Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[Fairwinds]

Has that been decided? I know for the “not guilty” finding to extend to civil court there has to be a hearing.

I’m not closely following the case or Florida civil procedure. why would a civil suit for wrongful death or civil rights violation be barred?

 

[Fairwinds]

Those are some steep odds. Any takers?

its the usual vig.

 

[Tucker_R]

Coulda swore one of the upteen articles I read said that if found not guilty that there couldn’t be any civil errrr… stuff. Blah.

Has that been decided? I know for the “not guilty” finding to extend to civil court there has to be a hearing.

 

[estesbob]

He did nothing illegal in the court of law in Florida decisions made by 6 women at this time. This does not mean he will not be found guilty in the next trials. My nephew is of the same age and I still consider him a boy. I am not racist nor do I condone and perpetuate the history of the terminology of a black man as a boy. That was not my intent. That was your intent.

What trials?

 

[estesbob]

I’m not closely following the case or Florida civil procedure. why would a civil suit for wrongful death or civil rights violation be barred?

I doubt if they file civil rights charges as the FBI investigated this last year and said there was no basis for doing so-but of course if Obama decides that he can score political points by doing so I am sure he can instruct Holder to do so.

 

[SamH]

I’m not closely following the case or Florida civil procedure. why would a civil suit for wrongful death or civil rights violation be barred?

State law.

Florida Crimes Sections 776.012, 776.031 and 776.032 defines no civil liability exist for a person who uses of force in defense of person, including themselves.

776.012 — Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

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.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

My understanding is there has to be a hearing to “affirm” the jury’s findings of justified defense. My understanding is this ensures a person that got off on a technicality (not reading him his rights) doesn’t duck the civil penalty. But I could be understanding incorrectly.

 

[Fairwinds]

Coulda swore one of the upteen articles I read said that if found not guilty that there couldn’t be any civil errrr… stuff. Blah.

no additional criminal charges. it gets tricky with federal criminal civil rights violations. GZ wouldn’t be charged with murder but with violation of civil rights. the administration ran its mouth and now the civil rights mavens are demanding a civil rights case.

 

[7_Sorrows]

When making an argument I prefer to state facts. But you are entitled to believe your opinion is the equivalent

I think that Zimmerman has an excellent case against NBC particularly. I wouldn’t be too worried about a DOJ review of the violation of Martin’s civil rights. I doubt if there is a right to beat someone who’s annoying you.

I heard an interesting take by a Liberal Civil Rights attorney who said those criticizing the verdict are exhibiting blatant disrespect for the WOMEN on the jury by claiming that their review and resultant verdict should be nullified. She said that was a violation of their civil rights more than any perceived violation of the rights of Martin.

Alan Dershowitz said bringing this case at all was a gross demonstration of prosecutorial incompetence.

The defense rests.

Lsia

it should have gone to a grand jury first, but the governor appointed the special prosecutor who, herself, might be in trouble. the charges were filed without a grand jury. maybe if it had gone to a grand jury first, they would have seen that they didn’t have much of a case.
I believe strings were pulled from higher up the chain to force this case to a trial and turn it into a civil rights case. I won’t mention any names, but I am sure you can guess who the 2 people I am thinking of put pressure on to bring this to trial.

 

[Fairwinds]

State law.

Florida Crimes Sections 776.012, 776.031 and 776.032 defines no civil liability exist for a person who uses of force in defense of person, including themselves.

776.012 — Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

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.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

My understanding is there has to be a hearing to “affirm” the jury’s findings of justified defense. My understanding is this ensures a person that got off on a technicality (not reading him his rights) doesn’t duck the civil penalty. But I could be understanding incorrectly.

thanks Sam.

 

[SamH]

Coulda swore one of the upteen articles I read said that if found not guilty that there couldn’t be any civil errrr… stuff. Blah.

Some are glossing over this part since it requires a little research instead of just reporting what everyone else is saying. Many MSM outlets are reporting an “OJ” style civil court lawsuit as if it is a matter of fact - they are wrong too.

 

[estesbob]

He did nothing illegal in the court of law in Florida decisions made by 6 women at this time. This does not mean he will not be found guilty in the next trials. My nephew is of the same age and I still consider him a boy. .

And the Astros are going to win the World Series this year. My boys are going to pull it out.

 

[SamH]

it should have gone to a grand jury first, but the governor appointed the special prosecutor who, herself, might be in trouble. the charges were filed without a grand jury. maybe if it had gone to a grand jury first, they would have seen that they didn’t have much of a case.
I believe strings were pulled from higher up the chain to force this case to a trial and turn it into a civil rights case. I won’t mention any names, but I am sure you can guess who the 2 people I am thinking of put pressure on to bring this to trial.

Given Grand Jury rules I doubt that would have prevented this trial with a prosecutor that is bent on going to trial.

 

[SamH]

I think that Zimmerman has an excellent case against NBC particularly. I wouldn’t be too worried about a DOJ review of the violation of Martin’s civil rights. I doubt if there is a right to beat someone who’s annoying you.

I heard an interesting take by a Liberal Civil Rights attorney who said those criticizing the verdict are exhibiting blatant disrespect for the WOMEN on the jury by claiming that their review and resultant verdict should be nullified. She said that was a violation of their civil rights more than any perceived violation of the rights of Martin.

Alan Dershowitz said bringing this case at all was a gross demonstration of prosecutorial incompetence.

The defense rests.

Lsia

CNN may be taking steps to protect their assets after their fabricated audio broadcast. Zimmerman may own them before its all said and done.

 

[2ndcoming]

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6OuP-wiiQg

 

[SamH]

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6OuP-wiiQg

Is MSNBC still considered “main stream”?

 

[Tucker_R]

How about ‘lame stream’

Is MSNBC still considered “main stream”?

 

[7_Sorrows]

i did hear that Zimmerman’s attorney was going to try to make him immune from further lawsuits, but I don’t know how they would go about that. people that are unhappy with this verdict, for example, eric holder, will probably not let this case rest.

I think that Zimmerman should sue CNN, Nancy Grace, HLN, etc. for their inflammatory reporting.
remember when the guy who the FBI harassed as far as being guilty of the bombing in Atlanta during the Olympics? not the same types of cases, but they really smeared him and he won.

 

[Tucker_R]

They’re already going after NBC. I’d sue all of them and see if I could bring Nancy up on charges. Besides SHE used racial slurs. Get her for that too.

i did hear that Zimmerman’s attorney was going to try to make him immune from further lawsuits, but I don’t know how they would go about that. people that are unhappy with this verdict, for example, eric holder, will probably not let this case rest.

I think that Zimmerman should sue CNN, Nancy Grace, HLN, etc. for their inflammatory reporting.
remember when the guy who the FBI harassed as far as being guilty of the bombing in Atlanta during the Olympics? not the same types of cases, but they really smeared him and he won.

 

[SamH]

They’re already going after NBC. I’d sue all of them and see if I could bring Nancy up on charges. Besides SHE used racial slurs. Get her for that too.

“Journalist” Martin Bashi may soon answer to George Zimmerman.

 

[Cider]

Coulda swore one of the upteen articles I read said that if found not guilty that there couldn’t be any civil errrr… stuff. Blah.

My understanding was that it’s part of the SYG law. But since SYG wasn’t invoked here, it was just basic self defense, it may or may not allow for a civil suit. I’m not sure how they decide that.