Skip to comments.Zimmerman family challenges Holder on New Black Panthers
Posted on 04/09/2012 5:51:18 PM PDT by mondonico
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, a family member of George Zimmerman asked the nations top law enforcement officer why he has chosen to not arrest members of the New Black Panther Party for their rhetoric some of which may fit the federal governments definition of a hate crime throughout the Trayvon Martin case.
The family member believes the reason Holder hasnt made those arrests is because he, like the members of the New Black Panther Party, is black.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Let us say it is because he is black first and foremost, and it is distant second to him that he is an officer of the court sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution, and it matters not at all that he is an American who ought to have loyalty to the country and a sense of fellowship with all its citizens.
Holder will do bupkus about the black panther bounty. We all know it. He’s worse than worthless...he’s dangerous. That’s why the FL Gov. and Attorney General have to step up and charge these thugs!
Anyone in Florida hear about any actions coming forth?
We've been here before, haven't we?
Murder for hire isn’t free speech.
They have a number of ways to argue that the First Amendment does cover it. GOPJ directed that to me because we've discussed this at length. I'm not saying it's right - I'm just saying it does.
First, you can't make a contract for an illegal act, so the Black Panthers can argue that anyone would recognize this as a political statement covered by the First Amendment rather than a true offer to solicit the death or unlawful detainment of George Zimmerman. Stinks, but they can argue that.
Second, just as we're all saying "WTH? They can't be serious. You can't do this." On a similar vein, the Black Panthers can say, 'see? People knew we weren't serious. We were being outrageous to make a ooint." First Amendment.
GOPJ and I have been over many other ways in which a coward could use the First Amendment as a shield in this case - not that's it's right, but because it's there and the First Amendment is a powerful thing that protects even *sses who spew hatred . . . until somebody acts on it.
There's also he issue that there may be no solicitation here because the bounty is so generalized that there is no true target of solicitation.
Up until something happens to Zimmerman, this is like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. The fact is, you can yell fire in a crowded theatre. You're only liable for the consequences if something happens, Just like you're only responsible for inciting a riot if you're successful. You don't get arrested for attempting to incite a riot.
The landscape changes if somebody detains or kills Zimmerman and says they relied on the broadside published by the Black Panthers. At that point, the BP should have some liability for what they published, First Amendment be damned. However, the BP's attorneys will attempt to argue that no reasonable person would believe that the broadside's 'offer' was a true offer. That shouldn't be successful. Just as you take your plaintiff as you find him in the law of torts and negligence, if you're reckless enough to publish what the BP did, then you should be responsible ime unreasonable people respond to it.
Besides, just between you and I and GOPJ, the BP want somebody to act on the broadside.
But they'll hide behind the First Amendment if they can.
Tomorrow morning, I need to read the federal definition of a ‘hate crime.” I see the element that would raise a crime to a hate crime here - and there’s the issue of whether the broadside constituted solicitation under Florida law given the issues of whether a person should believe the broadside was a true offer, and whether there was an actual target of the broadside’s ‘offer’, and other factors - but without that, you still need to find the crime that’s been elevated to a hate crime.
Baloney its solicitation for murder and or kidnapping..just because its a poor one doesnt mean its legal..people get arrested all the time for soliciting prostitution illegal gambling etc...now try and put a poster wanted dead or alive with Holder’s pic on it and see what happens...
And yes, the Panthers can argue they were just joshing, like the poll watchers.
Yes, glad you came. Thanks. :)
We are all Zimmerman.
Long live Zimmerman!
The Florida authorities are dozing it seems to me.
Terroristic threats are not legal.
As an attorney, when I see a statute, my first thought is 'how have the courts of that state interpreted the statute?"
When it comes to solicitation, courts will have already decided what elements suggest solicitation and what elements don't. For example - and let's play the parade of horribles - if I were to say I'd pay $100 billion for somebody to kill my best friend with Zabondian 253 Transmogrifier, and announce it on national television - that's not going to be criminal solicitation.
For anybody to offer $100 billion is generally not going to be solicitation. The amount's so high that no reasonable person is going to believe there was an actual offer of payment that could be accepted.
No offer to kills with a Zam-whatever-it-was is going to be a solicitation, because no reasonable person should believe that such a Transmogrifier exists. And of course you have the problem with it being announced in such a public medium, which suggests that I didn't intend it to be an illegal solicitation, but instead, a bombastic exercise of free speech and not a serious statement.
So we know there's line and not all statements offering money to kill are solicitation. Courts help set up guidelines for how and where you draw the line.
If a 'solicitation' is so bombastic that a reasonable person wouldn't believe it - it's likely not a solicitation. Now, the party may still be in trouble if somebody acts in reliance on it, but the party's not in trouble for saying it.
If the BP made this offer in a less general format - if they had targeted it to an individual or to a specific group - it looks more like a solicitation. If they hadn't made it so publicly, it looks more like a solicitation. Is it possible to press charges? Yes. Is it possible to view the broadside as a bombastic exercise of First Amendment Rights and not an actual solicitation of Zimmerman's death? Yes.
What do I personally think? I think the BP wanted Zimmerman dead. But I think they can hide behind the First Amendment as cowards, until they have a closer nexus with the recipient of solicitation, or until somebody acts on the broadside. Just my legal analysis, because it's perfectly clear that not every 'solicitation' is a 'solicitation.'
I'm not interested in arguing. If you would like to have a different opinion, feel free to do so.
Pretty sad day for our country when members of Congress don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that the DOJ has done nothing to prevent a hate group from placing a bounty to kill an American...
“Empty Sanford police car shot up in area where Trayvon Martin was killed”
While Holder is on hold!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.