Posted on 07/14/2013 6:59:27 AM PDT by Innovative
You know what I do see? Federal civil rights claims by Zimmerman, against the state of Florida and the city of Sanford. Nifong was sued under federal civil rights statutes.
I’d LOVE to see that.
The easy pickings is a suit against Comcast/NBC. They’d settle very quickly.
I would think so. If my kid threw a rock through a window I would assume the owner would come to me for payment. Not sure what they can go after Martin's family for though.
Another million? What do I win?
Between "creepy white cracker" and all the "n!gga" text messages, every racially charged comment associated with this case can be attributed to a black person affiliated with the victim.
Let the Trayvon Martin discovery begin.
I don’t think a 1983 suit works in this case. “Color of law” typically invokes a state actor acting on behalf of the state. This ordinarily would exclude private actors in generic criminal actions. Per the article below, the statute does allow for private non-state actors to act under color of law, but typically only because there is some specific, identifiable nexus between such a person and the state, such as a sub-contract under the state to execute a particular state law. There is no such nexus for private citizens operating under law designed for the general citizenry.
http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm
Trayvon initated the event thereby causing monetary damages via costs for attorneys.
I know that like those in Hell want ice water, it wont come to pass.
The most he’ll get from the Martin family is a Beer Summit with Tayvon’s two dads. He will get that two weeks, after all the people in Hell get their ice water.
The difference beteen you and Martin family tou take responsibilty with Honor and Integrity.
Have a nice day.
Same here, I really, really doubt that Obama will touch this at all considering a big mid-term election is coming up for the House/Senate seats being heild by Dems next year.
Does (3) mean that Florida has to reimburse Zimmerman for his expenses in this trial? If so, he might actually have the cash to vanish.
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act
I guess the Z trial was only act one, and the federal government is becoming the promotion path for and last refuge of incompetent state employees such as de la Ronda, Corey, and Nelson.
It took the governor to appoint an outside prosecutor to get that job done.......
Well let’s all hope you are right.
But this gives me great pause....
“Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act” because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan.”
I’m no authority on the Klan. Perhaps you can tell me what official “color of law” capacity they were operating under to necessitate this law?
Seems to me their behavior and what we are being told GZ was engaging in are eerily similar.
They will when the court returns George's gun, which they now must do. George should put a notch on it. Who wants to be next?
I don’t know much about the history of the Klan, but I believe the KKK Act was significantly broader than section 1983, including such things as providing for suspension of habeas corpus and other tools designed specifically to fight the Klan during Reconstruction.
Furthermore, even under that broader scope, “color of law” scenarios did not necessarily apply to private citizens with no formal nexus to the state (though one can easily imagine circumstances from that period where a Klan member might also have been an officer of the state).
Sometimes for example it was applied to the failure of local governments and police to protect black voters who were being denied access to the voting booth by the Klan, sometimes violently. That satisfies an early definition of the “color of law,’ but it isn’t the private Klan members who were liable under the statute, but the police who failed to protect. So it would still be inapplicable under the Zimmerman facts, even it it’s old form, as well as it’s new form in section 1983.
Martin’ parents, not Zimmerman’s.
Condo association paid them off. Too soon, IMHO,
First let me say I do not believe there will be federal intervention.
So this is all just for the sake of argument.
The link you provided states that 1983 was the Ku Klux Klan Act. I’m not sure how much broader it could be. Regardless, I do see where it follows what you are saying in relation to it being used to pressure unwilling local officials. That said, we often see the original wording being tweaked to fit current -and some not so current- policy. That’s why I’m reading “color of statute” differently than “color of law”. The latter meant to apply to the King Cops etc.
“Statute” seems to be able to be applied to just about anyone who might be otherwise protected by state or local law. Probably just me not reading it correctly.
Maybe you can help me out here though. How is it that 18 USC § 242 applied in the Mississippi Burning trial ? The majority of the defendants were not local officials. How does Color of Law apply here?
First, section 1983 originated as just section 1 of the KKK Act of 1871. The original act, as I stated before, was much broader. Here is a link to the original text:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act_of_1871
From that link, we can show the original and the present versions of the text side by side:
Original KKK Act Section 1:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who, under•color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in, any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress; such proceeding to be prosecuted in the several district or circuit courts of the United States, with and subject to the same rights of appeal, review upon error, and other remedies provided in like cases in such courts, under the provisions of the act of the ninth of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, entitled “An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of their vindication”; and the other remedial laws of the United States which are in their nature applicable in such cases.”
Present 42 USC 1983:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
So it really has not stayed exactly the same, and in particular the special presidential powers given to President Grant by the full original form are nowhere to be found in present law. I am not prepared to do a full analysis of the differences, but these source materials should give you a better sense of what I was talking about.
As for your other question about whether the non-official participants in the infamous Mississippi Burning case were acting under “color of law” as required by the statute, that question was raised as an attempt to block the indictment of those non-official participants and SCOTUS struck it down for the reason cited in my earlier post, that there was a clear nexus between state officials and the private individuals; they were acting in concert with the state, toward the same unlawful purpose, under the direct leadership of a state actor (none of which would apply to Zimmerman):
“But we cannot agree that the Second, Third or Fourth Counts may be dismissed as against the nonofficial defendants. Section 242 applies only where a person indicted has acted “under color” of law. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting “under color” of law for purposes of the statute. To act “under color” of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents. In the present case, according to the indictment, the brutal joint adventure was made possible by state detention and calculated release of the prisoners by an officer of the State. This action, clearly attributable to the State, was part of the monstrous design described by the indictment. State officers participated in every phase of the alleged venture: the release from jail, the interception, assault and murder. It was a joint activity, from start to finish. Those who took advantage of participation by state officers in accomplishment of the foul purpose alleged must suffer the consequences of that participation. In effect, if the allegations are true, they were participants in official lawlessness, acting in willful concert with state officers and hence under color of law.”
From United States v. Cecil Price, et al. 383 U.S. 787 (1966), available at: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/sctdecision.html
".....that there was a clear nexus between state officials and the private individuals; they were acting in concert with the state, toward the same unlawful purpose, under the direct leadership of a state actor....."
I figured the argument would go something like that. The conspiracy charges certainly applied to the non officials, on the surface though "under the color" seems like a stretch. Guess I'll read up.
I'm not seeing how any off these Civil Rights laws can be applied to GZ.
That suit has already been filed, and both parties agreed to hold action in abeyance until the end of the recent trial. That made sense for the defense team, which was up to its hips in alligators contending with the prosecution of GZ. And it made sense (at the time) for NBC, which expected (IMHO) that GZ would be convicted. Now the tables are turned, and GZ can go on offense. The only thing wrong with this situation is the fact that, altho NBC’s redacting - of an answer and then a question from the interaction between GZ and the NEN, altho egregious and an open-and-shut case of malicious libel, is a long way from the only actionable libel done by journalism against GZ. For cash-flow reasons it does make sense for the impecunious GZ legal team to go after NBC alone first. NBC has already “apologized” (for what that is worth, considering that GZ’s reputation is still under assault), and they may be in the mood toAgree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. - Matthew 5:25 King James Version (KJV)
But I yearn for the time when all of wire service journalism is found civilly liable for the systematic libeling of, not merely George Zimmerman, but of everyone whom GZ actually represents. Because this case, tho “not about race” according to Prosecution, is about nothing else but. Take away the fact that GZ was labeled “white,” rather than “black” - or the fact that Trayvon Martin was identified with by blacks en masse, and this case wouldn’t have made a ripple. So the reality is that “George Zimmerman” is not the individual human being named George Zimmerman. The reality of this case is that “George Zimmerman” is you (on the internet you look as white as anyone) and me. In the same way that the Duke Lacrosse “rape” defendants were. Trayvon Martin, Crystal Mangum, Tawana Brawley - I feel like I’m forgetting at least as many others, and why wouldn’t I want to suppress them - all deserve opprobrium, and all were/are mythological images of black innocence. Just set up a photo of an “innocent chile,” and you are in business.I yearn, I say, to see the journalist enablers of those hoaxes, and so many other “liberal” hoaxes like setting up the term “Swift Boating” as a synonym for “McCarthyism,” itself an unfairly created symbol of tendentiousness, successfully sued down to their very underwear. The Associated Press and its members individually should be sued in a class action, by all Republicans and Conservatives, and should be sued for triple damages under RICO - because the Associated Press is a conspiracy:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)The membership of the AP consists of “people of the same trade” and the AP newswire is a virtual meeting among them all which has been going on continually for a century and a half. A meeting, I say, not for “merriment or diversion,” but precisely about what they will put in the paper. And the result is a conspiracy against the public; a conspiracy to divide the public and to dominate it by preventing it from electing its best representation.“Liberalism” is simply a term for those politicians and others who are not journalists but who go along and get along with the AP conspiracy.
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.