"punks....they always get away"

[jon_berzerk]

and if zimmerman wins that case

or the judge throws it out

after the state rests

zimmerman can still have an immunity hearing

Nope.

Quite right. There is no immunity hearing after trial. Immunity means immunity from prosecution. Not once there has been a prosecution.

if he wins there is no need for an immunity from prosecution

however he still has a right to immunity hearing option

for civil proceedings

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nope.

Quite right. There is no immunity hearing after trial. Immunity means immunity from prosecution. Not once there has been a prosecution.

if he wins there is no need for an immunity from prosecution

however he still has a right to immunity hearing option

for civil proceedings

Uh winning means immunity from prosecution, Perry Mason.

There is no immunity hearing for such civil proceeding in Florida.

 

[Katzndogz]

yes he waived pre trial

he will not waive pre trial in a civil lawsuit

if one occurs

notice there are two types of court

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

Arrested and claim SYG = Seek Immunity hearing from trial - Judge decides in hearing which defense must prove SYG

Arrested and claim self-defense = Trial by Jury which prosecution must prove charge. (Can still call for Judge to decide instead of jury after prosecution presents)

Prevail in either = immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action.

if zimmerman wins in this trial

he gets criminal immunity

he will go back to court

for immunity from civil liability

If Zimmerman wins because he had a reasonable belief that his life was threatened he will have immunity from a civil trial.

This isn't like the OJ case where they defense was innocence because the crime was committed by someone else. In that case, a civil trial could find that it was more likely that the defendant committed the crime than someone else. In the Zimmerman case, the defendant committed the act charged but was justified in doing so. That finding of justification would prevent a civil trial.

If Zimmerman wins at the criminal trial, there is no such thing as "immunity". There is a factual finding of not guilty.

Now, you COULD have a circumstance in which Zimmerman is found not guilty, then immediately rearrested and tried again in Federal court for violating Martin's civil rights. That is what happened in the Rodney King case.

 

[OODA_Loop]

This isn't like the OJ case where they defense was innocence because the crime was committed by someone else. In that case, a civil trial could find that it was more likely that the defendant committed the crime than someone else. In the Zimmerman case, the defendant committed the act charged but was justified in doing so. That finding of justification would prevent a civil trial.

Ding ! Winner

Yea Florida law !

 

[Missourian]

acquitted.

There was an increase in burgleries in his area, so he followed a stranger to make sure he left the area.

that person attacked him

he responded by pulling his gun and shooting from the ground


Unless someone thinks a teen is badassed enough to jump a man holding a gun

If by some miracle, this all white jury ignores the facts and acquits this slug, Federal charges will follow.

I'm just hoping their aren't race riots between the two cases.

That's not going to happen Joe.

The FBI investigation found NO EVIDENCE that the shooting of Martin was racially motivated.

The investigation is closed.

[youtube]IATre5Ps94g[/youtube]​

Here is the same info from a more liberal friendly source.

MIAMI/ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.

No evidence Trayvon Martin's killer is racist: FBI interviews - Chicago Tribune
​

 

[jon_berzerk]

Arrested and claim SYG = Seek Immunity hearing from trial - Judge decides in hearing which defense must prove SYG

Arrested and claim self-defense = Trial by Jury which prosecution must prove charge. (Can still call for Judge to decide instead of jury after prosecution presents)

Prevail in either = immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action.

if zimmerman wins in this trial

he gets criminal immunity

he will go back to court

for immunity from civil liability

If Zimmerman wins because he had a reasonable belief that his life was threatened he will have immunity from a civil trial.

This isn't like the OJ case where they defense was innocence because the crime was committed by someone else. In that case, a civil trial could find that it was more likely that the defendant committed the crime than someone else. In the Zimmerman case, the defendant committed the act charged but was justified in doing so. That finding of justification would prevent a civil trial.

If Zimmerman wins at the criminal trial, there is no such thing as "immunity". There is a factual finding of not guilty.

Now, you COULD have a circumstance in which Zimmerman is found not guilty, then immediately rearrested and tried again in Federal court for violating Martin's civil rights. That is what happened in the Rodney King case.

yes but if someone brings a lawsuit it would still have to be defended as immune

from civil action

 

[jon_berzerk]

the defense could still raise the issue during trial

 

[Katzndogz]

if zimmerman wins in this trial

he gets criminal immunity

he will go back to court

for immunity from civil liability

If Zimmerman wins because he had a reasonable belief that his life was threatened he will have immunity from a civil trial.

This isn't like the OJ case where they defense was innocence because the crime was committed by someone else. In that case, a civil trial could find that it was more likely that the defendant committed the crime than someone else. In the Zimmerman case, the defendant committed the act charged but was justified in doing so. That finding of justification would prevent a civil trial.

If Zimmerman wins at the criminal trial, there is no such thing as "immunity". There is a factual finding of not guilty.

Now, you COULD have a circumstance in which Zimmerman is found not guilty, then immediately rearrested and tried again in Federal court for violating Martin's civil rights. That is what happened in the Rodney King case.

yes but if someone brings a lawsuit it would still have to be defended as immune

from civil action

Okay. This is it. You don't understand immunity. Immunity means there is no trial. When there is a trial, there is no immunity. The defense is not that one is "immune". There is no immunity in a civil case in any case. The proper application of what you understand as immunity in a civil case would be a Summary Judgment. Everything the plaintiff states is true, and there is still no basis for the complaint.

In a criminal case immunity is addressed before trial at a pre trial motion. If the defendant wins, there is no trial because he is "immune" from prosecution. He cannot be prosecuted at all. There is no immunity hearing prior to civil trials.

Zimmerman's attorney, as a matter of strategy, waived the immunity pre trial motion intending to bring it up at the trial level, knowing that at that time he had a choice, if he could not prove immunity under stand your ground, he still had reasonable self-defense. Bringing it up at the pre trial stage would have educated the prosecution as to exactly what the defense was going to prove either for immunity or self defense.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

Kinda needs to be repeated and highlighted.

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 . . . .

That is immunity for the justified use of force. It does NOT entail the "stand your ground" provision [except to the extent it is merely mentioned in 776.013(3)]. "Stand your ground" is simply NOT in issue in Zimmerman's criminal case nor would it be validly implicated in any attempt to file a civil suit against him.

Anyone dopey enough to try to civilly sue Zimmerman (if he is acquitted in the criminal case) would be wise to contemplate:

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

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If Zimmerman wins because he had a reasonable belief that his life was threatened he will have immunity from a civil trial.

This isn't like the OJ case where they defense was innocence because the crime was committed by someone else. In that case, a civil trial could find that it was more likely that the defendant committed the crime than someone else. In the Zimmerman case, the defendant committed the act charged but was justified in doing so. That finding of justification would prevent a civil trial.

If Zimmerman wins at the criminal trial, there is no such thing as "immunity". There is a factual finding of not guilty.

Now, you COULD have a circumstance in which Zimmerman is found not guilty, then immediately rearrested and tried again in Federal court for violating Martin's civil rights. That is what happened in the Rodney King case.

yes but if someone brings a lawsuit it would still have to be defended as immune

from civil action

Okay. This is it. You don't understand immunity. Immunity means there is no trial. When there is a trial, there is no immunity. The defense is not that one is "immune". There is no immunity in a civil case in any case. The proper application of what you understand as immunity in a civil case would be a Summary Judgment. Everything the plaintiff states is true, and there is still no basis for the complaint.

In a criminal case immunity is addressed before trial at a pre trial motion. If the defendant wins, there is no trial because he is "immune" from prosecution. He cannot be prosecuted at all. There is no immunity hearing prior to civil trials.

Zimmerman's attorney, as a matter of strategy, waived the immunity pre trial motion intending to bring it up at the trial level, knowing that at that time he had a choice, if he could not prove immunity under stand your ground, he still had reasonable self-defense. Bringing it up at the pre trial stage would have educated the prosecution as to exactly what the defense was going to prove either for immunity or self defense.

Zimmerman's attorney did NOT waive the immunity conferred by Florida law. He simply declined to rely on the "stand your ground" provision OF the justification law.

"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with the case.

Justification absolutely does.

 

[Snookie]

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

Kinda needs to be repeated and highlighted.

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 . . . .

That is immunity for the justified use of force. It does NOT entail the "stand your ground" provision [except to the extent it is merely mentioned in 776.013(3)]. "Stand your ground" is simply NOT in issue in Zimmerman's criminal case nor would it be validly implicated in any attempt to file a civil suit against him.

Anyone dopey enough to try to civilly sue Zimmerman (if he is acquitted in the criminal case) would be wise to contemplate:

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

TM's family could sue the neighborhood watch org.

 

[Missourian]

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

Kinda needs to be repeated and highlighted.

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 . . . .

That is immunity for the justified use of force. It does NOT entail the "stand your ground" provision [except to the extent it is merely mentioned in 776.013(3)]. "Stand your ground" is simply NOT in issue in Zimmerman's criminal case nor would it be validly implicated in any attempt to file a civil suit against him.

Anyone dopey enough to try to civilly sue Zimmerman (if he is acquitted in the criminal case) would be wise to contemplate:

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

TM's family could sue the neighborhood watch org.

yay.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

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

Kinda needs to be repeated and highlighted.

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 . . . .

That is immunity for the justified use of force. It does NOT entail the "stand your ground" provision [except to the extent it is merely mentioned in 776.013(3)]. "Stand your ground" is simply NOT in issue in Zimmerman's criminal case nor would it be validly implicated in any attempt to file a civil suit against him.

Anyone dopey enough to try to civilly sue Zimmerman (if he is acquitted in the criminal case) would be wise to contemplate:

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

TM's family could sue the neighborhood watch org.

They already did. Crump took the settlement in "fees, costs, & expenses". The family probably only ended up with $7.95 after he got finished.

 

[Snookie]

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

Kinda needs to be repeated and highlighted.



That is immunity for the justified use of force. It does NOT entail the "stand your ground" provision [except to the extent it is merely mentioned in 776.013(3)]. "Stand your ground" is simply NOT in issue in Zimmerman's criminal case nor would it be validly implicated in any attempt to file a civil suit against him.

Anyone dopey enough to try to civilly sue Zimmerman (if he is acquitted in the criminal case) would be wise to contemplate:

TM's family could sue the neighborhood watch org.

They already did. Crump took the settlement in "fees, costs, & expenses". The family probably only ended up with $7.95 after he got finished.

I notice that they declined to defend themselves. Crump said that he plans to sue Z later.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

TM's family could sue the neighborhood watch org.

They already did. Crump took the settlement in "fees, costs, & expenses". The family probably only ended up with $7.95 after he got finished.

I notice that they declined to defend themselves. Crump said that he plans to sue Z later.

Crump will probably vanish to parts unknown after the defense gets him in the witness box. They've got something on him, and I can't wait to see what it is.

 

[Snookie]

They already did. Crump took the settlement in "fees, costs, & expenses". The family probably only ended up with $7.95 after he got finished.

I notice that they declined to defend themselves. Crump said that he plans to sue Z later.

Crump will probably vanish to parts unknown after the defense gets him in the witness box. They've got something on him, and I can't wait to see what it is.

Rumors on the internetz

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I notice that they declined to defend themselves. Crump said that he plans to sue Z later.

Crump will probably vanish to parts unknown after the defense gets him in the witness box. They've got something on him, and I can't wait to see what it is.

Rumors on the internetz

Crump not being able to sit in the courtroom because he's on their witness list.

Didn't you watch the first minutes of the trial?

 

[Snookie]

Crump will probably vanish to parts unknown after the defense gets him in the witness box. They've got something on him, and I can't wait to see what it is.

Rumors on the internetz

Crump not being able to sit in the courtroom because he's on their witness list.

Didn't you watch the first minutes of the trial?

So what? Big deal. They will not be able to intimidate him like they did Dee Dee.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Rumors on the internetz

Crump not being able to sit in the courtroom because he's on their witness list.

Didn't you watch the first minutes of the trial?

So what? Big deal. They will not be able to intimidate him like they did Dee Dee.

If they've got enough in their deposition of him, they won't need to intimidate. They'll hang him with his own words.

 

[deltex1]

Next poll should be the racial makeup of responders...that's what this trial is all anout.