# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/121 "2013-07-16T16:43:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I doubt anyone would disagree with that. > [@Terr](#): > > [http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/FBI-doubts-Trayvon-Martin-killing-racist-3703846.php](http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/FBI-doubts-Trayvon-Martin-killing-racist-3703846.php) > > After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show. > > Federal agents interviewed Zimmerman’s neighbors and co-workers, but none said Zimmerman had expressed racial animus at any time prior to the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon, a black teen, in a confrontation at a Sanford housing complex. As police investigated the case, the FBI opened a parallel probe to determine if Trayvon’s civil rights had been violated. Looks like we found someone who disagrees! Terr’s response seems to be that since GZ dodged a conviction, we should just let him go, nothing to see here, and hey, he has black friends so he can’t possibly be a racist! I’m for the DOJ or TM’s parents bringing a civil suit to GZ and bankrupting him for what I consider to be TM’s murder but only IF there’s a case. If there isn’t then there’s not much more we can do about it except leave him as some social pariah ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/122 "2013-07-16T17:33:16Z")
At the risk of being accused of trolling again, even on the Daily Show last night, Jon Oliver said something like ‘In Florida you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, phone the police, have them explicitly tell you stop following the minor, keep following the minor, then get into a confrontation with them and if at any point you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida with say, well, look, you did the best you could.’ ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/123 "2013-07-16T17:35:46Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Looks like we found someone who disagrees! Terr’s response seems to be that since GZ dodged a conviction, we should just let him go, nothing to see here, and hey, he has black friends so he can’t possibly be a racist! Can you point, specifically, what part of my response to you could lead you to such ridiculous conclusions? ---
**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 16, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/124 "2013-07-16T17:44:35Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > At the risk of being accused of trolling again, even on the Daily Show last night, Jon Oliver said something like ‘In Florida you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, phone the police, have them explicitly tell you stop following the minor, keep following the minor, then get into a confrontation with them and if at any point you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida with say, well, look, you did the best you could.’ Well, I know that was intended to me more funny than right, but it’s just plain wrong. And not that funny. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/125 "2013-07-16T17:48:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, I know that was intended to me more funny than right, but it’s just plain wrong. And not that funny. [Maybe you’ll like the followup story of the black woman who got 20 years for firing a gun into the air.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html) ---
**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 16, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/126 "2013-07-16T18:11:42Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Looks like we found someone who disagrees! No. He’s saying there is no good chance of a conviction. You predicated your statement on the idea that there was a reasonable chance of conviction. ---
**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 16, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/127 "2013-07-16T18:18:35Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > [Maybe you’ll like the followup story of the black woman who got 20 years for firing a gun into the air.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html) Firstly, I think you just dodged the main point of my post which was specifically about the TM/GZ case. Secondly, I think you’re moving the goal post. Thirdly, I think she should not have left the scene and returned with a gun. Once she left the scene, she was no longer in danger. From your cite: > [@](#): > > On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they’d had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said. > > An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling. > > \ > > A judge threw out Alexander’s “stand your ground” self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside. Fourthly, I think she should have accepted the plea deal. Fifthly, I think you’re never going to admit you’re wrong and are just going to tap dance over to something else. Sixthly, if you do, don’t expect me to respond. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/128 "2013-07-16T18:52:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And don’t try to tell me “racially motivated” does not apply here. It seems the [jury felt otherwise](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/0716/Juror-B37-Race-did-not-play-a-role-in-Zimmerman-trial.-Protesters-disagree). From the link: \* “I think all of us thought race did not play a role,” the woman known only as Juror B37 said about the jury’s deliberations, during an interview on CNN Monday. “We never had that discussion.” Instead, Juror B37 said the jury of six women spent hours poring over the law and the evidence from the trial before determining that Zimmerman did not meet the standards required for a second-degree murder or manslaughter conviction.\* ---
**Author:** ![Werekoala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7993a0/32.png) [@Werekoala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Werekoala)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/129 "2013-07-16T19:31:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I don’t think they are. I think they are realistic. > > I look somewhat Middle Eastern and when going through airport security I am often given extra scrutiny. Doesn’t bother me a bit. Don’t consider people who do it racists. > > When I lived in California in the mid-80s for a while, there was a police checkpoint on the highway between San Diego and LA, they would wave most of the cars through but almost always stop me - I guess I looked Mexican to them. Didn’t bother me, and didn’t consider those guys racist. > > When you look for illegal immigrants, you probably shouldn’t concentrate your stop and search on people who look Japanese. When you are doing security at airports (not that I think it is effective) you shouldn’t concentrate on little old ladies. Of course Middle-Eastern-looking people attract extra attention. If they didn’t, those guys would not be doing their jobs. Turn in your Race Card, sir. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/130 "2013-07-16T19:39:57Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > At the risk of being accused of trolling again, even on the Daily Show last night, Jon Oliver said something like ‘In Florida you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, phone the police, have them explicitly tell you stop following the minor, keep following the minor, then get into a confrontation with them and if at any point you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida with say, well, look, you did the best you could.’ Actually, the police definitely did NOT “explicitly” tell Zimmerman to stop following Trayvon Martin. I wish they had. I wish they HAD screamed, “SIT TIGHT AND DON’T MOVE. WHATEVER YOU DO, DON’T PURSUE HIM!!!” George ZImmerman was, in my view, a well-meaning bonehead who NEEDED to be told, in no uncertain terms, “Let the professionals handle this.” But that did NOT happen, contrary to what the media have tried to assert. The transcript of Zimmerman’s conversation with the 911 operator follows: > **[Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police](https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman/?embed=1)** At one point, the operator asks if Zimmerman is following Trayvon. Zimmerman says “Yes.” The operator then says only “We don’t need you to do that.” They continue talking for a while longer, and the operator NEVER again says, “Stop following him- stay in the car” or anything like that. Look, I have a 9 year old. If he’s doing something dangerous, like playing with matches, it’s not NEARLY enbough for me to say, “Uh, I don’t need you to do that.” I need to ORDER him “STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING, NOW!!!” “I don’t need you to do that” is a mild suggestion, not an order. He’ll feel free to keep on what he’s doing, and if I just carry on conversing with him, he’ll assume I didn’t really mean what I said. I do not believe George ZImmerman was a closet Klansman who set out to shoot a black kid. I DO think he was a nervous wimp with delusions of heroism. He was an accident waiting to happen. Trayvon, meanwhile, was a wannabe gangsta. BOTH of them were idiots who got into a deadly confrontation that didn’t have to happen. If EITHER of them had shown a lick of common sense, if EITHER of them hadn’t adhered to a stupid macho code, Trayvon could have gone home to eat his Skittles, and ZImmerman wouldn’t be getting death threats today. As it is, I think Zimmerman deserved to be tried and convicted on a much lesser charge than murder. ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/131 "2013-07-16T19:43:48Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Actually, the police definitely did NOT “explicitly” tell Zimmerman to stop following Trayvon Martin. I wish they had. I wish they HAD screamed, “SIT TIGHT AND DON’T MOVE. WHATEVER YOU DO, DON’T PURSUE HIM!!!” > > George ZImmerman was, in my view, a well-meaning bonehead who NEEDED to be told, in no uncertain terms, “Let the professionals handle this.” > > But that did NOT happen, contrary to what the media have tried to assert. The transcript of Zimmerman’s conversation with the 911 operator follows: > > [Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police | DocumentCloud](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html) > > At one point, the operator asks if Zimmerman is following Trayvon. Zimmerman says “Yes.” The operator then says only “We don’t need you to do that.” They continue talking for a while longer, and the operator NEVER again says, “Stop following him- stay in the car” or anything like that. And it wasn’t “the police”, it was the 911 operator, who has no authority to tell anyone anything. > [@](#): > > I do not believe George ZImmerman was a closet Klansman who set out to shoot a black kid. I DO think he was a nervous wimp with delusions of heroism. He was an accident waiting to happen. Trayvon, meanwhile, was a wannabe gangsta. BOTH of them were idiots who got into a deadly confrontation that didn’t have to happen. > > If EITHER of them had shown a lick of common sense, if EITHER of them hadn’t adhered to a stupid macho code, Trayvion could have gone home to eat his Skittles, and ZImmerman wouldn’t be getting death threats today. > > As it is, I think Zimmerman deserved to be tried and convicted on a much lesser charge than murder. Pretty much agree with that. As others have said, I think GZ was morally responsible for the death of TM. I wish we had some law that would make him liable as well, but FL simply does not, given the evidence at hand. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/132 "2013-07-16T20:02:59Z")
I love this idea. I think he did violate Martin’s civil rights. And I should note that I say this as someone who believes the acquittal in the murder charges was the correct verdict. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/133 "2013-07-16T20:06:36Z")
As I’ve said before, I haven’t followed this case that closely so if I seem evasive, it’s only because I’m more concerned with the broader issues of racial equality or the lack of same rather than the particulars of the kabuki dance played out in the Zimmerman case. Do I think justice was done there? If I had to answer yes or no I’d definitely have to say ‘no’, but I’d also freely admit that is mostly a gut response. However as to the broader issue of whether or not racial preference, bias or outright bigotry is alive and well in Florida’s justice system, there seem to many respected people who are also asking that question. Whether or not the Zimmerman case is an example of that will be left to be seen and if discussing the broader issues are more appropriate to a separate thread, then I hope one will be started. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/134 "2013-07-16T21:24:14Z")
> [@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. The statute itself still sets the stage to tell what would generally be within or outside it. And just because the NAACP is calling for a prosecution by no stretch of the imagination means they’ve reviewed case law and found previous examples where people in Zimmerman’s position were convicted of civil rights violations. They want Zimmerman’s hide, period. If the statute has to be stretched way beyond any previous case to nail him, then stretch it. I’m not a lawyer and have no file of case examples to show, but every legal talking head, as opposed to politician or activist, I’ve seen on TV seems to say the statute has generally been used to cover cases which a plain layman’s reading of it would seem to cover. Ie. they’d have to prove Zimmerman simply shot Martin because Martin was black. And any common sense evaluation of this case so far, where essentially _no_ direct evidence of a racial motive by Zimmerman has been found, and a jury found he acted justifiably even when no motive had to be proved in addition, would say that such a prosecution would be extremely difficult, which seems in accordance with the lack of any similar cases brought to light even by obviously anti-Zimmerman media and their analysts. The simple explanation would be that nobody has been railroaded that way, yet. But I think the theory of NAACP and others is that if you pump up the political pressure enough, you can not only force elected officials to order such a prosecution, but at some point you can get a jury pool biased and or intimidated enough to convict, the actual law be damned. And that’s basically what the people outraged by the recent verdict wanted, since Zimmerman was obviously not _proved_ guilty under the law as written (good law or not) and the evidence gathered (whether or not there were serious errors in that process by the state). The black left as exemplified by the current day NAACP has a pretty clear general view that the white power structure corrupted an ostensibly color blind legal system (and American society as a whole for that matter) in a pro-white way in the past, and so now they’re going to corrupt it in the other direction. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/135 "2013-07-16T21:41:59Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I love this idea. I think he did violate Martin’s civil rights. And I should note that I say this as someone who believes the acquittal in the murder charges was the correct verdict. Say what now? If he was not guilty of murder in general, then he is definitely not guilty of murder because of racial reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/136 "2013-07-16T21:45:39Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > At the risk of being accused of trolling again, even on the Daily Show last night, Jon Oliver said something like ‘In Florida you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, phone the police, have them explicitly tell you stop following the minor, keep following the minor, then get into a confrontation with them and if at any point you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida with say, well, look, you did the best you could.’ Jon Oliver does not correctly summarize the law of Florida. Do you believe that his summary DOES accurately summarize the law of Florida? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/137 "2013-07-16T21:49:50Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > I do not believe George ZImmerman was a closet Klansman who set out to shoot a black kid. I DO think he was a nervous wimp with delusions of heroism. He was an accident waiting to happen. Trayvon, meanwhile, was a wannabe gangsta. BOTH of them were idiots who got into a deadly confrontation that didn’t have to happen. > > If EITHER of them had shown a lick of common sense, if EITHER of them hadn’t adhered to a stupid macho code, Trayvon could have gone home to eat his Skittles, and ZImmerman wouldn’t be getting death threats today. > > As it is, I think Zimmerman deserved to be tried and convicted on a much lesser charge than murder. I agree with all of this except the last sentence. Should being a dumbass be a crime? If so, many of us are in trouble. But the second paragraph is absolutely true. Z’s first words should have been “Hey pal, do you need some help? I noticed you looking around and thought I could help you find something since I’m from the area.” Martin’s first words should have been, “Can I help you sir? I noticed you following me and that’s making me uncomfortable.” If either had done that there would have been no shooting. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/138 "2013-07-16T21:51:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And it wasn’t “the police”, it was the 911 operator, who has no authority to tell anyone anything. It even goes beyond that. 911 dispatchers say things like ‘we don’t need you to’ not as some annoying vague passive-aggressive phraseology for ‘don’t do it’ (which agreed they have no legal authority to tell you anyway). They make those disclaimer statements so the 911 caller can’t sue them if they get involved and get hurt, claiming they thought the police were somehow deputizing them, and likewise if the caller ends up doing something wrong a victim of that wrongdoing or their family can’t sue the municipality claiming the 911 caller was acting as an agent of the police. The idea that ‘the police told Zimmerman to back off’ is, in short, a total fallacy. The prosecution did not even make an issue of the ‘we don’t need you to’. They urged the jury to infer an unjustified killing from the fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle to follow Martin and his general supposed ‘wannabe cop’ attitude (though the jury correctly rejected that and focused on whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury in the final confrontation, which was the correct focus under the law). But the prosecutors did not harp on the 911 operator’s comment, because it was basically irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/139 "2013-07-16T21:52:36Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Say what now? If he was not guilty of murder in general, then he is definitely not guilty of murder because of racial reasons. If I understand what I read in another (GQ, I think) thread, that’s not an issue here. He was tried for murder by the state of Florida and would be tried for civil rights violations by the federal government. > [@jtgain](#): > > I agree with all of this except the last sentence. Should being a dumbass be a crime? If it results in somebody’s death? In general, yes. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/140 "2013-07-16T21:54:01Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > The statute itself still sets the stage to tell what would generally be within or outside it. I’m not sure how relevant this is to the current discussion so I’ll refer you to this quote, reproduced here for convenience. > [@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. I’ll briefly elaborate by analogizing to the US Constitution. Many people, the Tea Party for example, are fond of reading the constitution and complaining that it’s not enforced as written. Well, there’s a reason for that. It was never intended to be. It was written broadly and vaguely with the intention that the institutions it created, the tripartite form of government in general and the judicial system in particular, would apply it’s principles to real life and thus give form to its principles. A piece of legislation like the Civil Rights Act is very much like that. To what extent I can’t say since I’m not familiar with it’s case law. However it would not surprise me to find that even things that seem well defined in the statute are less so when you start reading precedent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=8)