-
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.
-
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 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.
I don’t agree with your characterization of what happened.
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 and would suggest you read.
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?
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.
Because the criminal provisions are narrow. Murder is traditionally a state crime.
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.
Not to be rude, but I’m considering this a non sequitur.
I’m not sure what you mean.
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.
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 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.*
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.
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.
Except doing so would be Constitutional according to the courts. Although I still don’t think they’re going to do it.
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).
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.
This is the first I’m hearing of this. Do you have a cite?
Its a lot more than that. Here’s a case from before the hate crime legislation:
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.
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.
Martin’s neighbors probably hate him. I think the HOA had 260 units. So he cost each of his neighbors about $4000.
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.
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).