to be in the business of jailing people just because they're racist. And heaven knows, convicts don't go to Sing Sing and unlearn their racism.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, there is certainly plenty of justification for bringing other federal charges against Zimmerman. Certainly he deprived Martin of his civil rights. And Zimmerman should be charged and he should be jailed, because what he did - regardless of the racial elements of the case - is deserving of prison.
@Zee
ReplyDeletehttp://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ominous-alliance-militiamen-showing-
There you go - Hikers in the woods encountering militia working as security for a mining company. It seems my experience was not so uncommon, nor are my concerns unwarranted about so many dubious private corporate security forces cropping up.
Much of our public land and even some privately owned lands have oil and mineral rights under them that belong to corporations. Those rights were either sold by previous owners of the private properties or, in the case of public land, are nearly given away by our government for a pittance/year fee under the Mining Act of 1872 to corporate entities.
I expect we'll be seeing more of this as corporations protect their assets. Even private landowners' property is now being invaded, trampled on, and ruined for those resources because the corporations are finding the market and technology favorable for extraction, not to mention the gutting of environmental regulations.
@Outsida--
ReplyDeleteThe event described in the article to which you provided a link is scary indeed. I, too, would be alarmed to be confronted by camo-clothed and masked people out in the forest who were also carrying semi-automatic rifles. (And no, carrying a mere concealed handgun would not ease my concerns.)
This is a trend of which I had not heard, so thank you for the information.
Still, when hiking in somewhat remote areas—as, apparently, both you and I do—one never knows what or whom one might come across, or what accident or “weather surprise” might occur.
In the National Forests of Northern California—my home state and region—it is marijuana and even opium growers who are damaging the environment and threatening those who stumble upon their fields. They are the reason that some Forest Service personnel now carry weapons when going about their regular business in remote parts of the National Forest.
Here are a couple of links to articles about this:
http://www.livescience.com/17417-marijuana-growers-national-forests.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/04/local/la-me-fort-bragg-20110904
Some of us tend to feel “safer” in urban environments while others amongst us feel “safer” in the wilderness. But the fact is that the unexpected can happen anywhere, and like any good Boy Scout, we always need to “be prepared.”
Friends laugh at the fanny pack that I haul along on even casual walks up into the Sandia Mountains behind my home: extra water, protein bars, first aid kit, two “space blankets,” storm-proof matches and tinder, compass, whistle, cell 'phone (of course), mirror, benadryl tablets, and three handy little multi-tools that complement each other. And always, a stout walking stick.
Sounds like overkill for a casual walk? Well, you would be surprised how often trail accidents, weather surprises—or simply getting lost—happen in the Sandias that require emergency search and rescue services.
Those who get lost are particularly hard to understand. Depending upon which side of the mountain one is on, simply head west and you'll hit Albuquerque, or head east and you'll hit NM 14 and civilization. Easy, peasy.
But if a friend sprains or breaks an ankle—or worse—when the weathered granite on the trail acts like myriad ball-bearings, you just might be spending the night on the mountain or in the foothills before help arrives.
Be prepared.
Juror says Zimmerman 'got away with murder' http://usat.ly/1c6Lixk via
ReplyDelete@USATODAY
Now learning how the next Juror who spoke out really felt about the trial, why did she capitulate and vote for a not guilty verdict when she could have legally held up the Jury's decision by voting for manslaughter? It is closer to her truth and I believe under such circumstances they would have been required to call a mistrial and perhaps choose another jury? Am I right about this?