Posted on 08/08/2013 10:30:23 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
In the aftermath of the trial of George Zimmerman, protests erupted around the country, in Florida and elsewhere, demanding a range of legal remedies for the failure for Zimmerman to be convicted and punished for shooting unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. Not much has happened. Here's why.
1. Federal prosecution of Zimmerman. Perhaps the loudest demand (from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others) was that Zimmerman be tried again on federal civil rights or hate crime statutes, which Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the justice department was considering. This idea made no sense from the start, since to bring such charges federal authorities would have to prove additional elements beyond those the Florida prosecution failed to establish in the Zimmerman trial -- namely, that Zimmerman expressed and maintained bigoted attitudes towards blacks that motivated his shooting of Martin. But, there really is no such evidence. Perhaps Holder and the DOJ are really mulling this one over, but it seems increasingly unlikely that such a costly effort in terms of time, energy, money, and racial tensions will be mounted.
2. Repeal of "stand-your-ground" laws. When President Obama spoke out movingly about the Zimmerman-Martin trial, he called for one specific action: reconsideration of "stand-your-ground" laws that -- while not explicitly raised in the trial -- were thought to have influenced the jury to acquit Zimmerman. Florida passed the first such law in 2005, and at least 30 other states have followed suit. So, going into the trial, the trend was the opposite of what the President advocated. Since then, nothing has changed. For one thing, stand-your-ground laws are local and state statutes over which the President and the federal government have no control. And while protestors have sat in at Florida governor Rick Scott's office protesting stand-your-ground there, polls since the trial indicate that a majority of Americans favor these laws, and won't be changing them any time soon.
3. Toughen rules for permits to carry concealed weapons. Zimmerman had a permit to carry a gun and, although a petition was circulated to repeal his permit on the grounds that he was unfit for one, it is highly unlikely it will be revoked. After all, he wasn't convicted of misusing his weapon. Recently, Zimmerman was stopped in Texas with a gun in his glove compartment, which he was perfectly entitled to do, since Texas recognizes Florida gun permits. In larger terms, keep in mind that the United States Congress rejected tougher gun permitting standards for mentally ill people in the aftermath of the Newtown, CT massacre perpetrated by a possibly mentally ill individual. In the meantime, gun outlets have reported increased gun sales since Newtown, and more states have loosened their gun laws than have tightened them since then.
4. Legalize marijuana. As an alternative to unrealistic prayers that the United States will soon be making it tougher for people to carry and shoot weapons, a more plausible direction to pursue might be to liberalize drug laws. The logic? There were no African-Americans on the Zimmerman jury -- let alone no African-American men. An important reason is that so many black men are ineligble for juries because of their prior criminal convictions. The largest source of these convictions is drug law violations, since four times as many African-Americans are arrested for marijuana offenses as whites, even though the two groups use the drug at about equal rates. Of course, marijuana has been legalized in the states of Washington and Colorado. More states will follow in coming years -- but it is unlikely that these will include Florida and other red states. Attorney General Holder has called for sentencing reform so that fewer minorities will be imprisoned -- but it is not clear yet (a) whether and how this will include drug laws, (b) a Republican House will pass any such reforms.
5. Permit ex-cons to serve on juries. Of course, the underlying reason there are so few black men on juries is that the U.S. is so tough on ex-convicts. In many states, like Florida, they can't serve on juries, just as they can't vote in many of these states, which creates large racial disparities in the rate of African-American participation in the legal and political systems. Why shouldn't people who have served their time and are willing to act constructively by voting and by being available for jury duty be allowed to do so? Psychologically, this seems a good way for them to feel more connected to society. But, like legalization of marijuana, those states where former convicts are denied rights are not going to change these laws any time soon.
So, aside from giving the President and others some affecting speaking points, it seems little will change due to George Zimmerman's acquittal.
#5 can be solved by “OBEYIG THE LAW”. Why do they never consider that possibility?
Psychologically, this seems a good way for them to feel more connected to society.”
Only a psychologist could come up with something this brilliant.....
ex-cons on juries!! yeah! that’s what we need!!!!
more people with low morals deciding the fate of their fellow criminals!!
Another repetition of the worst Zimmerman case lie.
No protests "erupted". They got a dozen people in Miami. They got a dozen in Richmond, VA. IN FRICKIN' RICHMOND!!
Beyonce and JayZ got 1000 in Harlem, where they would have got 10 000 to see them read the phone book.
THERE WERE NO PROTESTS, "ERUPTING" OR OTHERWISE.
Pass it on.
OTOH, Black Panthers and racist Tweets are still allowed to place bounties on Whitey's head without a peep from the Eff-Bee-Eye and Dee-Oh-Jay, right?
But in this case the black man was ineligible, according to the prosecution, because he watched FOX news.
What is their plan for eliminating that kind of bigotry?
#5 It’s their own damn fault! I made it out of the ghetto.
Imagine the freedom restored if the prohibition on convicted felons having firearms is reversed. The entire anti-gun house of cards would collapse. The rule should be, "If you are not incarcerated in a prison or an asylum, then you can buy a gun."
We are either a free people or we are not. Today, we are not.
I was reviewing the personal notebooks and reports of one James A. Finch, pardon attorney for the US. There were many references where he successfully recommended that felons convicted of Federal crimes have their rights as fully functional citizens restored.
There is no reason to think that the 50 states that make up the Republic lack similar laws.
So, why don’t released felons who have lived several years as regular law abiding citizens make the effort to get their citizenship rights restored?
Darn, it's a rotten shame that coldblooded, white, killer Zimmerman wasn't convicted of murdering that angelic, five year old Trayvon Martin.
They can’t, it’s part of the job requirements for aspiring rappers.
The same is true of foreigners with a record who want to enter the USA- and immigration waiver is available under conditions similar to those for a pardon.
Is there any way for ex-cons, in the USA, to get a pardon, other than by way of the Governor, or President?
Here, in Canada, ex-cons, who have maintained a clean record, can apply for a “record suspension” (formerly called a “pardon”). The criteria include: serve the whole sentence, plus complete the parole; complete any required probation period or a waiting period; demonstrate you are a law-abiding citizen. With a record suspension, the ex-con’s criminal record will not appear on routine police, (or whatever) searches. The record suspension can be revoked, if the ex-con gets arrested for a new crime.
The “record suspension” enables an ex-con to vote, etc. It mainly helps those who were convicted of minor criminal-code offenses, and thus don’t have a lengthy total sentence (including the parole period, which is about 2/3 of the total sentence).
Excellent post.
I believe that was the intent to begin with, using the racial overtones as a smoke screen. If SYG could be repealed in Florida, every liberal judge in the other states could cite the repeal as "precedence" and do the same in their jurisdiction, or prevent it from being enacted in non-SYG states.
During the discussions about the law, the Brady Bunch was handing out flyers at airports (fourth paragraph) warning visitors they might get legally shot and killed under this law.
I can imagine this scenario at the anti's headquarters:
Hey, a Jew just stood his ground and shot a black kid!
Great! We'll use it to repeal SYG"
O Crap! He's not a Jew, he's a minority. A Hispanic."
O Crap! Hey! Wait a minute! We'll call him a "White" Hispanic! Game On!
Then something went wrong. The race pimps descended and over inflated the race thingy, snowing under the anti-SYG ploy. After the verdict, they tried all sorts of lame tie-ins to no effect (NO! NOT self-defense, SYG!") One of the antis let the cat out of the bag afterwards when he said if they could repeal SYG in Florida, they could do it in other states.
I’m gonna go with:
1. He was a thief
2.He was a gangsta wanna be
3.He was a thug
4.He was a predator
5.He was a racist
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.