Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm thinking the housing association is now stewing and wondering what this is going to cost them as in $$$$$. they're either going to defend zimmerman's actions or not defend depending on their self interest.

I'm hoping they get sued back to the fucking stone age, and these SYG laws get a thorough drubbing.

And, the Zimmerman case doesn't really have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. It's a self- defense case.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm thinking the housing association is now stewing and wondering what this is going to cost them as in $$$$$. they're either going to defend zimmerman's actions or not defend depending on their self interest.

I'm hoping they get sued back to the fucking stone age, and these SYG laws get a thorough drubbing.

The only one getting sued will be the alphabet media that portrayed a willful distortion of the facts surrounding the case. Zimmerman could sue Trayvon's parents for his injuries, and possibly for the negative notoriety since he was a minor and they are legally responsible.

I don't think Zimmerman can be sued civilly if found not guilty unlike the OJ case. A not guilty verdict for Zimmerman would show that no crime occurred as it was self-defense, the OJ trial left open that a crime occurred (murder), but not enough evidence existed to criminally convict.

Zimmerman can be sued civilly regardless of the verdict. An acquittal on murder does not foreclose a civil suit for wrongful death.

Martin's parents are not responsible for Martin's behavior here. Any suit against them would be dismissed easily.

The media can't be sued under US law, because printing untruths is not per se against the law. Slander and Libel are, but in the case of the media, the element of "actual malice" would have to be proved. See New York Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS case, and its progeny, and the Paul Newman movie "Absence of Malice."

[Tyrannical]

I don't think Zimmerman can be sued civilly if found not guilty unlike the OJ case. A not guilty verdict for Zimmerman would show that no crime occurred as it was self-defense, the OJ trial left open that a crime occurred (murder), but not enough evidence existed to criminally convict.

WTF ?? Has logic deserted you?

A not guilty verdict can mean not enough evidence in BOTH cases.
And at least there is undisputed evidence that Zimmerman DID kill Martin.

I think the Martin family should take out an injunction that donations should be held by a court, pending civil action by them.

Yes Mr.Logic expert
Trayvon being shot and killed is not a crime, and you can not sue over justifiable homicide.

Oh, and for Coito, two people were fired for some mysterious reason after editing the Zimmerman 911 call in an unflattering way. Remember the Olympic bombing scapegoat Richard Jewell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think Zimmerman can be sued civilly if found not guilty unlike the OJ case. A not guilty verdict for Zimmerman would show that no crime occurred as it was self-defense, the OJ trial left open that a crime occurred (murder), but not enough evidence existed to criminally convict.

WTF ?? Has logic deserted you?

A not guilty verdict can mean not enough evidence in BOTH cases.
And at least there is undisputed evidence that Zimmerman DID kill Martin.

I think the Martin family should take out an injunction that donations should be held by a court, pending civil action by them.

Yes Mr.Logic expert
Trayvon being shot and killed is not a crime, and you can not sue over justifiable homicide.

Oh, and for Coito, two people were fired for some mysterious reason after editing the Zimmerman 911 call in an unflattering way. Remember the Olympic bombing scapegoat Richard Jewell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

What does two people being fired have to do with whether a civil suit by Zimmerman would be successful? They were fired because of public relations, and because newspapers generally don't want their reporters falsifying stories. There are journalistic ethics that sometimes apply.

One can technically sue for a justifiable homicide. The acquittal is only a determination that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that the plaintiff can't show that the defendant committed a negligent wrongful death, by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower standard of proof.

[Tyrannical]

What does two people being fired have to do with whether a civil suit by Zimmerman would be successful? They were fired because of public relations, and because newspapers generally don't want their reporters falsifying stories. There are journalistic ethics that sometimes apply.

I'd say they were fired for committing libel. The jurors will consider that when assigning damages.

[Tyrannical]

One can technically sue for a justifiable homicide. The acquittal is only a determination that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that the plaintiff can't show that the defendant committed a negligent wrongful death, by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower standard of proof.

Depends on the State, and I'm no Florida lawyer. Some States and perhaps most rule it out entirely.
I can't think of any cases where a justifiable homicide resulted in a (successful) civil suit, but perhaps you can?

[Coito ergo sum]

What does two people being fired have to do with whether a civil suit by Zimmerman would be successful? They were fired because of public relations, and because newspapers generally don't want their reporters falsifying stories. There are journalistic ethics that sometimes apply.

I'd say they were fired for committing libel. The jurors will consider that when assigning damages.

First they have to prove libel. A false statement, which defames the plaintiff, is made KNOWING it was false and with actual malice aforethought. These are almost impossible cases to win.

Remember Jerry Falwell's case against Hustler? They published an article falsely claiming he fucked his mother, with no evidence to back up their claims. Case dismissed.

[Coito ergo sum]

One can technically sue for a justifiable homicide. The acquittal is only a determination that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that the plaintiff can't show that the defendant committed a negligent wrongful death, by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower standard of proof.

Depends on the State, and I'm no Florida lawyer. Some States and perhaps most rule it out entirely.
I can't think of any cases where a justifiable homicide resulted in a (successful) civil suit, but perhaps you can?

Not offhand, but if one is acquitted of a crime, one can still be sued civilly and the acquittal does not preclude the suit. A conviction makes a civil suit quite often a slam dunk because the conviction is admissible as evidence.

[mistermack]

Yes Mr.Logic expert
Trayvon being shot and killed is not a crime, and you can not sue over justifiable homicide.

Who said anything about justifiable homicide? A not guilty verdict doesn't mean a justifiable homicide verdict. It means case not proved. Just like OJ.
The jury might not get the option of a justifiable homicide verdict. It's normally, guilty or not guilty.
I would have thought that justifiable homicide was something for a coroner's court, not a criminal case of murder 2.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes Mr.Logic expert
Trayvon being shot and killed is not a crime, and you can not sue over justifiable homicide.

Who said anything about justifiable homicide? A not guilty verdict doesn't mean a justifiable homicide verdict. It means case not proved. Just like OJ.
The jury might not get the option of a justifiable homicide verdict. It's normally, guilty or not guilty.
I would have thought that justifiable homicide was something for a coroner's court, not a criminal case of murder 2.

Self defense is a justification. Homicide in self defense is justifiable homicide.

[kiki5711]

Yes Mr.Logic expert
Trayvon being shot and killed is not a crime, and you can not sue over justifiable homicide.

Who said anything about justifiable homicide? A not guilty verdict doesn't mean a justifiable homicide verdict. It means case not proved. Just like OJ.
The jury might not get the option of a justifiable homicide verdict. It's normally, guilty or not guilty.
I would have thought that justifiable homicide was something for a coroner's court, not a criminal case of murder 2.

Self defense is a justification. Homicide in self defense is justifiable homicide.

IF IT"S proved beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know of anyone that shot someone and in court said it "was NOT" in self defense. Of course they're going to say it was self defense.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes Mr.Logic expert
Trayvon being shot and killed is not a crime, and you can not sue over justifiable homicide.

Who said anything about justifiable homicide? A not guilty verdict doesn't mean a justifiable homicide verdict. It means case not proved. Just like OJ.
The jury might not get the option of a justifiable homicide verdict. It's normally, guilty or not guilty.
I would have thought that justifiable homicide was something for a coroner's court, not a criminal case of murder 2.

Self defense is a justification. Homicide in self defense is justifiable homicide.

IF IT"S proved beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know of anyone that shot someone and in court said it "was NOT" in self defense. Of course they're going to say it was self defense.

False. The defense does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense must only produce "some evidence" of self-defense and the jury is entitled to consider it. The jury is always, however, determining whether the prosecution has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury can find such reasonable doubt without having self-defense proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plenty of people have said their shooting was not in self-defense. Some have claimed insanity. Some have claimed excuse. Some have claimed it was done by accident. Some have claimed the shooting was in defense of others. Some have claimed that the shooting was justifiable for some other reason.

[kiki5711]

Plenty of people have said their shooting was not in self-defense. Some have claimed insanity. Some have claimed excuse. Some have claimed it was done by accident. Some have claimed the shooting was in defense of others. Some have claimed that the shooting was justifiable for some other reason.

Yes, we all have a reason why we shoot someone.

[Coito ergo sum]

Plenty of people have said their shooting was not in self-defense. Some have claimed insanity. Some have claimed excuse. Some have claimed it was done by accident. Some have claimed the shooting was in defense of others. Some have claimed that the shooting was justifiable for some other reason.

Yes, we all have a reason why we shoot someone.

Some do, some don't. Some shootings are justified.

[kiki5711]

Plenty of people have said their shooting was not in self-defense. Some have claimed insanity. Some have claimed excuse. Some have claimed it was done by accident. Some have claimed the shooting was in defense of others. Some have claimed that the shooting was justifiable for some other reason.

Yes, we all have a reason why we shoot someone.

Some do, some don't. Some shootings are justified.

And some eat cheese.