Why will it be difficult to try Z on civil rights charges?

[Atman]

It's kind of a rhetorical question, as I've read many of the arguments already. Here is why it makes no sense to me: I've served on the jury in a civil rights trial. The "crime?" A white male, desperate to make an emergency phone call at a pay phone, after repeated pleading with the black woman who was chatting with a girlfriend and refused to hang up, yanked the receiver from the woman and hung up the phone.

Yup. That was literally the entire "civil rights" case. And the poor white kid, unable to afford bail, spent six months in jail for his "crime" of hanging up the phone. He didn't assault the woman. The suit was brought ostensibly because it was a public phone, and therefore the black woman's civil rights were violated by a white man denying her access to public property.

And yet, it would be difficult to try Zimmerman of civil rights violations for killing a black child who had every right to be walking on a public way? Seriously?

BTW, our jury unanimously acquitted the defendant. We only found out about the poor kid's six months in jail after the verdict. He met us outside the courtroom, in tears, hugging us and telling us what he'd been through. But Zimmy didn't even get jail time for killing a kid. It's hard to have much faith in such a crazy system.

[HockeyMom]

1. Dead is the ultimate Civil Rights Violation

That is the biggest difference in what you cited.

[grantcart]

22. Yes but to succeed it will require an intent to kill or first degree murder.

I can't see how a second degree or manslaughter action would rise to it because the intent is not there.

As far as I understand it civil rights violation prosecutions require the prosecution to show that the accused intended that the victim ended up dead. While I thought there was a clear case for Second degree murder and an even bigger case for Manslaughter I am not seeing a case for prosecution on Civil Rights Violation.

On the other hand it seems like a civil wrongful death trial should be much much easier.

[hlthe2b]

2. You may have a point to make, but your focus on him spending six months in jail

underscores the plight of the poor in this country and not because he was a "white" kid unfairly targeted by authorities on a "civil rights" overreach.

You didn't even mention what happened at trial? While I agree that at face value-- given only your depiction of events-- that the extenuating circumstances behind his grabbing the phone might well have/should have preempted any such charges, I'm guessing that came out at trial and ended the matter.

[Atman]

8. It was a two-day trial.

It was spectacularly surreal. Yes, it involved poor people in a poor inner-city neighborhood. But, none of that was admissible or presented to us on the jury. IOW, we had no idea that every day after court, the defendant was placed in handcuffs and taken back to jail, while the plaintiff went home to be with her family. He sat in jail through Thanksgiving and Christmas, only able to spend visitation time with friends and family. All because he couldn't come up with a lousy 10% bail!

You're right, he was unfairly targeted. The case never should have been taken to trial, but some lawyer saw what he thought was an easy mark...a kid with no means to defend himself. He probably thought it was an easy mark. Now look at the Zimmy case; people actually DONATED $450,000 for him to defend himself against a dead black child. It's sickening. No one came out for the phone-hang-up kid. He got no tv coverage, and no fundraisers. He sat in jail for SIX MONTHS for hanging up a phone. No violence, no assault.

What came out at trial, since you asked; the plaintiff, claiming her civil rights were violated, had a widely known reputation even among her friends as being a "hothead." She was a single mother, and had even left her kids at home to walk to the 7-11 to call her girlfriend on the payphone. When one defense witness was asked what the plaintiff's nickname was, she hesitated for a moment, then laughed and said..."Uh, Tooty."

"Why 'Tooty?' Does it mean something?"

"Well, you know...I mean...yeah, but...you know, it was just a name we called her." Laughed again. No follow-up question.

As for the phone call, this 7-11 payphone was the only payphone nearby. The kid even walked inside and asked to use a phone and was denied. A family member had an undisclosed emergency, and be paced around the payphone while "Tooty" carried on what was described to be a very casual chat about tv shows and boyfriends. He asked her a few times if he could use the phone, saying he had an emergency. She was extremely rude to him, told him to fuck off, he'd get the phone when she was done. He paced for what was claimed to be nearly ten minutes, listening to mundane chatter that we might expect from a teenaged girl chatting with a girlfriend. Finally, he snapped, grabbed the phone, and hung it up.

"Tooty" freaked out, started screaming at him, claiming she was going to fuck him up, she was going to get her boyfriend on him, etc. He (ironically) stood his ground, guarded the phone and dialed. She ran around him screaming at him, trying to disrupt his call. The disturbance elicited calls to the police, who saw the hysterical woman claiming the man assaulted her. He was arrested, she was not.

[Jenoch]

3. I don't know much about

civil rights legislation, but it appears to me that the prosecutor in the case you describe has no common sense.

[pipoman]

4. I have asked

many times over the last few days exactly what the charges would be in these "civil rights violation" charges? Haven't gotten an answer from anyone..the ubiquitous calls for "civil rights charges" are from those who have no idea what that even means..

[Ninga]

5. Maybe walking. Trayvon had the right to freely walk.

[premium]

7. That's not grounds for a Federal civil rights charge,

the Govt. would have to show that Zimmerman denied Trayvon his civil rights because he was AA and had a hatred of AA's, and the FBI's investigation of Zimmerman determined that there's no evidence of him being a racist.

(Reuters) - FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE86B1AD20120712

Based on that alone, the DoJ has no case for a civil rights violation charge.

[Atman]

9. Hanging up a public phone on a black woman seemed to be enough of a "civil rights" issue.

Why isn't killing a kid walking down a public way a similar civil rights issue?

[Atman]

10. Does any "friend" ever think their friend is a racist?

"Hell, we hung around together every day! Sure, he told some n****r, jokes, but he weren't no RACIST! Once I even seen him say hi to one of them at the Mini Mart!"

Sorry. Not very convincing evidence. I'd rely more upon his own words on the 911 calls, and the repeated calls he made, all about black people "where they don't belong."

[premium]

11. You mean not convincing to you,

but it was convincing to the FBI, which the civil rights division of the DoJ will go by.

Not one of those calls are their any racial epitaphs, the only time race is brought is when the dispatcher asks for the color of the person.

[Atman]

14. I can't speak freely...I haven't testified yet.

Of course, the best friend's "opinion" was totally unbiased and must be the truth. Gotcha. I mention that when they call me to the stand.

[premium]

15. Gee,

did you fail to read that the FBI interviewed dozens of people and came to the conclusion that Zimmerman wasn't a racist?

Hmmmmm, who do I believe? The actual interviewing Agency? Or an anonymous person on a chat board?
That's a tough one.

[Atman]

17. All I know is that I don't "believe" DU's biggest Zimmy cheerleader.

Should I "believe" the Sandford Police Department, who didn't even arrest the guy or put him in handcuffs after he discharged his weapon and killed a person on a public way?

Should I "believe" that Trayvon's body levitated and moved itself a few yards off of the sidewalk after he beat Zimmerman's head on the concrete?

You don't have to say "I am racist" to demonstrate that you are racist. You can, for instance, ONLY use your neighborhood watch post to report black men...and then say "Fucking punks, they always get away." I wonder how many fucking white punks George allowed to get away while he was looking for the fucking black punks?

I appreciate your undying love for the authority figures who sided with killer of the unarmed black teenager. I agree, his friends could not have been biased, the Sandford PD could not have been wrong in treating him as one of their own, and the FBI could not have been hoodwinked by their own biases. That would all be impossible. I totally agree. I'll mention that when I testify.

[premium]

18. "DU's biggest Zimmy cheerleader".

That right there tells me that you don't know shit about me and haven't read one post of mine during the trial.

Read my posts and then get back to me, on second thought, don't.

[Atman]

20. I haven't read one post of yours? Seriously?

You might want to do a search, premium. I've responded to many of your posts. Who isn't reading whom? Hmmmmmm?

The only think you've posted is "It's up to the jury...when do you testify?" Very tough stand you've taken all along!

[premium]

21. Then you told a fib when you called me DU's biggest Zimmerman supporter,

that's the only conclusion I can draw, because I was very consistent in my belief that Zimmerman was guilty of Manslaughter.

[Pelican]

6. Agreed...

[hack89]

12. The burden of proof is extremely high

they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that racial hatred was his prime motivation.

It would be easy if they had Z on tape using racial epithets but they don't. On the 911 tape he never brings up race until prompted by the dispatcher. In all the taped interrogations there is no use of racial epithets.

[HolyMoley]

13. Article from today explains it pretty well

Excerpts...

PETE YOST and ERIC TUCKER / Associated Press / July 15, 2013

Civil rights case vs. Zimmerman won't be simple

The department says it’s reviewing evidence to determine whether criminal civil rights charges are warranted, but legal experts see major barriers to a federal prosecution — including the burden of proving that Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch leader, was motivated by racial animosity — and say Justice officials would likely be saddled with some of the same challenges that complicated the unsuccessful state case.

--

‘‘The Justice Department would face significant challenges in bringing a federal civil rights case against Mr. Zimmerman,’’ said Alan Vinegrad, the former U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. ‘‘There are several factual and legal hurdles that federal prosecutors would have to overcome: They'd have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street.’

--

In this case, federal prosecutors pursuing a civil rights case would need to establish, among other things, that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity, even though race was barely mentioned at the state trial.

--

Lauren Resnick, a former federal prosecutor in New York who secured a conviction in the killing of an Orthodox Jew during the 1991 Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn, said the Justice Department could conceivably proceed under a theory that Zimmerman interfered with Martin’s right to walk down a public street based on his race. But even that is difficult since the conflict occurred in a gated community, which may not fit the legal definition of a public facility. Prosecutors would also probably need to prove that trailing Martin on the street constituted interference, she said.

--

Samuel Bagenstos, a former No. 2 official in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said: ‘‘This is an administration that hasn’t shied away from bringing hate crimes cases that are solid prosecutions based on the facts and the law, but from what I've seen this would be a very difficult case to prosecute federally because the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted because of Trayvon Martin’s race. If you’re trying to prove racial motivation, you are usually looking for multiple statements related to why he is engaging in this act of violence. I think it’s a difficult case to prove.’’



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/07/15/civil-rights-case-zimmerman-won-simple/u4NNXk5VRdpQMPZIB5R23M/story-1.html

[premium]

16. Straight out of the mouths of those in the know.

Thanks for posting this.

[Atman]

19. Did you or Holy even bother to read my OP?

"Straight out of the minds of those in the know?" Huh? Holy read a newspaper article. As I stated in my opening sentence, I've read this and many other articles relating to the civil rights angle, too.

THEN, i detailed a civil rights case, on which I served jury duty...it was about hanging up the phone on a black woman.

Do you see where the discussion derails? I didn't say it would not be difficult to make the case against Zimmerman...I asked WHY, given that no one had a problem filing a civil rights case against white guy for hanging up a pay phone being used by a black woman.

Hung-up phone...dead teenager. Sure, they're exactly the same. Once is a clear-cut civil rights violation, the other is too difficult to prosecute.

Gotcha. I'll try to be like you in the future, and not question any authority.