George Zimmerman not expected to face civil rights charges in Trayvon Martin death
Source: Washington Post
George Zimmerman not expected to face civil rights charges in Trayvon Martin death
By Sari Horwitz October 1 at 6:36 PM
The Justice Department is not expected to bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, according to three law enforcement officials, despite allegations that the killing was racially motivated.
The federal investigation of Zimmerman was opened two years ago by the department’s civil rights division, but officials said there is insufficient evidence to bring federal charges. The investigation technically remains open, but it is all but certain the department will close it.
Investigators still want to “dot their i’s and cross their t’s,” said one official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the matter.
Martin, a 17-year-old African American from Florida, was unarmed when he was fatally shot by Zimmerman, a former volunteer neighborhood watchman who identifies himself as Hispanic. The killing sparked racial tension and protests across the country and drew emotional responses from President Obama and other top administration officials.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/george-zimmerman-not-expected-to-face-civil-rights-charges-in-trayvon-martin-death/2014/10/01/4cd2ebd2-498e-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skittles
(153,138 posts)essentially it is legal to profile, stalk and murder someone because you think they MIGHT be up no good 
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Attorney General Holder has already tendered his resignation.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)After two years and no DOJ leaks, an acquittal at a very public trial, extensive investigations, millions of dollars spent, a trial where the prosecution's presentation of its case and evidence could best be described as embarrassing, and no discovery or publicity from a civil trial by Martin's family because of Zimmerman's legal immunity, any hopes of a federal trial would have been foolish.
I think that the DOJ might soon "officially" end the federal civil rights investigation as a possible signal that federal charges in the Ferguson might be similarly difficult or even unrealistic. The DOJ might believe that publicly closing the Zimmerman case might result in additional pressure on state authorities for justice in Ferguson.
GeorgeGist
(25,317 posts)Null and void.
that wilson will walk.
Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)Really, it came down to his friends and family members speaking up if they ever heard him use derogatory terms. People are well versed in the practice of dummying-up around here. Integrity and courage are things of the past.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)They do some investigation around the community, and talk to people Zimmerman might have come in contact with, like at school, at work, at church (if the person is religious). They of course look at police records, and probably search media databases. I've known a couple of people who have worked at DOJ. They were not gods, but they were thorough, dedicated attorneys.
The WP story talks about Zimmerman taking a black young woman to his senior prom, how he had a good friend who was black, and how he helped an black homeless man who had been beaten by the white son of a white police officer. That information about some of Zimmerman's earlier activities wasn't brought out in the coverage of the trial very much. I remember hearing some of it, but it got lost with everything else going on.
Of course, that was said by his attorney, but the attorney did monitor the DOJ case. Here's the link to the Post piece:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/george-zimmerman-not-expected-to-face-civil-rights-charges-in-trayvon-martin-death/2014/10/01/4cd2ebd2-498e-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.htm
My view of Zimmerman was that he had a lot of problems, including a real fixation on being a cop, and at one point may have been salvageable under the right circumstances. However, at some point, he deteriorated into sort of a paranoia. And just horribly, Trayvon Martin died. Just beyond sad to lose someone just starting to turn into a young man.
Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)I don't think it's paranoia that most describes his personality. I think he was very much influenced by a culture of entitlement that is very common around these parts.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)1dogleft
(164 posts)Department of Justice right? Well what the hell is up with that?
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)
He's made of Teflon and has a bunch of defenders and apologists. What would have been the point? Eventually he'll die and we can breathe a sigh of relief. But until that time - Zimpig always wins.
Just pray you never meet him. I hear he's trained in MMA and carries a gun.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)
Oh woe is them! 
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)Still I agree it sucks.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We cannot advocate prosecutions because we "know" a certain thing is true. The rules of evidence must still apply. And that means that sometimes someone who is guilty as hell is gonna walk.
Response to 1dogleft (Reply #4)
blkmusclmachine This message was self-deleted by its author.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I'm speechless.
sakabatou
(42,146 posts)Skittles
(153,138 posts)the fear cultivated by his beloved NRA
*THAT* is a kind of justice and fuck ANYONE who sympathizes with Zimmerman
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)And a green light to keep right on keeping on.
24601
(3,959 posts)magistrate from another state.
And, as I'm sure you know from Virginia's response to an employment query:
"Robert J. Zimmerman served as a full-time magistrate from 2000-2006. Please be advised that in Virginia magistrates are judicial officers, but they are not considered "judges" and do not possess trial jurisdiction. More detailed information on the role of the magistrate in Virginia is available on Virginia's Judicial System Website ."
Source: ABC News affiliate in Tampa
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/crime/zimmerman-dad-worked-as-magistrate
So,
- Not considered a Judge
- No Trial Jurisdiction
- Not in Florida
- Not since 2006
No relevance to the case.
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)Thank you for your concern.
My point was, the daddy was a lawman. And lawmen seem to bend the law in favor of other lawmen and their families.(favoritism like..."Florida governor Rick Scott appointed Angela Corey as Special Prosecutor."
24601
(3,959 posts)governors, mayors, or county executives. Justices, judges & magistrates are in the judiciary, a separate branch of government from law enforcement personnel.
Are you really saying that Sanford, FL police treated Zimmerman differently because his father had been a magistrate in Virginia over five years prior to the shooting? If you have any evidence of that, feel free to provide it. Do you have any evidence that they even know about his old job?
Are you also saying Florida's Governor should have left the case with the Seminole County State's Attorney, the one who declined to arrest Zimmerman?
What are you alleging about Corey? She did just try the Michael David Dunn case and secured a conviction for 1st Degree Murder.
If you followed the Martin case, you know that it was fouled-up by the time Corey was appointed. Still, she pursued it intensely. From the wiki on her [highlights and bracked comments are mine]:
"Corey's decision to charge Zimmerman [with 2nd degree murder] was praised by supporters of the Justice for Trayvon movement across the country. Natalie Jackson, a Martin family attorney, stated, "It's actually a very brave charge of Angela Corey, and it really shows that she conducted an independent, impartial and fair investigation in this case... She could have easily charged this as a manslaughter, to try to appease everyone, and she didn't. She did what prosecutors do. She charged it to the hilt". On the other hand, Corey was criticized as "irresponsible and reckless" by Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard legal scholar and attorney who served on O.J. Simpson's defense team, for filing a probable cause affidavit that he claims was too thin for a 2nd-degree murder charge; Dershowitz predicted that it would be thrown out by a judge." [it was not thrown out]
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)My other statements were speculation, based on what I've seen myself, in other cases involving magistrates and law enforcement taking it easy on those who they favor, for one reason or another.
Like the case of Mr. Ashcroft and his dope growing family members.
Ashcroft’s nephew got probation after major pot bust
The nephew of Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft received probation after a felony conviction in state court for growing 60 marijuana plants with intent to distribute the drug in 1992 — a lenient sentence, given that the charges against him often trigger much tougher federal penalties and jail time. Ashcroft was the tough-on-drugs Missouri governor at the time.
Alex Ashcroft, then 25, and his brother Adam, 19, were arrested and charged with production and possession of marijuana after police raided their home in January, 1992. A housemate, Kevin Sheely, then 24, was also arrested. Officials said approximately 60 marijuana plants were found growing in a basement crawl space, and a lighting, irrigation and security system was also discovered.
Although growing more than 50 plants often triggers federal prosecution, and results in jail time — thanks to federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws Ashcroft fought to toughen as senator — Alex Ashcroft was prosecuted on a state charge and received probation. His brother Adam did not live in the house and was never prosecuted.
According to Sheely’s lawyer, Dan Viets, who practices in Columbia, Mo., Ashcroft tested positive for drugs during his first post-probation drug test, yet still remained free. Read More...
http://www.salon.com/2001/01/13/ashcroft_nephew/
Jeb Bush's daughter charged with prescription fraud
The daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was arrested Tuesday in Tallahassee on charges of trying to fill a fake prescription for the popular tranquilizer Xanax.
Bush and his wife, Columba, issued a statement that they were "deeply saddened" by the incident involving their middle child and only daughter, Noelle, 24.
They asked the media and the public to respect their privacy "during this difficult time so that we can help our daughter."
Snip...
She was charged with prescription fraud, a felony that carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail and a $5,000 fine. Noelle Bush has no known criminal record and was released without having to post bond. Read More.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/noelle-bush.htm
Church forces out Haggard for 'sexually immoral conduct'
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- The Rev. Ted Haggard agreed Saturday to resign as leader of the megachurch he started in his basement more than 20 years ago after its independent investigative board said he was guilty of "sexually immoral conduct."
On Friday, Haggard admitted he had received a massage from a Denver man who claimed the prominent pastor had paid him for sex over three years. Haggard also admitted he had bought methamphetamine.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Pastor+accused+of+having+sex+with+male+prostitute+and+possessing+methamphetamine&spell=1
Pastor Ted never faced any criminal charges either.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It is disappointing that he is not going to face any consequences for his actions though.
Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)
Post removed
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Really really interesting posts since then.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)amerikkan culture and what it is doing to people. Wilson caused the subject of your complaints and I don't care if people came from timbuktu to protest, Ferguson and it's rotten police culture caused this. If enough of the privileged of Ferguson had not supported the status quo and want to prove to black people, that in spite of a black POTUS, they still had NO power, then this type of situation would never be. That's whats really going on in cities, villages, townships, states and this nation, nothing else. A fight for racial supremacy and privilege and the real soul of this nation, as rotten as it is. No one who thinks and is the subject of racism, as I am, can see anything different. There are no black racists. Period.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts) Evidently - 
the man who beheaded his co-worker last week is a 
racist and his beheading of her was like -
this grand way for black Americans to put
their boots on the necks of ALL white folks as part of a global conspiracy or something
. I'm telling you - I can't make the shit up I read at DU sometimes! 
heaven05
(18,124 posts)the beheader was/is a sick person. And some people on here? I've comes to expect their 'progressiveness'. Boots on necks? I won't even start, I won't know how to stop.
Global conspiracy? That's been going on for a long time, every since the Portuguese, Dutch, British, Americans and anyone else hit the shores of that foreign land looking to gain huge profits from 'black gold'. And look at america and it's peoples now, because of that greed and 'conspiracy'.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)I read them just to laugh. I'm serious. And then I walk away thinking -
Everything I knew was wrong.
Slaves were actually white people and this has been a grand conspiracy on the part of the Republicans since before we were even a country. None of that happened. None of it. Stop. Seriously. For real.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and meets expectations......... All the zimpig supporters and zimmy the pig himself can finally breath a sigh of relief. He's free. Ain't you proud?
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)
heaven05
(18,124 posts)it was hidden after my reply started being written. It deserves what it got. I am just so tired of the racist insanity loosed in this nation by RW hate radio and television punditry. Politicians who slickly agitate the hate for their own political and financial ends. It's just sick and evil! The last SIX years especially.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Zim just needs to do us all a public service and use one of his thousands of guns on himself....
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And that's what counts these days.
Because everyone's powerless.
Regards,
TWM
treestar
(82,383 posts)though it appears several on this thread know better.
AndreaCG
(2,331 posts)With a civil suit and the trial will besmirch Zimmerman thoroughly.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)The money that Zimmerman had is all gone, I read earlier. He's destitute, and he'll probably stay that way.
Attorneys generally don't agree to file suit against indigent defendants, and I don't think at this point suing for psychological satisfaction is something that a good trial attorney would advise.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Do to Florida's stand your ground law. Well, I suppose they could sue him, but the lawsuit would get thrown out.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)?The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
I think now that the DoJ isn't going to persue federal charges, the civil suit is going to be null and void.
AndreaCG
(2,331 posts)On the shit sandwich.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Stand Your Ground, and is entitled to a hearing....but remember he waived his Peterson hearing in the crim trial.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)Central Florida defense attorneys said Tuesday that just because Zimmerman was acquitted, that does not mean he won't be sued, but it does indicate the evidence weighs in his favor.
If Zimmerman is sued in this case, a judge would determine whether "stand your ground" applies. If the judge rules it does, Zimmerman would be released from liability. If the judge rules against that claim, the case would be tried before a jury.
Moments after Zimmerman was found not guilty, defense attorney Mark O'Mara said, "If someone believes it's appropriate to sue George Zimmerman, then we will seek and we will get immunity in a civil hearing, and we will see just how many civil lawsuits will be spawned by this fiasco."
That was a reference to a "stand your ground" hearing, one not yet held in this case.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-07-16/news/os-george-zimmerman-civil-immunity-20130716_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-benjamin-crump|
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)not have SYG as an automatic defense to liability.
Mark O'Mara dropped his client, BTW.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)I was wondering why I hadn't heard about a civil suit. You hear so much about the burden of proof being different, I didn't realize that stupid law destroyed every single method of addressing grievances.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Stand Your Ground applied and case would be dismissed if it did. It is not a forgone conclusion that it would apply....Zim waived his Peterson hearing in the crim trial.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)I read that in the Washington Post the other day, so it must be true.
branford
(4,462 posts)Holder can be the smartest and most determined civil rights advocate to ever practice law and hold public office, but he cannot invent evidence or change the standard of proof necessary for a conviction in a federal civil rights case.
Cha
(297,034 posts)thank you for this, Branford.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)enough evidence to reach a verdict.
I'm a criminal defense attorney, Will...and sometimes my clients aren't prosecuted not because they did not do the acts alleged...but because the prosecution can't make the case.
And the Martin Family attorneys will have a treasure trove of Federal discovery, in case they sue Zim.
Cha
(297,034 posts)those who know nothing about him or what the evidence in this case is to stop using him as their online punching bag.
Says nothing about AG Holder and everything about them.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Subtle forms of racism are harder to prove/demonstrate.
We black folk didn't expect much from this investigation, and it had nothing to do with Eric Holder. We understood that.
3rdwaydem
(277 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)lurch2
(17 posts)There was insufficient evidence to convict Z of murder. The prosecution simply couldn't overcome the evidence supporting the self-defense claim. As such, the DOJ's civil rights investigation was little more than widow dressing so they could say "We looked into it.". The only surprise is that it took them two years to start closing the case.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)So, a jury of six, that was privy to all of the available and relevant evidence, reached a unanimous decision that the prosecution lacked enough evidence to prove guilt and they were all wrong? What evidence brought you to this conclusion?
hack89
(39,171 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Was he guilty of at least Manslauter? IMO, yes he was, but the prosecution put on such a poor case that the jury had no choice, by law and a perponderence of the evidence, to find him not guilty.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)there were two guys - one was unarmed, minding his own business, the other had a criminal record, was armed and LOOKING for trouble - the jury got it WRONG
well at least that gun humping bastard Zimmerman has to look over his shoulder the rest of his miserable life - he really fucked himself, didn't he?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The evidence just isn't there. The prosecution did their best with the evidence available and the jury made the correct decision based on the available evidence.
Most of what was written here on DU about the evidence was not factually correct and has been proven wrong. But few people appear to have changed their opinion about the case.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)because you THINK they may be up to no good, and the victim, when confronted with an armed, paranoid piece of SHIT, really cannot defend themselves with their fists
GOT IT
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Skittles
(153,138 posts)the idea someone cannot walk home from the store without being harassed by an armed lunatic, and can be EXECUTED FOR FIGHTING BACK, is just plain sickening and you are correct - skin color makes all the difference
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Kick their asses!
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 4, 2014, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Or are Eric Holder and President Obama conspiring to protect Zimmerman?
You may certainly THINK Zimmerman was guilty (although "profiling" is not a crime, and unsurprisingly, he was not even charged with stalking, no less harassment), as do many on DU and elsewhere, but you not only need actual evidence to prove his guilt, the allegations must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. Personal animus against Zimmerman, justified or not, does not change the protections afforded to any criminal defendant.
Of course, the federal government can try to bring civil rights charges when warranted. Despite two additional years of investigation and statements by the President and DOJ officials of their desire for "justice for Trayvon," they appear to have uncovered little to no more incriminating information. The anticipated closing of the federal investigation is therefore hardly surprising.
Additionally, the implied vigilante-esque threats against Zimmerman and hopes for his demise or serious injury or misfortune by some on DU is truly frightening and depressing, particularly by individuals who claim to be liberal and progressive.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)and fuck all of his apologists who believed his RIDICULOUS story - he has to live in fear the rest of his NRA-loving life and ironically THAT is a kind of justice
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 4, 2014, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)
What you relish is not justice, it is the blood-lust of the mob. Far worse, to many, such sentiments ultimately vindicate Zimmerman's alleged racism and paranoia.
Is it therefore justified to harass and frighten anyone who's been acquitted at trial, or only Zimmerman and those whom you disapprove?
Do Zimmerman's purported "apologists" consist of anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence, the requirement that the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or the sanctity of a jury verdict? Do you seek to change the fundamentals of Western jurisprudence?
Are you the arbiter of what constitutes "justice?" What are your qualifications?
If some impressionable, ignorant or self-righteous fool attempts to hurt Zimmerman and ends up dead, seriously injured or ruining his or her life in prison, no less by Zimmerman lawfully defending himself with a firearm, do you believe that you and those like you may bear any responsibility for encouraging or excusing such behavior?
I'm not a fan of Zimmerman, but no matter his malfeasance and any perceived injustice, my liberal principles and common decency will remain unchanged.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)you can sympathize with that murdering coward all you please - I am done here
branford
(4,462 posts)Is your perspective so binary that you perceive anyone who does not view all aspects of the Zimmerman affair exactly as you do as "sympathizing" with Zimmerman? Are we either with you or against you?
Did you even read the content of any of my posts in the thread?
Your unmistakable anger, hatred and dissmissiveness speak far more about you than either Zimmerman or racial injustice.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)following someone around a condo complex for one time. The conversational meaning of the word "stalking" is different from the legal meaning of the same word, generally.
Personally, I didn't think that the prosecutors did such a hot job. They did a lousy job of preparing Ms. Gentile and the medical examiner. They put a lot of emphasis on the "scream" testimony in which each family member identified the scream as coming from his or her loved on. It seemed as though they did not realize how weak their case was until a day or two before closing arguments when the 2d chair was down on the carpet with a dummy trying to show that by the angle of the shot, it could not have come from a prone position. But it was too late.
Then for closing arguments, the 1st chair ran around in front of the bar just shouting. When it was his turn, the 2d chair pleaded to the jury to "go with its gut." No decent attorney would use those techniques in closing if he or she had a real argument on the law or the facts or both.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)"We have to prove that a person was doing this with the intent of depriving someone of his civil rights.” That example, he "thought" he was up to no good could easily be used to show that intentional depriving someone of his civil rights wasn't the case.
The 911 call and everything else shows what you say but not the inten part of deprivation of civil rights.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and the jury had to base their verdict on the evidence.
It is very plausible that GZ did profile TM. GZ claimed that TM seemed suspicious. GZ isn't very smart and GZ did a poor job of explaining why he was suspicions. Plus GZ did follow TM in the truck.
The thing is, GZ following TM in the truck isn't' the crime of the century, or even a crime at all. The best evidence is the GZ stopped following TM shortly after he got out of the truck at a time that TM had plenty of time to be far away and at the house.
There was about four minutes between the last time TM was seen near the truck and the assault, which was not very far from the truck. That is one of the major facts that made me decide that there is very poor evidence to convict.
The other major fact is that the physical evidence and what the best witness saw was consistent with Zimmerman's claims. It was TM that was assaulting GZ when TM got shot. It isn't very nice following people in trucks, but TM still had no right to assault GZ. That was the only true crime that happened that day, at least as far as the best evidence indicates.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)is that gun humping coward didn't display his weapon - bullshit - that's what prompted Trayvon to fight for his life
the simple fact is, an innocent kid failed to arrive home alive because that paranoid piece of SHIT Zimmerman thought his gun humping rights were more important than the safety of the people he harassed
lurch2
(17 posts)Nobody is saying that. Murder is illegal, but to convict someone of murder you must have evidence that proves it. In this case that evidence simply doesn't exist, obviously.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)Zimmerman was armed and looking for trouble and when an unarmed teenager defended himself Zimmerman EXECUTED him......you can pretzel twist all you like but those ARE facts and like I have said, that asshole having to live in the same kind of fear he so readily dispensed is just so much karma, isn't it?
done here, sick of apologists and am trashing this thread
Its a good thing our judicial system requires actual evidence and not just emotional ranting.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Too bad they didn't get one this time. And it was hardly scant.
It's all about the jury, not the evidence.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 6, 2014, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
but the real evidence does not support conviction.
The story, as presented by Trayvon Martin's team right after the killing, was far from what happened in reality. But that story is what the media reported at the time and that story is what many here still accept as fact.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but I imagine it is pretty high.
If they say they don't have enough evidence, I'm inclined to believe. "We have to prove that a person was doing this with the intent of depriving someone of his civil rights.” It is easy enough to say otherwise to beat the charge, would a judge even allow it to go forward if they said, "fuck it, we're charging him anyway".
I don't see much political pressure (in fact the other way) in letting Zimmerman walk so I mostly rule that out(I almost never do, as a rule).
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)just like every other criminal violation.
valerief
(53,235 posts) branford
(4,462 posts)You do realize that people can simultaneously think poorly of Zimmerman and that the events of the evening could have easily been avoided AND that either no crime was committed or the State woefully failed to adduce sufficient evidence, to the extent it was even available, necessary to prove any criminal guilt.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)If he was a black man who murdered a white kid, he's be on death row by now.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)or what the evidence presented to the jury showed.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Skittles
(153,138 posts)it's not mine
just because the latest group of alerts are in a certain group does NOT make it a "favorite" - THAT is a BUG
What's that got to do with this conversation?
I'm no Zim apologist, but the state put on a piss poor case and the jury had no choice but to reach the verdict they did.
It's really quite that simple.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)All of the physical evidence, expert testimony or and the closest witness supported what happened. Unlike you, I paid attention to the facts and followed the trial closely.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)you can execute someone for defending their own life!!!
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and the closest witness support your point of view
Skittles
(153,138 posts)he is forever guilty
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The letter of the law, due process and facts only applies when it gives you the result you want. Any other result and you will go any length to rationalize and make up whatever you need to to justify your viewpoint.
valerief
(53,235 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)and I was shocked at how poor the State's case was against Zimmerman. Many of their witnesses were not only terrible in presentation, but they actually supported the defense theory, particularly John Good and Jonathan Manolo. I think that I actually cringed when I listed to the coroner and then heard Ms. Jeantel's "cracker" testimony and saw her very impudent demeanor in the courtroom. The fact that Zimmerman actually had an injury to the back of his head was certainly not helpful to the prosecution. I knew it was game-over for the prosecution when they implored the jury to "use their gut" in closing statements rather than a coherent recital of the purportedly incriminating evidence.
I would also remind you that the prosecution bares the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence was so insufficient that not only did the local police did not originally believe charges were appropriate, but Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have now apparently reached the same conclusion.
Lastly, note that the one minority juror who expressed some limited remorse about the verdict in a later interview, still admitted that the law and trial evidence provided only one outcome - not guilty.
I'm not a fan of Zimmerman personally, and certainly do not know all the facts about what happened that terrible evening, but the actual evidence presented did not warrant a conviction, no less of first degree murder.
Anyone is certainly free to believe Zimmerman is morally guilty and repugnant, oppose self-defense laws or gun ownership, etc., but if you watched the trial and are objective and intellectually honest, I'm at a loss to understand how anyone believes a criminal conviction was warranted other than as mob justice.
valerief
(53,235 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Refusal to convict by nullification is usually done as a means to object to an unjust law or because a defendant is sufficiently sympathetic. These situations do no appear to have occurred in the Zimmerman trial.
As I previously commented, not only do I personally believe that the state lacked the requisite evidence to convict at trial, all statements by the jurors indicated likewise. The decision by the DOJ not to seek civil rights charges further supports this position. Accordingly, the jury appears to have acted within the bounds and dictates of the law.
If your implication is that the jury should have "nullified" by returning a guilty verdict despite the letter of the law and their belief in weight of the evidence, that is shocking and disturbing, and cuts against the grain of our entire justice system and presumption of innocence. Knowingly convicting against the evidence is nothing but mob justice. Regardless of how vile Zimmerman may be, he is entitled to all the protection provided to any criminal defendant, and thankfully the jury appears to have agreed.
A legal acquittal certainly does not mean you have to excuse Zimmerman's conduct or forgive the man, but the verdict still must be respected. I admit, however, that anonymous calls by some on DU for Zimmerman to he harmed or worse, are sad and frightening. If anyone chose to heed such advice, it would most certainly be vigilantism, not justice, and could very well worsen racial justice problems.
valerief
(53,235 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)What evidence or witnesses were not provided to the jury? What rulings by the judge were unjust (if anything, the judge was very pro-prosecution)? Do you allege that the jurors violated their legal duties, and if so, how?
How exactly would you change the system? Would you remove the presumption of innocence? Would the state no longer have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Would defendants be denied counsel or lose their right against self-incrimination? Should the state be able to withhold evidence or witnesses from the defense?
If the jury really got it totally wrong, why does the Department of Justice believe that there is insufficient evidence to charge, no less, convict Zimmerman in a federal trial?
valerief
(53,235 posts)I'm going to stop the feeding now.
branford
(4,462 posts)and should be relegated to the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory dustbin along with the birthers, truthers and anti-vaccers.
You take witnesses and evidence as you find them. The prosecution can counsel and prepare witness, but cannot coach or suborn perjury. If the prosecution didn't call witnesses like John Good and try to blunt their impact, they simply would have been called by the defense. Similarly, the prosecution's aggressiveness, including the first degree murder charge, was championed by many here. If anything, the prosecution realized early-on how weak their case really was, and sought more to placate the mob than achieve a verdict that was nearly impossible, absent some screw-up by the defense. If anything, much of the criticism amounts to little more than lamenting that the defense was too good at its job. Simply, the article amounts to little more than vague attempts at being a Monday morning quarterback.
I would also remind you that the FBI separately investigated the case, interviewed witnesses and reviewed forensics, and provided all their findings to both the state prosecutor and DOJ. Do you also allege that the FBI threw their investigation and/or that Eric Holder secretly wanted Zimmerman to get away with murder? I would very much like to see an updated article now that the DOJ has basically conceded after two additional years of investigation.
You gave yourself away when you (incorrectly) raised the specter of jury nullification. You don't care about evidence, due process and trials. Your opinions were firmly formed well before the jury was even selected, and the trial was an inconvenient nuisance. You demand the "justice" of the mob. Thankfully for any number of poor, anonymous minority defendants who desperately require every due process protection available, few heed your bloodlust.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and that the physical evidence, the expert witness testimony and the nearest witness ALL supported Zimmerman's account of what happened. Most of the prosecution's witnesses did not help the prosecution's case and could reasonably be viewed as helping the defense.
Remember Angela Corey did NOT take this before a Grand Jury, probably because she knew that the Grand Jury would not have indicted Martin.
madville
(7,408 posts)Almost every expert and ex-Justice Department attorney that was interviewed or wrote an article said it was very unlikely for federal charges to be brought against Zimmerman due to the lack of evidence.
Under the State law and instructions the jury made the only choice they really could. Under Federal law it didn't warrant charges for a civil rights violation. That's not being an apologist, they are simply the facts.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Skittles
(153,138 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)It doesn't matter what sub-groups someone chooses to post in, particularly since last I checked this board was not named IHateGunsUnderground. Obviously to the great displeasure of many here, many loyal, active and often quite progressive Democrats, including our elected politicians, support gun rights and self-defense in various degrees.
The State charged Zimmerman with first degree murder (and lesser included offenses) and the lengthy trial resulted in his full acquittal. The Department of Justice lead by Eric Holder and Barack Obama has now similarly determined that there is insufficient evidence to charge, no less convict, Zimmerman of federal civil rights offenses.
I would like to hear from those accusing their fellow Democrats of being "apologists" for Zimmerman to detail what admissible evidence and witnesses were not examined and proffered by local police, FBI, special prosecutor and Department of Justice? What more could the prosecution or DOJ have done under established ethical and evidentiary rules and procedures?
Any explanation of how the desire to see Zimmerman killed or injured will positively impact racial injustice issues would also be most enlightening.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and try an actual argument. You might find it simulating.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Instead of trying to smear, which you spectacularly fail at, try refuting the posters points.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)they are cowards just like him
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Iamthetruth
(487 posts)That will do something to cause him to end up in jail, ask OJ.
crim son
(27,464 posts)Zim. They ended the very instant that asshole pulled the trigger.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)He was on the bottom getting pummeled by Trayvon Martin. The best witness, John Good, thought it was Zimmerman screaming. To me, the voice (accent and tone) sounds like it could belong to to GZ, and not TM.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)but he and his whole family seem looney-tunes, and I now believe he DID set out to kill someone.
I also think he will meet his own end soon, by way of his own stupidity and delusion.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Really fucked him up. His life has been a train wreck since They found him not guilty and I have to believe he couldn't have been this bad and not have been in jail beforehand.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)That's the problem with those who say racism doesn't exist. They seem only preoccupied with more explicit, outward manifestations of racism/discrimination--not the more subtle expressions.
The psychological forms of racism, the more subtle forms are harder for people to grasp, hence many white people's claim that there is no such thing as White Privilege.
In the court of law, it is much harder to prove the impact of subtle forms of racism, psychological racism or internalized hate as a motivator for a crime.
It seem that the more insidious forms of racism are obviously easier to demonstrate.
I didn't expect much from this investigation because there were only two people involved and one is dead.
branford
(4,462 posts)Although I'm oversimplifying the standards and burdens of a criminal civil rights case, it cannot be based on general cultural, institutional or societal racism, overt or subtle. The defendant's own racism must account for the criminal conduct. Except in unusual circumstances where the defendants made racist remarks during the act or belong to an organization like the KKK, proving such affirmative racism at trial is exceptionally difficult. Jurors also sometimes unconsciously question why what they perceive is a basic murder trial is being tried in federal court, and as a result, doubt the evidence and motivations of government.
I would also note that where the accused is acting under the guise and authority of the government, as is the case of the police officer in Ferguson, the requirements and standards of the law are different, and a civil case may be easier to bring and prove.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Is not on the party bringing the charge.
