A Miami judge ruled on Monday that new revisions to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law are unconstitutional. Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the amended “Stand Your Ground” law on June 9,  requiring prosecutors to prove a defendant wasn’t acting in self-defense at pretrial hearings.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Milton Hirsch held that the legislative changes altered the burden of proof in “Stand Your Ground” cases, raising the threshold “from mere preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence.” Per Florida’s Constitution, such changes could only be made by the Florida Supreme Court, not the state legislature, and were therefore unconstitutional, Hirsch said. In outlining the necessity for a separation of powers among the three branches of government, Hirsch even referenced a paper about the Ministry of Magic’s judicial overreach in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

Hirsch’s ruling comes as the result of two “Stand Your Ground” cases in his court. Liletha Rutherford was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and grand theft for pulling a gun on a couple during an argument. Omar Rodriguez was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Jose Rey over an argument about Rey’s dog. Rodriguez claimed Rey charged at him with a knife. Police recovered a knife at the crime scene, but discovered Rodriguez’s DNA on the knife, not Rey’s.

Florida lawmakers reacted to the ruling on social media. State Senator Rob Bradley, who sponsored one of the amendments to the “Stand Your Ground” law, said in a tweet that the court’s ruling “attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights.”

Today’s Miami trial court ruling attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights. /1

— Rob Bradley (@Rob_Bradley) July 3, 2017

Following Hirsch’s ruling, Rutherford and Rodriguez will now each have to prove they acted in self-defense. Currently, the ruling only applies to those two cases. However, appeals are likely to make their way to appellate courts and the Florida Supreme Court.

The effectiveness of “Stand Your Ground” laws hasn’t exactly been clear. In March, Florida State Senator Dennis Baxley claimed that since Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, “we’ve seen violent crime continuously go down.”

PolitiFact pointed out some flaws in that statement. While violent crime in Florida has dropped a cumulative 34.9 percent from 2005 to 2015, that decrease is not “continuous” as Baxley contends. Data show occasional increases in Florida’s violent crime rate during that 10-year period, however not enough to really counteract that overall decline in violent crime.

That said, PolitiFact also highlighted the fact that national violent crime rates have also been decreasing since the 1990s. It has yet to be proven whether Florida’s decrease in violent crime has been due to its “Stand Your Ground” laws, considering several states with similar drops do not have “Stand Your Ground” laws.

Critics of “Stand Your Ground” say the laws disproportionately benefit defendants who kill black victims compared to those who kill white victims, and often allow defendants to avoid murder charges.

The Tampa Bay Times identified nearly 200 “Stand You Ground” cases. Of those cases, 70 percent of defendants who invoked a “Stand Your Ground” defense were acquitted. Seventy-three percent of defendants who killed a black person faced no penalty, while 59 percent of defendants who killed a white person faced no penalty.

One of the most high-profile “Stand Your Ground” cases involved George Zimmerman, the “neighborhood watchman” who shot and killed 17-year-old black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012. Zimmerman did not invoke the “Stand Your Ground” law in his trial, but the judge issued instructions to the jury along the same lines as the law’s language, saying Zimmerman “had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.” Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in Martin’s death.

“Stand Your Ground” may stay in place in Florida for now, but Hirsch’s ruling could limit the extent to which the law is allowed to reach. The question has the potential to make it to higher courts and get decided once and for all.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Miami Judge Rules “Stand Your Ground” Law Revisions Are Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Canada Tells Us We’re Great!

Some of our neighbors up to the North thought Americans needed a little pick-me-up after all the controversy and negative news surrounding the election. Canadian PR firm The Garden started a little campaign called “Tell America it’s great,” where they asked a bunch of Canadians why America is so awesome.

We love you guys, and we’re really sorry you’re going through a tough time. Thank you for being our cool big bro #TellAmericaItsGreat

— Kel H. (@Venomous_Bear) October 15, 2016

obama: oh god this country is going to shit i can’t even watch…
trudeau: i know, i’m so sorry bro pic.twitter.com/NxQKQep5j7

— jennifer (@jramseyxo) October 10, 2016

The result was a bunch of tweets under the hashtag #TellAmericaItsGreat, and a short video. The Garden’s workers wrote they were a little nervous before beginning, considering America is not perfect and its relationship with Canada often focuses on making fun of each other’s imperfections. But the results are pretty heartwarming and almost tear-jerking.

Thanks, neighbors!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 18, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Missouri is joining 10 other states by implementing a constitutional carry law, prompting The New York Times to dub it the “Shoot-Me State.”

Republican Missouri lawmakers overwhelmingly voted for less restrictions–a win for gun-rights advocates, overriding Democratic Governor Jay Nixon’s veto on SB 656 last week.

Citizens of Missouri will be able to carry concealed weapons without a permit, background check, or safety training under the new law. The law also institutes Stand Your Ground initiatives, known for lowering the standard for deadly use of a firearm by allowing gun owners to claim self-defense based on perceived feeling of threat.

“Missouri wants to let people carry guns with no training, even when you play Pokemon they start you off w/training” https://t.co/eg7R59haJv

— aka ✯ phil (@fak3r) September 16, 2016

Missouri:The Shoot-Me State: stand your ground, guns to people with violent records, how dumb can we get? https://t.co/qCW50H97IT

— Alexander Stille (@a_stille) September 16, 2016

Damn mfs can carry guns w/ out a license or no papers or age limit on January first in Missouri… Mfs been doing it but now it’s legal

— #SteveeeDriveee (@DaddyZae_) September 16, 2016

The Republican controlled legislature has continuously clashed with the Democratic governor, overriding a record number of the governor’s vetoes Wednesday at 13, adding to the already 83 overrides since he took office in 2009.

Nixon vetoed the legislation in June, stating that citizens who previously may have been denied a permit or would have been denied a permit due to the background check will now be able to carry a concealed gun, according to The New York Times.

Democratic lawmakers have stated that this law will negatively affect minority communities.

“What I don’t want to get to is the point where there is a trigger-happy police officer or bad Samaritan like Zimmerman who says, ‘Black boy in the hood. Skittles. Let’s shoot,'” Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who represents University City, said to the AP, referencing the killing of Trayvon Martin.

On the contrary, Republican lawmakers say that this law will ensure that law-abiding citizens can adequately protect themselves and their families.

The National Rifle Association supported the bill and released a statement following its override.

In addition, concerns about law enforcement were discussed, opponents of this bill were worried that these new provisions will make officers less safe.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Missouri Lawmakers Override Governor’s Constitutional Carry Veto appeared first on Law Street.

For today’s dose of “People Suck” (a common refrain here at Law Street) let’s chat about what George Zimmerman is up to now. Let’s keep in mind that since Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in 2012, he’s been up to quite a lot–for example, last September he retweeted a photo of Martin’s dead body, appearing to brag about it. Earlier in 2015, he got into a road rage incident with another driver. He also had a few different altercations with his girlfriend, and all around just seems like a totally standup guy. But now Zimmerman is in the news once again after the story broke this morning that he’s attempting to auction the gun he used to shoot Trayvon Martin online.

The website gunbroker.com had a listing for the weapon this morning, but the page has since been taken down. However the listing is available in cache form, and shows the details of the proposed auction. The page listed the bidding as starting at $5,000, and featured a short description that appears to have been written by Zimmerman himself. Here are some fascinatingly ridiculous highlights:

The firearm for sale is the firearm that was used to defend my life and end the brutal attack from Trayvon Martin on 2/26/2012.

…

Many have expressed interest in owning and displaying the firearm including The Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C. This is a piece of American History.

…

The firearm is fully functional as the attempts by the Department of Justice on behalf of B. Hussein Obama to render the firearm inoperable were thwarted by my phenomenal Defense Attorney.

…

On this day, 5/11/2016 exactly one year after the shooting attempt to end my life by BLM sympathizer Matthew Apperson I am proud to announce that a portion of the proceeds will be used to: fight BLM violence against Law Enforcement officers, ensure the demise of Angela Correy’s persecution career and Hillary Clinton’s anti-firearm rhetoric.

If you didn’t follow those ramblings, the gist is this: Zimmerman is still purporting that Martin attacked him, claims that the Smithsonian wanted his gun, implies that Obama and/or the Justice Department tried to disable his gun, and that he’s going to use the proceeds of the gun auction to fight Black Lives Matter Advocates, the prosecutor who tried him, and Hillary Clinton.

Zimmerman also claims that he’s selling the gun to move on with his life, saying:

I’m a free American. I can do what I’d like with my possessions. I thought it’s time to move past the firearm. And if I sell it and it sells, I move past it. Otherwise, it’s going in a safe for my grandkids and never to be used or seen again.

Luckily, the site on which Zimmerman was trying to host his morbid and downright inappropriate auction has put a stop to it, but I’m sure Zimmerman will come up with some crackbrained scheme to horrify us all again any day now.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seriously?: George Zimmerman Tries to Auction Off Gun Used to Shoot Trayvon Martin appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

George Zimmerman Auctioning off Gun Used to Kill Trayvon Martin

Yes, you read that right. The listing for the 9 mm Kel-Tec PF-9 pistol used to kill Martin went live today on gunbroker.com. The starting bid? $5,000. The news has inspired many passionate people. Some are outraged by the fact that the DOJ returned the gun to Zimmerman, others are anxious to get their hands on it. All proceeds, however, will not be going to Zimmerman’s own fortune but to “fight BLM (Black Lives Matter) violence against Law Enforcement officers” as well as “ensure the demise of … Hillary Clinton’s anti-firearm rhetoric.” Yep. 

National Parks open to proposal of corporate sponsorships

National Parks may soon have corporate sponsors: https://t.co/FoAwfmiRFX pic.twitter.com/pWud0nIQYk

— The Daily Dot (@dailydot) May 12, 2016

America’s national parks are insanely broke. It’s sad because a lot of that land is used to preserve natural monuments and precious wildlife. But there is a solution: to allow for limited corporate sponsorship, meaning corporations could fund national parks in exchange for marketing plugs. The proposal is still up for heated debate but you can see some national treasures reimagined with popular brands here.

Europe’s leaders diss Trump and it’s kind of beautiful

If the leaders of the world made a “Mean Girls” movie, it would look something like this. Sadiq Khan, newly elected mayor of London and Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris, have teamed up against Trump and it is literally squad goals.

Bye, bye Regina George, I mean, Trump.

Hillary Clinton’s Awkward Email Scandal Continues

Listen, we’ve all been there. We’ve lost emails, accidentally deleted them, sent them to the wrong person, wiped servers, and burned them in gallons of kerosene. But when you’re Secretary of State, the whole correspondence thing is taken way more seriously. This time it isn’t Clinton but Clinton’s IT staffer who has come under scrutiny for a year’s worth of email files gone missing. The State Department says it can’t find the file. So, either they’re incompetent or someone’s trying to keep something under wraps. The scandal continues to be a huge vulnerability for the Clinton campaign, and one which it refuses to truly respond to the press about.

Four years’ worth of State Department emails from Clinton’s top IT staffer, Bryan Pagliano, can’t be found#Hillary pic.twitter.com/8sK0ym6YLi

— ginny j. (@ncginny) May 10, 2016

Woody Allen’s son not buying into Woody Allen’s innocence amidst abuse allegations

Anyone who’s seen a Woody Allen film would find it hard to believe that the famous director is facing allegations of sexual abuse. How could you, given that no one really talks about it?

But this week, Rowan Farrow, Woody Allen’s estranged son, blasted the film community in a Hollywood Reporter piece for remaining silent and continue to praise Allen, despite the abuse he allgedly inflicted on his daughter. The Hollywood Reporter has since been banned from the Cannes’ Luncheon. What do you think?

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The attacks in New York City on 9/11 brought together a nation that every year since has unified on social media and internet outlets under “#9/11” and “#NeverForget.” When a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut claimed the lives of 20 children, as well as six adults on December 14, 2012, we prayed and posted: “#PrayForSandyHook” and “SandyHook.” The terrorism in Paris on November 13, 2015 bonded the world through posts and photographs captioning “#PrayForParis.”

“Pray for Paris” courtesy of [Bensun Ho via Flickr]

Following the police shootings and misconduct of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and so many more, a movement ensued highlighting “#BlackLivesMatter,” which morphed into the debated “#AllLivesMatter” movement. We picketed. We rioted. We protested and stood divided across the nation. We demanded societal change. When a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, we worked to mend the broken community and sent virtual support with “#PrayforCharleston” demanding more stringent gun control laws and mental health screening.

We have been victims and survivors. We have been divided, yet banded together. We have fought and we have been loud. So where is our unifying and our fighting fervor now? Where is our voice recognizing the 380,000 Nigerian brothers and sisters living within the United States whose families and friends in Nigeria are experiencing sheer terror at the hands of Boko Haram?

Boko Haram, an Islamic militant group whose name loosely translates into “Western education is a sin,” has been waging a murderous war in the poorest part of Nigeria in an effort to overthrow the Nigerian government. While the group has been slowly establishing itself between 2005-2009, it gained worldwide recognition in 2014 when it kidnapped 276 schoolgirls, most of whom have not returned to their families to date.

Mohammed Yusuf, has, over the years, rallied a following to the group through the widespread distribution of his speeches on tapes. So far, his followers have treated human beings like animals–slitting throats without reprieve. In 2009, Yusuf was killed in a security bust, which left the elusive and merciless Abubakar Shekau in charge of Boko Haram. His unforgiving and relentless tactics to make Northern Nigeria an Islamic state have left almost 20,000 people dead–slaughtered. There have been approximately 2.5 million people displaced from their homes and villages, children parentless, mothers widowed, and mass graves full of innocent bodies.

Image courtesy of [EU/ECHO/Isabel Coello via Flickr]

The scariest part? Boko Haram has made good on essentially every threat and every hellish promise made. Most recently, Boko Haram took to bombing the village of Dalori, in the northeastern part of Nigeria, where 86 people were shot, burned, or killed by suicide bombs. A man hiding in a tree heard the shrieks and screams of the children trapped in burning huts as Boko Haram soldiers and supporters destroyed the city. Government troops were unsuccessful in overpowering the militant group.

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance to ISIS/ISIL and its members have set out to spread terror upon all those who are not willing to join them in their absolutely extremist path to form an Islamic state.

So where is the coverage? Why has the U.S. mainstream media failed to highlight this horrific situation in any detailed capacity? Where are the Twitter feeds and Facebook posts flooding with “#PrayforNigeria” statuses? And where is the action? There has been no lack of military action against ISIS and its ideologies, so where is the same level of response to a terrorist organization that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has killed thousands? Forget the basic human need and the widespread teachings of terror–are we just willing to help if we have some personal or political interest in mind?

As media dictates the important issues that today’s society will focus on, particularly during election year, has our censorship failed the people of Nigeria?

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram and Widespread Terror in Nigeria: Where is the Outrage? appeared first on Law Street.

If there was ever a candidate worthy of a “People Suck” shout out it would be George Zimmerman. Not only did he get off essentially scot free in the shooting death of unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin, but he also proved he’s a pretty worthless human being after using Twitter to brag about it.

Warning: graphic image below.

He recently retweeted a photo of Martin’s dead body sprawled out on his lawn with the caption “Z-man is a one man army.” Twitter officials have since deleted the tweet, but not before screengrabs of the image were taken.

George Zimmerman retweeted a photo of Trayvon Martin’s dead body, appearing to brag about it. http://t.co/uzeLDNeQ4e pic.twitter.com/MBkUw9zcd4

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) September 28, 2015

Zimmerman has made a habit of regularly tweeting/retweeting idiotic pictures and sayings on his Twitter account about race, politics, and Trayvon Martin. However, this tasteless photo in combination with its even more tasteless caption, led most people to believe that Zimmerman was bragging about the shooting. Social media quickly erupted with outrage as people began chastising his actions. Here are some of their comments below:

Maybe someday someone will tweet a picture of George Zimmerman’s dead body. And I won’t mind a bit. — Harold Itzkowitz (@HaroldItz) September 28, 2015

The fact that George Zimmerman killed a child and constantly trolls us about the fact that he got away with it just irks my soul. — The Other Serena (@ReenuhGee) September 28, 2015

George Zimmerman retweeting a pic of Trayvon Martin’s lifeless body is probably the vilest thing I’ve heard of in a while. What a small man. — Toula Drimonis (@ToulasTake) September 27, 2015

Dear @Twitter, please do the world a huge solid and delete George Zimmerman’s account. Signed, Everyone (I wish) #RIPTrayvon @jack — Holly Robinson Peete (@hollyrpeete) September 28, 2015

Zimmerman seemed entirely unfazed by the universe hating him. Rather than apologize, he responded to his most recent scandal with this string of crude tweets:

I wonder when Twitter will take these images down??? pic.twitter.com/avVfhlzkHI — George Zimmerman (@TherealGeorgeZ) September 28, 2015

All media inquiries can be directed to Ms. Micah Williams (360) 628-1467 or (931) 802-8913 or @SonusCarAudio pic.twitter.com/vKYfoOAGWE — George Zimmerman (@TherealGeorgeZ) September 28, 2015

As much as I love owning all you trolls I have to work… On my tan! Tell “Karma” she’s worthless, God protects me. pic.twitter.com/Cz6SFfDiLY — George Zimmerman (@TherealGeorgeZ) September 28, 2015

Sorry Zimmerman, but you have not in fact “owned any trolls.” Instead you act only as a sad reminder of the injustice surrounding Trayvon Martin’s tragic death.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post George Zimmerman Proves He is the Absolute Worst appeared first on Law Street.

The United States found itself facing criticism from the international community in regards to concerns about its human rights record this week. The criticisms were levied during the U.S.’s second universal periodic review in front of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. Listed among the concerns that other nations presented about the U.S.’s human rights record included the American failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and the prevalence of sexual violence against Native American women. But one of the biggest focal points of the criticism was the culture of police violence and militarization, particularly against young black men, in the United States.

This is no surprise–during the recent flurry of media activity over the protests in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of the Baltimore police, I came across a Washington Post article that posited “How Western media would cover Baltimore if it happened somewhere else.” While the writer of that piece, Karen Attiah, certainly wasn’t the only one I saw pose that question, I found her take particularly compelling, as she wrote it from the point of view of another nation’s media outlet. Take this passage for example:

Black Americans, a minority ethnic group, are killed by state security forces at a rate higher than the white majority population. Young, black American males are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than white American males.

Sounds pretty bad when it’s phrased like that, doesn’t it?

The point is that if we, as Americans, saw coverage of the racial discrimination and police conduct in this country the way that we see coverage of human rights abuses in other nations, we would be appalled and outraged. Therefore, it was no surprise to me that we received some criticism at the United Nations review.

At the same time, it also didn’t surprise me that the response that many Americans had to the criticism has been less than graceful. The main complaints appear to be twofold–some are upset that we even allowed ourselves to be reviewed by the UNHRC, calling it “farcical.” In a very similar vein, there are complaints that during the United States’ presentation in front of the council, the Obama administration even admitted to having to work on some of the aforementioned issues. There was also anger over which nations criticized us, countries including Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia. Critics of the review have been very quick to point out that those nations have very long histories of horrible human rights abuses themselves.

That’s completely true. Human rights abuses in Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia, among many other nations, are apparent, horrendous, and deserve high levels of criticism and attention. But I don’t quite get how that fact invalidates concerns about human rights abuses in the United States. Two wrongs don’t make a right–just because another nation is committing a wrong, our wrong isn’t suddenly rendered right.

Moreover, what happened to being a good example? How can we demand that other nations be accountable for their human rights abuses when we can’t even talk about ours in an open forum with humility and respect? It’s not easy to admit that there’s a problem in this country when it comes to racism and police violence. But criticizing other countries for pointing it out certainly won’t do anything to fix it. Instead, we need to work together as a nation to combat these systemic problems, and become the very role model we purport to be.

—

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United Nations Criticizes U.S. Over These Human Rights Issues appeared first on Law Street.

George Zimmerman is in the news again after suffering minor injuries in a road rage incident Monday that ended with a shooting. This marks yet another in a long series of run-ins with the law for the former neighborhood watchman since his fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012.

According to CNN, accounts detailing exactly what happened Monday afternoon in Lake May, Florida between Zimmerman and the shooter, Matthew Apperson, differ depending on who you talk to. It’s hard to know which story to believe, especially when both men have a history of confrontations with one another.

Zimmerman’s attorney Don West claims that his client was flagged down by Apperman honking and yelling obscenities at him. When he recognized Apperman, he rolled up his windows and tried to get away, but was followed. That’s when Apperman reportedly pulled up to Zimmerman’s pickup truck window and shot a bullet through it–barely missing his head. Zimmerman was apparently hit by glass from the window, but not the bullet, and only suffered minor injuries.

Man involved in shooting with George Zimmerman acted in “self-defense,” lawyer says http://t.co/vuMHStFkb4 pic.twitter.com/XqBKUUd7Q1

— CBS News (@CBSNews) May 12, 2015

Apperman’s account of what happened is much different. His lawyer claims that his client acted entirely out of self-defense after Zimmerman waved a gun at him first. After shooting through the window he apparently asked a bystander to phone the police for him. This is hardly the first time Zimmerman has been involved in an incident requiring police intervention. So far Zimmerman has amassed a collection of six mugshots, and the reasons for his arrests include shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent, threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun, and throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend’s head. 

George Zimmerman Mugshot Calendar? http://t.co/mCqOtuQH57 @BlueNationRev It could happen #GeorgeZimmerman #BNRNews pic.twitter.com/Q3aLHjD5OJ — Jill E Bond (@JillEBond) January 13, 2015

When Twitter got word of Zimmerman’s latest police involvement, the reactions to the possibility of him getting shot were unsympathetic at best.

I wish George Zimmerman was shot in his eyes & went blind. Then he couldn’t judge anyone on their color.

— Gary Owen (@garyowencomedy) May 12, 2015

Does anyone know who shot at Zimmerman yet? Was he arrested? Is there a bail fund? Can we throw him a parade? — Cassandra (@CassandraRules) May 12, 2015

George Zimmerman: “I got shot!” Black people: pic.twitter.com/gNBVhH7uSt

— Alex English (@alex3nglish) May 11, 2015

Zimmerman is clearly hurting when it comes to supporters. So far it seems like most people are speculating that the confrontation which led to the incident stemmed from a dispute about the Trayvon Martin case, but neither party wants to fess up. Lake Mary police are continuing to investigate the incident, but as of now neither man has been arrested or charged with any crime.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Road Rage and George Zimmerman: That Can’t End Well appeared first on Law Street.

Beginning as a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter developed into a movement and became a leading force in the fight against police brutality and racism across the nation. People from all walks of life are uniting for justice, are inspired to speak up, and most importantly are ready to take action. But how did #BlackLivesMatter reach the masses? How has it developed into such a profound transformational force? Read on to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter, its inception, and the movement to end police brutality and racial inequality in the United States.

What is #BlackLivesMatter?

#BlackLivesMatter (BLM) is a movement that focuses on anti-African-American racism in the United States. It was founded by three Black women: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Although it began as a social media hashtag, they created the infrastructure for the overall campaign, framing it as “not a moment, a movement.”

According to #BlackLivesMatter, racism is still prevalent in American society through the marginalization of Black communities, which are intentionally left powerless and voiceless. In this regard, the movement asserts the right of all Black people to liberation.

BLM has opened up a broader conversation about long-standing racism and violence against Black communities in the United States. It aims to affirm the lives of all Black people who suffer from racial oppression in American society, including Black trans people, Black queer people, Black immigrants, Black incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, Black millennials, Black women, low-income Black people, and Black people with disabilities. 

The Inception and Evolution of #BlackLivesMatter

#BlackLivesMatter was created after Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American boy from Florida, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, on February 26, 2012. In July 2013, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.

The outcome of the trial led to resentment from Black communities, and America as a whole, as Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman shot him. The day after the acquittal, people took to the streets in major cities including Miami, New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Newark, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. More than 100 U.S. cities held demonstrations in support for Trayvon Martin.

Garza, one of BLM’s co-founders, used Facebook to express her outrage over the fact that nobody was held accountable for the death of an unarmed Black teenager. She finished her sentence with the phrase “we got us and our lives matter.” Cullors went further and added the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter when re-posting her friend’s message. People started to use this hashtag when talking about racism and extrajudicial killings of Black men in police custody. As a result, #BlackLivesMatter was born as a national organizing project. Watch the video below to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter from Garza.

Nearly a year later on July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after a police officer allegedly put him in chokehold for 15 seconds while trying to take him into custody. That’s when #BlackLivesMatter started to solidify as a movement. According to Elephrame, a social media tracking website, two days after Garner’s death, more than 300 people marched in Staten Island, including Garner’s family.

Less than a month after that, on August 9, 2014, 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Demonstrations became pervasive in cities both large and small. Thousands of people travelled to Ferguson to participate in marches, demanding justice for Brown and other victims of police violence. The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag became omnipresent on Twitter in relation to Ferguson protests and racism in general. More than 119 cities participated in a National Moment of Silence honoring the many Black citizens who have died as a result of police violence. Watch Oakland residents speaking on Ferguson and #BlackLivesMatter protests in the video below.

During the ensuing months, divided demonstrations continued to transform into a collective force. At the end of November 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice was shot and killed by a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio. As the Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the New York police officer who used the chokehold to take Garner into custody on December 3, 2014, people began to demand justice even more fiercely. More demonstrations were held, reaching as far as Paris, London, and Melbourne. By the end of 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was already a strong platform for many protesters, with a broader mission, and a list of demands. 

The movement carried into 2015. BLM continued to incite discussions in academia, art communities, religious establishments, and high schools and universities. A #BlackLivesMatter exhibit was featured in an art gallery in Seattle, providing viewers with different perspectives on the movement. Cornell University Africana Studies and Research Center held a community talk about #BlackLivesMatter and the current state of activist movements, taking a social history perspective. These are only few examples of the movement’s proliferation and effects.

On March 4, 2015, a St. Louis County grand jury acquitted Wilson of all charges in the death of Michael Brown. The actions of protesters became even more pronounced, disrupting public transportation and shutting down highways and bridges while marching for Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others.

On April 19, 2015 another Black man, Freddie Gray, died in the hospital after he was taken into custody by the Baltimore police. The events that followed shook the whole country as protests turned violent in some areas. Some police officers were injured, a state of emergency was declared, the National Guard was activated, and a 10 p.m. curfew was established in Baltimore. However, all officers involved in Gray’s death were charged with a range of crimes, including murder and manslaughter. During these latest events, many local chapters of #BlackLivesMatter marched in solidarity with Baltimore, including those in Chicago, Ferguson, and New York.

In the last 289 days, there were 431 general demonstrations and 430 for individual victims of police brutality, totaling at least 861 #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations.

An International Voice 

#BlackLivesMatter has a visible connection to other movements across the nation and abroad. Nationally, Palestinian solidarity activists, the low-wage workers movement, and Black Youth Project 100 (BYP 100) among others, all marched in support of BLM. In addition, medical students at 70 colleges, the so-called “White Coats for Black Lives,” held demonstrations in #BlackLivesMatter support. Internationally, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy marches and London’s Campaign Against Police and State Violence, among others, also stood in solidarity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement and its cause.

#BlackLivesMatter Tactics

The main tactic of the #BlackLivesMatter movement is to disrupt business as usual, including work, commuter travel, commerce, and other daily activities of U.S. residents. The rationale behind this tactic is based on the premise that people across the country need to wake up and recognize that anti-Black racism is a pervasive part of American society. BLM protesters disrupted traffic on Interstate 93 in Boston, shut down the BART station in West Oakland, California, partly shut down the Mall of America, and disrupted business as usual in many other places, all in the hope of drawing attention to its cause. 

What does #BlackLivesMatter aim to do?

#BlackLivesMatter put forward national demands and a vision for a new America. It seeks legal redress in the Michael Brown case, and asks the government to release the names of all officers involved in killing Black people for the last five years. It also calls for the creation of an advocate’s network that can institute changes across police departments, and demands that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weapons to police departments across the country. #BlackLivesMatter also demands more re-investment programs, specifically, re-directing law enforcement funds to federal departments charged with providing employment, housing, and educational services.

According to #BlackLivesMatter, its vision for a new America is as follows:

We Want an End to all Forms of Discrimination and the Full Recognition of our Human Rights. The United States Government must acknowledge and address the structural violence and institutional discrimination that continues to imprison our communities either in a life of poverty and/or one behind bars. We want the United States Government to recognize the full spectrum of our human rights and its obligations under international law.

In its vision, the movement includes not only the end of racially charged police violence and structural changes in police departments across the states, but also demands decent housing, quality education, and the end of the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline.

#BlackLivesMatter developed rather specific proposals with regard to the de-militarization of local law enforcement departments across the country, including requesting a comprehensive review by the Department of Justice into systematic abuses by police departments, and the repurposing of law enforcement funds to support community-based alternatives to incarceration. While not all demands are specific and policy oriented, BLM is working in conjunction with think tanks and non-profits such as the National Organization for Women and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation, to continue conceptualizing policy aims. 

Criticism of #BlackLivesMatter

Even though many Americans support #BlackLivesMatter, there are those who simply don’t believe that racism in the justice system exists. In this view, African Americans encounter law enforcement frequently because they commit more crimes, thus more of them end up in the prison system. Police officers are viewed as protectors of public order, while African Americans are seen as solely responsible for the current state of their community. Watch the video below to learn more about this point of view.

In addition, an #AllLivesMatter hashtag was created to counteract the #BlackLivesMatter movement. In this view, law enforcement should treat all people with respect and dignity. The rationale is as following: if #AllLivesMatter, then #BlackLivesMatter too. Essentially, #AllLivesMatter protesters are making a point of including all races in the conversation about police brutality; however, supporters of #BlackLivesMatter as well as its founders consider such phrasing an act of colorblindness that completely excludes race from the equation, devaluing the whole point of the movement.

Conclusion

#BlackLivesMatter has already established itself as a movement for social change, transforming isolated incidents of police brutality into a larger agenda of eliminating racial inequality in American society. It’s impossible to predict if the movement will be able to sustain itself until it reaches its goal and the government meets BLM’s demands; however one thing is sure, #BlackLivesMatter is already changing peoples’ perceptions of racial inequality in America, creating dialogue, and clearing out the path for future leaders who will take on the issue of anti-Black racism. 

Resources

Primary

#BlackLivesMatter: National Demands

#BlackLivesMatter: A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

Additional 

Elephrame: Track Black Lives Matter Demonstrations

Occupy: Black Lives Matter: The Evolution of a Movement

Political Research Associates: Five Right-Wing Media Narratives Attacking the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement

Front Page Mag: Which Black Lives Matter?

Huffington Post: Stop Slandering Black Lives Matter

National Review Online: Black Lives Matter

Huffington Post: Reactions on the Streets After the George Zimmerman Verdict

Gothamist: Black Lives Matter Protesters Stock Forever 21 With ‘Never 21’ T-Shirts

Thee New York Times: Baltimore Enlists National Guard and a Curfew to Fight Riots and Looting

KARE11: Black Lives Matter March in Support of Baltimore

Michigan Live: EMU Student Wears ‘Black Lives Matter’ T-Shirt Over Gown at Graduation

Huffington Post: What People Are Really Saying When They Complain About ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protests

King 5: Art Gallery Features ‘Black Lives Matter’ Exhibit

Star Tribune: Twin Cities Students Walk Out of Schools to Join Black Lives Matter Protest

The New York Times: Beyond ‘Black Lives Matter’ 

Alternet: Eight Developments of the Black Lives Matter Movement Most People Don’t Know About 

Dick Gregory: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Heard Around the World

NPR: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Slogan Becomes a Bigger Movement 

Cornell University: Scholar Leads Talk on ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement 

Washington Post: From Trayvon Martin to ‘Black Lives Matter’

International Socialist Review: Black Lives Matter: A New Movement Takes Shape

The New York Times: Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death

California Sunday Magazine: How Three Friends Turned a Spontaneous Facebook Post Into a Global Phenomenon

Boston Globe: Protesters Snarl Morning Commute on I-93 Near Boston

Sfist: Protesters Chain Themselves to BART Trains at West Oakland, Temporarily Halt Transbay Train Service

Huffington Post: #BlackLivesMatter Protesters Shut Down Part of Mall of America

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BlackLivesMatter: How a Hashtag Sparked a Powerful Movement appeared first on Law Street.

We know their names by heart because they’ve become the public faces of a national epidemic. Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice–five names that represent the unjust murder of unarmed black males. But there are many more names on that list, including 53-year-old father of four Walter L. Scott. Scott was shot and killed Saturday by an white South Carolinian police officer while attempting to run away. A graphic of the video of the shooting has surfaced, leading to public outrage and resulting in the officer who shot him being charged with murder.

Be advised that the video below contains both graphic images and language.

According to the New York Times, the officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, attempted to justify the shooting, saying he feared for his life because Scott had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after Slager had stopped him in a Mercedes-Benz for a broken taillight. In the video, however, Scott is seen running away when Slager fires seemingly eight times at his back before finally collapsing.

At a news conference Tuesday, authorities announced that after viewing the video footage, they had decided to charge the officer with murder. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said during the news conference.

When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And if you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.

Police reports indicate that Officer Slager reported on his radio, “shots fired and the subject is down; He took my Taser” moments after the shooting. But the taser defense story could potentially be a sham. During the initial scuffle at the beginning of the video something looks to have been either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men. After the shooting, the officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something up off the ground and then appears to drop an object near Scott’s body moments later. Unfortunately it’s tough to determine the full story because the images are shaky and unclear. Many are now speculating that this object was the officer’s taser, which he was potentially planting in order to corroborate his story, but that has yet to be proven by investigators.

The bystander who filmed the video has not yet been identified, but is being hailed as a hero by Scott’s family for providing the footage to them, which they then turned over to the New York Times. In the video below, Walter Scott’s brother and family attorney Chris Stewart react to the shooting, with Stewart making the bold statement “running from an officer doesn’t result in the death penalty.”

Stewart has a vital point that running away should not be a death sentence, but Supreme Court case law may beg to differ. In Tennessee v. Garner the court declared that officers may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if there’s probable cause that the suspect “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Officer Slager may try to use this precedent in his criminal defense or in the civil suit against him that Scott’s family has declared that they intend to file.

This avoidable incident has only helped fuel public distrust for law enforcement as well as raise questions that there may be serious discriminatory problems ingrained in our police forces, as proved evident in Ferguson. One thing however is certain–Walter Scott’s story, while unfortunately not unique, does matter.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Cop Charged With the Murder of Walter Scott appeared first on Law Street.

You may have been following along with fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek’s Dumbest Laws series, as she goes state by state revealing the most random and outdated laws throughout the country. But this week, I want to tell you about a brand new dumb law that was proposed in Oklahoma this week, banning people from wearing hoodies. Anyone wearing a hood for the purposes of “hiding one’s identity” could be fined $500.

The Sooner State actually once held a similar law intending to stop the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1920s. Though this time I think the law may have more racist motives. With all the recent incidents of police brutality and subsequent protests, I can’t help but remember Trayvon Martin, who was killed by a police officer in 2012 while wearing a hoodie.

Barring dress codes for certain buildings and occasions, our First Amendment rights include freedom of expression and that includes one’s manner of dress. I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be hit with a $500 fine just for wearing a jacket with a hood on a rainy or snowy day.

Senator Don Barrington insists that the reason behind such a law is to prevent people from getting away with crimes while concealing their identities. The law would also exempt those wearing a hood for religious, safety, or medical purposes as well as for Halloween costumes. So basically, the only day you can really get away with a crime is on Halloween. But how would law enforcement officers know if a person is wearing a hood for religious or medical reasons? Would they have to carry around special ID? Don’t police have anything better to do than to go around interrogating every single person wearing a hood in the state of Oklahoma?

So Oklahoma, get ready to say goodbye to one of your favorite closet staples. (Whether you’re allowed to wear hooded jackets as long as the hood is off of your head, I’m not sure.) If you don’t like being out in the cold/rain/snow with your head unprotected, I guess you could always wear a hat?

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumb Laws Fashion Edition: Hide Your Hoodies appeared first on Law Street.

Happy December, folks!

Have you all awakened from your turkey coma? Good. Because the situation in Ferguson has taken an interesting turn, and you’re going to want to be alert for this one.

The Oath Keepers have descended upon Ferguson in response to the riots, taking up armed positions on the rooftops of local businesses to guard against looters. Working as a sort of vigilante militia, these rooftop patrollers are veterans, ex-cops, and paramedics. They work at night and, apparently, they’re prepared to shoot down anyone who crosses their path.

So, here’s the thing about the Oath Keepers. On the one hand, some folks are happy they’re there. Local business owners who are receiving their protection have reported feeling safer, and that’s pretty great.

However, the Oath Keepers are a super problematic—and frankly, pretty scary—organization, and their presence in Ferguson is anything but benign.

The Oath Keepers are a radical, militant, right-wing non-profit that was founded in 2009. Not coincidentally, their appearance aligns perfectly with the election of President Obama and the rise of the Tea Party. The Oath Keepers are—shockingly—mostly white men, and their stated mission is to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights and to prevent a dictatorship from ever taking hold in the U.S.

But really, that’s a lot of coded language for racist, paranoid, gun fanatics who decided to form a vigilante militia in response to a black president being elected to office.

Here’s what the Oath Keepers are really about—they’re a particularly militaristic arm of the Tea Party, a group that sprang up with Obama’s election because conservatives were scared as fuck. The economy was (and, let’s be real, still is) in the shitter, thanks to Republican tax policies that caused the housing crisis of 2008. Their beloved straight, white, Christian, family-man conservative president, George Dubya, was leaving office and being replaced by someone new and relatively unknown. The face of the United States was changing drastically.

So, naturally, conservatives freaked the fuck out. Enter the Tea Party and its bevy of reactionaries—folks dressing up in colonial garb, romanticizing the Founding Fathers and their Constitution, ignoring the existence of slavery, and holding up signs of President Obama fashioned as Hitler, the Devil, and a monkey, all demanding to see his birth certificate.

Yeah, so, the Oath Keepers are those people. Except they carry guns and act as unlicensed, armed security guards whenever things start to happen that they don’t like.

What’s high on their list of things they don’t like? Black people rioting in the streets after a grand jury decided that their lives don’t matter, and that we should all just collectively shrug our shoulders as another young black man’s life gets cut short—like Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner before him—and hold no one accountable for his death.

This the type of shit that gets the Oath Keepers riled up to restore order. God forbid people of color should rise up and demand that their lives be valued by the American justice system.

This is the third time in three years that we’ve had to collectively mourn the untimely death of a young black man, shot down because his blackness made him threatening to the shooter. And those are just the cases that have made national headlines. How many more people of color have been cut down in the last three years by a justice system that’s stacked against them?

More than any of us would like to admit.

And so, as the Oath Keepers descend upon the city of Ferguson, it’s no coincidence that the men standing on shop rooftops with guns are mostly white, and the assailants they’re taking aim at are mostly black.

These radical right-wingers are feeling all kinds of sympathy for the store owners whose businesses have been looted. And that sympathy isn’t entirely misplaced. It’s not a situation that any of us would wish on another person—to have their life’s work plundered or burned to the ground.

But if we all take a step back from the riot-shaming that is implicit to the Oath Keepers’ presence in Ferguson, it’s clear what side of this issue the radical right is on.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that a “riot is the language of the unheard.” And conservatives, like the Oath Keepers, want to keep the unheard quiet. They’ll shoot them down to preserve the silence if they have to.

Instead of patrolling rooftops, threatening to gun down people who are fighting for their lives, the Oath Keepers should be listening to this latest outcry from the unheard.

They’re telling us that black lives matter. Michael Brown matters. Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner matter. And, contrary to what the American justice system might have us believe, these losses aren’t to be taken lightly.

So please, Oath Keepers, get the hell off the rooftops. Stop trying to intimidate the unheard people of Ferguson into silence.

Try listening to them instead.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dear Oath Keepers: GTFO of Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we are very interested in the changing world of law. So as the wild ride that was 2013 comes to an end, I thought it would be fun to count down the biggest changes, innovations, and crazy moments in the world of law and politics this year.

8. George Zimmerman Trial 

What happened: On July 14, 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin. This verdict was understandably met with widespread shock. Some people were angry, some were vindicated, but everyone had an opinion.

Protests like this happened all over the country. Courtesy of Werth Media via Flickr.

Why it matters: Anyone who regularly reads my pieces knows that I’m a big fan of talking. I think, maybe misguidedly, that open dialogue is a great thing and solves 80 percent of problems. And if you’re looking for strong dialogue in 2013, look no further than the debate that occurred immediately after the Zimmerman acquittal. We saw conversations about the implications of stand your ground laws, gun control, and institutionalized racism. Now my hopeless naiveté won’t go so far as to say that these conversations were productive. But they happened, they’ve been introduced, and my dearest hope is that next year I’ll be able to say that we’ve made progress out of the tragedy that was Trayvon Martin’s death.

7. Jeff Bezos Buys the Washington Post 

What happened: Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, bought The Washington Post this summer in a $250 million deal. Now this might seem a little off topic — what does the purchase of a newspaper have to do with law and politics?

Why it matters: The world is changing. Media is changing, and we know this because a multi-billionaire who made his fortune from an internet sales company just bought one of the most influential papers in the country. That’s big because it means our media is getting smarter, it’s gaining control, and the internet is increasingly becoming a one-stop-shop for all we need. Plus, if Amazon follows through on its promises, we might get our newspaper delivered by drones, which would be pretty cool.

I’m mostly really excited about this drone delivery idea, guys.

6. Pope Francis Begins His Papacy

What happened: On March 13, 2013, Pope Francis became the head of the Catholic Church.

Why it matters: He immediately enacted some pretty serious changes. He downgraded the extravagant Vatican facilities. He has been advocating for more inclusive Church policies. He stated, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?” He has said that the the Catholic Church needs to stop being so obsessed with social issues. The Pope changing his views on this could push some big changes for American politics. Don’t get me wrong, he is still a Catholic Pope and he is still a conservative man. But he works with the poor and he seems to be a man of the 21st century, and I have to give him props for that.

High Five, Pope Francis.

5. The Manti Te’o Girlfriend Hoax

What happened: This is probably an odd one to put so high on my list, but it was a very, very weird story. A Notre Dame linebacker, who now plays for the San Diego Chargers, told a story about his girlfriend, a Stanford University student named Lennay Kekua who had died of Leukemia. In January 2013, it was discovered that Lennay Kekua never existed. Her relationship with Te’o was purely online. The culprit behind the hoax turned out to be a man named Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, who may have fallen in love with Te’o while pretending to be his fictional girlfriend.

This refers to the online part, not the falling in love part. That part’s slightly less weird.

Why it matters: We’re at the point where a convincing and moving relationship can be forged 100 percent online. I know I’m a millennial who does everything online, but maybe I’m a bad one, because I simply can’t fathom that. I think this marks a big change in our world. Five years ago, if a professional athlete revealed that he had an online relationship with a woman he had never met, it would be completely ridiculous. Now, it was ridiculed, and commentators were surprised, but people understood how it could happen. Online presences can supersede our real lives now, and that’s scary.

4. Dems Detonate “Nuclear Option”

What happened: After a series of failed judicial nominees, Senate Democrats took drastic action. They changed the rules so that federal judicial nominees can move to the confirmation process with a simple majority of Senators, rather than a super majority of 60.

Why it matters: This will fundamentally change the way in which federal judicial nominees are confirmed. It may also permanently change the courts. If Presidents no longer need to pick moderates who can garner a 60-vote confirmation, the courts will get more liberal during a Democratic presidency, or more conservative during a Republican presidency.

3. NSA Spying Scandal

What happened: Although this event started in 2012, it got really big in 2013. Edward Snowden’s release of the extent of NSA monitoring shocked the American public. Snowden has since fled the United States.

The American reaction.

Why it matters: The intersection of politics, law, and technology continues to weave a tangled web, and the NSA scandal was the greatest proof of that phenomenon. We are being watched, and there’s nothing that we can do about it. Comparisons to Big Brother and 1984 were made, but that’s the truth, and people realized that this year. There’s a different level of trust in the government now.

2. The Affordable Care Act Mess

What happened: The rollout of the Affordable Care Act was the biggest mess I’ve seen in a long time. From the government shutdown that preceded it, to the internet issues, to the logistical problems, it was kind of a hot mess.

See another hot mess for context.

Why it matters: The ACA is still in place. It’s not perfect. It has problems. But it’s still a law and despite the Republicans’ best efforts, it will continue. That was an important lesson for everyone to learn this year. We will have hot mess laws and these laws will create problems;  however, they will remain the law. We can fix or repeal them, but we can’t pretend they don’t exist, and we can’t pretend that we can will them away.

1. Gay Rights

What happened: 2013 was a huge year for gay rights. In June, the Supreme Court handed down big successes for federal and state gay marriage rights. Gay marriage became legal in Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Hawaii and Illinois.

Why it matters: Obviously there’s still a long way to go, but any slow, small steps down the right path are good. Notably conservative states — Utah and New Mexico — even got in on the action, albeit through court-mandated measures.

So here’s to 2013. It was wild, it was weird, and it was revolutionary. I don’t know about you all, but I’m excited to see what 2014 brings.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sally Mahoney via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Most Influential News Events of 2013 appeared first on Law Street.

The George Zimmerman trial has been one of the most hotly debated topics in the news recently, and with public outrage resulting from the verdict people question whether or not the federal government will step in with charges of its own. Although it is technically possible for the government to pursue federal charges against Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin, there are several challenges that federal prosecutors would face.  Because the state and federal governments are two separate spheres, the concept of double jeopardy does not apply and Zimmerman can be charged in both state and federal court for the same crime.  However, federal charges can only be filed if the state prosecution did not satisfy a significant federal interest, and if the federal government believes sufficient evidence for a conviction exists.

Federal civil rights laws were enacted to ensure proper enforcement of the law, allowing for the federal government to intervene in the event that the state left federal interests “unvindicated.” Additionally, civil rights cases are rarely prosecuted at a federal level after having already been tried in state courts, but it has happened.  The most notable example of this is the case involving the police officers accused of beating Rodney King Jr. in 1991.  All four officers were initially acquitted in state court, but the subsequent federal trial led to two convictions.  In that case, and the argument could be made for George Zimmerman as well, federal charges furthered-a government interest in bringing racially-motivated criminals to justice.

Lastly, the application of federal law to the Zimmerman case could create a problem for prosecutors.  Many laws relating to racial violence and hate crimes deal with state authority over acts committed in public areas.  Because Zimmerman was not an actor of the government nor did the altercation take place on public property, a new statute that deems any racially-motivated violence a crime would most likely be used by the prosecution.  In order for federal prosecutors to convict Zimmerman they will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were motivated by race.  Doing so would not be an easy task, as there were no witnesses and Zimmerman has previously claimed self-defense.

Although there are many challenges that prosecutors would face, federal charges are not completely out of the question, especially as public outrage continues.

[Reuters.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Werth Media via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Zimmerman Face Federal Charges? appeared first on Law Street.