And can you believe this loon was ALLOWED to come to America? I can, and it's VERY sad. "Back in the day," immigrants used to come here to work like hell, and find that American dream. Now they come here for the free 'sammiches' and spew their lunatic shit on OUR dime. My Italian Grand Father Came here, learned English QUICKLY, and became a productive member of the American culture by fitting himself to American values so he could live the American dream, which was attained through hard work, working smart, and forming himself into an American! The dipshits who are sadly allowed to come here today, are just that, worthless lazy dipshits who think America has some free shit for them. To make matters worse, they have the NERVE to spew their liberal lunacy on top of being leaches. I'm not happy about it at all. My Grand Father would be flipping out, however, and he was an immigrant! WTF?!?!?!?!?
Where did I offer a legal opinion? I simply stated that under Florida law a person acquitted by reason of lawful self-defense is immune to civil action with regards to death/injury caused by that person's acting in self defense. At no point in this thread have I offered any opinion (legal or otherwise) about the trial. In fact, I've made a point to avoid offering an opinion because I have no idea what will happen at trial. Both sides are offering different views of the events on that night -- most importantly, who initiated contact. I don't know whose version of events the jury will believe. If you go back and read my post, you'll see that I responded to someone who said that it may be easier to win a civil complaint against Zimmerman than a criminal prosecution. My reply was to make that person (and other readers) aware of Florida law regarding legal acts of self defense and subsequent immunity from civil action.
Sorry tomdavis I shouldn't of lumped you in with Lucrum just because he quoted you. But I disagree with the assumption that a not guilty verdict will protect him from a civil suit.
There also needs to be an understanding in this case that a "not guilty" verdict for murder does NOT imply that George Zimmerman was "acquitted by reason of lawful self-defense". My understanding of Florida state law is that a separate tribunal session is required to clear Zimmerman on the basis of "lawful self-defense". This is an option that Zimmerman's lawyers rejected and opted to go directly to a jury trial on the murder charge. He does have the option of going to court after he is acquited of murder to have his actions declared "lawful self-defense" - at which point he is shielded from civil lawsuits.
Keep in mind that the press is stating that the prosecutor is not providing the option of allowing the jury to consider lesser charges such as manslaughter. It is conviction for murder .... or nothing.
OJ's case has nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case. OJ's acquittal was not ruled a justifiable homicide in the state of Florida under the stand-your-ground laws.
I never said that a not-guilty verdict would protect Zimmerman from a civil lawsuit under all circumstances. I said that Zimmerman would be immune from civil action IF Martin's death is found by the jury to be a justifiable homicide (i.e, he killed Martin while acting lawfully in self-defense).
My understanding is that Florida courts sometimes allow juries to rule "not guilty by reason of excusable homicide" or "not guilty by reason of justifiable homicide." I don't know if those will be options in this case.
We will see how this entire situation pans out. I have been trying to google Florida law on this and nothing seems to be very clear on how everything works.