To the department of Justice:
I understand the difficulty of finding a Civil Rights violation in the George Zimmerman case when the FBI, the local police investigators, and even the prosecutor --- because of some actionable dereliction of duty, which you can deal with later--- failed to find any evidence of racial animus in Zimmerman's recent or distant past.
However, there is at least one documentable race-related angle:
As you can see, Zimmerman, in an excess of zeal, motivated by his delusions as wannabe policeman and (in his own mind) a protector-of-the-weak type hero, actually intervened in an incident where the Sanford police were beating a homeless black man. Zimmerman took the side of the black man, against the police.
This could be viewed in such a way that Zimmerman was really anti-black, and was using the homeless man to position himself as a hero (white or white +Hispanic=strong) as compared to the victim (black or black +homeless=weak).
This feeds into the whole anti-black stereotype which has formed part of the historic ruling-class metanarrative since the very beginning of the overt white hegemonic system of the Ante-Bellum South. This certainly includes Sanford, FL, where unexamined assumptions must certainly run rife in the entrenched elite Anglo-Peruvian community.
Somehow, you've got work it out that the Sanford police were right, the homeless man would have preferred to be beaten by the cops, and Zimmerman was just a racist meddler, relying on the absurd over-confidence he has unthinkingly assumed from the "White privilege" of being half-white, or 7/16 white, or whatever the racists' ratio is.
Yes? No?
I think it's worth a try.
Always vigilant,
[signed]
btt