|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 16 2013 03:51 spaZps wrote:
The Us is just fcked up. not guilty, its not even remotely funny. It is on such much levels wrong. To be honest a while ago, whne I fired gun, but if I correctly remeber. I have to pull the safty switch and pull back the top to get ready fire.( sry no native speaker dont know the right word). Which men is stupid enough to holster gun, which is ready to shot? Just under this aspect is safe to assume, that Zimmerman even before the fight considered to shot the gun, just by the aspect he made it ready to shot.
I hate the German Lawsystem, but yours seems just fck up.
He used a different type of gun with a different safety system. His gun wasn't "ready to fire" any more than any other loaded gun.
|
On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement.
as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity.
|
On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity.
Do you know what lawsuits, if any, Zimmerman will be bringing? Confirmed or speculative? I would just love for him to go after the media.
|
On July 16 2013 02:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 01:55 Shiori wrote:On July 16 2013 01:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 16 2013 01:25 Shiori wrote:On July 16 2013 01:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:I think the saddest part of all this is the idea that being a member of the neighborhood watch is "stupid". If we take Zimmerman's story as basically true (and there is no evidence that it isn't), than he did absolutely nothing wrong, or even stupid. He just tried to help his community out and got beat down for it. 100% on Trayvon, 0% on Zimmerman. On July 16 2013 00:57 MeLlamoSatan wrote:On July 16 2013 00:55 Plansix wrote:
GZ did some dumb shit, no one will argue, but that is not a crime. And this creates a legal precedent for people to drive around armed and create confrontations and then to end them with fatal gunshot wounds. Impunity. Seems like a warped version of justice to me. Self defense laws have existed as long as society has... stop acting like this is some radically new idea. Also, actually, what this trial did was prevent the creation of a legal precedent for little thugs to attack people without having to fear being shot. You have to ask why "little thugs*" even would go around attacking people. I'd be willing to bet that antagonizing them by threatening to kill them (which is the message you send when you characterize a very vague situation as a "little thug" attacking somebody without fear of being shot) you're not making them like the legal system anymore, and you're definitely not making it any easier for them to see responsible citizenship as a lifestyle to pursue. Why do little thugs go around attacking people? It's a complex question. People attack other people because they haven't been raised correctly, haven't been exposed to consequences for their actions, and have an inflated sense of entitlement. It's a really complex question. Amusingly, only one of the three reasons you gave is plausible (not being raised correctly, although I'd say "effectively" rather than correctly, since "correct parenting" is meaningless). Entitlement/lack of exposure to consequences are not the reasons people do bad things. Overwhelming research supports the notion that the chief causes of crime are problematic family situations and poverty. It has nothing to do with arrogance, lmao. Martin wasn't a Wall Street banked who thought he was better than everyone. Also, stop using the word thug, because I have no idea what you think it means and it just sounds like a buzzword of some kind. Problematic family situations and poverty create senses of entitlement, and usually result in children being sheltered from the consequences of their actions. Keep in mind that not any consequence suffices, proper consequences are what keeps people from becoming entitled. And you are absolutely wrong that entitlement is not a factor: "This guy annoyed me/insulted me" being a reason to physically assault someone means that you have a sense of entitlement that includes being entitled to not being insulted and/or annoyed.
Uh...no? What evidence do you have to suggest that "entitlement," which is a loaded word to begin with, is the result of impoverished family situations??? If anything, it makes more sense that wealthy families would be able to protect their children from the consequences of their actions, spoil them, and make them feel like they're better than others. How the hell does being poor and abused by one's parents make one entitled or unaware of consequences? Like, what? Also, assaulting someone because you got annoyed/insulted is indicative of an anger or impulse-control issue, not an entitlement one...
You're being deliberately obtuse. But how do you think someone who comes from a shitty family and lives in an impoverished neighbourhood fraught with illegal activity and abuses is going to react to your picture of the legal system? Why should that person find anything noble about that system, when all it seems to be is a more powerful version of the criminal organizations within his neighbourhood (criminals, say, kill people who break their rules; you're going to try to appeal to people from crime-ridden neighbourhoods who haven't yet committed any crimes by scaring them with the exact same tactics????)
I would think that the person in the impoverished, crime ridden neighborhood would be pleased that his right to defend himself is supported by the government. And how is telling people that others have the rights to defend themselves scare people who won't attack others? That makes no sense...
You act as if, prior to this ruling, there was some cabal of "little thugs" (your choice of words betrays your bias :/) who were sitting around just waiting to beat up people for literally no reason other than to...satisfy their entitlement? Flex their nuts? And now, suddenly, they're going to be scared stiff? A group of people who you claim care so little about consequences or human life that they're literally going to kill someone for annoying them (such is their entitlement!) are going to be totally petrified because someone got shot and the shooter wasn't jailed? Uh, that's a pretty fantastic leap in logic. What difference would it make to you if you're one of these alleged thugs and you discover that Zimmerman was acquitted? The hypothetical deterrent isn't that the law won't convict the guy who shoots you...it's that the guy is going to shoot you. In that respect, the deterrent has more to do with whatever gun carrying laws the state has than with its self defense laws (which, I remind you, existed and were enforced prior to this case, ergo this case has literally no bearing on deterring people since self-defense was already quite generously permitted by the law...)
We don't need to coddle them. We need to teach them why they should act like civilized human beings, because there has to be a reason that they aren't currently acting like one (and I'm willing to bet it's not because they have a self of entitlement, given how poor a lot of criminals are). Fighting violence with more violence, or making punitive measures to deter criminals, just makes it easier to see the justice system as something that's more interested in punishing than creating a better society.
You're utterly mistaken in thinking that monetary wealth has anything to do with entitlement. And you are completely missing the point: the government did not punish anyone here, they just upheld a man's right to defend himself. I cannot believe that you are suggesting that we deny the right of a law-abiding citizen to defend himself so that the poor criminals can feel better about themselves... this is such ivory tower bullshit that I can tell you have no experience whatsoever with criminals or poverty.
You're making a pretty bold claim if your'e trying to assert that the poorer someone is, the more entitlement they have, unless you mean to suggest that, say, being raised by a single mom who can't afford to by you things (hypothetically) and put food on the table and feeling that you deserve a healthier, more secure, more comfortable existence is "entitlement" in any negative sense. If that is what you're saying, then I don't know what to tell you. Being in a shitty situation and believing that it's unjust for you to be in that situation doesn't make you entitled in any wrong sense anymore than I'm entitled to believe that I deserve to not be a slave, or conscripted, or forced to work, even with pay.
First off, nobody is labouring under the delusion that you can't defend yourself if you're attacked. Secondly, I'm not sure what school of sociology you come from, but it might interest you to know that people don't generally commit crimes to "flex their nuts." That is so astronomically stereotypical and ridiculous that I'm amazed you seriously uttered such a thing.
Do tell...
What do you mean? You're the one making a positive claim. It's up to you to back it up. Go ahead and prove, using sources, that crime is basically just a bunch of obnoxious, entitled (but also poor, apparently...) kids killing time, satiating their entitlement, and attacking people to relieve stress or whatever "flex your nuts" is supposed to mean.
Um, what? What is a thug? Why is there one specific moment where one chooses to be forever a "thug" or not? This makes no sense.
Did I say that one chooses to be a thug forever or not at one specific moment? No... I didn't. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here... lol
You pretty much did when you stated that this was some critical moment in Martin's life whereby he's going to go down some tragic path into becoming, and I quote, a "monster" versus the polar opposite of becoming a good, law-abiding citizens who's just awesome and volunteers with kids and waves the flag on the 4th of July and so on and so forth.
The path he was on? What, aside from this case, evidence do we have to suggest that Martin was on some long path toward becoming a monster? We literally have zero evidence of his motivations because he is dead. I'm not saying his motivation was good, but to claim that he was doing it for some reason or another (or "no reason") is not a claim you can make since there's no actual evidence about Martin's motives being that he is dead.
Fighting, doing drugs, skipping school, engaging in criminal behavior... those are all signs of a thuggish mindset. Now... does that mean that Martin was going to be a thug, or that even currently was? Not really. A lot of respectable people had troubled childhoods. Martin was reaching the point where his childhood was ending. If he continued to engage in those behaviors without changing than he would have become what, in my opinion, could be described as a monster. A terror upon himself and others.
Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell, aside from the incident with Zimmerman, we have evidence of the following: Martin was suspended from school for non-violent defiance like graffiti and truancy, that Martin possessed a marijuana pipe and probably smoked marijuana, and he was found to have several pieces of jewelry on his person (no evidence exists to suggest that this jewelry was stolen, and since you esteem the legal system so much, I expect you to respect their assessment in this case as well), along with a screwdriver which was, for some reason, labeled a burglary device. Okay so, you're telling me that smoking weed and skipping class are evidence of a "thuggish mindset"??? That's fucking absurd. I'm pretty sure that almost every highschool student has done one or both of these things on more than one occasion, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those didn't wind up being criminals, so the connection is tenuous at best. I have no idea what being a "monster" means in your understanding of reality, but if you subtract the Zimmerman incident from Martin's life, there is absolutely zero indication that he was anything more monstrous than any other obnoxious, unruly teenager.
You do not know any of these things. This trial did not establish any of these things. This trial established that there is no evidence or not enough evidence to conclude that Zimmerman acted aggressively and that, in light of that, his assertion that he acted in self-defense is consistent with the evidence (but not implied by the evidence; there is a crucial difference here that you're pretending doesn't exist). Let me say that again: this trial was not about Martin's motives. This trial was not about Martin's motives. Did I say the trial? Or did I say: according to the evidence? Why do you keep talking about the trial.
Because the alternative would be for you to pretend that you're better at understanding the evidence than the entire legal apparatus of Florida, which is pretty dumb, and undermines your general point about Martin's guilt/Zimmerman's true testimony (if the legal system didn't understand the evidence as well as you, a random person on the internet, then maybe they were wrong about how true Zimmerman's testimony was! You can't have both).
?????????????????????????????
I still don't understand why you're using the phrase "little thug." Nobody is trying to claim that Martin did nothing wrong, or that this verdict is wrong. All people are saying is that your ridiculous assertion that somehow this case is monumental in establishing that self defense is not illegal (despite it already being codified in the frickin' law) and that it'll strike fear into the hearts of all these "little thugs" nationwide who apparently just like to attack people for literally no reason. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the reason I don't attack people is because attacking people is wrong, not because I'm scared of being punished.
All you're saying. Don't include others when you're the only one who seems to not know what "thug" means. Did I say that the case was monumental in establishing self-defense? Nope. Did I say that it will strike fear into the hearts of thugs? Nope. And I don't know about you at all, nor do I care to know about you. I do know thuggish people though.
Thus is slang. It doesn't have any particularly concise meaning, which is why I'm asking you for a precise definition. Actually you did say that thugs are going to have something to fear, so...
All physical evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's story, yes. Nobody is disputing that. There was no realistic narrative put forth that implicated Zimmerman, which is why nobody is arguing that this verdict was wrong. But your final sentence doesn't follow because Zimmerman's speculations about why Martin attacked him, in addition to the particulars of Zimmerman's narrative, do not necessarily have corresponding physical evidence.
I don't care about Martin's motives and I am not discussing them whatsoever. Stop bringing them up.
Martin attacked Zimmerman for "absolutely no reason" = discussing Martin's motives = a statement you have made. So you brought it up, not me.
|
I really doubt Zimmerman wants to bring any more attention to himself by bringing lawsuits against anyone.
|
The one thing that made me upset (other than the unfortunate loss of Trayvon's life) was the fact that the President of the United States would have the audacity to compare such an event to a national crisis. According to the news (CNN, etc) the President openly said that this was a "tragedy" of America. No Mr. President, a tragedy of America was the bombings that happened in 9-11, the mass murder in the movie theater in Colorado, the Connecticut shooting in the elementary school, etc. Those are "Tragedies of America." While Trayvon Martin's death is tragic for the parties involved, and I give my condolences to the family (I would not classify it as tragic for all of America) My point is lots of young African Americans lose their lives everyday in Chicago (for an example) and we do not hear anything about that, and the only time we (as Americans) actually care is when it receives national coverage (which is just plain wrong).
Rant over. Thanks for reading.
|
On July 15 2013 22:45 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +The Rev. Al Sharpton is calling for a “Justice for Trayvon National Day of Action” on Saturday and say demonstrations are planned in more than 100 cities nationwide.
Saying there would not have been a trial in Florida without pressure from activists, Sharpton was confident that continued pressure would result in a federal civil rights case.
“When they’re telling you today, ‘I don’t know if they’re going to get a civil rights trial:’ We will. And we will get a civil trial,” Sharpton said on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show” on Monday morning. “What we’ve watched the last several weeks was not the system correcting itself, it was the people correcting the system. Now we’ve got to finish the job.”
National Action Network is organizing the protests at federal court buildings to press the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty in the death of teenager Trayvon Martin by a Florida jury on Saturday.
Sharpton said his National Action Network intends to keep the pressure on until a civil rights case is brought, insisting the protests will show the national anger over the verdict is not a “two- or three-day” thing.
“It’s not over. And we are going to make sure it’s not over, that’s why we’re calling people to … organize in your city. I don’t care if it’s 20 people, we want to show the nation that over 100 cities a week later is still demanding justice. We’re not having a fit, we’re having a movement,” Sharpton said.
The event will also help begin a four-week countdown to the 50th anniversary event for the March on Washington on August 24, which will include Martin Luther King III, and which Sharpton said will be centered on Trayvon Martin and the Voting Rights Act.
Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/al-sharpton-travyon-martin-george-zimmerman-94149.html#ixzz2Z7aPfAtx
sickening mob justice. should just lynch zimmerman and get it over with.
|
On July 16 2013 04:11 Artax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity. Do you know what lawsuits, if any, Zimmerman will be bringing? Confirmed or speculative? I would just love for him to go after the media.
he is suing NBC (?) for defamation. i have not heard of any others. and its unlikely he will go after the media in general. defamation when you are a public figure (lot of publicity makes a private individual a public figure) is incredibly difficult to prove so its unlikely he will be throwing around those lawsuits like candy. NBC is special because they pretty clearly fucked up, and even fired the guys who did the fucking up right after.
|
On July 16 2013 04:11 Artax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity. Do you know what lawsuits, if any, Zimmerman will be bringing? Confirmed or speculative? I would just love for him to go after the media.
On July 16 2013 04:15 TheFish7 wrote:
I really doubt Zimmerman wants to bring any more attention to himself by bringing lawsuits against anyone.
He might have a case for Libel.
|
On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity.
Come on dAPhREAk, you know that weird things like specifically written laws that grant immunity against civil actions have never prevented someone from bringing a frivolous case that is doomed to be dismissed. It almost incourages it. There are hours and hours of attorney time to be eaten up by a flawed theory that this case is somehow different from all others. And all the appeals that could be filed and legal fees that could be eaten up.
All it takes in one Judge with an political statement to make or a pro bono attorney to file an endless line of appeals to make this all happen.
|
On July 15 2013 23:20 Krohm wrote:
I'm currently debating this with my friend and he made this claim.
"the fact that he has a documented history - entered into evidence, mind you - of making numerous police reports about imaginary black dudes and nothing but imaginary black dudes chilling in his gated community"
Wasn't an African-American actually caught and arrested within the community a few months prior to the Trayvon shooting? I honestly remember seeing that somewhere, but I just cannot find it now. Maybe I am incorrectly remembering.
african americans were caught and arrested based on zimmerman's calls. there was also the african americans who broke into the testifying white mother's house while she was inside and burglarized her home. they were caught and arrested, but zimmerman didnt call the cops on them. he was just available after the fact to console her and help change her locks. (her word,s not mine.)
|
On July 16 2013 04:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity. Come on dAPhREAk, you know that weird things like specifically written laws that grant immunity against civil actions have never prevented someone from bringing a frivolous case that is doomed to be dismissed. It almost incourages it. There are hours and hours of attorney time to be eaten up by a flawed theory that this case is somehow different from all others. And all the appeals that could be filed and legal fees that could be eaten up. All it takes in one Judge with an political statement to make or a pro bono attorney to file an endless line of appeals to make this all happen.
i have never seen someone file a frivolous lawsuit when there is clear immunity--although i take your point. plus, i recall it has an attorneys fee provision. so, unless trayvon's parents want to give up some of the royalties on copyrighting trayvon's name, and the $1M++ they made from the HOA, they should act accordingly. i dont think crump is that stupid or else he would have already filed. why wait until after the criminal trial (win or lose)?
|
edit: i just realized your name means you are satan. nevermind. waste of time.
|
On July 16 2013 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 04:29 Plansix wrote:On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity. Come on dAPhREAk, you know that weird things like specifically written laws that grant immunity against civil actions have never prevented someone from bringing a frivolous case that is doomed to be dismissed. It almost incourages it. There are hours and hours of attorney time to be eaten up by a flawed theory that this case is somehow different from all others. And all the appeals that could be filed and legal fees that could be eaten up. All it takes in one Judge with an political statement to make or a pro bono attorney to file an endless line of appeals to make this all happen. i have never seen someone file a frivolous lawsuit when there is clear immunity--although i take your point. plus, i recall it has an attorneys provision. so, unless trayvon's parents want to give up some of the royalties on copyrighting trayvon's name, and the $1M++ they made from the HOA, they should act accordingly. i dont think crump is that stupid or else he would have already filed. why wait until after the criminal trial (win or lose)?
You need to come to the state of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, people do it all the time. There is an entire league of attorneys and people in New Hampshire that have the most creative ideas on how courts work and what you can and cannot appeal.
Though your point is valid that any reasonable attorney wouldn't do it. But seeing how some of the communities are reacting, I am sure there are a bunch of totally unreasonable attorneys who are willing to get smash in court just to give Zimmerman 2-3 years of hell.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity.
I dunno lol. While I agree he does, I wouldn't be surprised if they find some exception or something to force another one but ya, it's unlikely.
|
On July 16 2013 01:18 HardlyNever wrote:
I think the issue some people are having is that it seems fairly easy to instigate a conflict (with no witnesses besides the two people involved), kill someone, thus being the only person remaining who witnessed the entire event from beginning to conclusion (who did what, who was the instigator, etc.), then just claim self-defense (with the other witness being dead).
Now, doing this in a neighborhood area like GZ did, probably wouldn't be a great idea, and I think GZ got "lucky" in the sense that no one testified that they saw the entire incident from beginning to end.
However, finding people who you don't like, for whatever reason, in more secluded areas, instigating a fight, maybe taking a few hits to make it look plausible, then using lethal force to end it (and state you feared for your life), doesn't seem incredibly difficult to pull off, if you were inclined to do so (at least in the state of Florida).
if you are discussing random violence, sure. thats what serial killers do and thats why they are hard to catch. if you are talking about two people who have a prior beef with each other, who is going to believe you? zimmerman was unique because he had no motive to kill trayvon. the prosecutor tried, unsuccessfully, to create a motive (out to get those punks), but the jury doesnt appear to have bought into it.
|
On July 16 2013 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 04:29 Plansix wrote:On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity. Come on dAPhREAk, you know that weird things like specifically written laws that grant immunity against civil actions have never prevented someone from bringing a frivolous case that is doomed to be dismissed. It almost incourages it. There are hours and hours of attorney time to be eaten up by a flawed theory that this case is somehow different from all others. And all the appeals that could be filed and legal fees that could be eaten up. All it takes in one Judge with an political statement to make or a pro bono attorney to file an endless line of appeals to make this all happen. i have never seen someone file a frivolous lawsuit when there is clear immunity--although i take your point. plus, i recall it has an attorneys provision. so, unless trayvon's parents want to give up some of the royalties on copyrighting trayvon's name, and the $1M++ they made from the HOA, they should act accordingly. i dont think crump is that stupid or else he would have already filed. why wait until after the criminal trial (win or lose)? You need to come to the state of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, people do it all the time. There is an entire league of attorneys and people in New Hampshire that have the most creative ideas on how courts work and what you can and cannot appeal. Though your point is valid that any reasonable attorney wouldn't do it. But seeing how some of the communities are reacting, I am sure there are a bunch of totally unreasonable attorneys who are willing to get smash in court just to give Zimmerman 2-3 years of hell.
not sure how they would get past a demurrer/motion to dismiss. immunity is a legal issue that the court can address outright, not after 2-3 years.
|
On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity.
Ummm when did they hold that hearing? Because O'Mara said that their next move was to file for immunity and that in his opinion they would get it. I don't think they held that hearing Sunday.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2013/07/13/2515099/
|
On July 16 2013 04:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 04:39 Plansix wrote:On July 16 2013 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 04:29 Plansix wrote:On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity. Come on dAPhREAk, you know that weird things like specifically written laws that grant immunity against civil actions have never prevented someone from bringing a frivolous case that is doomed to be dismissed. It almost incourages it. There are hours and hours of attorney time to be eaten up by a flawed theory that this case is somehow different from all others. And all the appeals that could be filed and legal fees that could be eaten up. All it takes in one Judge with an political statement to make or a pro bono attorney to file an endless line of appeals to make this all happen. i have never seen someone file a frivolous lawsuit when there is clear immunity--although i take your point. plus, i recall it has an attorneys provision. so, unless trayvon's parents want to give up some of the royalties on copyrighting trayvon's name, and the $1M++ they made from the HOA, they should act accordingly. i dont think crump is that stupid or else he would have already filed. why wait until after the criminal trial (win or lose)? You need to come to the state of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, people do it all the time. There is an entire league of attorneys and people in New Hampshire that have the most creative ideas on how courts work and what you can and cannot appeal. Though your point is valid that any reasonable attorney wouldn't do it. But seeing how some of the communities are reacting, I am sure there are a bunch of totally unreasonable attorneys who are willing to get smash in court just to give Zimmerman 2-3 years of hell. not sure how they would get past a demurrer/motion to dismiss. immunity is a legal issue that the court can address outright, not after 2-3 years.
I don't know the Florida legal system well, so I couldn't say. I have seen cases dismissed outright due to res judicata that were endlessly appealed and became a small level of immortal. Now to be fair, we were dealing with true-believer-legal-aid attorneys in that case, and they could give to shits because the court will never give my client legal fees. I could also see a judge killing it before it even got started too. I just don't trust them to do that when issues become this political.
|
On July 16 2013 04:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 04:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 17:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When Trayvon's parents sue Zimmerman all that nasty stuff is going to come out about their son in court unless they agree to a settlement. as stated many times, there will be no lawsuit. zimmerman has immunity. Ummm when did they hold that hearing? Because O'Mara said that their next move was to file for immunity and that in his opinion they would get it. I don't think they held that hearing Sunday. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2013/07/13/2515099/
thats not exactly what he said.
you usually dont seek immunity until someone files a lawsuit against you (i.e., by demurrer or motion to dismiss or Florida equivalent). however, i dont think the statute is equivocal:
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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
