Oh, my...
Posted on 04/15/2012 1:01:36 PM PDT by ironman
Now that prosecutors have brought charges against George Zimmerman, you probably think that a jury is going to hear the facts and decide the case. Think again. Under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, if George Zimmerman can convince a judge that he acted justifiably, he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. That means no jury; no conviction; no jail. Think of it as a big "Get Out of Jail Free" card. It is worth repeating: Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law does not just provide an affirmative defense; it provides immunity. The distinction is extremely significant...
Thus, when looking at the elements that Zimmerman must establish to prove he acted justifiably, it seems reasonably certain that Zimmerman can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1) he was not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity; 2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; 3) he was attacked; and 4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury. The State has never alleged--nor could they--that Zimmerman's following of Trayvon Martin was an unlawful activity; or that it placed Zimmerman at a location where Zimmerman had no right to be. Similarly, as already stated, the State does not seem to have an eye-witness to the initial physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. Therefore, it will be extremely difficult for the State to contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him and bashed his head into the concrete, creating for Zimmerman a well-founded fear of great bodily injury.....
Make no mistake: George Zimmerman has a real chance of avoiding a jury. All he has to do is convince a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he acted in justifiable self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at southfloridacriminallawyersblog.com ...
The jury will take to the streets.
Not only that, but I read in another article that he cannot be sued!
If he gets released on the “Stand your Ground” law, then expect Eric Holder to charge him with a Civil Rights violation.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury; I'M SURE HE DID.
"Stand your ground" or "self defense", this will not go to trial.
What are the odds that the justice system will work as it was intended to, throughout the rest of the process? It seems that pressure from the mob caused the Special Prosecutor to lay charges, without a reasonable expectation of conviction. Why should anyone trust the first judge in the case to do the right thing; rather than the expedient thing?
Cars will burn. People will die.
This may be one of the rare cases where a bench trial might give the defendant a better chance of winning an outright acquittal than a jury trial.
You’re talking about a new ex post facto law i.e. defending oneself while white (DOWW). That could start CW-II on the spot.
Ping!
Am I mistaken but I thought there was an eye-witness to Martin pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.
Yes it will, no judge wants his home picketed by Al Sharpton.
What is likely to happen, however, is that his defense in a civil suit would involve a cross-claim against the homeowners' association for indemnification. Basically, this means that if he was acting in some kind of official capacity for the association as a volunteer, the association may be obligated to pay not only any judgement against him, but also the cost of defending him in civil court.
This would all depend on one or more of three important considerations: (1) Florida law as it relates to not-for-profit corporations; (2) the bylaws of the homeowners' association; and (3) the ultimate disposition of the criminal charges against Zimmerman. Item (3) is critical because the association would probably have no legal obligation to indemnify Zimmerman if he is convicted of a crime.
I have read about this “stand your ground” immunity other places as well.
The question is: who has the responsibility of proof to establish immunity?
Is it up to Zimmerman to prove? If so, does that mean he must testify at the immunity hearing — and if he does testity, but fails to establish immunity, can his testimony then be used against him?
Or, does his attorney merely need to *claim* immunity and then it’s up to the prosecution to prove he does not meet the requirements?
That's a triable fact. That, in fact, is the purpose of a jury.
I think the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law specifically prohibits someone who is innocent under that law from being sued by other “involved” parties (say, Martin’s parents for example).
“But in another aspect peculiar to Florida, if the appeals court sides with Zimmerman, not only will he be forever immune from facing criminal charges for shooting the 17-year-old Martin - even if new evidence or witnesses surface - he could not even be sued for civil damages by Martin’s family for wrongfully causing his death....”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2872174/posts
“he was not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity; HE WAS NOT.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury; I’M SURE HE DID.
“Stand your ground” or “self defense”, this will not go to trial. “
Let us hope outside threats don’t sway the judge.
This is an assertion, not a fact. IF he assaulted Trayvon when they came face to face, that was unlawful assault and possibly aggravated assault and his self-defense claim is no longer valid.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
True.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
This is again an assertion, not a fact. We don't know who attacked whom. It seems likely he was losing the fight when he fired. This does not prove he didn't start the fight.
However, since the prosecution must disprove his story, it seems unlikely they'll be able to do so. Political issues are obviously much more important than the facts of the case.
We DO NOT KNOW what happened in those seconds between Trayvon getting off the phone with his sweetie and the eyewitnesses looking out the window because of the screaming outside. From a legal standpoint what happened in those seconds is the only real issue. Unfortunately, the only evidence for what happened is Z's story.
Assuming he has an honest judge. I hope so, but don't count on it.
There is purportedly such a witness. However, this story is for the last seconds of the fight, not its start. We do not KNOW Martin wasn't doing what he did in self-defense.
After all, if it's legal to shoot someone is self-defense, it is surely legal to pound his head on the concrete, something which while damaging is a whole lot less likely to be lethal.
All because the way the media reported it. Even here the BBC showed Martin as a 12yo kid, not the way he looked today. Any death or destruction must be laid at the door of the media.
In most states, the Prosecution has a right to request a jury, same as a defendant. They would have to agree to a bench trial. Not sure about Florida, but likely the same there.
If the parents sue him, can he counter-sue and end up owning the rights to Trayvon Martin’s name since his mom has that trademark as an asset?
That's true; however, as I understand it, he only needs to establish it by a preponderance of the evidence before a judge in a pretrial hearing. No jury involved in that hearing.
The US insurance companies will inform the Sec of Treasury that if rioting happens they will not have the money to pay out the ensuing property damages and go under because the current assets are being used to cover bad derivative bets, and at the same time Wall Street banks have deals with these large insurance companies and will implode with the insurance companies. The Fed Reserve cannot print and the US Treasury has no money. Answer to problem is simple, the powerful bankers and Sec of Treasury/Fed Reserve will call in the Gov of FL and his key guys and establish the need to avoid rioting at all costs. The Gov and his key guys will read the riot act to the judge in charge of the case, convict Zimmerman to avoid economic implosion. Don’t think this is possible. Read the judicial shenanigans that happen when several black kids were tried for near death beating of white truck driver shortly after the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Black community basically told LA if these kids are convicted of murder, more riots and more expensive property will go up in flames. Insurance companies in CA were hurting from the losses in the first riots were behind the scenes pressuring LA city gov to go easy. Today the pressure will be greater because it will involve US and international financial order.
I wasn’t aware of that. I’m not sure why the prosecution would insist on a jury trial in any case. In NYC a while back a group of police officers who were charged with murder after shooting an unarmed civilian opted for a bench trial and were acquitted of all charges. Why wouldn’t the prosecution have insisted on a jury trial in a case like that?
Nope. SYG and Castle Doctrine both protect you from civil litigation.
The counter-suit would have to include a claim for damages that can be supported and documented. And then they’d have to figure out how much that trademark is worth. I suspect it’s probably not very much.
They'll sue the condo community?? There's really no one to sue.
There you go...my expectation is Zimmerman will pay the price of a show trial to appease the demand for retribution, then sit in jail til an appeal restores justice.
By extension, the Homeowner's Association arguably stands in Zimmerman's shoes in that if his actions were legal then they're equally immune from liability. ;-)
According to Zimmerman's account, the confrontation began when Martin came up to him. If it was lawful for Martin to bash Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk, it was either because he was offended by seeing Zimmerman watching him (several minutes earlier) or he was offended by something Zimmerman said in their conversation.
If the confrontation began the way Zimmerman says it did, it is hard to see how Martin's actions constitute self-defense. Maybe it was self-defense in a wider sense of defending young black men from being "profiled"?
The prosecutor is relying heavily on the testimony from the girlfriend who was talking to Martin on the phone. Maybe the judge can instruct the jury to treat that testimony as reliable and treat the testimony from Zimmerman as unreliable.
Well it is because of the FL “stand your ground law”.
Holder probably has plans to arrest Zimmerman at the courthouse if the charges are dismissed.
Any judge who has the temerity to dismiss this case would undoubtedly have a bounty placed on his head by the NBPP and he knows it.
Those scenarios are possible. It is also possible Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, perhaps with a drawn gun and Martin was physically defending himself as best he could.
My point is that all any of us have at this point are various stories as reported by the press. Sort of the ultimate in hearsay as relayed by a biased person.
None of this, AFAIK, is sworn testimony and none has been subjected to cross-examination.So it is more than a little premature to go around saying WHAT HAPPENED. For anybody.
How the case ends up up being adjudicated is a whole different matter, and I'll venture to guess that it would be years before all of the motions and appeals work their way through the system. It's also unlikely that any civil trial would proceed (or even a lawsuit filed in the first place) until the criminal proceedings are done.
Oh, my...
Hopefully, Florida's middle-class is well enough armed that most of the dying will be the rioters.
Never in a million years would I take that chance.
You would trust ONE man/woman to judge your fate with the kind of pressures they would be under?
At least the jury can remain anonymous.....IF, you could get a fair one.
This guy is on LSD if he thinks there is a judge anywhere with the balls to be "convinced".
Not happening. This case is toxic; it's a hot potato that is going to be handed off to somebody else whenever possible.
condo communities carry liability insurance. There is your deep pocket.
Yep, this is the ultimate perversion of a free Country.
This case under "free press" has been so polluted that the truth, no matter what it is, will never prevail.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...
I wish Jorge the best
Let them take to the streets. Maybe some of them will get some travyon-justice too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.