Posted on 06/28/2013 9:11:39 AM PDT by IChing
Just before the break, the prosecution objected to a question asked of the witness by the defense. The judge overruled, but also told them it was the wrong objection, signaling to them to try another! Can she even do this, legally? They did try another, but it wasn't the one she was looking for.
They can sue him. A couple of points. The immunity law provides that if a person with immunity is sued, then the plaintiff has to pay the (civil) defendant's costs and damages flowing from defending himself in civil court.
The other point is found by answering "when does immunity attach?" It is supposed to attach at the outset, and preclude arrest, incarceration and criminal trial. None of those immunities ended up being worth spit, because Corey and her minions flouted the immunity law. Does immunity attach as a result of acquittal in a criminal trial? No, it does not. This is a little harder to explain, but I'll try.
Acquittal means that the state did not disprove self defense. Disproof of self defense for acquittal is a low hurdle. If the defendant produces reasonable doubt, then he is acquitted. If there is any theory of self defense that is not proved impossible by the evidence, then the jury must acquit.
But, for immunity purposes, the standard of proof is higher. The defendant has to prove it is more likely than not that her use of deadly force was justified. That finding can only come from a judge, or, from a civil jury. If by civil jury, "immunity from trial" is moot, but the plaintiff is on the hook for the costs and damages incurred by the plaintiff. If by a judge, and this is usually argued to a criminal trial judge in a motion for immunity, the civil trial is likely never brought.
Thanks that is what another poster said. I missed that one.
That’s a component of FL “Stand Your Ground” law.
I think being acquitted under self-defense is not quite the same as being acquitted under Stand Your Ground — there was talk of a separate hearing before the trial was to start and for some reason the Defense did not take that route. We’ll find out more on that after this trial.
Tracy Martin is married to Alicia Stanton Martin. No divorce on record. According to Alicia, they separated just a few weeks prior to Trayvon's death. She's upset that she raised Trayvon for 15 years and has been all but left out of the public grieving process. She's been interviewed only a couple of times. Media bias is the only explanation."He is a very good father," Stanley told the Sentinel. [click that link too!] She said she and Martin split up just weeks before Trayvon's death.
The press presentation of "the Martin family" is grossly misleading. The volume of falsehood perpetrated by the press in this case is easy to find. Imagine how much falsehood they spread on matters that are more difficult to research.
I'm not sure that rule of thumb works in criminal cases where it's the Prosecution with the weak case, because they can't appeal when they lose.
Unfortunately I have to say you are right, as I believe that is essentially what was done to the officers in the Rodney King case.
Are you familiar with Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law?
The reason they are calling it murder is because if it were self-defense, he gets off with no liability, criminal or civil.
The state is claiming it was not self defense, if he is not convicted of some sort of murder/manslaughter, on what grounds do they deny self-defense?
Because OJ was in California, and Zimmerman was in Florida which has the “Stand Your Ground” immunity from civil liability.
If they can’t convict for criminality, I don’t know how they can deny his claim of self-defense.
Yes. And then some.
-- The state is claiming it was not self defense, if he is not convicted of some sort of murder/manslaughter, on what grounds do they deny self-defense? --
After the criminal trial acquittal, the basis for allowing a civil trial is that the standard of proof is different, and the penalty is different.
The state has to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt in order to attach criminal liability, and that is a very high hurdle. Being acquitted only means that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the defendant has a smidgen of self defense.
For a civil trial, and for immunity, the plaintiff only has to prove its case to the standard of preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not. And for defendant to win, he needs more than a smidgen of self defense. It has to be more likely than not that the use of force was justified.
I think Zimmerman is/was entitled to justified use of force immunity from the start. He should not have been arrested, charged, or tried. But ones the state attached that taint, the only way to "get" immunity is to "get" it by a preponderance of the evidence. The criminal trial will not prove he has "more likely than not" justified use of force.
Perfect example: Victim in I-4 shooting in Tampa ID'd as Orlando man
It's not been said yet, but this is a black-on-white crime. The thugs are emboldened. This will get worse, regardless of Florida law.
Then how does the immunity provision of the Stand Your Ground law have any practical applicability, assuming all LE has to do to scuttle the intentions of the Legislature is pro forma charge anyone who tries to Stand Your Ground?
Like hell: http://wizbangblog.com/2012/07/18/video-shows-florida-armed-robbery-foiled-by-armed-patron/
We all know the outcome here, “Give him a fair trial and then hang him.”
No law has practical applicability against corrupt prosecutors and corrupt judiciary.
The system is loaded with corrupt actors, and they will watch each others' backs.
These people deserve respect for the same exact reason the mafia deserves respect. The state is pretty much "a ruthless and unprincipled thug."
While I understand your assertion, how does a plaintiff have standing before the court to bring suit if the defendant acted within the law?
The standing question is reviewed after the suit is filed. So is the immunity question. Crump can sue, and Zimmerman can ask the civil trial court judge to find immunity. If the trial court judge finds immunity, then Crump has to pay for the cost of defending against his suit, and also for all damages to Zimmerman (lost wages, time, etc.) that result from defending the civil suit.
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.