Zimmerman trial....

Discussion in 'Community Forum' started by WildmanWilson, Jun 30, 2013.

  1. ptbrauch

    ptbrauch 12 pointer

    10,961
    1,432
    Nov 10, 2004
    The OC
    So you'd let your feelings take precedence over the facts as presented in a court of law, even if your feelings were contrary to the laws as written?
     
  2. WildmanWilson

    WildmanWilson 12 pointer

    10,395
    3,487
    Dec 26, 2004
    Western Ky.
    You can say could'a, would'a, should'a, about everything in life. It doesn't change the outcome. We simply can not go around beating up someone for following people. There is one person and only one that broke the law that night. He is dead because of it.

    I really don't know where everyone says he went against the 911 operator. Thats bull. The guy wanted to know if Zim could see him. Zimmerman then followed to see if he could find where he was going. When asked are you following he said YES. You don't need to do that. Zimmermans reply, OK. Then heads back. He was already out of his car. Its not like he was in his car when he was told to stay put and then went out to gun him down.

    Why is it that when a 17 year old murders someone they are on trial as an adult? I thought 17 was a kid.
     
  3. mwezell

    mwezell 12 pointer

    3,878
    44
    Jan 22, 2006
    Auburn, KY
    Just remove anything and everything from this case that pertains to the weapon...Now what? We'd have a Hispanic male with his brain on the sidewalk. I don't think anyone would believe it justifiable for TM to beat the guys brains out for following him. TM told GZ, "you gonna die tonight", while he was beating his head in. GZ pulls a gun and kills him instead, while he feared for his life. This is exactly when and why to carry concealed, and GZ did so responsibly...at least as far as we will ever know, based on the evidence. I guess to believe otherwise, you'd have to assume that GZ's life was never really in danger and that he never truly believed it to be. That's really the question here...did GZ fear great bodily harm or loss of life? If he did, the shooting was justifiable. If he didn't, it wasn't. Maybe while his head was bouncing off of the concrete, his judgement was impaired. That may well be the case, but it's hard to say that he didn't legitimately "think" he was going to die. The verdict was the right one based on the evidence given for deliberation and the law as written. JMO, but I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
     
  4. Feedman

    Feedman Cyber-Hunter

    11,381
    4,843
    May 28, 2003
    In the basement
    Saw on the news last night that the one juror said that their first vote was 3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter, 1 2nd degree murder. The deliberated and got to where there was one lady holding out for manslaughter. She finally agreed with the rest of the jurors on Not Guilty. The jury had to follow the law and jury instructions not emotions in reaching their verdict. The juror stated that she thought that Zimmerman feared for his life. Why didn't Martin just go home. He had the opportunity. He chose not to. Bad choice.
     
  5. DH13

    DH13 12 pointer

    7,770
    3,408
    Jan 13, 2012
    Shelby county
    Even tho Zim was found not guilty he has a rough road ahead to live a normal life.Always looking over your shoulder or stay in hiding is not living.
    What im afraid is going to come out of this is its going to give CCW carriers a bad rap.I wouldn't bet it will be harder now for people to get one or the government might implement a plan of all CCW carriers must take a test every year and go to a range and shoot with a fee attached to boot.Nothing surprises me at this point.Maybe im putting more into it than it is but maybe not.
     
  6. corndogggy

    corndogggy 12 pointer

    6,875
    0
    Jul 20, 2005
    I'm quite aware of that.
     
  7. aceoky

    aceoky 12 pointer

    13,423
    37
    Jul 14, 2003
    W KY
    NO evidence even suggests he did what you allege , further the state never met it's required burden for manslaughter - the jury followed the laws in FLA as they should have.

    Secondly GZ has full immunity from Civil suits so he won't be losing everything (or even anything)
     
  8. buckfever

    buckfever 12 pointer

    13,203
    77
    Oct 25, 2002
    Harrods Creek Ky, USA.
    Full immunity from civil suits???? How so????
     
  9. aceoky

    aceoky 12 pointer

    13,423
    37
    Jul 14, 2003
    W KY
    It is a major part of FLA self defense/use of legal deadly force statutes I am pretty sure I posted the relevant statutes here in one thread or the other. Let me see if I can dig it up.

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

    1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
    History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013
  10. DH13

    DH13 12 pointer

    7,770
    3,408
    Jan 13, 2012
    Shelby county
    A Civil Suit Could Make Zimmerman Pay — or Could Backfire

    In the end, "Stand your ground" played a small role in George Zimmerman's acquittal, but it could pose a big risk to Trayvon Martin's family if they pursue a civil trial

    By Adam Cohen @adamscohenJuly 16, 2013254 Comments

    The jury weighing criminal charges against George Zimmerman has spoken, but the case may not be over — and that jury might not be the only jury. Trayvon Martin’s family is considering filing a wrongful-death civil suit against Zimmerman, which could produce a very different result. But it could also backfire.

    Hollywood is not the only industry that believes in sequels. When criminal trials end — whether with a conviction or an acquittal — the victims are still free to sue for money damages. Most famously, after O.J. Simpson beat the murder charges against him, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman sued him and won $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. (Whether the families were able to collect that money is a different story.)

    A lawyer for Martin’s family put a civil lawsuit squarely on the table in a postverdict appearance on ABC’s This Week. “They are certainly going to look at that as an option,” Benjamin Crump said. “They deeply want a sense of justice.” The family has already received a settlement from a wrongful-death claim they made against the homeowners’ association of the subdivision where the shooting occurred, perhaps for more than $1 million. (The Department of Justice is also, separately, considering whether to bring federal hate-crime charges against Zimmerman.)

    There are some good reasons to believe a civil suit could win, even after prosecutors struck out. Civil trials have a lower standard of proof than criminal trials. Instead of having to establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” — a particularly hard threshold to meet in a homicide case with few witnesses and little hard physical evidence — in a civil case, the Martin family would only have to prove it was more likely than not that Zimmerman’s negligence caused Martin’s death.

    There would also be a new jury — perhaps one chosen in a different jurisdiction. Some trial watchers thought the jury that heard Zimmerman’s case was a good one for the defense — not least because it was nearly all white. The next jury might see the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin very differently. Another big difference: in a civil case, Zimmerman would likely have to testify. He chose not to take the stand in the criminal case — a right protected by the Fifth Amendment — and that seems to have been a smart move. At a civil trial, lawyers could cross-examine Zimmerman about the details, and inconsistencies, of his account of the shooting.

    But for all of the potential upside, there would also be risks for Martin’s family in suing. First, while money may not be their primary motivation, Zimmerman does not seem to have millions of dollars lying around to pay a civil-damages award. There have been widespread predictions that in the next few years he will be richly rewarded with book deals and speaking fees — this is America, after all — but he likely also has some big legal bills to pay.

    The bigger threat to Martin’s family would be Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, which wound up playing a small role in the criminal trial. Under the law, if Martin’s family sued, Zimmerman would be entitled to a hearing at which he would be given a chance to show that he used deadly force only because he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. He skipped that step before the criminal trial, but he would no doubt take it if he were sued. And if Zimmerman won his “Stand your ground” hearing, he would not only get the civil suit thrown out, but the law also says that whoever sued him would have to pay him attorneys fees, expenses and compensation for any loss of income resulting from the proceedings. That would be a bitter pill for the family to swallow: the man who shot their son to death beating the criminal charges, getting the civil lawsuit dismissed — and then presenting them with a bill.


    Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/16/a-...immerman-pay-or-could-backfire/#ixzz2ZKAtgLbX
     
  11. ptbrauch

    ptbrauch 12 pointer

    10,961
    1,432
    Nov 10, 2004
    The OC
    Why am I reminded of the joke what was being emailed around about "that's when the fight started" when I read this? What comes to my mind is, "and that's when the riots started".
     
  12. ptbrauch

    ptbrauch 12 pointer

    10,961
    1,432
    Nov 10, 2004
    The OC
  13. aceoky

    aceoky 12 pointer

    13,423
    37
    Jul 14, 2003
    W KY
    TM "family can consider anything they want"

    GZ lawyers made it Clear he now has immunity and they will make that clear IF anyone files - making it certain NO lawyer would be so foolish to file one knowing they won't get a nickle but TM family would pay costs incurred. I posted the Fla statute that shows this

    SYG was never pleaded it played NO part at all in the trial- simple self defense and legal use of deadly force which IS the law that grants immunity - NOT "SYG" - which is a subset and not "the name of the law" anyway-

    Zim is NOT white but Hispanic so nearly all white is comical

    LOL the media spin is unreal

    Far too many think since OJ was sued (in Cali - NOT Fla) not realizing the differences in state's laws OR the fact that OJ never pleaded legal self defense anyway so it's apples and Kangaroos comparison
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013

Share This Page