| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| catman wrote: |
Agreed.
Nothing wrong with a civil lawsuit. OJ was found not guilty but he was taken to the cleaners by the Goldman family. |
OJ and the NYPD had deep pockets. Zimmerman is a working-class vigilante who leveraged his fame to pay for his legal fees.
A civil suit goes after monetary damages. Collection is the problem, and unless Zimmerman's neighborhood watch was insured, forget meaningful recovery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
Agreed.
Nothing wrong with a civil lawsuit. OJ was found not guilty but he was taken to the cleaners by the Goldman family. |
OJ and the NYPD had deep pockets. Zimmerman is a working-class vigilante who leveraged his fame to pay for his legal fees.
A civil suit goes after monetary damages. Collection is the problem, and unless Zimmerman's neighborhood watch was insured, forget meaningful recovery. |
Zimmerman is going to get rich suing the media. Remember "he looks black"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| While "stand your ground" wasn't brought up in the trial, it will be brought up now. "Stand Your Ground" grants immunity from civil suits. Even if the suit does go forward ( in clear violation of statute), if the Martins lose they will be on the hook for court costs and damages for Zimmerman...............There goes the million they got in the settlement against the HOA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| "Stand Your Ground" grants immunity from civil suits. Even if the suit does go forward ( in clear violation of statute), if the Martins lose they will be on the hook for court costs and damages for Zimmerman. |
Where are you getting this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I remember reading the same thing in a few random articles. I do not know if it is true, but people are definitely saying it, not that that's necessarily a good standard by which to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The wiki entry implies the same: "These states did not have civil immunity for self-defense in their previous self-defense statutes." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is insanity.
| Quote: |
In a civil proceeding against Zimmerman, the Martin family would have the opportunity to challenge a central, and controversial, section of Florida's stand your ground statute.
The section is titled, "Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force."
Indeed, the section provides the opportunity for just that: a path to pretrial immunity for potential defendants who can prove in a hearing before a judge that a "preponderance of evidence" shows that their deadly or potentially deadly actions fell into the category of reasonable self-defense.
Zimmerman did not ask for an immunity hearing before his criminal trial, but that does not preclude him from requesting one if he faces a civil trial, says associate law professor Tamara Rice Lave of the University of Miami's School of Law.
At a pretrial immunity hearing, Lave says, Zimmerman would have to show a preponderance of evidence, quantified as a 51 percent burden, that he acted lawfully under the state's stand your ground statute. |
This is nonsense. So what should be an affirmative defense is now treated as an evidentiary hearing.
I can already see the constitutional challenge.
| Quote: |
| SECTION 22. Trial by jury.—The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law. |
Florida, Florida, Florida. Is it not about time your state got it right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unconstitutional? How so? More like a 10th Amendment deal............... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Unconstitutional? How so? More like a 10th Amendment deal............... |
Unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution. That's why I cited Section 22 of Florida's Constitution, which preserves as 'inviolate' the right to the jury trial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I mislike the end-run around double jeopardy that post-acquittal civil suits allow, so any tool the defense can employ to avoid another sideshow would be appropriate. The mob outside the courtroom is almost certain to react even more violently to such a tactic, though, which is almost certainly why the defense chose to skip straight to a trial in the criminal proceedings.
Not that I think Zimmerman should be forced to cave to those animals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
This is insanity.
| Quote: |
In a civil proceeding against Zimmerman, the Martin family would have the opportunity to challenge a central, and controversial, section of Florida's stand your ground statute.
The section is titled, "Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force."
Indeed, the section provides the opportunity for just that: a path to pretrial immunity for potential defendants who can prove in a hearing before a judge that a "preponderance of evidence" shows that their deadly or potentially deadly actions fell into the category of reasonable self-defense.
Zimmerman did not ask for an immunity hearing before his criminal trial, but that does not preclude him from requesting one if he faces a civil trial, says associate law professor Tamara Rice Lave of the University of Miami's School of Law.
At a pretrial immunity hearing, Lave says, Zimmerman would have to show a preponderance of evidence, quantified as a 51 percent burden, that he acted lawfully under the state's stand your ground statute. |
This is nonsense. So what should be an affirmative defense is now treated as an evidentiary hearing.
I can already see the constitutional challenge.
| Quote: |
| SECTION 22. Trial by jury.—The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law. |
Florida, Florida, Florida. Is it not about time your state got it right? |
Went to a private high school there, had a mother who was a licensed attorney in Fla who used to drag me from Mass on weekends and vacations with her on business trips when I was in elementary/middle school (mostly Daytona area - the "Redneck Riviera" - but also Ft. Lauderdale and Miami), and have had a few girlfriends and trysts in the state in my earlier adulthood and still have some family friends there. Point being? I know Florida.
It's a screwed up place in so many ways, with about zero social cohesion.
Last edited by caniff on Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| They decided that Brahmans are immune. Dalits can rot! |
Vaishyas, not Brahmans, which is probably part of modern western dysfunction: we're treating wealthy-yet-intrinsically-petty people as if they were wise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros- the right to trial by jury means that the person who is on trial has the right, not the person bringing the suit. And many people and institutions have statute immunity against civil suits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Kuros- the right to trial by jury means that the person who is on trial has the right, not the person bringing the suit. And many people and institutions have statute immunity against civil suits. |
Outside of sovereign immunity and the immunity of office-holders performing legislative or executive duties, just how common is immunity against civil suits? As for the first contention, do you have any authority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
