Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. They can still sue and Zimmermans lawyers can try to use those statutes to get the case thrown out.
2. Zimmerman being found not guilty is not a justification of his use of force in a civil sense, just in a criminal one where the burden of proof is higher.
3. They have not sued Zimmerman because they won't collect a dime, all the stuff kept out of the trial about Trayvon will be embarrassing and lastly they already got 2mil from the homeowners assoc.
A judge determines if Zimmerman can be released from liability, and if Zimmerman did get the judge to toss the suit out, he can easily sue and win Martin's family for costs. I doubt any judge would allow it to go through, in fact none will hence why there has not been a lawsuit. The self defense evidence was solid at the trial and Martin's family probably knows this.
Zimmerman has the potential to collect money in the future from books deals, appearances, etc, so yes, he has potential money coming his way. The excuse of "no money to collect" is nonsense.
First, let me apologize for being so late to this particular party. Second, let me apologize for not having read each and every post in this thread (6 pages in 3 days? Wow!). My intent is to present comments/observations/conclusions that are based in the evidence and the law, and without regard to racial, ethnic, or other matters. Hope I succeed. Here goes.
The Martin/Zimmerman case is a very poor test of Stand Your Ground laws in general. There are several reasons for this. First, and most obviously, Zimmerman DID NOT stand his ground -- he actually initiated the confrontation with Trayvon Martin. This was clearly documented by the dispatch recordings. He did so, supposedly, under color of his authority as a Community Watch member. Second, and almost as obvious, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation despite the fact that the 911 operator told him not to. There can be no question about this because the 911 operator's words were recorded.
As to what actually happened during the confrontation there were only two eyewitnesses. One of them is dead, and the other has his own backside to protect.
So we are back to procedure. Had Zimmerman, a non-sworn volunteer, followed the 911 operator's instructions and merely observed Martin until a sworn police officer arrived, there would have been no confrontation. Most likely Martin would be alive today.
To the Law Enforcement Officers among us -- in an internal investigation, when it becomes clear that a sworn officer who was involved in a fatal shooting deliberately disregarded instructions, what is the most likely outcome? Should Zimmerman, a non-sworn person who claimed to be acting under color of authority, be held to a different and significantly more lenient legal standard?
Now, to be completely clear, I'm pretty sure that no one here was on the jury. No one here heard the jury instructions. Therefore, none of us is in any position to judge whether the jury's verdict complied with Florida law as explained by the judge.
All I'm saying, and all I've been saying all along, is exactly what I said at the beginning: The Martin/Zimmerman case is a very poor test of Stand Your Ground laws in general. Why? Because SO DANGED MUCH was wrong with it.
A judge determines if Zimmerman can be released from liability, and if Zimmerman did get the judge to toss the suit out, he can easily sue and win Martin's family for costs. I doubt any judge would allow it to go through, in fact none will hence why there has not been a lawsuit. The self defense evidence was solid at the trial and Martin's family probably knows this.
Zimmerman has the potential to collect money in the future from books deals, appearances, etc, so yes, he has potential money coming his way. The excuse of "no money to collect" is nonsense.
Ok, so we agree that they can sue but that a judge could throw the case out.
Zimmerman is 1.5+ million in the hole to his lawyers and is NOT a sympathetic figure. I don't exactly see people flooding him with book offers, TV etc. There are a number of precedents for this including OJ.
Also, if he was going to do a deal why haven't we heard a peep yet?
IMO there is no money to be had from Zimmerman but essentially they are two completely separate discussions.
First, let me apologize for being so late to this particular party. Second, let me apologize for not having read each and every post in this thread (6 pages in 3 days? Wow!). My intent is to present comments/observations/conclusions that are based in the evidence and the law, and without regard to racial, ethnic, or other matters. Hope I succeed. Here goes.
The Martin/Zimmerman case is a very poor test of Stand Your Ground laws in general. There are several reasons for this. First, and most obviously, Zimmerman DID NOT stand his ground -- he actually initiated the confrontation with Trayvon Martin. This was clearly documented by the dispatch recordings. He did so, supposedly, under color of his authority as a Community Watch member. Second, and almost as obvious, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation despite the fact that the 911 operator told him not to. There can be no question about this because the 911 operator's words were recorded.
As to what actually happened during the confrontation there were only two eyewitnesses. One of them is dead, and the other has his own backside to protect.
So we are back to procedure. Had Zimmerman, a non-sworn volunteer, followed the 911 operator's instructions and merely observed Martin until a sworn police officer arrived, there would have been no confrontation. Most likely Martin would be alive today.
To the Law Enforcement Officers among us -- in an internal investigation, when it becomes clear that a sworn officer who was involved in a fatal shooting deliberately disregarded instructions, what is the most likely outcome? Should Zimmerman, a non-sworn person who claimed to be acting under color of authority, be held to a different and significantly more lenient legal standard?
Now, to be completely clear, I'm pretty sure that no one here was on the jury. No one here heard the jury instructions. Therefore, none of us is in any position to judge whether the jury's verdict complied with Florida law as explained by the judge.
All I'm saying, and all I've been saying all along, is exactly what I said at the beginning: The Martin/Zimmerman case is a very poor test of Stand Your Ground laws in general. Why? Because SO DANGED MUCH was wrong with it.
Well, that's the inherent problem with the loosey-goosey nature with which several SYG laws were written around the country. There have been several incidents far more egregious than the TM one that didn't even make it to trial.
Are you not aware that Florida's Stand Your Ground Law had NOTHING to do with this case? This case was about self-defense, not Stand Your Ground.
Aaah, yes, I'm very much aware of this. In fact I've made that point in several posts, including one where I posted that link (page 1, post 8). But this does seem to be a widely held misconception, so thanks for bringing up this point.
Here are several lines of post 8 that came before and after the link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
. . . I wonder whether you'd be willing to get specific about what you think is backward about Florida's law. If your beef is about the Stand Your Ground portion of the law, it's worth noting that SYG was actually irrelevant in this case.
The SYG portion of the law involves the words in the first part, about defense of person, that a person "does not have a duty to retreat" before lawfully using deadly force. Historically, the law in the U.S. has held that before using deadly a person has a duty to back away from an imminent threat serious enough to warrant the use of deadly force, if retreat is safe and physically possible. This law's explicit statement that one has no duty to retreat before using deadly force is the SYG portion of the law.
The law still requires that a threat be serious enough to justify the use of deadly force, but simply states that even if retreat is possible it is not required. In that Zimmerman was pinned down on the ground, he would have been physically unable to retreat. Therefore SYG is irrelevant . . .
I actually had not noticed until you pointed this out that the link is inaccurately narrow in its title. The entire statute appears on that page, so the link would be more accurately entitled "Text of . . . Florida's Self-Defense Law."
The link is useful, though, since it shows what the law actually says, which is different from some widely stated misconceptions that Florida's law allows anyone to just kill anyone for pretty much any reason and then get away with it by claiming self-defense. This is not true.
It's also a misconception, apparently widely believed, judging by the number of people who keep talking about Stand Your Ground, that SYG was at the core of this case. SYG in fact had nothing to do with this case. The idea that the case was about SYG seems to be a widely held misconception, though, so PedroM, thanks for adding your voice to those trying to correct that inaccurate view.
Well, that's the inherent problem with the loosey-goosey nature with which several SYG laws were written around the country. There have been several incidents far more egregious than the TM one that didn't even make it to trial.
Trayvon, the male carrying skittles and ice tea was the aggressor
Does anyone have any clue how much sugar and caffiene that soda and candy contains? Is this what that kid consumed regularly? I'm close to 60 years and I get jittery just thinking about it. Put that much rocket fuel into me and I just might go out and beat on somebody.
And everyone was soooooooooo concerned about the marijuana in his system. Better that than candy. Mellow him out so MAYBE he would have had the sense to just keep walking. Or stay home. But it seems that in the 21st century stupidity is both accepted as greatness and someone elses fault. And it also is what got sweet little trayvon shot dead.
My brothers and I growing up never consumed that garbage except for Halloween. And I never condoned my own children scarfing down junk food like that.
I'm starting this thread on the Great Debates board because I'm hoping that just maybe on this forum the thread can stay in the realm of serious, thoughtful discussion.
I've been dismayed by the sniping and vitriol on some threads about the case: Zimmerman is a fiend; Martin was a thug; sharp personal criticism of those who disagree with someone's view of the case, and accusations that they are racist, far-right loons, far-left loons, fanatical "supporters" of either Martin or Zimmerman; emphatic statements about what should happen when the person clearly knows little or nothing about relevant legal issues; definitive-sounding statements about what did or did not happen, when none of us was there, and all too often it seemed obvious that the people making the statements had little to no knowledge of the information that is available to those of us who weren't there, based on witness statements and evidence.
I'm hoping that maybe, just maybe, we can avoid that kind of thing on the Great Debates forum, and have a reasoned discussion about the case, and the related legal and social issues.
Some related issues that are worth discussing:
Whether a person should be charged with a crime and tried, even with little to no evidence that he has broken any law, if enough of the public feels strongly that the person has done something morally wrong. If so, is this basically just mob rule on a grand scale, or something else? Thinking beyond this case, does the trial of George Zimmerman open the door for others to be charged with crimes with a lack of evidence, in future incidents that are big stories with the public riled up against the person?
Any of the various racial issues that might have been at play in the case.
Should self-defense laws be changed so that actions similar to Zimmerman's would be unlawful? What, if any, changes should be made? What would be the possible consequences of such changes, for example on people's ability to defend themselves?
Should the law be changed so that setting into motion, through possibly irresponsible behavior, a sequence of events that ends in tragedy would be a crime (as in, the whole incident began with Zimmerman's following Martin, though this in itself is lawful)? Again, what changes and what would be the possible consequences in future incidents?
Any other issues worth seriously discussing.
Please keep it civil and thoughtful, and please have enough information so you know basically what you're talking about. (For example, please avoid ranting about how that wannabe cop Zimmerman "stalked" and "confronted" Trayvon Martin unless you can point to known information that indicates that the incident happened this way, and please show the same kind of respect for backing up your statements with facts whatever position you take.)
The way it's looking now (with the latest George Z arrests) he and Trayvon martin were both hot headed thugs, just looking for trouble. Tragedy that it went down but that is what you get when you mix two volatile individuals.
Trayvon, the male carrying skittles and ice tea was the aggressor
Does anyone have any clue how much sugar and caffiene that soda and candy contains? Is this what that kid consumed regularly? I'm close to 60 years and I get jittery just thinking about it. Put that much rocket fuel into me and I just might go out and beat on somebody.
And everyone was soooooooooo concerned about the marijuana in his system. Better that than candy. Mellow him out so MAYBE he would have had the sense to just keep walking. Or stay home. But it seems that in the 21st century stupidity is both accepted as greatness and someone elses fault. And it also is what got sweet little trayvon shot dead.
My brothers and I growing up never consumed that garbage except for Halloween. And I never condoned my own children scarfing down junk food like that.
Yes. Guilty for eating candy. Makes as much sense as anything else, I guess.
The way it's looking now (with the latest George Z arrests) he and Trayvon martin were both hot headed thugs, just looking for trouble. Tragedy that it went down but that is what you get when you mix two volatile individuals.
But only one of them has a history of wife beating and fighting with the police.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Junk Food
