Skip to comments.Eight Compelling Reasons for a Federal Prosecution of Zimmerman (Tarp recommended)
Posted on 07/22/2013 9:45:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The moment the NAACP, the Reverend Al Sharpton and other civil rights organizations publicly demanded that the Justice Department conduct a federal probe into the Trayvon Martin slaying and George Zimmermans acquittal for killing him with a view toward bringing civil rights charges against him, volumes were written and spoken as to why the department supposedly couldnt or shouldnt prosecute him. Theres one problem with all this. Most argue that charging Zimmerman with a hate crime in the Martin killing wont fly because theres no basis for that from the apparent evidence. But thats not the only reason, in fact there are eight of them, the Justice Department can consider a compelling federal interest in prosecuting a defendant after a failed state prosecution, They are clearly spelled out in the Justice Departments guidelines under the subsection: Initiating and declining ChargesSubstantial Federal Interest.
1. Federal Law Enforcement Priorities. The Justice Department will prosecute only cases that it deems are most deserving of federal attention. A US attorney in a jurisdiction has much discretion as to the priorities for prosecuting a case and how a prosecution fits in with the departments priorities. This means that Robert ONeill, US Attorney for Floridas Middle District that covers Sanford, Florida, has the leeway and authority to decide that a Zimmerman prosecution not only deserves federal attention but does not violate the departments established priorities.
2. The Nature and Seriousness of Offense. The US attorney must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense in deciding whether to prosecute or not. The major factor that determines that is the actual or potential impact of the offense on the community and on the victim. The Justice Department spells out exactly what that means. It means economic harm to the community, physical danger to citizens, and erosion of citizens peace of mind and security. Zimmermans acquittal squarely fits each of these criteria in in terms of lasting damage to the community, erosion of confidence to secure that peace resulting from the states failed prosecution, and the danger of vigilantism in the Zimmermans jurys upholding of an individuals right to use deadly force solely because they presume that their life is in danger. Further, the rules spell out that the circumstances of the offense, the identity of the offender and the odious publicity in the case that create strong public sentiment in favor of prosecution must be weighed. The Zimmerman acquittal fits all three circumstances.
3. Deterrent Effect of Prosecution. The goal here is to insure that criminal conduct not be encouraged or furthered by a failed prosecution. The right to kill or maim an individual based on the perpetrators perception of danger as the department notes if unpunished would commonly have a substantial cumulative impact on the community.
4. The Persons Culpability. The department must judge that the accused has some culpability in the commission of an act. The one indisputable fact in the Martin slaying is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by targeting Martin as a suspect and then following him. This establishes Zimmermans clear culpability in the deadly train of events that followed.
5. The Persons Criminal History. Zimmerman has a criminal history. Both of his arrests, for domestic violence and resisting a police officer, involved violence. Federal prosecutors are duty bound to consider that history in determining whether to initiate or recommend prosecution and most importantly does the prior violence have a relationship to the charged offense. Zimmermans offenses involved violence and therefore that fits in with the rule that this past must be weighed in the decision to prosecute.
6. The Persons Willingness to Cooperate. There is absolutely no hint that Zimmerman would be willing to cooperate in any federal probe into his conduct or actions that fateful night. His and his attorneys public statements following the acquittal have been marked by defiance, baiting of the prosecutors case, and even gloating at the acquittal.
7. The Persons Personal Circumstances. The circumstances that may preclude against a prosecution are youth, old age, mental or physical impairment. Zimmerman fits none of these personal circumstances. However, if federal prosecutors determine that the accused occupied a position of trust or responsibility which he/she violated in committing the offense this would be a strong factor in favor of a prosecution. Much was made that Zimmerman was at least at one time a sworn neighborhood watch captain and though his status as neighborhood guardian was dubious at best when he killed Martin, the strong presumption was that he acted as a neighborhood guardianauthorized or not.
8. The Probable Sentence. If Zimmerman had been convicted on any charge no matter how minor, federal prosecutors almost certainly would not consider a prosecution. It would not justify the governments time or resources. But the fact is that he wasnt. So this is a non-factor against considering a federal prosecution.
The legion of Zimmerman defenders and legal naysayers of a federal prosecution have no need to read the actual federal guidelines that determine when federal prosecutors can bring a second prosecution because their goal is not to adhere to the actual provisions that govern a federal prosecution but spout their pro Zimmerman legal biases. Federal prosecutors, however, have that duty. And there are eight compelling reasons they have to prosecute Zimmerman.
Zimmerman actually has more “black blood” than obama does.
I do not believe that Blacks care very much that Trayvon Martin died. After all, they seem to ignore more violent deaths every day. I think what Blacks care about is that some white guy had the temerity and the means to defend himself from a beat down.
His one “indisputable fact” isn’t either indisputable or a fact.
The opening paragraph is very sloppy. His premise is that there ARE reasons for a prosecution, but the sentence he uses to state his thesis points toward the lack of evidence for such a prosecution. One can understand what he’s saying from the context, but it still reveals the writer to be pretty limited. He’s trying to say that the evidence as we know it is only one of the factors to be considered by the feds, and goes on to give eight other factors. That’s a very weak argument from the start, given the importance of evidence in any proceeding. To then jumble it further is beyond pitiful.
Unfortunately, Earl - like all of the other members of the Black Grievance Society - misses one crucial fact: Trayvon was a thug who did the assaulting.
Zimmerman was 100% correct in his response to this attempted murdering.
There will be no further prosecution of Zimmerman, if Holder had ANYTHING on him he’d be making 24-7 announcements on BET, CNN, NBC, etc.
crickets = it’s over
Not a single one of these “factors” in any way supports the Federal prosecution of Zimmerman.
This is the one "fact" that just drives me nuts. After all, what is Neighborhood Watch person to do with that. I suppose the new NW Guidelines should be:
1. Spot suspicious activity in your neighborhood.
2. Profile the suspicious person.
3. If black, turn around and go home. You are not supposed to profile. It's racist.
4. If not-black then follow normal Neighborhood Watch protocal.
What this person seems to ignore is that to bring a prosecution, the DOJ must first have some evidence that he broke a federal crime. He never gives any indication of what he thought Zimmerman might be charged with, and what evidence there is to support that charge. He lays out the criteria the DOJ considers when deciding whether or not to prosecute, but first there must be a federal crime to prosecute!
What most commentators have noted is that the only thing the Feds could charge Zimmerman with is a hate crime - and there is absolutely zero evidence that race played a factor in this case. The author seems to think the criteria he lays out could support prosecuting Zimmerman merely to preserve the peace and calm the tensions caused by the acquittal. If that is the case, then we are no longer a nation of laws, but one of mob rule.
Yes, there needs to be actual evidence of a crime before all the other rationales kick in. Without such evidence they’re all non applicable; unless you’re really just prosecuting because you don’t like what the person did (even if it wasn’t a crime) and want to set an example.
Which is #3 on the list, and what they’re really going for.
What the good lawyer misses is a basis in facts. These conditions are all supra to deciding to prosecute. They are predicated on having a case. They are not the case.
Did anyone ever doubt that federal hate crime legislation was INTENDED to provide a method to prosecute political crimes.
Because I knew it from the first.
If prosecutions are called for, it should ne holder and obama shackled together, jailed together, never to see the light of day again in life.
What an a$$ this yob is
Why not? I believe the Zimmerman persecution was a twofold success, but an ultimate failure:
1.) It handed the racial grievance industry an opportunity to express its interminable outrage and voice its insatiable demands.
2.) It helped distract the nation from President You Didn't Build That's numerous, deepening failures. "Oh, look! A racist squirrel!" got more attention than, "Oh, look! A squirrel!"
Ultimately, the Zimmerman persecution further alienated people who aren't susceptible to the racial grievance industry's histrionics, and cost YDBT to lose still more face with normal American citizens, tax payers, and voters. Would YDBT or Holder so-called "double down" on such a mistake? Yes, but I have to believe they have puppet master with more cunning.
“Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by targeting Martin as a suspect and then following him.”
Zimmerman had inquired of the Sanford PD dispatcher whether he should continue surveillance of the unkinown stranger. He was told, “No. We don’t need you to do that.”
(Also, IIRC, that a police patrol car was being sent to the scene; which accounts for the early police presence after the shooting). Z. stated he turned and began walking to his auto; T.M. followed and challenged him.
Zimmerman “initiated” the confrontation? I suppose he did, by undertaking to serve as a neighborhood watch volunteer.
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.