Skip to main content

in theory, there could be a federal criminal case for denial of civil rights - remember, that is what happened to the cops in the Rodney King case.  I do not see that happening here and think Zimmerman's lawyer by saying he (Zimmerman) was the victim of racism are trying to poison that well -  remember, we have a Black President and a Black Attorney General, and were the feds to step in . . ..

However, the parents still have the right to file a suit for wrongful death.

Several things worth noting about such a suit

1.  It is a civil case

2.  that means the standard of proof is much lower, preponderance of the evidence.  Evidence that does not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt is often more than sufficient to meet this standard.  However, the defense would try very hard to argue that at a minimum Martin was partially responsible for what happened which therefore means he or his heirs are not entitled to damages.

3.  But, because it is a civil case, the 5th Amendment provision against self-incrimination is not in effect.  Zimmerman would be required to submit to questioning by the attorney(s) for the Martin.  I do not know the specific legal rules of procedure in Florida, but in theory they could both depose him and question him before the jury.  He cannot remain silent, because he is not at this point, having been fully acquitted of all criminal charges under state law, under any jeopardy of self-incrimination.

4.  However, if there is a Federal civil rights case even potentially on the horizon, that could delay getting a deposition for just that reason, because such a deposition could be used by federal prosecutors and thus self-incrimination could be considered to apply.

It is not yet over.

What happened is sad, but the real travesty starts with the poor job done by the prosecution and anyone watching the trial had to know that.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think that this statement in your diary is (7+ / 0-)


    However, the defense would try very hard to argue that at a minimum Martin was partially responsible for what happened which therefore means he or his heirs are not entitled to damages.
    That statement would be accurate in a contributory negligence state like Maryland where I live but I don't think that Florida is a contributory negligence state.  

    Anyone here familiar with Florida law who can address this.  

  •  NAACP has already issued a statement on the (20+ / 0-)

    verdict.  The most salient point of the email would seem to be:

    "In these most challenging of times, we are called to act.
    There is work left to be done to achieve justice for Trayvon. The Department of Justice can still address the violation of Trayvon's most fundamental civil right — the right to life, and we are urging them to do so.

    Sign our petition to the Department of Justice. Tell them to file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman." (note: the link I had in my email to the petition does not work for some reason but it should be readily available in coming hours and days) As once was noted by a legendary sage, "it is not over until it is over" and this matter appears to be far from settled

    •  I just signed the petition. (5+ / 0-)

      I hope the feds do bring charges against him.

      Racial hostility, homophobia and misogyny are braided together like strands of the same rope. When we fight one, we fight them all. - Charles M. Blow

      by blueoregon on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:32:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  close? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus, Lujane

      We can still seek justice for Trayvon Martin


      A jury in Sanford, Florida, has found George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin.

      It is appalling that a teenager’s life was taken in cold blood, and there is no accountability for the man who killed him. But we can turn our outrage, anger, and heartbreak into action. We can still seek justice for Trayvon.

      Join me in signing the NAACP's petition to the Department of Justice asking them to file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman:

      Thank you.

      but the link is broken. "" w/o http://www.

      @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution. * Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

      by greenbird on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:43:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you for the link (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, Linda1961

        I am seeing a lot of chatter on RW and TP sites that the Obama DOJ have already started the paperwork for federal charges against GZ.  Can't find a reputable news source for this information and the sites all claim it is from unnamed reliable sources close to Holder.

        Of course, they are all outraged because of double jeopardy, because of the People's Grand Jury's true bill against the DA and a dozen other reasons but it seems to me that their main outrage is that there remains courts available to victims of certain crimes.  I also note that they are very unhappy about the prospect of a civil suit as well.  To quote them, "Poor George has suffered enough at the hands of politicians playing politics with his life"

        All I have not seen is any RW wonder that an all female jury "got it right" in their eyes but I guess that will come tomorrow with the talking bobbleheads on the Sunday talk shows  

    •  The Dept. of Justice? Highly unlikely, I think (0+ / 0-)

      but I'll sign anyway.

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:54:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's over (7+ / 0-)

    You won't see Zimmerman back in court on this matter.

    Language professors HATE me!

    by Zornorph on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:30:47 PM PDT

  •  another acquittal... (0+ / 0-)

    an earlier time, whose vision for today? what chance for now?

    @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution. * Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:32:53 PM PDT

  •  I hope he doesn't have a single day (6+ / 0-)

    without this wrongful death hanging over him for the rest of his life. He must pay, it should have been in prison, but if it's in money.. well, better than walking without any consequences.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:34:46 PM PDT

  •  This case needed a criminal conviction (5+ / 0-)

    Anything else is bull&&^t.

  •  This DOJ Would Prosecute Civil Rights Violation? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NotGeorgeWill, a2nite

    That's called jumping the Loch Ness Monster.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:42:00 PM PDT

  •  It's over for this mob of asshole lawyers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz, wishingwell

    The invoices are in the mail.

    "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:42:37 PM PDT

  •  No lawsuit. The same "stand your ground" (11+ / 0-)

    law specifically prohibits a wrongful death lawsuit for anyone judged to be exercising self defense.  

    Florida Statute 776.032 (1):  A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    They could maybe do something in federal court, but would have to find a way to have standing there.  

    This is terrible.   It makes me sick.  

    •  Crap. Well, the burden of proof would be (2+ / 0-)

      lower in the civil case.

      "You can never sink so low in life that you can't be a bad example for somebody." - my dad

      by briefer on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:46:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, in some fairness, there was a reasonable (11+ / 0-)

        ...impetus for such a provision.  People have been sued because a criminal broke into their homes, tripped on the stairs and injured themselves.  People have also been sued for kicking the shit out of someone who tried mugging them.  

        So there is a medium there, somewhere.  Criminals should not be able to sue you if they get hurt on your property in the commission of a crime, or if you defend themselves and they get hurt.  I call that "occupational hazard."  

        The problem here is with the self defense law itself.  As we just saw, it's far too open.  It allows people to instigate trouble then kill someone and claim it's self-defense.  

    •  but is it clear that is basis of acquittal? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus, emal, wishingwell

      absent the jury speaking, even though he raised it as his defense, the basis of the acquittal could be simply that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the case...   that may be the clear intent of the statute, but I wonder if anyone has tested it in court

      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

      by teacherken on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:05:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is defacto (9+ / 0-)

        Zimmerman claimed justifiable use of force. It's not actually "justifiable" until a jury says it is...which they have. In a case where a defendant claims justifiable use of force, and the judge includes justifiable use of force in the jury instructions, and the jury returns a verdict of not guilty, the acquittal by definition makes the use of force justified.

        At this point, via the Florida statute, the defendant is considered to have immunity from any future civil suits for the use of such force.

        As you point out, I believe there have been some challenges to the statute in court, however, so we'll have to see that plays out.

        As far as the DOJ getting involved, they've already done an investigation. And in any event Zimmerman isn't a state actor, I'm not sure what there is for them to do here.

        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

        by Pi Li on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:18:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is that actually true? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          According to Fish, Sychotic1

          The jury didn't rule on whether Zimmerman used justifiable force, only that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't use justifiable force. Am I wrong here? Does Florida law shift the burden to the defendant to prove justifiable force and prove an affirmative defense?

        •  This just isn't true (3+ / 0-)

          The jury made no such finding.

          The jury found he was not guilty - that is all.   There are many reasons that they could have come to this conclusion.

          They did not make a ruling on this particular issue.

          •  AFAIK, the jury doesn't have to make that finding (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward, VClib, ffour
            Read in all cases.
                If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

                However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

            That was included in the instructions given to the Zimmerman jury.

            There is no check mark on the verdict form for "Not guilty by justifiable use of force". Just "Not Guilty". And it's true that we simply don't know at this point whether the jury believes Zimmerman's self defence story or not. They may have simply believed the state didn't prove the elements of the crime for which Zimmerman was charged (though without self defence, it's hard to imagine how they don't convict on manslaughter). I really don't know. I'm sure we'll learn more when they do their media interviews.

            But in any event, as far as I can see, that doesn't matter. For purposes of this statute, Zimmerman use of force for this event has been judged legally justifiable because that was an issue presented to the jury, which they were instructed on and evaluated their case on. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of the statute would be. I suppose you could say it's limited to a finding of justifiable use of force in a SYG hearing only. As I understand it, the the statute hasn't been tested that much, and their are cases working thought the system regarding it.

            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

            by Pi Li on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:20:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Looks like you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

              They are saying they will fight a civil case with a SYG hearing which is what I and several others have been saying.

              It makes sense, how could you be prevented from a civil suit by a ruling in a criminal case which has a higher burden of proof?   It never made sense and the law everyone kept pointing to indicated that you were only blocked from civil suits if you got dismissed by a SYG hearing which is a preponderance of evidence standard like a civil suit is.

              What irritates me is the near certainty that there could be no civil suit was presented by some lawyers that post on here.

    •  Nothing in that Statute Says Anything... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...about the effect of an acquittal in a criminal case on a subsequent civil action. All it does is establish a defense applicable in civil and criminal cases. Zimmerman can raise the defense in a civil suit, but he will bear the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.

      •  They can still file a lawsuit.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...but Zimmerman's counsel will undoubtedly make a motion for dismissal under 776.032.   Such a motion is decided pre-trial.  If the judge agrees that Zimmerman acted in what he believed was self defense, the case is dismissed and dies a violent death.  A jury never even hears it at all.    

        Such filings are de rigueur these days in Florida.  Even when the defense counsel does not expect it to work, they introduce it as a means to get it in there for a potential grounds for future appeal.

        Now, such a motion could fail.   I wouldn't want to make any wild ass guesses about that.  But my suspicion is that unless they can find standing in the Federal Courts, or the DOJ goes after a civil rights prosecution, this is probably over.  

      •  And I think the matter that would be up for debate (0+ / 0-) whether Zimmerman was the aggressor or not.  

        You might get some mileage there with the judge, if you can show that there are legitimate questions as to whom the aggressor was.  

  •  a wrongful death in very high relief (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hayden, a2nite, Ditch Mitch KY

    sad that Trayvon's day in court has yet to come and sadder that Zimmerman is now a poster boy for abuses of civilian "armed defense" as well as the gun manufacturing lobby

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:46:58 PM PDT

  •  This was a travesty from the start (3+ / 0-)

    The arresting authorities declined to press criminal charges. That alone should have alerted the prosecution. Manslaughter was the only reasonable route. The evidence and circumstances were never there for a Murder Two. And they were quite sloppy as well.

    •  Manslaughter is usually a lesser included (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      charge. This case had the elements for 2nd degree murder - The defendant made racist remarks to the dispatcher, had a history of violence, etc.
        Absent state of mind, Zimmerman was almost obviously guilty of manslaughter.
        But, Zimmerman's bullshit self defense claim saved him, and it is clear that Zimmerman had thought through the elements that made self-defense a possible defense.
        The fact that the jury took so long to acquit implies that they were struggling with reasonable doubt re manslaughter. The general standard is that the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt so, even if they didn't believe Zimmerman, they had to accept his story as true as long as it could have happened. It is up to the state to affirmatively disprove it.
         I was a juror once in a 2nd degree murder case. Again, the same thing: The defendant had made a carefully thought out statement to police which was admitted in the court and which could not be cross examined.
        We didn't believe the story, but the state did not disprove it. We convicted the guy of manslaughter.

      •  IANAL, but my understanding on this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is that it is not automatic, that the jury was not even required to consider it as a lesser included offense but could at their discretion if they chose to -  at least that is how I read the judge's jury instruction.

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:57:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the thing. And you bring it out. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        80% of the defense depended on what was going on in Zimmerman's mind, and obviously we only have Z's word for that.  If there were better eyewitness accounts, or medical evidence from Z from that night, we might be able better to tell what might have been going on in Z's head, but we don't. So about 80% of proving Z was "in fear for his life" depends on Z's account of what happened. In other words, it depends on his word.

        As a juror, if the arguments for the defense depend on a man's word, I have the right to decide whether or not I think his word is any good. In other words, if I have evidence the man lied about another, related matter, that would cause me, as a juror, to have grave doubts about his word. If I believe defendant is a liar, based on other testimony he gave, why should I believe his word about being in imminent fear for his life?

        Zimmerman said his head was banged into the concrete 25 times.  I've got a photo of his injuries from that night. No fucking way was that man's head bashed into a concrete sidewalk 25 times.  Even the police officer on the night of the event told Zimmerman that his injuries were not consistent with that claim.

        He was lying.

        This case comes down to the following question: is Zimmerman a liar or was Trayvon a danger?

        As an impartial juror, I have no evidence as to whether Trayvon was a danger or not, other than Z's word. But I do have evidence that Zimmerman is a liar.

        If I had been on that jury, it would have been a hung jury. But they would never have selected anyone who was willing to buck the tide.

        Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:06:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ken, I think given what we know...this diary is... (4+ / 0-)

    ...wishful thinking.

    Even GZ's attorneys said tonight that a civil case is no tin play...and I don't see a fed case anywhere either.

    The best outcome at this point would be to change FL law and similar laws in other states.

    Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

    by Love Me Slender on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:54:55 PM PDT

    •  The best outcome is for every HOA in the USA (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, a2nite

      to add rules to their neighborhood watch program that the watcher cannot be armed or they will be kicked out of the program and treated as vigilantes. I am surprised that they don't already have this rule.

      I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

      by shann on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:46:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ain't gonna happen, esp where really needed (0+ / 0-)

        ...the very sorts of places where another Trevon Martin-type incident are most likely to happen due to an itchy-trigger-fingered neighborhood watch vigilante are exactly the sorts of neighborhoods where the neighborhood HOA would never be willing to adopt anything remotely like the proposed rule.

        You'll have a vastly easier time getting HOAs to adopt a rule changing the required maximum height of the grass in lawns than a prohibition against arming neighborhood watch members.  

  •  some ridiculous evidence was permitted in (7+ / 0-)

    Normally, a defendant not taking the stand would eliminate much of the gossip hearsay the judge should never have allowed. The prosecution was horrible.
    But I don't think mr zimmerman will enjoy himself much. A despised pariah will he be. The jury may have been sincere and honestly seeking the truth. I can't evaluate that.
    But, guilty or innocent verdict-wise, it's no picnic when most of the country knows what we know about this coward. I predict misery for him. And I won't have much compassion for his troubles.

    Don Benedetto was murdered.-IgnazioSilone(BreadAndWine)

    by renzo capetti on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:58:28 PM PDT

  •  Obama isn't going to let his DOJ take this up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NotGeorgeWill, Victor Ward

    because it does not benefit him politically to do so.

    Besides, despite all the race-baiting that people have done around this case, there is very minimal racial component to this case. I do think that GZ did "racially profile" TM in the sense of associating break-ins in the neighborhood with black perpetrators (perhaps due to such prior cases), but we should look at the other side of the coin as well, such as GZ himself having some black relatives (besides a Hispanic mother), his mentoring black kids, supporting and voting for Obama in 2008, etc.

    If there is a civil case, we should step back and let the judicial process play itself out on that... and hope that professional race-baiting demagogues such as Al Sharpton (who, BTW, was one of the few presidential candidates that I liked, besides Dean, during the 2004 presidential primary debates) get off the case.

  •  Not likely . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kickass, PsychoSavannah, Victor Ward

    If I understand the Florida law correctly, part of what is so outrageous about this kind of case is that there is no chance of going forward with a civil suit purely for monetary damages without a criminal conviction first in  cases that involves a successful invocation of "self-defense".  This is one of the oddities of Florida law.

    Maybe there is some remote chance of proceeding with a civil suit based on civil rights violations in a federal court, but I'm not sure how this would be done, or if the family would chose this option.

  •  But it i$ over for the defen$e team (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanbrooker, wishingwell

    They have met their goal$. No civil $uit can touch their $ta$h.

  •  It's over for Zimmerman (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kickass, johnny wurster, Victor Ward

    There cannot be a civil suit against him and there will not be a federal trial either (what exactly will he be charged with?).

    I realize that a lot of people don't like Zimmerman, but he is out of legal jeopardy for this event.

    The prosecution had a bad case and lost. It happens.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:29:39 PM PDT

    •  It is still sad and very disheartening,as Lisa (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Bloom said on MSNBC,

      The prosecution had the evidence for manslaughter and they could have done a much better job. They made some errors. They seemed to not want to talk about the racist component and they were squeamish about it. We need that dialogue on race and not be afraid to talk about it.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:58:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rev Al seemed fairly certain there would be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Denise Oliver Velez, Mannie

    a lawsuit against Zimmerman. And Rev Al is close to this case and in contact with Martin lawyers. So maybe he means a federal lawsuit but he was still fairly sure.

    Now if Rev Al on his show next week clarfies that and says more about it, that may tell a lot.

    I am going to be sure to watch the Rev;s show next week for more details. As he is very familiar with what is going on with the family, this case, and Martin attorneys.

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:56:23 AM PDT

  •  It's over. The smarmy lawyers won. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    starduster, Mannie

    They helped a man who murdered a kid walk.

    Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

    by emsprater on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:52:51 AM PDT

  •  "Poor job" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo, starduster

    Given the history of near collusion from local officials, from releasing Zimmerman without charges, to race baiting from the original police chief, to the highly selective nature of the prosecutor's incompetence (selective in all the ways to benefit the defendant), to the lack of minority representation within the Prosecutor's office (and up and down the FL political system) — well let's just say that their performance should not necessarily be written off as "poor."

    •  don't leave out failure to test Zimmerman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to see what if any substances he may have taken that could have influenced his behavior.

      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

      by teacherken on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:55:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  O'Mara played the race card over & over (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      starduster, mrblifil

      I have nothing but overwhelming disdain for Mark O'Mara, who stated in 2012 when he was appointed defense attorney, that he would treat the case with dignity & justice.

      Even before the trial started, O'Mara pulled out his ever present race card with allegations against Trayvon's character.  O'Mara's statements were splashed across the media, without question.  When the statements were proven to be completely false, O'Mara shrugged with a "so what?" attitude.  He should have immediately been pulled from the case.  But no -- not in Florida.  

      O'Mara then had the chance to repeatedly use the race card over and over in the trial.   You don't believe me?  Listen to O'Mara's closing statement on Friday 7/12.  It was crude, vile, full of lies.  As a white woman, I was and I am absolutely ashamed of O'Mara -- who proved himself to be the despicable racist and liar that he is.  

      I hope we see justice and I hope that Mark O'Mara rots in hell.  

  •  A criminal case would NEVER HAPPEN. (0+ / 0-)

    Double Jeopardy and all that stuff.

    A wrongful death civil suit is (almost) a slam dunk.

    Please proceed, Governor.

    by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:38:32 AM PDT

    •  Simply not true. (0+ / 0-)

      Double jeopardy would apply in a federal indictment for manslaughter or murder, but nor a criminal civil rights case.  For example, the cops who beat the tar out of Rodney King were acquitted in state court, but then a federal grand jury returned indictments against the three officers for "willfully and intentionally using unreasonable force" and against Koon for "willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault." on King.

      And the wrongful death suit would be held to a jury pool from the same area.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe an actual legal expert can chime in (0+ / 0-)

        but I'm pretty sure you can't just keep dredging up different charges for the same action.

        Please proceed, Governor.

        by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:24:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Suggst you google the Rodney King incident. (0+ / 0-)

          Zimmerman was only placed in jeopardy for 2nd degree murder and the lesser included manslaughter case.  Therefore, any other charges, including say unlawfully discharging a firearm in city limits to a federal criminal civil rights charge are viable.

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:42:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Were the police charged with crimes a 2nd time? nt (0+ / 0-)

            Please proceed, Governor.

            by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:50:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. April of '92 the cops were found not guilty.. (0+ / 0-)
              In August 1992 a federal Grand Jury indicted the four officers for violating King's Civil Rights. Koon was charged with depriving King of Due Process of Law by failing to restrain the other officers. The other three officers were charged with violating King's right against unreasonable Search and Seizure because they had used unreasonable force during the arrest.

              At the federal trial, which was held in Los Angeles, the jury was more racially diverse than the one at Simi Valley: two jury members were black, one was Hispanic, and the rest were white. This time King testified about the beating and charged that the officers had used racial epithets. Observers agreed that he was an effective witness. The videotape again was the central piece of evidence for both sides. On April 17, 1993, the jury convicted officers Koon and Powell of violating King's civil rights but acquitted Wind and Briseno. Koon and Powell were sentenced to two and a half years in prison.

              I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by bobdevo on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:15:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  This Justice Dept.? Don't hold your breath n/t (0+ / 0-)

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:13:29 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site