# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/61 "2013-07-15T21:50:40Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > As the one poster linked 18 USC 249; > > Given the requirements here, the criminal charge, if filed, will be fatal to the govt., no chance for a conviction, period. > (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. > > [18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249) Notice that A,B,C, and D are "or"s. Seems as if Holder could pull out C as justification. But, not only would the feds have to prove what FL couldn’t prove, but they would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z killed Martin because of his race. Not profiled him because of his race, not suspected him of casing the place because of his race, not for running or skipping because of his race, but honest to goodness pulled the trigger on Martin BECAUSE he was black. There is no fucking way any lawyer could say that with a straight face. What even piss poor evidence is there of that? ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/62 "2013-07-15T21:52:02Z")
> [@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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/63 "2013-07-15T21:55:40Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > It was a case where three civil rights workers were murdered by the fucking Ku Klux Klan while attempting to register black voters in Mississippi. > > In the Zimmerman case, there is zero evidence that Martin was doing any sort of civil rights work, zero evidence that Zimmerman wanted to stop or interfere with the civil rights work Martin wasn’t doing, and zero evidence that the Ku Klux Klan was involved. Absolutely nothing whatsoever remotely similar to the Zimmerman case. Put it this way: This story at any rate has more in common with _Mississippi Burning_ than with _Bonfire of the Vanities._ (Yes, even though the latter prominently featured a Sharpton-standin.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/64 "2013-07-15T21:55:49Z")
> [@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? [QUOTE=18 USC 249] (a) In General.— (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever… willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of a firearm… because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person— [/QUOTE] I inserted only the relevant portions to Zimmerman. See you must willfully cause bodily injury because of actual or perceived race. Profiling? Fine. Yelling “nigger, nigger”? Fine. You can only be convicted if you killed the guy because of his race. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/65 "2013-07-15T21:57:18Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I inserted only the relevant portions to Zimmerman. See you must willfully cause bodily injury because of actual or perceived race. Profiling? Fine. Yelling “nigger, nigger”? Fine. You can only be convicted if you killed the guy because of his race. Only a fool thinks he can understand a statute without being familiar with the caselaw that interprets it. Are YOU familiar with that case law? I suspect that the NAACP IS familiar with said case law. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/66 "2013-07-15T22:06:49Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Only a fool thinks he can understand a statute without being familiar with the caselaw that interprets it. Are YOU familiar with that case law? I suspect that the NAACP IS familiar with said case law. So cite some caselaw to back up your position. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/67 "2013-07-15T22:09:32Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > So cite some caselaw to back up your position. {sigh} I’m not the one citing statutes now am I? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/68 "2013-07-15T22:16:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Put it this way: This story at any rate has more in common with _Mississippi Burning_ than with _Bonfire of the Vanities._ (Yes, even though the latter prominently featured a Sharpton-standin.) May as well say that potato has more in common with opera than it does with calligraphy. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/69 "2013-07-15T22:18:55Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > {sigh} I’m not the one citing statutes now am I? :rolleyes: No, you’re the one claiming that the statute means something other that what it would appear to mean from the language used, and you seem convinced that there is some legal authority known to the NAACP that supports your absurd position. I am flat out saying that legal authority does not exist. Cite it and prove me wrong. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/70 "2013-07-15T22:23:37Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No, you’re the one claiming that the statute means something other that what it would appear to mean from the language used, and you seem convinced that there is some legal authority known to the NAACP that supports your absurd position. I am flat out saying that legal authority does not exist. Cite it and prove me wrong. I’m stating as a legal proposition that statutes, especially deliberately vague statutes like the Civil Rights Act, are designed to made clear only upon application through case law and to try to ferret out their meaning simply by a cursory reading is as foolish as trying to diagnose oneself using the internet. If you can’t see that, I don’t think there’s any further help I can offer you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/71 "2013-07-15T22:43:10Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > So cite some caselaw to back up your position. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/72 "2013-07-15T22:49:02Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > I’m stating as a legal proposition that statutes, especially deliberately vague statutes like the Civil Rights Act, are designed to made clear only upon application through case law and to try to ferret out their meaning simply by a cursory reading is as foolish as trying to diagnose oneself using the internet. If you can’t see that, I don’t think there’s any further help I can offer you. There’s nothing vague about the statute. And you’re utterly wrong here. I’m on PACER now looking through a multitude of district court cases, and it’s the same story. So put up or shut up. Where’s the case law that allows prosecution if you “… racially profile someone and that leads to their death?” It’s surely not 18 USC § 249 et seq. What is it? ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/73 "2013-07-15T22:49:04Z")
> [@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? 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. 😛 ---
**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 15, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/74 "2013-07-15T22:56:42Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Only a fool thinks he can understand a statute without being familiar with the caselaw that interprets it. Are YOU familiar with that case law? I suspect that the NAACP IS familiar with said case law. You are arguing with at least 2, maybe 3 or 4, actual lawyers. Did you know that? > [@Yogsosoth](#): > > I think if they can find justifiable reason to indict and try Zimmerman with a reasonable belief that they will win, they should I doubt anyone would disagree with that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/75 "2013-07-15T22:56:53Z")
> [@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 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. 😛 I don’t need to. Because when someone commences a federal prosecution, the first thing on the table is an indictment, which specifies the exact sections of federal law alleged to have been violated by the accused. So my tactic “in real life” is to demand that an accusatory instrument allege with specificity the criminal acts the government intends to prove. So your tactic here is to shrug and say that the NAACP must know what they’re talking about, and you unreservedly endorse their expertise. I say they’re full of shit. And we’re in Great Debates, which means you can’t just hide behind “It’s my opinion.” Do you know of any federal statute that imposes criminal liability when the nexus between racial animus and violence is as attenuated as it is here? Name it, or shut the fuck up. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/76 "2013-07-15T22:59:10Z")
> [@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. What the NAACP has in mind was that Martin was a young black man and therefore innocent of any wrongdoing. Allegations that he did anything wrong means that you and Zimmerman are racist and he was killed only because he was a young black man. I was listening to BBC and the assumption was that Zimmerman was in the wrong and the only way he got off was with 12 equally racist jurors. I assume that’s the same assumption that the NAACP is making. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/77 "2013-07-15T22:59:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t need to. Because when someone commences a federal prosecution, the first thing on the table is an indictment, which specifies the exact sections of federal law alleged to have been violated by the accused. So my tactic “in real life” is to demand that an accusatory instrument allege with specificity the criminal acts the government intends to prove. > > So your tactic here is to shrug and say that the NAACP must know what they’re talking about, and you unreservedly endorse their expertise. > > I say they’re full of shit. > > And we’re in Great Debates, which means you can’t just hide behind “It’s my opinion.” > > Do you know of any federal statute that imposes criminal liability when the nexus between racial animus and violence is as attenuated as it is here? Name it, or shut the fuck up. I will as soon as you produce your fabled accusatory document.:smack: :rolleyes: 😛 ---
**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 15, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/78 "2013-07-15T23:00:16Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What the NAACP has in mind was that Martin was a young black man and therefore innocent of any wrongdoing. Allegations that he did anything wrong means that you and Zimmerman are racist and he was killed only because he was a young black man. > > I was listening to BBC and the assumption was that Zimmerman was in the wrong and the only way he got off was with 12 equally racist jurors. I assume that’s the same assumption that the NAACP is making. Six jurors. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/79 "2013-07-15T23:06:40Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What the NAACP has in mind was that Martin was a young black man and therefore innocent of any wrongdoing. Allegations that he did anything wrong means that you and Zimmerman are racist and he was killed only because he was a young black man. > > I was listening to BBC and the assumption was that Zimmerman was in the wrong and the only way he got off was with 12 equally racist jurors. I assume that’s the same assumption that the NAACP is making. Was that really how the BBC was reporting it? If so, they just made everyone who likes to talk about how good and impartial a news organization they are look extremely foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/80 "2013-07-15T23:06:41Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > I will as soon as you produce your fabled accusatory document.:smack: :rolleyes: 😛 And if that document never materializes, you’ll concede error? How long has to pass with no indictment before you admit you might just have fucked up here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=5)