Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Posted on 07/14/2013 3:53:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The moment George Zimmerman was acquitted the NAACP and the Reverend Al Sharpton immediately called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to bring civil rights charges against him. The Justice Department has already conducted an exhaustive investigation to determine whether Zimmerman killed Martin out of racial animus. It found no evidence of that. That’s one hard and fast requisite for a civil rights prosecution. The other is that the state so bungled the prosecution of a defendant that in effect it nullified the intent of the law, namely to insure that justice was truly served. On the surface, this doesn’t appear to be the case with Zimmerman.
Still, the call for Holder to strongly consider a federal prosecution is the right call. There are several factors within federal law that federal prosecutors must look at to determine whether there is a “compelling interest” in a second prosecution of a defendant who’s been acquitted in a state court. It must involve a substantial federal interest, the state prosecution must not have vindicated that interest, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct could constitute a federal offense, and that there is still sufficient evidence against the defendant that the government can obtain a conviction.
There are clear elements of each of these hard federal prosecution requirements in the Zimmerman case. The compelling interest is probably the easiest of the requisites to satisfy. The defense and prosecution agreed that Martin did not commit a crime, was not even suspected of a crime, and was on a public thoroughfare when he was killed. The right to freedom of movement without the danger of undue harm is a fundamental right that’s enshrined in constitutional law and public policy. It’s inviolate. The courts have repeatedly upheld a citizen’s right to freedom of access and movement in public places.
Though there was no apparent racial motive in Zimmerman’s confronting Martin, his action clearly violated Martin’s right to exercise his freedom of movement. This directly impacts on an individual’s right to life and liberty. This civil right was violated the moment Zimmerman presumed that a young black man walking on public sidewalk had committed a crime. The safeguard of that right must be a fundamental concern of federal prosecutors.
The Martin case also strongly pointed to systemic issues of excessive force, the excessive force being the slaying of Martin. This strikes to the heart of another basic right of citizens, namely the right to life and liberty, and again the freedom from undue harm. There was audio evidence that strongly hinted that it was Martin who was screaming for help and therefore was under physical assault from Zimmerman. Therefore it was his life, not Zimmerman’s, that was in mortal danger. This is sufficient cause for federal prosecutors to question whether the jury ignored the fact that Martin was the victim, and Zimmerman was the assailant. This is one of the basic ingredients in determining whether the jury nullified a compelling prosecution fact.
The Martin case raised deeply troubling questions about the power of the law to protect citizens from their unimpeded right to life and safety. Federal prosecutors play a major role in insuring that where there’s the suspicion that an individual's rights might have been violated solely because of their race and gender that the power of federal law is brought to bear to insure that that right is protected.
Zimmerman was not a police office and did not abuse his power in killing Martin under the color of law. However, he was acting in a quasi-legal capacity as a one-time neighborhood watchman who had close ties and collaboration with local law enforcement. This in effect bestowed on him the presumption of authority to take action to stop and question an individual he considered a crime suspect. This was the rationale that federal prosecutors used in the Rodney King beating case to bring civil rights charge against the four LAPD officers that beat King. The linchpin was that they acted in an official capacity when they violated King’s rights.
The Justice Department scrupulously tries to avoid a dual prosecution of a defendant acquitted in a state court. It goes to great lengths to shield itself from the charge that it’s bowing to media or public pressure to prosecute. This is why the percentage of civil rights prosecutions it authorizes is infinitesimally low. Yet in the Martin slaying there are crucial federal interests in insuring the rights of individuals to be free from undue harm because of their color, age, and being in a public area merely because someone perceives they shouldn’t be in and then acts on that perception with no cause other than that belief or perception.
If the Justice Department gives serious consideration to the civil rights violations in the Martin case, it will again send the strong message that civil rights violations will always be subject to full and public scrutiny by federal prosecutors. This is exactly why Attorney General Holder has a more than compelling reason to consider a Zimmerman civil rights prosecution.
You are right. I thought you said psycho but schizo will do. There are many glaring false premises, such as this happened on a “public thoroughfare”? No, it was inside a private gated community and George was a block watch captain there. Travon did not establish any right to be there. He was not derailed in his passage through the place. George had the right to ask him what he was up to.
Next, Defendant did NOT admit Travon committed no crime. When he bull rushed George and broke his nose he committed a felony, way before the gun came out.
The giving of platforms to these clowns is outrageous
“The defense and prosecution agreed that Martin did not commit a crime, was not even suspected of a crime, and was on a public thoroughfare when he was killed...”
Hey, the evidence - as presented in court and used by the jury - would indicate that Martin DID commit a crime. His attack on Zimmerman is “Aggravated Assault.” Zimmerman was retreating and - it is obvious to me - that Martin viciously attacked Martin and used unnecessary force to the point that Zimmerman was placed in the unenviable position of having to resort to deadly force to defend himself against a large, muscular 17 year old man-boy that was beating him without mercy. Martin had the rational option to run away...he did not...he chose to attack Zimmerman who was retreating.
There is NO violation of federal civil rights in the case by George Zimmerman. However, Trayvon Martin DID violate Mr. Zimmerman’s rights.
President Obama and AG Holder are both insufferable asses if they (to use what one key player said) turn a “tradigy into a travesty.”
This case of OVER and it needs to be dropped. Those that keep stirring this up are insurrectionists and quite possibly enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.
Oh, and our - never let an opportunity to politicism - POTUS is now using this case as a call for more suppression of 2nd Ammendment rights.
Was Damion “Football” Williams prosecuted for civil rights charges for smashing the head of a white truck driver?
Still if I were GZ, I’d take this opportunity to see the world, find a nice place to live as an ex-pat for 10 or 15 years.
This article is so full of crap it violates EPA regulations.
Wow. Telling a person he is going to die and then knocking that person to the ground and beating his head on a concrete sidewalk in order to make good on the promise is not a crime in Florida. I think I shall check to see if it is okay in California.
You’d think that if Holder filed civil rights charges or Martin’s family brought a wrongful death suit, either one, the jury in either of those cases would get to hear all the ^^^^ which was disallowed for this trial, including Martin punching out a school bus driver and being suspended from school for having burglary tools and women’s jewelry in his locker...
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
First go though the slander lawsuits and get the money. Then, change name, lose the weight, get some minor plastic surgery. Go out west and hide out for a couple of years on a small ranch / farm. Start a new life as a college student in a small college. Perhaps after 2 to 4 years he can then enter a profession and re-enter society as someone else.
Meanwhile the democrats are chattering about the need for stronger laws against racial profiling. (Also something the government has no authority over in the private lives of Americans)
Right ! Trayvon was a saint !
Ask his mom ! Ask his dad !
Then go to :The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin's Backpack With Stolen Jewelry
at : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3042856/posts
St tray wouldn't do drugs , commit assault, be involved with MMA punches , or intiate an assault
but whatever you do , don't check out his cell phone with a double stealth password ,
which assure ownership and usage !
It might destroy the political and especially the media version of St Tray that we have all seen on TV ...
..and find the real human being turning into a thug and a criminal!
that his parents never knew !!
This civil right was violated the moment Zimmerman presumed that a young black man walking on public sidewalk had committed a crime.
Yeah.
Part stupid and part dumb.
touche...
Probably some of the same phonies who were babbling: “If you see something, say something,” only a few short months ago.
I didn’t read the entire long article, but acting as if Trayvon’s freedom of movement in a public place was violated is nonsense. He moved freely all around the complex and then turned back and confronted Zimmerman of his own volition.
GZ claimed self defense and a jury agreed. All one needs to ask ones self is who was George defending himself from?
Too many words. This article could be summed up as, check your intelligence at the door and remember trayvon was black and Zimmerman is sort of white.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.