Trayvon Martin: Protests to Repeal Defence Law, and to Bring Federal Charges Against Zimmerman.

I'm not fully sure how to feel about this, except I have this unease gnawing away at me.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Here's my understanding. A security guard (Zimmerman) for a housing estate became suspicious of an African-American youth (Martin) and at some point challenged him. A scuffle and then a fight ensued between them, and from the evidence, it looks like Martin gained physical advantage over Zimmerman, but Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest and killed him.

Initially, Sandford Police Department did not charge Zimmerman because they believed he acted out of a genuine fear for his life, and that his actions were supported by a lawful right for a person to stand their ground and use lethal force if necessary.

Nevertheless, Zimmerman eventually was called to trial, but was found not guilty by a six woman jury. Now, however, many are still calling for him to be charged on a federal civil violations issue which cannot supersede the verdict given at state judicial level, but if there is enough evidence of Zimmerman having violated Martins civil rights, Zimmerman can be charged on this account at federal level.

I can certainly understand the protests wanting to bring a repeal to the 'Stand Your Ground' law, as I feel it provides an optional get-out clause for causing someone's death, and all one has to do is to claim that they feared for their life. In Zimmerman's case, injuries to him supported his claim, and there were no rebutting evidences to counter it. Zimmerman's lawyers were able to successfully claim self-defence and to convince the jury of this.

For Martin, the prosecution failed to muster an adequate case against Zimmerman, and I don't understand why they didn't include the federal charge of possible civil rights violation during the trial? Now it may be that they can't or couldn't use such a charge at state level, because without it alongside the initial charge, the prosecution never did have a strong enough argument (with evidence lacking) to win the case for Martin. Maybe, this is the path it has to take? I don't know.

My question now is, how logical is it to bring a charge of civil rights violation after a jury has found Zimmerman to be 'not guilty' of unlawful killing due to a successful defence of fearing for his life? Surely, to successfully prosecute this, it has to be proven that Zimmerman 'meant' to kill Martin whilst fearing for his life, that his intention was not to merely subdue Martin by wounding him, but to deliberately kill him in order to stop his assault upon him? This point has to be the crux of any successful prosecution against Zimmerman.

I doubt very much if deliberate intent to kill Martin rather than just wound him could be proved, even though it could be argued that Zimmerman failed to act with alternative and less lethal force, and in doing so, violated Martin's civil rights. This opens a whole can of worms for all security guards and especially for all law enforcement officers, and maybe it does need opening?

The act of murder is inclusive of civil rights violation right from the off, but it has to be successfully prosecuted as intentional, otherwise, it lowers to a lesser charge of manslaughter. Yet, if it could be proven that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was intentionally to kill and not to wound, then it falls within the category of murder, even though he was fearing for his life at the time. The fact that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin is without doubt. The question remains: at what point does lethal force become justified as a defence, especially if alternative and less lethal options are available?

I have other thoughts and questions, but I'll leave it at that for now.

These "protests" make it abundantly clear which folks are the real rascists in this country--and it's not Zimmerman and the white folks.

Muzzlebreak:

These "protests" make it abundantly clear which folks are the real rascists in this country--and it's not Zimmerman and the white folks.

This is not a thread about 'race', it is about the law and how it is and may be used. Please stay on topic, I welcome any view that does so.

reply to post by elysiumfire


First off the FBI investigated the case 1 year before the trail. And they reported Zimmerman was not racist.
Second the Stanford P.D. did not find Zimmerman was a racist.
Third the prosectuion could not prove Zimmerman was a racist.
Forth the jury Ruled that Zimmerman was not racist.

So good luck to the Justice Dept. !

So what civil rights violation are we talking about ?

I take it the other couple dozen threads in the past week or so were missing something you were looking to cover?

I'm not sure why anyone even looks to go after the Stand Your Ground law here except for 'stand your agenda'. It wasn't used in the defense or at trial so it's secondary anyway.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Muzzlebreak:

These "protests" make it abundantly clear which folks are the real rascists in this country--and it's not Zimmerman and the white folks.

This is not a thread about 'race', it is about the law and how it is and may be used. Please stay on topic, I welcome any view that does so.

Unfortunately, that's more or less what the protests are about.

What the lawmakers need to do is tell the people that they will review the laws.
They should not be pressured to change the ruling due to threats of rioting.

Zimmerman was found innocent due to lack of evidence.
He also followed the law concerning his gun and C&C permit. All that was legal.
As is 'Stand Your Ground'.....
As is 'Self Defense'......

I saw the trial and the only one I heard use racial terms was TM and he was also shown to be the aggressor.
Zimmerman was down and feared for his life.
To protest and try to sue him federally is saying the jurors and the laws provided to them were no good.

They need to let the Zimmerman trial go and focus on new changes to the laws.
Attack the legislatures, not the man found NOT GUILTY.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Muzzlebreak:

These "protests" make it abundantly clear which folks are the real rascists in this country--and it's not Zimmerman and the white folks.

This is not a thread about 'race', it is about the law and how it is and may be used. Please stay on topic, I welcome any view that does so.

You implied that these protests were fueled by consideration of civil-rights charges. They are not. The "stand your ground" law would have to be challenged separately. More charges against Zimmerman would be fueled by one thing, and one thing only.

EXCEPT!!!!

SYG or Stand Your Ground Law wasn't even part of the case it had nothing to do with the trial.

The trial was about normal everyday/every state has it SELF DEFENSE nothing else.


There was a lot more in your OP that was incorrect as well but the fact SYG had nothing to do with the case or trial is enough that you should re-evaluate everything else about it..

Hold on I thought you had double jeopardy laws in the states?
He has been found not guilty at state level? but they can go after him again at federal level?
Iam confused

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree ! Some people are just hard headed.
I think the fact that, the castle doctrine, stand your ground and self defense are three different animals.
And it's like talking oranges,apples and bananas.
Regardless of what you hear or read , the Zimmerman trial was not about , " stand your ground ", it was a case of Self Defense.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


Indeed... It was run of the mill self defense as it turned out and how the Defense played it. I guess it's a little sarcastic to ask why people go after SYG or similar laws like Castle Doctrine in other states. Of course it's agenda driven and event motivated...not event driven. It's almost absurd for how far outside the realm of the issues this case dealt with to bring into it tho, isn't it? I mean the other theories/laws the defense never used.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
I'm not fully sure how to feel about this, except I have this unease gnawing away at me.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Here's my understanding. A security guard (Zimmerman) for a housing estate became suspicious of an African-American youth (Martin) and at some point challenged him.

Not a security guard a neighborhood watch captain. Also he didn't challenge him he followed him while on the phone with non emergency 911.

A scuffle and then a fight ensued between them, and from the evidence, it looks like Martin gained physical advantage over Zimmerman, but Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest and killed him.

Nope / Martin attacked Zimmerman and was on top of him MMA style when Zimmerman shot and killed him.

Initially, Sandford Police Department did not charge Zimmerman because they believed he acted out of a genuine fear for his life,.

True

and that his actions were supported by a lawful right for a person to stand their ground and use lethal force if necessary.

False. SYG was not used or invoked.

Nevertheless, Zimmerman eventually was called to trial, but was found not guilty by a six woman jury. .

True

The rest shouldn't matter.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Hold on I thought you had double jeopardy laws in the states?
He has been found not guilty at state level? but they can go after him again at federal level?
Iam confused

they tried to get him on the federal level, the fbi investigated and found they couldn't find any civil rights violations.
in the county where he lived in, the state attorney and the city of sanford decided there was not enough evidence to prove muder or manslaughter that's why the didn't charge him.

then florida governor rick scott pressured i think by the doj and obama, appointed state attorney angela corey to investigate. it should be noted that this woman is a whack job

here read this wiki about her,

Angela Corey

now that the state couldn't convict GZ the feds want another bite at the apple. double jeopardy doesn't apply at the fed level becuase he was not tried at the fed level.

i think they might try to use the, Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, which means that the feds and state are separate entities or they might try to charge him with Criminal Civil Rights Violations, which wouldn't be the same as a murder charge.

thing is here at the federal level he could face up to life or even death.

I find this incredible! Apart from Old Hippy Dude, everyone else is talking about separate issues at variance to the theme of the thread!

Did any one actually follow the link and read? You all seem to be responding from your own false insight to the case, and are not following the OP at all. Read the bloody OP and comprehend its tone, its content, and its context, then respond ON THEME! I'm not interested in how you want the case to be, or how or what you think the whole travesty was about.

As far as I'm concerned the Zimmerman trial is over and done with, having been found not guilty. However, the issue now for Zimmerman is that he may have to face a civil rights violation charge if it can be examined and put together, and that is the theme and hoped for discussion of this thread (which makes it different from the other threads), but that context seems to have flown high over your heads, or it has been deliberately misunderstood by people who find it easy to misunderstand plain bloody English!

Not one of you have shown a capability to leave your own agenda at the door, you're all stuck in your incalcitrant mindsets absent of anything remotely resembling a purposeful neutrality, which is why all but one of the responses come across as utter rank and rancid nonsense.

Anyway, to hell with it! Mods, if you want, delete this thread, because it is obvious it has been derailed.

Apologies to Hounddog, you're not targeted in the rant.

Au contraire, it would seem most posters were simply pointing out inaccuracies/assumptions in your OP. If you want to debate portions of the BBC article, excerpts would be nice.

reply to post by elysiumfire

Dear elysiumfire,

Please be a little patient. The comments being made may not be important or on topic to you, but they are significant to understanding both the federal and state aspects of this case.

Now that Zimmerman has been found Not Guilty because his actions were justifiable self defense, the laws in Florida (but not all other states) say that he can not be tried or sued for anything arising out of the shooting in any Florida court.

The state law does not supercede federal law, which allows for a trial under the concept that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights. In this cases, the feds would have to show that Zimmerman had some racial animosity toward Martin. Evidence to the contrary is the only thing that's turned up.

It's generally seen that any federal action in this case would be entirly political and legally unjustified, so while Washington will talk about it, it probably won't happen. In the meantime, they'll try to make his life as miserable as possible, again for political reasons.

The best reason the prosecution didn't mention a civil rights violation is that there is no evidence of it.

Surely, to successfully prosecute this, it has to be proven that Zimmerman 'meant' to kill Martin whilst fearing for his life, that his intention was not to merely subdue Martin by wounding him, but to deliberately kill him in order to stop his assault upon him? This point has to be the crux of any successful prosecution against Zimmerman.

In fact, neither the Florida nor federal courts care whether his intent was to stop the assault by firing, or kill Martin by firing.

I doubt very much if deliberate intent to kill Martin rather than just wound him could be proved, even though it could be argued that Zimmerman failed to act with alternative and less lethal force, and in doing so, violated Martin's civil rights.

Our laws allow lethal force in a situation where you can't retreat and you're getting your brains splattered over the sidewalk. Alternatives are not necessary, and Zimmerman didn't have any alternatives.

The act of murder is inclusive of civil rights violation right from the off, but it has to be successfully prosecuted as intentional, otherwise, it lowers to a lesser charge of manslaughter. Yet, if it could be proven that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was intentionally to kill and not to wound, then it falls within the category of murder, even though he was fearing for his life at the time.

I hope you'll excuse me, but I'm quite unable to see the sense in these sentences. perhaps if you rephrased them?

The fact that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin is without doubt. The question remains: at what point does lethal force become justified as a defence, especially if alternative and less lethal options are available?

At the point when you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. You really did have a few significant misunderstandings of our system, you know. Maybe you shouldn't have been quite so hard on the posters. - C -

reply to post by elysiumfire


Calm down with that attitude I doubt people will even respond to your thread.

reply to post by elysiumfire

Originally posted by elysiumfire
My question now is, how logical is it to bring a charge of civil rights violation after a jury has found Zimmerman to be 'not guilty' of unlawful killing due to a successful defence of fearing for his life? Surely, to successfully prosecute this, it has to be proven that Zimmerman 'meant' to kill Martin whilst fearing for his life, that his intention was not to merely subdue Martin by wounding him, but to deliberately kill him in order to stop his assault upon him? This point has to be the crux of any successful prosecution against Zimmerman.

Its not possible. In order to try Zimmerman again in the manner you describe, you would essentially have to re-try his criminal murder case, which is something that can't legally be done. Florida law allows for 'justifiable force' in self defense, which Zimmerman apparently proved in the eyes of the jury or else he would have been convicted. To try him again would be a clear case of double jeopardy and a violation of Zimmerman's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. The federal government would have to put him on trial for a different charge.

They could theoretically put him on trial for civil rights violations, but civil rights violations under federal law are fairly narrow in scope. Basically, they have to prove a racial motivation, and that's why people have brought up race. An additional complicating factor is that most of the federal civil rights charges that can be brought are intended to be used in cases involving police or government officials.

The most likely outcome is there will be no charges brought. They would have already done so if they thought they had a case. The administration is instead milking it for all its worth, hoping to use it for political gain.