ONTD Political

With Criminal Case Closed, Justice Department Will Restart Hate Crime Inquiry

7:56 am - 07/15/2013
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Sunday that it was restarting its investigation into the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin to consider possible separate hate crime charges against George Zimmerman.

Mr. Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Mr. Martin, was acquitted of all charges by a jury late Saturday.

The federal inquiry, which was started shortly after the shooting last year but had been delayed while the state criminal trial in Florida was under way, was being restarted after civil rights leaders called on the Justice Department to re-examine the case. The leaders said Sunday that they remained convinced that the shooting had a racial element. Mr. Martin, 17, was black.

“There is a pattern of George Zimmerman making dozens of calls to 911 over several years, frequently about young men of color,” Benjamin T. Jealous, the president of the N.A.A.C.P., said in an interview on Sunday. Mr. Zimmerman and his family have defended the shooting as an act of self-defense.

In a statement on Sunday, the Justice Department said that now that the state criminal trial was over, it would continue its examination of the circumstances in the shooting. “Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction,” the statement said.

The department sets a high bar for such a prosecution. Three former Justice Department officials who once worked in the department’s Civil Rights Division, which is handling the inquiry, said Sunday that the federal government must clear a series of difficult legal hurdles before it could move to indict Mr. Zimmerman.

“It is not enough if it’s just a fight that escalated,” said Samuel Bagenstos, who until 2011 served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the division. “The government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted willfully with a seriously culpable state of mind” to violate Mr. Martin’s civil rights.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. hinted at those challenges last year.

“We have to prove the highest standard in the law,” Mr. Holder said at a news conference in April 2012. “Something that was reckless, that was negligent, does not meet that standard. We have to show that there was specific intent to do the crime with the requisite state of mind.”

Criminal charges under federal hate crime law have increased significantly during the Obama administration. Between 2009 and 2012, the Justice Department prosecuted 29 percent more such cases than in the previous three fiscal years. Last month in Seattle, for example, Jamie Larson, 49, pleaded guilty to federal hate crime charges that he beat a cabdriver, who was from India and was wearing a turban.

The increase is in part because of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, enacted in 2009, which removed a requirement that a victim had to be engaged in a federally protected activity, like voting or going to school.

But the Obama administration’s Justice Department has been cautious in its use of the expanded law. In 2010, for example, it turned down calls by civil rights leaders to file charges in New York City in the 2006 death of Sean Bell, a 23-year-old black man who was fatally shot by police officers outside a Queens club just hours before he was to be married.

“There aren’t that many of these cases, and it is not because the government is not being vigilant,” said William R. Yeomans, a former chief of staff in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “It is very difficult to establish a defendant’s state of mind.”


Hoping this gets through and Zimmerman's the one put on trial this time, not Trayvon.
world_dancer 15th-Jul-2013 04:51 pm (UTC)
As much as I would really like to see Zimmerman in jail for stalking and killing a kid, I'm not sure this is going to work.

He didn't say anything racist at the time of the crime or the time preceding the crime. I believe he had racist motives, but I don't think that's provable.

Mostly, I really want to hear from the jury on why they ruled that stalking and killing someone was reasonable. What about the case or the law made them rule him not guilty?
lickety_split 15th-Jul-2013 04:56 pm (UTC)
What about the case or the law made them rule him not guilty?

The victim was black.
gambitia 15th-Jul-2013 05:21 pm (UTC)
The Florida law states that, if a person is in fear for their life, they may "meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself". The manslaughter charge requires killing someone with no justification, and "I was afraid!" is considered sufficient justification. Murder charge requires intent to kill.

I disagree with this Slate article on a lot of points, but it does give the justification. Now, since we've heard nothing from the jury regarding their decision, we can't know if the thought process outlined in the Slate article is the thought process the jury went through. But it is a possibility.

An overarching theme is that these laws are extremely problematic in and of themselves, and become even more problematic when dealing with a society that's racist.
agentsculder 15th-Jul-2013 06:18 pm (UTC)
I hate the fact GZ was found not guilty, but given Florida's laws, I can see why the jury (especially one of all white women) came to the decision it did. Florida's laws basically allow a person to use deadly force as a way to end a violent altercation without any exceptions. It doesn't make an exceptions for how the people may have gotten into the altercation in the first place. Under Florida law, that makes GZ the victim. His stalking of Trayon despite the police telling him to leave him alone became largely irrelevant. That's why these "Stand Your Ground" laws are so terrible. They're essentially liscence for someone to end a fist fight with deadly force without any criminal liability being attached.

What makes this case so galling is that if the races here were reversed, I don't think jury would have been as willing to believe the little evidence there was that there was an actual fight. They might have considered the fact that Trayon was unarmed more. But honestly, we won't know much of anything unless one of the jurors decides to talk about what went on the jury room. And even then, we can't know how truthful they are.
ar_feiniel_ 15th-Jul-2013 05:24 pm (UTC)
Mostly, I really want to hear from the jury on why they ruled that stalking and killing someone was reasonable. What about the case or the law made them rule him not guilty?

I can't speak for the jury, but I watched a good chunk of the trial and read a lot of articles about it and...I personally think that the state had a very large hurdle to overcome because of how FL law applied in this case. The focus was on GZ's state of mind in that one snapshot of he and TM fighting on the ground. If GZ had "reasonable" fear for his life/a felony being committed against him, deadly force was justified under the law.

Of course, the real world can't be looked at as a series of snapshots. We don't live our lives that way. And even if things went down like GZ claimed, there is something seriously wrong (if not illegal under SOME law) with his actions.
moonshaz 16th-Jul-2013 04:00 am (UTC)
Yep. All the defense had to do was convince the jury that GZ BELIEVED his life was in danger. Not that it actually was. And they believed his claim that he was in fear for his life, naturally, because after all, his so-called "attacker" was a scary black guy. *massive eye roll*
sio 15th-Jul-2013 05:44 pm (UTC)
if you listen to the 911 call, he DID say racist things on it, including "fucking c***s". also, he harassed other young black men in the neighborhood in broad daylight, accusing them of being the thieves.
This page was loaded Oct 21st 2019, 12:38 pm GMT.