# 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:** 9
**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, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/161 "2013-07-17T01:23:40Z")
> [@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. > > 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. I could not disagree more. If the federal prosecutors can identify a criminal charge that they, in good faith, believe Zimmerman violated, they should absolutely bring it. To hold otherwise is to ignore our system of dual sovereignty. Now, I agree that the Feds should not charge Zimmerman, but that’s because his conduct was not violative of any federal criminal statutes. It’s NOT because such a charge would somehow subvert our liberties. ---
**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, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/162 "2013-07-17T01:24:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think there is no risk that the martins end up paying the Zimmerman legal bill. ZERO. Is that because you just aren’t familiar with FL’s laws? > [@](#): > > 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— > (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. > > (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. > > (3) **The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)**. [cite](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html) ---
**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, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/163 "2013-07-17T01:32:40Z")
> [@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. I have now read every single opinion from every single prosecution under this act. My opinion is unchanged. Your opinion derives from an article that offers zero specifics. And you yourself have disclaimed any personal knowledge that would allow you to weigh in. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/164 "2013-07-17T01:34:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have now read every single opinion from every single prosecution under this act. > > My opinion is unchanged. > > Your opinion derives from an article that offers zero specifics. > > And you yourself have disclaimed any personal knowledge that would allow you to weigh in. You have read every criminal prosecution under any provision of the Civil Rights Act? Is that what you’re saying? ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/165 "2013-07-17T01:37:18Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > You have read every criminal prosecution under any provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968? Is that what you’re saying? He’s saying that he read every published opinion on the subject. This is likely because there aren’t many published opinions in this area, which makes sense given the heavy burden of proof in such cases. Bricker, my apologies if you’ve also read the unpublished opinions available in WL or Lexis. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/166 "2013-07-17T01:42:11Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > You have read every criminal prosecution under any provision of the Civil Rights Act? Is that what you’re saying? Cite any section of the U.S. Code that you think Zimmerman violated in this incident, and I’ll tell you, again, why you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/167 "2013-07-17T01:43:45Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Cite any section of the U.S. Code that you think Zimmerman violated in this incident, and I’ll tell you, again, why you are wrong. I don’t think deltasigma understands that federal charges in cases like these are quite rare. S/he may be operating under the assumption that the federal government acts as a backstop in murder cases, which obviously isn’t so. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/168 "2013-07-17T01:46:24Z")
\*\* 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) > [@](#): > > One of the oldest of the Civil Rights Division’s units, the Criminal Section enforces laws that date to the post Civil War Reconstruction Era. Originally a part of the Criminal Division, the Criminal Section and its enforcement authority was moved to the Civil Rights Division when the CRD was created in 1957. In the early years, the Division was organized geographically. Eventually, as more civil rights laws were passed, the Division reorganized into functional subject areas. The Criminal Section is unique within the Division, prosecuting criminal cases while the remainder of the Division handles civil matters. Some of the Criminal Section’s earliest prosecutions involved the murder of minorities and civil rights workers in the South during the 1960’s prior to desegregation. In 1968 Congress broadened the scope of protection afforded by civil rights statutes by passing a law that made it a crime to interfere by force or threat of force with certain rights (such as employment, housing, use of public facilities, etc.) because of someone’s race, religion, color or national origin. > > Those protections were increased even further twenty years later when Congress enacted a law (amended in 1996) making violent conduct against religious property and those exercising their religious beliefs a federal crime. Congress also made it a federal crime in 1994 to use violence to interfere with providers of reproductive health care. The cases handled by the Section have always been of great interest to the public and have sometimes become the subject of films, documentaries, books, and television programs. Some of the historically significant events in which the Criminal Section has been directly involved include investigations of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Medgar Evers, the fatal shootings by the National Guard at Kent State University, the deaths of three civil rights workers (Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner) in Mississippi, and the police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles. The types of acts that may involve violations of federal criminal civil rights laws are: > **Hate Crimes** > ([18 U.S.C. § 241](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/241fin.php), [18 U.S.C. § 245](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/245.php), [18 U.S.C. § 249](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/249fin.php) and [42 U.S.C. § 3631)](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/3631fin.php) > Violent and intimidating acts motivated by animus based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. More at link ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/169 "2013-07-17T01:48:18Z")
> [@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) If you go read those statutes, you’ll find that most of them are entirely inapposite. ---
**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, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/170 "2013-07-17T01:50:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its a lot more than that. Here’s a case from before the hate crime legislation: > > [Killing of Vincent Chin - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Vincent_Chin#Federal_civil_rights_charges) From that link: “… the prosecution’s proving the evidence of uttered racial slurs were not self-sufficient for conviction.” So there’s a case in which the prosecution had defendants who had used racial slurs during the commission of the crime, and even that was not enough. Here, in contrast, we have no racial slurs. > [@](#): > > 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. I will research this issue in more detail, but I believe the answer is that federal law applies the law of the state in which the offense occurs. For the Feds, the real problem is no good proof of racial animus. The jury in a federal case would have to hear evidence that proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the primary reason Zimmerman killed Martin was his hatred of Martin’s race. > [@](#): > > 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 would. Even if Zimmerman has to show self-defense by preponderance of the evidence, his wounds create a prima facie showing. > [@](#): > > I think there is no risk that the martins end up paying the Zimmerman legal bill. ZERO. Zero, huh? Why is that? I think it’s unlikely, but not zero. What is your reasoning? ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/171 "2013-07-17T01:52:27Z")
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#): > > If you go read those statutes, you’ll find that most of them are entirely inapposite. Good to know, but that’s not the point. I actually took a couple courses in Civil Rights in law school, unfortunately I remember virtually none of it except the stories told by one of my profs, Arthur Kinoy, an early leader in the civil rights movement (now accuse me of pulling THAT name out of my ass). And the fact of the matter is that it is a very specialized area of the law on which I would want the opinion of at least a Constitutional lawyer. Is Bricker a constitutional lawyer? I’m guessing not. ---
**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, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/172 "2013-07-17T01:52:31Z")
> [@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 I am very familiar with each and every statute you listed. Which one are you advancing? Or are you just cutting and pasting a list and hoping that sticks, somehow? ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/173 "2013-07-17T01:55:47Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Good to know, but that’s not the point. I actually took a couple courses in Civil Rights in law school, unfortunately I remember virtually none of it except the stories told by one of my profs, Arthur Kinoy, an early leader in the civil rights movement (now accuse me of pulling THAT name out of my ass). And the fact of the matter is that it is a very specialized area of the law on which I would want the opinion of at least a Constitutional lawyer. Is Bricker a constitutional lawyer? I’m guessing not. Then what’s your point? I clerked for two federal judges (district and COA) and this issue doesn’t seem terribly complex to me. Why do you think we need a constitutional law specialist here? And, if you want the opinion of a constitutional law specialist, I’ll offer you this: > **[The Uncertain Future of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act - The...](https://volokh.com/2013/07/16/the-uncertain-future-of-the-matthew-shepard-hate-crimes-prevention-act/)** > > I do not think it is likely that the federal government will end up charging George Zimmerman with a crime. But if it does, the prosecution may raise several interesting and potentially certworthy constitutional issues. Jonathan has already noted the... ---
**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, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/174 "2013-07-17T01:55:56Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Good to know, but that’s not the point. I actually took a couple courses in Civil Rights in law unfortunately I remember virtually none of it except the stories told by one of my profs, Arthur Kinoy, an early leader in the civil rights movement (now accuse me of pulling THAT name out of my ass). And the fact of the matter is that it is a very specialized area of the law on which I would want the opinion of at least a Constitutional lawyer. Is Bricker a constitutional lawyer? I’m guessing not. Just a plain old criminal defense lawyer. And in answering the question of whether a criminal exposure exists, I would want the opinion of a criminal defense lawyer. Now, to the question of what civil legal pitfalls might exist, I agree that my expertise is not all that valuable, and I would never hold myself out as an expert in civil rights law as a whole. But as to criminal law? Yes, that’s exactly my area of expertise. And this is not remotely murky or complex. You have no clue what you’re talking about. ---
**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 17, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/175 "2013-07-17T01:56:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For the Feds, the real problem is no good proof of racial animus. The jury in a federal case would have to hear evidence that proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the primary reason Zimmerman killed Martin was his hatred of Martin’s race. Because so many people are invested in the idea that GZ could have been motivated by racial animus, let me emphasize that the feds would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually was motivated primarily by racial animus. Not that he could have been motivated partly by racial animus. But that he was motivated primarily by racial animus. Not that he was motivated primarily by racial animus when he followed TM, but when he pulled the trigger. Given the forensic evidence, that is a near impossibility. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/176 "2013-07-17T02:00:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Just a plain old criminal defense lawyer. > > And in answering the question of whether a criminal exposure exists, I would want the opinion of a criminal defense lawyer. > > Now, to the question of what civil legal pitfalls might exist, I agree that my expertise is not all that valuable, and I would never hold myself out as an expert in civil rights law as a whole. But as to criminal law? Yes, that’s exactly my area of expertise. You still haven’t answered my original question which I will now make more specific since that’s what you seem to prefer. Have you reviewed every case interpreting every federal statute under which Zimmerman may still be prosecuted regarding the death of Martin and concerning which race MAY BE CONSIDERED and determined that there is no chance of any such prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/177 "2013-07-17T02:02:40Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > You still haven’t answered my original question which I will now make more specific since that’s what you seem to prefer. Have you reviewed every case under every federal statute that Zimmerman may still be prosecuted regarding the death of Martin and concerning which race MAY BE CONSIDERED and determined that there is no chance of any such prosecution? Whether he’ll be prosecuted is a different matter. None of us, including Bricker, can get inside the minds of the relevant decisionmakers at the DOJ. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/178 "2013-07-17T02:06:22Z")
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#): > > Because the criminal provisions are narrow. Murder is traditionally a state crime. Murder can be a federal crime if certain conditions apply to the alleged murder, such as occurring on federal property or the victim is a federal employee. ---
**Author:** ![IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ea666f/32.png) [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/179 "2013-07-17T02:08:04Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Murder can be a federal crime if certain conditions apply to the alleged murder, such as occurring on federal property or the victim is a federal employee. That’s why I said traditionally. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/180 "2013-07-17T02:08:08Z")
Yes. And what was my [original quote](http://kdvr.com/2013/07/14/in-echo-of-o-j-simpson-case-zimmerman-could-still-be-held-accountable-for-death/) before Bricker tried to pretend that the issue was much more narrow? It was this. > [@](#): > > “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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=10)