The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 7, 2013, 06:41 PM   #76
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,779
GZ didn't do everything perfectly. But the one thing that comes back to me is that Martin had evaded him. He was home free and only had to walk back to his fathers home. GZ had given up the pursuit. Whether or not he should have done that in the 1st place is open for debate. But he was returning to his truck when Martin, instead of walking home, walked in the opposite direction toward GZ.

Quote:
Initially I was under the impression he instigated a face to face encounter with a minor at night making him likely, in the legal sense, the aggressor and Martin the defender...
National news has skewed information from the beginning by selective reporting the facts they wanted out and not reporting information favorable to GZ.

GZ might well be guilty if he did in fact initiate the final confrontation. But local, trained LE officers investigated the shooting and found no reason to charge GZ. So far I've seen nothing from the trial that proves, or even casts much doubt on his story. But you never know how jurors will react until they come back with their verdict.
jmr40 is online now  
Old July 7, 2013, 07:17 PM   #77
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
My take on the whole thing is, perhaps, a little different due to my viewpoint. I don't own a TV and I deliberately didn't read any online news about the case. I would have been a prime pick for juror, I guess. I genuinely come into the thing totally ignorant of anything.

Anyway, I have seen some of the trial on TV at the gym while I'm on the treadmill. I can't hear the sound. The closed caption is on so I can see (sort of) the words they're saying but I don't get the verbal inflection/emotion. And a lot of the cc verbage is incorrectly spelled etc. In short, I'm seeing it sort of like a deaf guy.

From a purely visual standpoint, I see the defense lawyer and the prosecutor, and an occasional shot of stone faced Zimmerman. From my limited view (only) my guess is that Zim prevails. The old guy defense atty just looks more honest than the younger, politically hungry DA. Zim just looks like a hard working, non-vigilante kind of guy.

Purely a visual observation. Deaf justice.


Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 07:20 PM   #78
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,045
The relevant section of immunity is 776.032:

Quote:
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
776.012 (the "stand your ground" part) reads:

Quote:
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if (...) he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
However, we also have 776.041 to chew on:

Quote:
Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
So, yeah, there's immunity from civil action if the shooting is ruled to be justified self-defense. However, the question of provocation still looms large.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 07:23 PM   #79
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
Zimmerman's attorneys are not asserting a stand your ground defense, So I would question whether the initial provocateur clause applies. In any case, there is no evidence Zimmerman attempted to directly contact Trayvon at all, let alone act as an initial aggressor. Florida vs Zimmerman is a pure self-defense case unrelated to so-called stand your ground.

But even if it does apply, Zimmerman clearly could assert 2A, which says:

(Unless)
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;



Beat me to it :

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/f...atutes_776-032

Florida Statutes 776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
Florida Statutes > Title XLVI > Chapter 776 > § 776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

Current as of: 2011
Check for updates
2010 version
(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).

Last edited by maestro pistolero; July 7, 2013 at 07:37 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 07:42 PM   #80
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,515
I would point out that we only have Zim's story of how the incident started. I see a tendency to take his story at face value.

That might win the day but honestly, I don't believe we have the full story from him.

We have no evidence of whom contacted whom, because one 'whom' happens to be dead. The phone calls are 50/50.

Sorry to be against the flow of poor Zim but I don't believe his details. Yes, this is speculative.

Do I think the case has reasonable doubt, probably - but that doesn't mean I think Zim is truthful or valid in his actions.

I opine (and this might be unpopular) that we want him to be valid as he is part of the self-defense gun culture story. We overvalue him and denigrate Martin. But I'm not so sure about him and think he discredits us.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old July 7, 2013, 07:49 PM   #81
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Massad Ayoob...

In a recent Combat Handguns, author & legal expert witness on use-of-force Massad Ayoob, brought up Florida among other states as having these legal provisions but he also said there could also be legal cases that contest it.
Ayoob says even in Florida, anyone can be sued.
I highly doubt that under the circumstances, George Zimmerman will face a formal wrongful death lawsuit but the family members may push for a DoJ investigation.

A big push in central Florida has been for GZ to get a "fair trial" & "to have this death investigation brought to justice". These standards have now been met.

Id add that the metro Orlando Florida media(Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, print) was squarely against GZ in early/mid 2012. Now as the criminal trial evolves Id say the media coverage is about 60-70% pro-George Zimmerman.
The lawyers & TV pundits the local news stations use rip the prosecutors apart daily.
As for Sanford & the Orando area, the court case isn't as big a draw as Casey Anthony. Credit should be given to Sheriff Don Eisiegner & the Seminole County Sheriffs Office for their prudent efforts.
FWIW; When you see the TV news crews & reporters, it's from a "undisclosed location". It's not a huge circus like "Camp Casey" in 2011 in Orange County.
The sheriff & Sanford PD asked that the media not reveal it to the public.
Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 07:52 PM   #82
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
I get it, Glen, and I see your point. But, until we have any reason to doubt his story, justice tells us to presume innocence. Since he has been truthful on every other salient point, even before he had any idea that there were witnesses and evidence, I think we owe him that. I certainly would hope to get at least that much of a benefit of the doubt, assuming I was in the right, and assuming I had been completely truthful as he apparently has. There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but I think we must be fair here.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 08:00 PM   #83
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,515
I don't think we owe him anything beyond applying the standards of the law. I don't think you were saying we owe him in another sense.

Zim has some negatives - his financial shenanigans were not truthful. He has a history with some negatives as regards violence - but no convictions and cannot be introduced. As far as believing his story - no - we have to evaluate it. Every guilty defendant says he wasn't there, it wasn't his dope and the other guy did it. I sit on a conduct review board and listen to these excuses all the time.

As I said in my big post - if he goes down - it is because of the macro story.

1. No need to intervene and get out of the truck - that sound specious to me.

2. A kid is dead who was minding his own business. The analysis of Martin's actions don't impress me. I see that as trying to excuse Zim for his own stupidity.

- Now if you go to the micro story, there may be reasonable doubt.

Which will the jury pick? Neither verdict is a victory for society. Certainly, anyway it goes down, it wasn't a plus for the gun world.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old July 7, 2013, 08:07 PM   #84
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
Martin may have been minding his own business up to the point where he, according to Zimmerman, began what we now know was a relentless assault.

Totally agree that no one wins here.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 08:09 PM   #85
bbqbob51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2005
Posts: 720
After hearing the prosecution's case and knowing what I know about the responsibilities of a person with a CCL (I have one) I would find it interesting to be a juror on this case.
There are two things in the big picture that stand out for me:
1. Zimmerman made a big mistake by getting out of his vehicle and pursuing Martin on foot. The altercation would never have happened if he had followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions and stayed put. I bet he regrets doing that now, I know I would.
2. Once there was contact made and a fight started, Zimmerman did the only thing he could in the situation and that was to use his firearm. What would be the point of carrying a firearm if you aren't willing to use it to defend yourself?
Of course there is a lot more to this case but just considering these two factors I really don't know if I would find Zimmerman guilty or innocent. It would appear in my estimation that he is guilty of something, perhaps not 2nd degree murder but something lesser. Murder is committing the act with "depraved indifference" or something like that and I don't really believe Zimmerman is a bad man just someone who exhibited bad judgement.
bbqbob51 is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 08:22 PM   #86
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
So, yeah, there's immunity from civil action if the shooting is ruled to be justified self-defense. However, the question of provocation still looms large.
People keep bringing that up, but I just have a hard time seeing any way in which Zimmerman provoked Martin's assault.

(Yes, I did write "Martin's assault." That means I have come around to believing that Zimmerman had broken off tailing Martin and was returning to his vehicle, and that Martin -- who at that point was free and clear to beat feet for Daddy's condo -- doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. I did not believe that at the time the incident took place and the story broke, but I do now.)

To me, "provoking" means taunting, daring, inviting the other guy to take a swing at you. Even if Zimmerman had not broken off (lost) the tail and was still following Martin, I don't view that as grounds for a physical assault. It might be grounds for Martin to hang up his call to the 19-year old brain trust girlfriend and dial up 9-1-1, but we've been told that "black people don't trust the PO'-lice, so they don't call them." Nonetheless, that's what civilized people do when they think they are being followed by a suspicious character. What they DON'T do is jump the guy and try to beat him to death.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; July 8, 2013 at 05:15 PM. Reason: Typo
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 08:47 PM   #87
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,045
Quote:
But, until we have any reason to doubt his story, justice tells us to presume innocence.
Zimmerman's not innocent, per se. He's admitted to shooting Martin. What he's maintaining is immunity from prosecution.

Quote:
That means I have come around to believing that Zimmerman had broken off tailing Martin and was retirning to his vehicle
As Glenn mentioned, this story has two sides, and only one party is alive to tell his. Martin wasn't raving mad and threatening people. He was (possibly) trespassing. Zimmerman chose to approach him at night, and we don't know what he said or did. He could have acted in a manner that spooked Martin. We can't know.

What I do know is that kid didn't have to die that night. Zimmerman could have hung back and let law enforcement do their jobs.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 09:17 PM   #88
nazshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 150
Re: State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Zimmerman chose to approach him at night, and we don't know what he said or did.
I'm not sure why you think that Zimmerman "approached" Martin. He claims that he was just trying to keep Martin in sigh until the police arrived. Now, he certainly could have lied about that but it seems like something an average person might do given his previous experience (calling the police only to find the suspect gone when they arrive). His version is also supported by the location of the confrontation.
nazshooter is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 09:54 PM   #89
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by Tom Servo: The relevant section of immunity is 776.032:

Quote:
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
Very true indeed.

Quote:
So, yeah, there's immunity from civil action if the shooting is ruled to be justified self-defense.
But the outcome of the criminal trial simply answers the question whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not justified.

That is not the same as concluding that it was justified.

Thus, his risk of civil liability will remain, regardless.

Quote:
Zimmerman's not innocent, per se. He's admitted to shooting Martin. What he's maintaining is immunity from prosecution.
Zimmerman chose some time ago to not make that claim. Thus, the case went to trial without his having made such a claim.

What he is claiming is that his use of deadly force was justified.

Last edited by OldMarksman; July 7, 2013 at 10:00 PM.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 10:16 PM   #90
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,045
Quote:
But the outcome of the criminal trial simply answers the question whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not justified.

That is not the same as concluding that it was justified.
Gotcha. I got a bit garbled by the semantics. On second reading, you're right. In this case, Zimmerman doesn't have a rosy future to look forward to.

This brings me back to the notion that a shooting, no matter how justified, will change the shooter's life for the worse. Zimmerman could very well be bankrupted by this. He'll have to move. He'll have trouble finding employment because he'll always be that guy.

Quote:
I'm not sure why you think that Zimmerman "approached" Martin
It seems likely given the circumstances, more likely than the idea that Martin just turned into a violent ball of rage without provocation. Thing is, we've only got one side of the story, and that's potentially a huge problem for us.

When the various states started enacting SYG laws, opponents called it a license to kill, and they painted a picture like this:

"Holy cow, Tom! You shot a mime?"

"Um, yeah. He was creeping me out."

"Did you feel threatened?"

"Um...sure. Afraid for my life."

"If he was just doing that 'walking against the wind thing..."

"No, he said he had a knife, and that he was going to cut me like a Honeybaked ham."

"Really? Because mimes don't usually talk."

"He did it in ASL. Afraid for my life, I tell ya."

"Well, we don't have any witnesses to contradict your story, so have a nice day."

Proponents of gun control need a win, and rolling back SYG laws could turn into a possibility after this.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 10:31 PM   #91
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
"What I do know is that kid didn't have to die that night. Zimmerman could have hung back and let law enforcement do their jobs."
This.

Regardless of who wins this trial, just based on the total evidence presented I am convinced that Zimmerman contributed to a death that did not need to occur.

I'm not saying his life wasn't threatened, nor that Martin (may or may not have) attacked him - I readily concur that we all have a right to self defense.

What I'm arguing is that Zimmerman is not blameless with respect to what happened. Because of his decisions to carry a pistol on his neighborhood watch patrol, to follow Martin, to NOT 'hang back' and let the police arrive and do their jobs, it became necessary for him to take a life.

He may be found legally to have acted in self defense, but IMHO his actions that night contributed to a death that did not need to happen.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 10:50 PM   #92
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
post #88, GZ....

I disagree with post #88.
George Zimmerman by most accounts started the incident by making contact or speaking to Martin. My point(as a former MP & licensed security officer for nearly 20 years) is that GZ did not have probable cause to stop Martin or do a "field interview". Some cops like the LAPD use the slang term; to jam people up.
It can under some limited conditions, be of value, but a citizen in plain-clothes is not a sworn LE officer or federal agent.
If you listen to the sworn testimony, GZ was not "self-appointed", he was asked to be the Sanford PD citizen liason to collate HOA related security details & reports from the residents. This is partly, IMO, why the HOA lawyers settled with the estate of Trevon Martin rather than drag out a protected legal dispute.
The Sanford PD crime prevention rep/community services officer seemed more for Zimmerman than the state in her statements on the stand.
The first police investigator; Chris Soreno(who later asked to be re-assigned to the patrol division) said under oath he thought GZ was truthful.

ClydeFrog
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 11:06 PM   #93
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
My point(as a former MP & licensed security officer for nearly 20 years) is that GZ did not have probable cause to stop Martin or do a "field interview".
Police are not required to have either probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to approach someone and simply ask questions. Probable cause is completely irrelevant if a private citizen asks someone questions. They are not acting on behalf of the government and the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 12:30 AM   #94
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
George Zimmerman by most accounts started the incident by making contact or speaking to Martin. My point(as a former MP & licensed security officer for nearly 20 years) is that GZ did not have probable cause to stop Martin or do a "field interview".
By NO account, anywhere, did Zimmerman ever make direct contact with Martin until Martin approached HIM.

I respectfully suggest we familiarize ourselves with the evidence before making posts such as the above. It will make for a much more meaningful discussion.

Quote:
Because of his decisions to carry a pistol on his neighborhood watch patrol, to follow Martin, to NOT 'hang back' and let the police arrive and do their jobs, it became necessary for him to take a life.
His decision to carry a gun has no bearing whatsoever on whether it was necessary to take a life to survive. It merely enabled him to do what he had to when it became necessary for his survival. Such an argument is tantamount to saying that having a fire extinguisher caused the fire.

Quote:
Zimmerman chose to approach him at night, and we don't know what he said or did. He could have acted in a manner that spooked Martin.
I continue to be surprised by the number of people who assume or claim, as fact, that Zimmerman ever directly approached Martin. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever directly approached or contacted Martin, OR ANY OTHER SUSPICIOUS PERSON in his numerous calls to the police in his NHW role.

Even if he had, absent more, it wouldn't have begun to justified a brutal, unprovoked and relentless beating.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; July 8, 2013 at 12:41 AM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 12:34 AM   #95
Crazy88Fingers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 932
Quote:
What I'm arguing is that Zimmerman is not blameless with respect to what happened. Because of his decisions to carry a pistol on his neighborhood watch patrol, to follow Martin, to NOT 'hang back' and let the police arrive and do their jobs, it became necessary for him to take a life.
If Zimmerman is being truthful about that night then...

1) He wasn't on "patrol". He was on his way to the grocery store and was carrying a pistol, which he is legally allowed to do.

2) He thought he was hanging back and merely observing where Martin was heading. The history of that neighborhood leading up to the shooting was full of home invasions and vandalism; usually perpetrated by people who matched Martin's profile and disappeared long before the police arrived.

And to brush on another post: Martin didn't live in the housing complex. He was staying with his father temporarily after being suspended from school for possession of drug paraphernalia. So he most likely wasn't a familiar face in the neighborhood.
__________________
"And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44"
-Lynyrd Skynyrd
Crazy88Fingers is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 12:35 AM   #96
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
I disagree...

While it is true that GZ was not a sworn LE officer, he was acting as a agent or representative of the HOA.
GZ's atty; Mark O'Mera had a similar exchange in the court trial with the Sanford PD investigator; Chris Soreno.
Soreno agreed that while not illegal to ask questions or speak to someone, it could be considered inappropriate or unethical.
I don't think GZ had a valid reason to contact LE just based on Martin walking in the rain using a cell phone.
Martin was by ME records on marijuana which may have made him paranoid or act erratically but it didnt warrant any action by Zimmerman or anyone else.

A few years ago, I was working a EP(VIP security) detail for a holiday party in a upscale neighborhood. A few residents & neighbors came up to me asking who hired me. My only answer was; "My client."
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 01:44 AM   #97
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
Quote:
Zimmerman doesn't have a rosy future to look forward to.
This is 100% accurate no matter what happens in the trial. Killing another human is a horrible thing that screws up your life 24/7 till you die. I'm not saying he was right or wrong or that anyone should not defend themselves. But if you ever have to kill someone, be prepared to lose sleep and to lose a lot of other things as well.


Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 01:59 AM   #98
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
Regarding Zim questioning the guy...Is there a line to cross? If a little old lady yells out the back door "Hey, what are you doing out there?" surely that's not "Initiating a conflict" or whatever the statuatory language is.

If someone yells angrily to me "Hey you, stop right there" and I don't recognize them as an LEO, my response would be to quickly leave. Not to stop, move toward the other guy and confront him. "Hey you, stop right there" doesn't seem like "Initiating a conflict" either, unless he's pointing a gun at me or coming at me with a baseball bat or similar.

All of that not perhaps not relevant to this case at all, as several have pointed out that there's no evidence that Zim did question the guy at all. If that is indeed true then of course it's a non issue.

"Initiating a conflict" likely carries the same kind of "...would cause a reasonable and prudent person to feel threatened for their safety or well being" and I would also think it implies the "...and is unable to safely egress". I'm pulling bits and pieces of various statutes that I remember from more than one state. So sorry if it's a little disjointed.


Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 02:16 AM   #99
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
So, yeah, there's immunity from civil action if the shooting is ruled to be justified self-defense.
But the outcome of the criminal trial simply answers the question whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not justified.

That is not the same as concluding that it was justified.

Thus, his risk of civil liability will remain, regardless.
Zimmerman specifically waived his right to a pre-trail immunity hearing for the criminal trial.

A Not Guilty verdict in the criminal trial will not automatically confer immunity on Zimmerman. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that immunity can only be granted by a court after an evidentiary hearing.

If Zimmerman is found Not Guilty in the criminal trial, he would still be subject to a civil action. However, I believe that Zimmerman could file for an immunity hearing with respect to the civil case and having won the criminal trial might improve his prospects for being granted immunity.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 02:19 AM   #100
patrickmn
Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 85
I've read several posts about Federal civil rights lawsuits against Zimmerman. How would that work when Martin is the one who used the racial slur to describe Zimmerman, according to the prosecution's witness? Did I miss somebody testifying that Zimmerman also used a racial slur?
__________________
Patrick
patrickmn is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15288 seconds with 7 queries