PRESS STATEMENT from the Southern Poverty Law Center in Response to Verdict in State of Florida v. G

[hue]

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/press-statement-from-the-southern-poverty-law-center-in-response-to-verdict-in-sta
PRESS STATEMENT from the Southern Poverty Law Center in Response to Verdict in State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

The following statement was issued by Richard Cohen, President and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, following the verdict in State of Florida v. George Zimmerman:

"'They always get away.' These were the words George Zimmerman uttered as he followed and later shot Trayvon Martin -- words that reflected his belief that Trayvon was one of "them," the kind of person about to get away with something. How ironic these words sound now in light of the jury verdict acquitting Zimmerman.

Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman is free.

Can we respect the jury verdict and still conclude that Zimmerman got away with killing Trayvon? I think so, even if we buy Zimmerman's story that Trayvon attacked him at some point. After all, who was responsible for initiating the tragic chain of events? Who was following whom? Who was carrying a gun? Who ignored the police urging that he stay in his car? Who thought that the other was one of 'them,' someone about to get a away with something?

The jury has spoken, and we can respect its conclusion that the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we cannot fail to speak out about the tragedy that occurred in Sanford, Florida, on the night of February 26, 2012.

Was race at the heart of it?

Ask yourself this question: If Zimmerman had seen a white youth walking in the rain that evening, would he have seen him as one of 'them,' someone about to get away with something?
We'll never really know.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. If Holder prosecutes for civil rights violations,

we might find out.

[tularetom]

2. If Holder prosecutes for civil rights violations

This is what we're gonna find out.

[COLGATE4]

4. The problem the DOJ would have in bringing

civil rights violation against Z is being able to prove that this was racially motivated.

[LuvLoogie]

5. Yeah, too big to prosecute. Why bother?

Holder needs to get a job.

[COLGATE4]

9. No. The problem is in finding adequate proof

that Z's reason for killing T was racial animus. There just wasn't any evidence that came out to indicate it.

[LuvLoogie]

12. It was his rights to Safety and Liberty that were violated--period.

Civil rights are enjoyed by every sovereign and may be subject to violation, race notwithstanding. If a white cop brutalizes a peaceful white protester, does that protestor have no complaint that his civil rights were violated? The case doesn't have to be brought on racial animus. TRAYVON MARTIN WAS WALKING HOME TO HIS FATHERS HOUSE--Jim Crow Gun Nut Florida notwithstanding.

[COLGATE4]

13. Impressive diatribe. But that isn't the law. To bring

a Federal Civil Rights violation case they would have to prove that there was racial animus - something that has already been discounted by an F.B.I. investigation. There are no grounds (at least known at present) that would let the Feds bring a case.

[LuvLoogie]

14. From http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013justification/pdf/fy13-crt-justification.pdf

"Official Misconduct—intentional acts by law enforcement officials who misuse their positions to
unlawfully deprive individuals of constitutional rights, such as the right to be free from excessive force,
sexual assaults, illegal arrests and searches, and theft of property. Allegations of official misconduct
constitute the majority of all complaints reviewed by the Criminal Section. The officials who have been
defendants include state and local police officers, prison superintendents and correctional officer, federal
law enforcement officers, and state and county judges.
Under the Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law provision of Title 18, Section 242, it is a crime for a
person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by
federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of
that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in
the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this
statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care
providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that
the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or
national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or
the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any."

[COLGATE4]

15. You really should read what you post.

Let's look at the very first line:" Official Misconduct—intentional acts by law enforcement officials ." To use this statute the person charged has to be a government official or acting under color of law. Z was neither a government official or acting under the government's authority. The statute does not apply.

[COLGATE4]

20. I'm not even sure what you're trying to

say.

[elleng]

6. Right, difficult to PROVE,

while not difficult to surmise.

[COLGATE4]

8. Yep. But the problem is proving it.

[elleng]

10. Of course,

which is why, if I were in position to prosecute such, I would NOT do so (and might be called names by many, for such.)

[COLGATE4]

19. Absolutely correct. It's not what you

can surmise - it's what you can prove.

[Myrina]

17. Z's Myspace page was supposedly full of racist bullshit.

It wasn't introduced into evidence in the Martin case as it probably wasn't directly relevant, but it would be relevant in a civil rights case to show bias/animus and the likelihood to profile and/or commit a hate crime ...

[COLGATE4]

18. Do you know that to be a fact?

If that were true I imagine the FBI, which already concluded an investigation in this sense, would have found it. Apparently they didn't since their pronouncement was that they had found no basis for claiming Z's actions were based on race.

[premium]

3. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen,

the DoJ has more pressing issues, things like going after marijuana users and dispensaries.
Hell, they won't even go after the Bush Admin for war crimes, what makes you think they'll prosecute Zimmerman?

[Solly Mack]

7. K&R

[John2]

11. If someone

makes an allegation, don't the DOJ have to investigate it? If the NAACP and others file a complaint with the DOJ against the Sanford Police Department or jurisdiction on Florida, don't the DOJ have the reponsibilty to look into it? And if they find any truth to it, don't they have to bring charges? So you really think there is no evidence, Martin was racially profiled by Zimmerman or they racially stereotyped him in that trial. I'll give you an example, they used one of their witnesses to justify Zimmerman being suspicious of Martin, by associating him with two other black youths. Wouldn't that be associated with they? You don't think the jury was racially stacked to get a certain outcome, considering Sanford is 20 percent Black?

[Socal31]

16. I will give this a try.

1. Not necessarily

2. "Standing" would stop NAACP from filing a complaint. It has been an ongoing investigation anyway.

3. They bring charges if they feel there was an applicable crime committed, and they can actually convict based off evidence

4. We can only go by what we know so far. Racial profiling is not necessarily a civil rights violation, and "racial stereotyping" is not a crime as far as I know. Police use race as a descriptor all the time. Height and age as well.

5. It was "stacked" with at least one low-IQer, the rest we don't know about yet.


Holder will drop this one like a hot potato unless new information comes to light.