# DOJ may indict Zimmerman on civil-rights charges **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509 "2013-07-14T22:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/261 "2013-07-20T02:22:02Z")
I had to look it up and I _just_ learned this stuff. Well, I knew the venue had to be where a defendant was but not much more than than. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/262 "2013-07-20T04:53:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is no such statute. The federal laws that apply to an act in Florida (as opposed to the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States) require either a federal nexus (federal employee being killed); an action under color of state law (as in local law enforcement being accused); an attempt to interfere with federally-protected activities (voting, registering voters); or – my personal favorite – interfering any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Perhaps you believe the federal government can prove Martin was on his way to rent an apartment. There is an interesting article in the [Forward](http://forward.com/articles/180685/trayvon-martin-crown-heights-and-a-civil-rights-ca/) speculating on applying 18 U.S.C. § 245 (federally protected activities), as it was somewhat similarly charged in the [Lemrick Nelson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemrick_Nelson) case: > [@](#): > > In 1994, the Clinton Justice Department charged Nelson under a portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlaws racially-motivated hindrance of a person’s legal enjoyment of public accommodations. Included are lodgings, restaurants and recreational facilities. In the Nelson case, the Justice Department expanded the list to include city streets. Nelson was convicted in 1997 of denying Rosenbaum the use of the streets of Brooklyn by stabbing him, because he was Jewish. > > It shouldn’t be too difficult to make the case that George Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with Trayvon Martin with the racially motivated intention of hindering Martin’s use of the streets of Sanford, Florida. The facts seem pretty clear. > > Whether a civil rights charge could then be linked to Martin’s death is a separate question. Here again, the Crown Heights case is instructive. Rosenbaum died of internal bleeding after Kings County Hospital failed to notice one of his stab wounds. The defense claimed the hospital error mitigated Nelson’s culpability. But the judge ruled the error irrelevant. Nelson was found to have initiated the racially-motivated chain of events that led to Rosenbaum’s death. It seems to me the article is mistaken in one significant way, in that the confrontation did not occur on the streets of Sanford. I don’t know if Martin walking through the gated community could be considered a federally protected activity But what do I know? Do you (or any lawyers interested) think it can be argued to apply to this case? Just for the record, I don’t think the DOJ will go forward with any charges at all. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/263 "2013-07-20T05:02:27Z")
I think the bigger issue is proving racial motivation. The article seems to take it as a foregone conclusion, but there’s no actual evidence. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/264 "2013-07-20T05:23:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think the bigger issue is proving racial motivation. The article seems to take it as a foregone conclusion, but there’s no actual evidence. Maybe so, but when I first read the article, I thought about O’Mara’s closing statements, where he practically concedes the racial profiling to justify Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin. In addition to calling that last witness who testified about the home invasion - what was the relevance of her testimony, other than to highlight the fact that a young black male had perpetrated the crime? It would be easier to try to prove the racial motivation for profiling Martin (setting the chain of events in motion) than as a motive for ultimately killing him, and if I’m reading it correctly, that is all they would need to prove to make their case under this statute (assuming the federally protected activity criteria applies at all). ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/265 "2013-07-20T06:38:55Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Maybe so, but when I first read the article, I thought about O’Mara’s closing statements, where he practically concedes the racial profiling to justify Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin. The kind of racial profiling where you walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/266 "2013-07-20T12:13:22Z")
No, the facts are not that clear. We have no conclusive evidence whatsoever on who started the confrontation. We know that Zimmerman was watching Martin and relaying information about Martin to a dispatcher, and that later he was out of his car following Martin’s trail. I don’t believe either of those activities would qualify as “hindering” of anyone’s activities under Federal code. After that, we have no evidence whatsoever about what happened. We have Zimmerman’s side of the story, and nothing compelling to rebut it. That puts the Federal prosecutors in the same position the State ones were. Zimmerman with a passably plausible story about his actions that dismisses the claims against him, and the prosecutors with no evidence or witness statements able to show any real weakness in his story. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/267 "2013-07-20T12:19:10Z")
The simple truth is, there is a reason the DOJ was obviously not wanting to get involved in this back when it happened. Their professional prosecutors knew they had no hope of conviction. There is a reason probably a half dozen former federal prosecutors (and even at least one current one who spoke to the press anonymously) have said the DOJ does not have a winnable case here, and some of those prosecutors who have spoken such were actually in the civil rights criminal division in their DOJ careers. Probably one of the biggest part of their jobs was looking at cases and deciding if they were winnable or not, and they’re all saying this isn’t a winnable case. In fact I think a pretty reasonable person in Florida, the State’s Attorney normally responsible for the Sanford area, declined to charge Zimmerman initially because he said he did not believe the State could prove manslaughter. Tag in the Governor, who gets a bulldog prosecutor widely believed to regularly engage in prosecutorial misconduct and who has a history of overcharging and basically persecuting people as a prosecutor, and sure enough she not only charges Zimmerman (without a grand jury) but charges him with 2nd Degree Murder. That’s a classic example of a bad prosecutor put in a position to be a bad prosecutor by the Governor, doing something she shouldn’t have done. I think a U.S. Attorney, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would probably not have the same concerns about local Florida politics as the Governor and the elected State’s Attorney that was given the case when the Governor stepped in. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/268 "2013-07-21T04:06:02Z")
ACLU comes to its senses and reverses its original (very stupid, IMO) stance, now telling DOJ that it is very much against any kind of Zimmerman prosecution using federal civil rights or hate crimes laws: Original stupidity: [Next Steps in Honoring Trayvon Martin: It's Time for Systemic Reform | ACLU](http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/next-steps-honoring-trayvon-martin-its-time-systemic-reform) This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime. We call on Attorney General Eric Holder to release strengthened guidance on the use of race in federal law enforcement. New Position: [http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu\_letter\_to\_ag\_holder\_re\_gzimmerman\_case.pdf](http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_letter_to_ag_holder_re_gzimmerman_case.pdf) We are writing to clearly state the ACLU’s position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/269 "2013-07-21T04:29:49Z")
I agree with the ACLU in this instance. Not enough evidence to go forward in any case, and it would distract from the criminal justice system inequities we should be focused on. I’d still like to know though, if walking in a gated community could be argued as a federally protected activity. When Janet Reno first charged in the Nelson case, there were doubts if walking on a city street could be argued; I’m wondering if it could be expanded even further in future cases. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/270 "2013-07-21T05:18:52Z")
> [@camille](#): > > I agree with the ACLU in this instance. Not enough evidence to go forward in any case, and it would distract from the criminal justice system inequities we should be focused on. > > I’d still like to know though, if walking in a gated community could be argued as a federally protected activity. When Janet Reno first charged in the Nelson case, there were doubts if walking on a city street could be argued; I’m wondering if it could be expanded even further in future cases. The Matthew Shephard law removed a lot of the “federally protected activity” requirement, but it retained the requirement that the crime be primarily motivated by the victim’s race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. In the Nelson case, the accused killer had yelled, “Kill the Jew!” before stabbing a man dressed in black in the manner of an Orthodox Jew, who was in fact an Orthodox Jew, shortly after a Jewish driver was in a traffic accident that killed two African-American children. The accused was in fact part of an angry mb that formed after the accident and announced their intention to get Jews, and went to a Jewish neighborhood to that end. In short, the Nelson case was loaded with sufficient evidence to support a religious/racial motive for the slaying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/271 "2013-07-21T05:23:07Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Maybe so, but when I first read the article, I thought about O’Mara’s closing statements, where he practically concedes the racial profiling to justify Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin. In addition to calling that last witness who testified about the home invasion - what was the relevance of her testimony, other than to highlight the fact that a young black male had perpetrated the crime? > > It would be easier to try to prove the racial motivation for profiling Martin (setting the chain of events in motion) than as a motive for ultimately killing him, and if I’m reading it correctly, that is all they would need to prove to make their case under this statute (assuming the federally protected activity criteria applies at all). No. Even if Zimmerman were to say, “I initially suspended Martin because he was black,” that is not sufficient. Federal law requires that racial animus be the motive for the murder. Zimmerman’s initial suspicion is not the same as a motive for murder. And of course, we don’t even have evidence of that much: Zimmerman does NOT say his reason for initial suspicion was racial. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/272 "2013-07-21T08:24:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Matthew Shephard law removed a lot of the “federally protected activity” requirement, but it retained the requirement that the crime be primarily motivated by the victim’s race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. > > In the Nelson case, the accused killer had yelled, “Kill the Jew!” before stabbing a man dressed in black in the manner of an Orthodox Jew, who was in fact an Orthodox Jew, shortly after a Jewish driver was in a traffic accident that killed two African-American children. The accused was in fact part of an angry mb that formed after the accident and announced their intention to get Jews, and went to a Jewish neighborhood to that end. > > In short, the Nelson case was loaded with sufficient evidence to support a religious/racial motive for the slaying. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. Even if Zimmerman were to say, “I initially suspended Martin because he was black,” that is not sufficient. Federal law requires that racial animus be the motive for the murder. Zimmerman’s initial suspicion is not the same as a motive for murder. > > And of course, we don’t even have evidence of that much: Zimmerman does NOT say his reason for initial suspicion was racial. Maybe I’m confused about the Nelson case, but if you recall, Nelson was not convicted for Rosenbaum’s murder, he was convicted for violating his civil rights by impeding his protected activity of walking the streets of Brooklyn (by stabbing him, but still, short of murder). No question there was ample evidence of bias in the Nelson case, and nothing solid in the Zimmerman case, but the point of the Forward article was that the older statute (as illustrated by Nelson) allowed for a bias motive in “setting off a chain of events” as sufficient for a civil rights violation conviction (the jury didn’t convict for murder because the hospital was found to be at fault for letting Rosenbaum bleed to death). I’m trying to understand if the older statute could be charged in future, in cases where it might be easier to prove racial motivation for initiating a confrontation, rather than for the murder itself (say, a case similar to Zimmerman, except with ample evidence of racial animus as the initiating motivation to confront, but not necessarily the motive for the subsequent murder). Oh, and if it could be charged as such, if the federally protected activity requirement would still apply. Or maybe the Forward article is just off base. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/273 "2013-07-22T13:39:45Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Maybe I’m confused about the Nelson case, but if you recall, Nelson was not convicted for Rosenbaum’s murder, he was convicted for violating his civil rights by impeding his protected activity of walking the streets of Brooklyn (by stabbing him, but still, short of murder). > > No question there was ample evidence of bias in the Nelson case, and nothing solid in the Zimmerman case, but the point of the Forward article was that the older statute (as illustrated by Nelson) allowed for a bias motive in “setting off a chain of events” as sufficient for a civil rights violation conviction (the jury didn’t convict for murder because the hospital was found to be at fault for letting Rosenbaum bleed to death). > > I’m trying to understand if the older statute could be charged in future, in cases where it might be easier to prove racial motivation for initiating a confrontation, rather than for the murder itself (say, a case similar to Zimmerman, except with ample evidence of racial animus as the initiating motivation to confront, but not necessarily the motive for the subsequent murder). > > Oh, and if it could be charged as such, if the federally protected activity requirement would still apply. > > Or maybe the Forward article is just off base. I think you’re confused about the Nelson case, at least a bit. There was no “chain of events.” While it’s true that the “protected activity” was walking down the street, the evidence was direct and clear that the efforts to stop Rosenbaum from walking down the street happened because Rosenbaum was Jewish. That “chain” is one link long. Here, there isn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Zimmerman of even targeting Martin to follow because of his race – Zimmerman doesn’t say it was, and no other evidence directly supports it. Sure, it’s possible, maybe even likely, but where’s the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence necessary to convict? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/274 "2013-07-22T14:06:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > ACLU comes to its senses and reverses its original (very stupid, IMO) stance, now telling DOJ that it is very much against any kind of Zimmerman prosecution using federal civil rights or hate crimes laws: > > Original stupidity: [Next Steps in Honoring Trayvon Martin: It's Time for Systemic Reform | ACLU](http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/next-steps-honoring-trayvon-martin-its-time-systemic-reform) > > This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime. We call on Attorney General Eric Holder to release strengthened guidance on the use of race in federal law enforcement. > > New Position: [http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu\_letter\_to\_ag\_holder\_re\_gzimmerman\_case.pdf](http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_letter_to_ag_holder_re_gzimmerman_case.pdf) > > We are writing to clearly state the ACLU’s position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. > > Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case. So are they no longer advocating regulatory reform? Because that’s what they were doing in the blog post. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/275 "2013-07-22T14:42:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So are they no longer advocating regulatory reform? Because that’s what they were doing in the blog post. They were, yes, but they also were suggesting – or at least, not disclaiming – a federal prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/276 "2013-07-22T14:53:59Z")
Sure, but it seems a bit unreasonable for them to do that in a blog post 10 minutes after the state prosecution ended. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/277 "2013-07-30T00:27:24Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > \*\* Bricker: \*\*[You might want to educate yourself on the DoJ’s criminal division since you seem to want to hold yourself out as an expert on civil rights:](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/overview.php) > More at link Just checking back on this claim. I know it’s only been a couple weeks, but frankly I’m pretty confident about the lack of a federal criminal prosecution. As I was two weeks ago, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/278 "2013-07-30T02:39:22Z")
I strongly suspect we’ll never hear from the DOJ about this again. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/279 "2015-02-24T20:42:02Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Why don’t you look at the news quote I provide earlier and take it up with the NAACP? They seem to think that if you racially profile someone and that leads to their death, that should be actionable under the civil rights act. That is clearly not a hate crime by any definition under any state law of which I am aware, but feel free to provide a counter example. I’ll be waiting. > [@Oakminster](#): > > Because the NAACP is an advocacy group, not a legislative body. They have no legal authority to declare what the law is, and their position is clearly contrary to settled law. > [@deltasigma](#): > > ORLY? I’m sure you can quickly educate me then as to the settled law rather than the ignorant view held by the NAACP - yes? > [@Bricker](#): > > The NAACP is full of shit in this instance. I can’t find a single 18 USC § 249 prosecution that fails to explicitly allege – as it must, under the statute – that the physical violence was directly and primarily motivated by the victim’s race. > > Accord, e.g., US v. Hatch, No. 12-2040, Tenth Circuit 2013; US v. Maybee, 687 F.3d 1026 (2012). > > Well, **deltasigma**? You have a single case that DOESN’T so allege? > [@deltasigma](#): > > First, section 249 isn’t the whole civil rights act now is it **Bricker**? So you have no idea WHAT the NAACP had in mind. BTW, I hope you don’t use such pedestrian tactic IRL. That would be very sad. > > Second, I have no intention of wasting my time researching this. > > Third, it’s a moot point anyway since I only have access to the statutes but not USCA, Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, etc. However I suspect that advocacy groups like the NAACP will be more than capable of advancing the legal arguments. 😛 Well, we don’t see **deltasigma** around much anymore, so I suppose he’ll not be commenting on [this](http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/24/us/zimmerman-martin-civil-rights/): > [@](#): > > Washington (CNN)No civil rights charges will be brought against George Zimmerman in the February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the U.S. Justice Department announced Tuesday, citing what it said was insufficient evidence. > > Zimmerman was acquitted of criminal charges in 2013 in the killing of the 17-year-old Martin, who was black. > > “Though a comprehensive investigation found that the high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution cannot be met under the circumstances here, this young man’s premature death necessitates that we continue the dialogue and be unafraid of confronting the issues and tensions his passing brought to the surface,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a news release. “We, as a nation, must take concrete steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future.” (I know that farther along in the thread, he “conceded” the point – but his concession, he made clear, was only because according to him he had no time to spend looking up the details he’d need to respond, and NOT because his position was flawed.) I assume that, in light of this announcement, he now concedes the point on the merits. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/280 "2015-02-24T22:13:07Z")
Just as a point of info, AFAIU, Zimmerman also cannot be sued for this in a civil action: [http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App\_mode=Display\_Statute&Search\_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=15)