General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLegal question: Can they get Zimmerman for violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights?
That was the only way to get justice during the worst years of white supremecist violence.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... and it reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman goes to jail for his hate crime.
Judge during his ruling...
"You need to know that if you are going to hurt someone you had damn well make sure they are the same color as you. Take his fat little butt to jail!"
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I can tell you, as an attorney who handles these kinds of cases from the Plaintiff's side, that my first question is, "Does the Defendant have any assets?" If he or she does not, a civil action against that Defendant is useless, unless Plaintiff is willing to pay me in advance to do it, in which case I worry that Plaintiff's only goal is to hurt the Defendant, and that raises ethical problems for me.
The goal of a civil action is to "make the Plaintiff whole," i.e. to compensate the Plaintiff for an injury he or she suffered. If the Defendant has no assets, this goal can not be achieved, so the only purpose for a civil suit would be vengeance, and that's not an ethical purpose for which to invoke the law in a civil case. Vengeance is, I would add, an acceptable outcome and a recognized goal of the criminal law, but not the civil law.
For what that's worth.
-Laelth
Cross-post from another thread asking the same question, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3252402
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)This was a remedy used decades ago when white supremacists killed blacks and were acquitted by white supremacist juries. The Federal Department of Justice brought a case against the killers in federal court, and usually won. The killers got less time than they would have for murder; but, they did spend time behind bars.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It appears that the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, thinks Federal criminal charges for a civil rights violation may still be on the table.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/310865-reid-on-zimmerman-this-isnt-over-with?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer3ae0a&utm_medium=twitte
If you ask me, further prosecution of Zimmerman on this issue will run into double jeopardy issues, but I suggest that you to listen to the vastly more powerful Senate Majority Leader as opposed to me.
-Laelth
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)in the civil rights case - that is an ethical issue?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)I think that is a much easier bar to clear when you have the obligation to protect people's rights and betray it than getting a common citizen one on one. Not saying it is impossible but the comparison is a bit on the apples and oranges side here and how much or how little depends on the past case precedents in pretty specific regards. I'd tend to say from previous reading this probably wouldn't be an ideal case. No conspiracy, the difficulty in establishing forethought, one on one, no direct witnesses.
Everybody that gets shot isn't a civil rights case and that is the only logic that I've really seen that Martin is deprived of his civil rights because he was killed, that would be the case every time.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Thanks for that insight.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)If life itself isn't a civil right, then we have no civil rights at all.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)little about almost anything else.
mnhtnbb
(31,392 posts)for violation of Martin's civil rights.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/14/naacp-asks-obama-administration-to-file-civil-rights-charges-against-zimmerman-79659