# 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:** 8
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/141 "2013-07-16T21:56:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. > > If it results in somebody’s death? In general, yes. 1. But the civil rights violation would be the murder for racial animus. The poster said that the not guilty verdict was correct, but that Martin’s civil rights were violated. 2. Let me rephrase. Should being a dumbass which leads to someone else being a bigger dumbass which leads to the second person’s death through their own fault, be a crime? ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/142 "2013-07-16T21:59:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 1. But the civil rights violation would be the murder for racial animus. The poster said that the not guilty verdict was correct, but that Martin’s civil rights were violated. I shouldn’t speak for another poster but I assume the idea is that Zimmerman violated Martin’s rights by killing him, a point which isn’t in dispute. > [@](#): > > 1. Let me rephrase. Should being a dumbass which leads to someone else being a bigger dumbass which leads to the second person’s death through their own fault, be a crime? I don’t agree with your characterization of what happened. ---
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/143 "2013-07-16T22:00:25Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > 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. The Hate Crimes Law in question was only passed in 2009. The 8th circuit and a District Court in New Mexico have upheld it under Congress’ 13th amendment power as outlawing a badge and incident of slavery.:dubious: So, it’s constitutionality is at issue and in each case it was a clear racial animus involved and a direct application of force because of that animus. To read it as broadly as the NAACP would read would have the effect of making any cross-racial murder a federal hate crime which is surely not the intention of the law. ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/144 "2013-07-16T22:18:22Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The Hate Crimes Law in question was only passed in 2009. The 8th circuit and a District Court in New Mexico have upheld it under Congress’ 13th amendment power as outlawing a badge and incident of slavery.:dubious: > > So, it’s constitutionality is at issue and in each case it was a clear racial animus involved and a direct application of force because of that animus. To read it as broadly as the NAACP would read would have the effect of making any cross-racial murder a federal hate crime which is surely not the intention of the law. As I pointed out earlier, there is more to the civil rights act than that one section so why do you think that is what the NAACP is focusing on that in particular? From the [article I quoted](http://kdvr.com/2013/07/14/in-echo-of-o-j-simpson-case-zimmerman-could-still-be-held-accountable-for-death/) and would suggest you read. > [@](#): > > “Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction, and whether federal prosecution is appropriate in accordance with the department’s policy governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial,” it said in a Sunday statement. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/145 "2013-07-16T22:25:34Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > 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. It may have been irrelevant under a very narrow reading of the law, but it is NOT irrelevant in terms of what happened. Zimmerman stalked Martin and killed him, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, which makes the trial a mockery of justice. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/146 "2013-07-16T22:28:04Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It may have been irrelevant under a very narrow reading of the law, but it is NOT irrelevant in terms of what happened. Zimmerman stalked Martin and killed him, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, which makes the trial a mockery of justice. Does that mean that, in order to _not_ be a mockery of justice, the law would have to be ignored at the trial? ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/147 "2013-07-16T22:32:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I shouldn’t speak for another poster but I assume the idea is that Zimmerman violated Martin’s rights by killing him No, I meant for profiling him and stalking him based on his being a young black male in an affluent, mostly nonblack suburb. ETA: And more generally, just because I believe that he was technically not guilty of violating Florida state law does not mean I necessarily believe he was not guilty of violating federal law. ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/148 "2013-07-16T23:24:54Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > As I pointed out earlier, there is more to the civil rights act than that one section so why do you think that is what the NAACP is focusing on that in particular? From the [article I quoted](http://kdvr.com/2013/07/14/in-echo-of-o-j-simpson-case-zimmerman-could-still-be-held-accountable-for-death/) and would suggest you read. Because the criminal provisions are narrow. Murder is traditionally a state crime. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/149 "2013-07-16T23:26:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Does that mean that, in order to _not_ be a mockery of justice, the law would have to be ignored at the trial? Well, it does mean the applicable law is unjust, at any rate. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/150 "2013-07-16T23:30:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, it does mean the applicable law is unjust, at any rate. If so, then there’s no just outcome. Convicting someone without their having broken the law is unjust, just as failing to punish wrongdoing is. ---
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/151 "2013-07-16T23:49:07Z")
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#): > > Because the criminal provisions are narrow. Murder is traditionally a state crime. Not to be rude, but I’m considering this a non sequitur. ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/152 "2013-07-16T23:52:23Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Not to be rude, but I’m considering this a non sequitur. I’m not sure what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/153 "2013-07-16T23:52:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If so, then there’s no just outcome. Convicting someone without their having broken the law is unjust, just as failing to punish wrongdoing is. Frankly, that is what I consider the situation after having read as much about this case as I can stand. There is no outcome that could possibly be considered truly just in this case. Both parties acted like idiots. Yes, in the final fight Zimmerman was acting in self-defense but on the other hand he started the confrontation to begin with. So I feel he shares some of the moral blame though maybe no legal blame. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/154 "2013-07-16T23:53:22Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > A piece of legislation like the Civil Rights Act is very much like that. Wrong again. Criminal statutes are very much not like that at all. They have to specify exactly what conduct is prohibited, or they are unconstitutional. See the [Void for Vagueness](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Void+for+Vagueness+Doctrine) doctrine. From the link: \*A doctrine derived from the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution that requires criminal laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average person to comprehend. If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.\* ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/155 "2013-07-16T23:54:36Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Not to be rude, but I’m considering this a non sequitur. You suggested that the NAACP could explore a number of criminal causes of action under the Civil Rights Act. I pointed out that you are wrong because the criminal provisions are quite narrow. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/156 "2013-07-17T00:23:31Z")
Like many have said here, it would be a horrible idea for the DOJ to try to indict Zimmerman on Federal charges. Even if you disagree with the decision of the jury, it is vital to ALL of us that we don’t have a government so drunk on power that they feel they can effectively overturn the results of a trial if the verdict is not one they agree with. Given the abject criminality and abuse of our rights that goes on in Washington, this is not a stretch and it simply illustrates that the political class believe they can subvert every known safeguard of our liberties and do whatever the hell they want. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/157 "2013-07-17T00:29:36Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > Like many have said here, it would be a horrible idea for the DOJ to try to indict Zimmerman on Federal charges. Even if you disagree with the decision of the jury, it is vital to ALL of us that we don’t have a government so drunk on power that they feel they can effectively overturn the results of a trial if the verdict is not one they agree with. Except doing so would be Constitutional according to the courts. Although I still don’t think they’re going to do it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/158 "2013-07-17T00:33:51Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > And personally I would rather see a unanimous verdict from a full 12 person jury pulled from a more racially diverse jury pool than what I understand they were dealing with in the Florida case. Six jurors, and it was the _prosecution_ (AKA Team Trayvon) that dismissed the black man from the jury pool (and it was probably the smartest thing they did all trial long, because it was painfully obvious he was going to find Zimmerman justified). > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If I was Martin’s parents I’d probably want to pursue civil charges against the HOA for this gated community. I could see an argument they are culpable for the behavior of someone acting as a form of volunteer security for them since it was known he did so. I’m not sure what the legalities are, but the upside is they actually can probably produce money whereas Zimmerman probably cannot. They already settled out of court. I think the Martins got something like $1,000,000 from it (and I bet the HOA feels kinda dumb now that they’ve seen how pathetically weak the Martin’s case was). Oh, and federal charges are an absolutely terrible idea. And there’s some risk to the Martin’s if they bring a civil suit that they’ll end up paying Zimmerman’s legal bills. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/159 "2013-07-17T01:08:41Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Z has a positive history helping blacks. There was homeless black man beaten by a white guy in Sanford. Z worked with the NAACP to make sure the guy was charged. Z mentored under privileged black teens for years. > > He sure doesn’t sound like a racist to me. This is the first I’m hearing of this. Do you have a cite? > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Even if they wanted to, murders don’t become federal crimes just because the state acquits and people are mad. Federal murder jurisdiction is strictly limited by statute (victim is a federal employee, murder occurs in a US territory or DC, the murder is solicited through the US mail, etc.) Its a lot more than that. Here’s a case from before the hate crime legislation: > **[Killing of Vincent Chin | Federal civil rights charges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Vincent_Chin#Federal_civil_rights_charges)** > > Government officials, politicians, and several prominent legal organizations dismissed the theory that civil rights law should be applied to the death of Chin. The Detroit chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild did not consider Chin's killing a violation of his civil rights. At first, the ACJ was the only group that supported applying existing civil rights laws to Asian Americans. Eventually, the national body of the National Lawyers Guild endorsed its e Jou... > [@Bricker](#): > > Does anyone in this thread wish to defend the proposition that, given the evidence in this case, it would be possible to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the primary reason George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin was Trayvon’s race, and that – beyond a reasonable doubt – self-defense was not involved? Does the burden of proof for self defense remain with the prosecution in a federal trial on a federal charge? It seems to me that it might make a difference where the burden of proof lies when there doesn’t seem to be much hard evidence for self defense either way. > [@jtgain](#): > > 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. An unfailiar black kid in a hoodie walking down the street… maybe a little suspicious. Middle aged white dude in a pickup following a young black down the street… SUSPIIIIIICIOUS. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > They already settled out of court. I think the Martins got something like $1,000,000 from it (and I bet the HOA feels kinda dumb now that they’ve seen how pathetically weak the Martin’s case was). Martin’s neighbors probably hate him. I think the HOA had 260 units. So he cost each of his neighbors about $4000. > [@](#): > > Oh, and federal charges are an absolutely terrible idea. And there’s some risk to the Martin’s if they bring a civil suit that they’ll end up paying Zimmerman’s legal bills. I don’t know the facts of the Zimmerman case as well as some folks here but its really hard to overlook Z ignoring the dispatcher advising him not to follow TM. I don’t know how it works at the federal level but if the burden of proof for self defense shifts to zimmerman in a federal case, then I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a different result. I think there is no risk that the martins end up paying the Zimmerman legal bill. ZERO. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/160 "2013-07-17T01:17:56Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It may have been irrelevant under a very narrow reading of the law, but it is NOT irrelevant in terms of what happened. Zimmerman stalked Martin and killed him, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, which makes the trial a mockery of justice. All criminal law is read very narrowly. In resolving a criminal statute, ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused. McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=9)