Trayvon Martin

[Jenksismyhero]

not really

 

What do you mean not really? No one saw anyone in the act, they saw black kids standing nearby. The victim told the cops that and they looked in his bag. The victim assumed the black kid did it without actually knowing. How is that any different than what Zimmerman did/assumed?

[farmteam]

Yeah, it would seem as though they had to, since we know Zimmerman killed Martin. If they didn't find as a matter of fact that it was in self defense, than it would seem to be the wrong verdict.

 

I guess I should actually read the details of the verdict a bit more thoroughly.

But doesn't the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't in self-defense? Proving it wasn't in self-defense might not have been possible with a reasonable doubt burden, but it could be with preponderance of the evidence.

 

Though in a civil trial I would think it would be on Zimmerman to prove (by preponderance) that it was in self-defense?

[Jenksismyhero]

I have insurance, why would I start pretending Im Sherlock Holmes when I can just call up state farm and get a replacement?

 

Seems a hell of a lot cheaper/simpler, wouldnt even want to guess what legal defense fees are for murder.

 

I dunno, it's dealing with insurance companies. I'd do a lot of things before subjecting myself to that more than I already do as part of my job.

[iamshack]

But doesn't the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't in self-defense? Proving it wasn't in self-defense might not have been possible with a reasonable doubt burden, but it could be with preponderance of the evidence.

 

Though in a civil trial I would think it would be on Zimmerman to prove (by preponderance) that it was in self-defense?

Yes, that's what I think...I guess I am confused because of the whole SYG thing that never really happened...

 

Did Zimmerman's attorneys actually plead self defense as an affirmative defense? Or did they not have to do so?

[Y2HH]

But doesn't the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't in self-defense? Proving it wasn't in self-defense might not have been possible with a reasonable doubt burden, but it could be with preponderance of the evidence.

 

Though in a civil trial I would think it would be on Zimmerman to prove (by preponderance) that it was in self-defense?

 

This is where I get confused.

 

Since Zimmerman was acquitted, it had to be because of self-defense, otherwise he'd be guilty of manslaughter by default, would he not? The only way around getting convicted of manslaughter would be in self-defense.

 

And so, since a higher court than a civil court essentially ruled he's innocent by self-defense, wouldn't that supersede the civil in that he's now granted immunity as the law is written?

 

This is the problem with laws...they're written so complex that you need 50 people dissecting them in order to figure out what's what.

[farmteam]

Yes, that's what I think...I guess I am confused because of the whole SYG thing that never really happened...

 

Did Zimmerman's attorneys actually plead self defense as an affirmative defense? Or did they not have to do so?

Yeah I'm getting confused in general, because who knows at this point what's actually true and what's just been repeated 1000 times at this point.

 

Somewhere way back in this thread G&T (who I think is/was a prosecutor) said that the burden was on the state to prove that it was not self-defense. Must only be an affirmative defense in civil actions? Or, it's an affirmative defense in a criminal trial in the sense that the defendant has to raise it, but it's the prosecution that must prove that it wasn't self-defense?

[iamshack]

This is where I get confused.

 

Since Zimmerman was acquitted, it had to be because of self-defense, otherwise he'd be guilty of manslaughter by default, would he not? The only way around getting convicted of manslaughter would be in self-defense.

 

And so, since a higher court than a civil court essentially ruled he's innocent by self-defense, wouldn't that supersede the civil in that he's now granted immunity as the law is written?

 

This is the problem with laws...they're written so complex that you need 50 people dissecting them in order to figure out what's what.

Yes, it is very confusing.

 

I don't think they ever made a finding of fact that he acted in self-defense though.

[iamshack]

Yeah I'm getting confused in general, because who knows at this point what's actually true and what's just been repeated 1000 times at this point.

 

Somewhere way back in this thread G&T (who I think is/was a prosecutor) said that the burden was on the state to prove that it was not self-defense. Must only be an affirmative defense in civil actions? Or, it's an affirmative defense in a criminal trial in the sense that the defendant has to raise it, but it's the prosecution that must prove that it wasn't self-defense?

Yeah, a lot of this procedural crap is so much semantics that it gets incredibly confusing. I remember having these discussions in law school where even the professor seemed unsure of what the law was saying.

[Jenksismyhero]

Not being a criminal lawyer i'm not 100% sure on this, but I really doubt they'd consider the NG verdict a finding of fact as to self defense. If that were the case, there would never be a civil trial after a criminal trial finds someone innocent. OJ for example would have argued that the NG verdict in his case was a finding of fact that he was not the killer. But he obviously didn't make that argument since he was found guilty in the civil case. I think Zimmerman will have to do this whole song and dance over again.

[farmteam]

This is where I get confused.

 

Since Zimmerman was acquitted, it had to be because of self-defense, otherwise he'd be guilty of manslaughter by default, would he not? The only way around getting convicted of manslaughter would be in self-defense.

 

And so, since a higher court than a civil court essentially ruled he's innocent by self-defense, wouldn't that supersede the civil in that he's now granted immunity as the law is written?

 

This is the problem with laws...they're written so complex that you need 50 people dissecting them in order to figure out what's what.

If it's right that the prosecution was the one with the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense, then that would not immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit. This is where the different burdens of proof become important.

 

That's because while the prosecution may not have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense, they may have been able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing was not in self-defense. Using percentages that don't actually mean anything, it's like saying that the prosecution could prove that there was a 60% chance Zimmerman did not kill Martin in self-defense. That 60% is not good enough for reasonable doubt, but it is good enough to prove preponderance of the evidence.

[iamshack]

Not being a criminal lawyer i'm not 100% sure on this, but I really doubt they'd consider the NG verdict a finding of fact as to self defense. If that were the case, there would never be a civil trial after a criminal trial finds someone innocent. OJ for example would have argued that the NG verdict in his case was a finding of fact that he was not the killer. But he obviously didn't make that argument since he was found guilty in the civil case. I think Zimmerman will have to do this whole song and dance over again.

Well that is obvious.

 

The confusion comes when you have an affirmative defense that the court makes a finding of fact on versus a verdict which really doesn't make it clear what exactly the jury is saying.

 

In this case, I think the jury is saying "We don't know if it was self defense, but we're not positive that it wasn't, either. Therefore, we can't say that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Whereas if the court had ruled as a matter of fact that Zimmerman was acting in self defense, that might insulate him from a civil action.

 

It gets really confusing because a lot of times the jury is just saying "we're not sure what the f*** happened, so we can't convict him" and not "we believe he was acting in self defense, and therefore, the killing was not unlawful."

 

Honestly, I think the only way he is insulated from a civil action is if the judge makes a ruling that it was self defense, which he did nothing of the sort here. My guess is, if that was the case, it would have been dismissed in summary judgment and then the Martin family would have been barred from bringing him to civil court.

[southsider2k5]

This is where I get confused.

 

Since Zimmerman was acquitted, it had to be because of self-defense, otherwise he'd be guilty of manslaughter by default, would he not? The only way around getting convicted of manslaughter would be in self-defense.

 

And so, since a higher court than a civil court essentially ruled he's innocent by self-defense, wouldn't that supersede the civil in that he's now granted immunity as the law is written?

 

This is the problem with laws...they're written so complex that you need 50 people dissecting them in order to figure out what's what.

 

And those 50 people will all read it in a slightly different way.

[StrangeSox]

What do you mean not really? No one saw anyone in the act, they saw black kids standing nearby. The victim told the cops that and they looked in his bag. The victim assumed the black kid did it without actually knowing. How is that any different than what Zimmerman did/assumed?

 

The same witnesses identified one of the men as the same man they saw near the burglarized home.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not being a criminal lawyer i'm not 100% sure on this, but I really doubt they'd consider the NG verdict a finding of fact as to self defense. If that were the case, there would never be a civil trial after a criminal trial finds someone innocent. OJ for example would have argued that the NG verdict in his case was a finding of fact that he was not the killer. But he obviously didn't make that argument since he was found guilty in the civil case. I think Zimmerman will have to do this whole song and dance over again.

In a somewhat similar vein, I am familiar with the Good Samaritan laws. They vary from state to state, but the idea in some form is that regular citizens (not medical or public safety professionals, which is different and sometimes involves Duty to Act) are protected PER SE from criminal liability and IN SPIRIT from civil liability in the act of trying to assist someone who is in danger or hurt/ill. In those cases, criminal cases can only be brought via some exception, usually something like Gross Negligence (like, hey, I bet bashing this guy's head with a rock would help his heart attack, or similarly extreme circumstances). And for civil suits, it does not stop someone from FILING a suit, but it does cause most of those cases to either get thrown out before ever getting to court, or being an easy defense for the accused.

 

[Soxbadger]

The OJ trial really has nothing to do with how a Zimmerman civil trial would play out. The difference is OJ never argued self defense, the question was, whether OJ actually committed the murder. The Zimmerman trial is different, there is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, the question was whether or not that killing was lawful.

 

The ultimate question being, if Zimmerman was lawfully allowed to shoot Martin, then under what theory could there possibly be recovery in a civil trial?

 

Conversely, OJ was never allowed to kill those people, thus there is no conflict in finding him not guilty under a beyond a shadow of a doubt standard, but liable under preponderance of the evidence.

 

But where is this really all going? Even if Zimmerman was somehow found liable he can just file bk.

[MexSoxFan#1]

This will be my last post here but one thing that has really bothered me from the start is...why didn't Zimmerman identify himself prior to it getting physical? He had ample opportunities?

 

"Hello, my name is George, I'm from Neighborhood Watch, I'm on patrol right now. May I ask where are you going and are you visiting someone here? Sorry but I've never seen you before?"

 

Who here doesn't believe that wouldn't difuse the situation right then and there? IMO, that thwarts any burglary attempt if it wasn't TM on that night but a would be robber and obviously Martin would explain that he was just getting to his dad's gf's house. That is all that would've taken.

 

But no, GZ just kept following TM, they eyeballed each other a few times and it never occured to GZ to identify himself. Seems to me Zim wasn't interested in preventing a crime but actually help arrest a criminal (TM must've been guilty of something).

 

I know Neighborhood Watch programs are designed to prevent crime by reporting suspicious activity, not actually stopping a crime in progress, I think GZ wanted to be a hero that night and an innocent kid is dead because of it. I don't know about you but I wouldn't feel safe with a neighbor like that.

 

Lastly, maybe Z isn't guilty according to our laws but he damn sure is morally/ethically...

[Balta1701]

Yes, that's what I think...I guess I am confused because of the whole SYG thing that never really happened...

 

Did Zimmerman's attorneys actually plead self defense as an affirmative defense? Or did they not have to do so?

One thing worth noting is that the Judge's instructions to the jury basically summarize the SYG duty to retreat rules. So even if he didn't have an SYG hearing, the "Duty to retreat" standard was applied to this case.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[Jenksismyhero]

The OJ trial really has nothing to do with how a Zimmerman civil trial would play out. The difference is OJ never argued self defense, the question was, whether OJ actually committed the murder. The Zimmerman trial is different, there is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, the question was whether or not that killing was lawful.

 

The ultimate question being, if Zimmerman was lawfully allowed to shoot Martin, then under what theory could there possibly be recovery in a civil trial?

 

Conversely, OJ was never allowed to kill those people, thus there is no conflict in finding him not guilty under a beyond a shadow of a doubt standard, but liable under preponderance of the evidence.

 

But where is this really all going? Even if Zimmerman was somehow found liable he can just file bk.

 

Well no s*** they're different. My point was the NG verdict wasn't a finding of fact that could be used in the civil trial (i.e., OJ didn't do it, or Zimmerman killed in self defense).

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Well no s*** they're different. My point was the NG verdict wasn't a finding of fact that could be used in the civil trial (i.e., OJ didn't do it, or Zimmerman killed in self defense).

 

Well that is because a not guilty verdict is evidence, its not a finding of fact. The OJ trial didnt prove he was "factually innocent", but the Zimmerman trial (to my best understanding of how the law could be applied) found that Zimmerman was lawful in shooting Martin.

 

Unless the jury just didnt believe that the Prosecution proved that Zimmerman actually shot and killed Martin.

[pettie4sox]

Well that is because a not guilty verdict is evidence, its not a finding of fact. The OJ trial didnt prove he was "factually innocent", but the Zimmerman trial (to my best understanding of how the law could be applied) found that Zimmerman was lawful in shooting Martin.

 

Unless the jury just didnt believe that the Prosecution proved that Zimmerman actually shot and killed Martin.

 

Zimmerman didn't have to prove s*** to the state since they brought the charges on him. The state had to prove that Zimmerman did what he did with ill intent. The not guilty verdict just means Zimmerman won that aspect. He's not innocent by any means.

[NorthSideSox72]

Zimmerman didn't have to prove s*** to the state since they brought the charges on him. The state had to prove that Zimmerman did what he did with ill intent. The not guilty verdict just means Zimmerman won that aspect. He's not innocent by any means.

To be clear, the state only had to prove ill intent for Murder 2. With the manslaughter charge it is, as previously discussed, more complicated.

 

[Soxbadger]

Zimmerman didn't have to prove s*** to the state since they brought the charges on him. The state had to prove that Zimmerman did what he did with ill intent. The not guilty verdict just means Zimmerman won that aspect. He's not innocent by any means.

 

No he is innocent. Thats what it means when you are found not guilty.

 

It had nothing to do with "ill intent", it had everything to do with it being found that Zimmerman lawfully shot Martin in self-defense.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

SB I think you're wrong. The NG verdict is not a finding that Zimmerman shot in self-defense, it's a finding that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not shoot in self defense. That's where my comparison to OJ's trial comes in. If what you're saying is true, OJ should have been able to say "ok, they found me innocent, as a factual matter I did not kill those people" and he could never have been sued in a civil case. But he was, because the NG verdict is not a finding of fact.

 

I think Zimmerman will have to prove as an affirmative matter that he shot Zimmerman in self defense. He can't rely on his NG verdict to do that.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

SB I think you're wrong. The NG verdict is not a finding that Zimmerman shot in self-defense, it's a finding that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not shoot in self defense. That's where my comparison to OJ's trial comes in. If what you're saying is true, OJ should have been able to say "ok, they found me innocent, as a factual matter I did not kill those people" and he could never have been sued in a civil case. But he was, because the NG verdict is not a finding of fact.

 

I think Zimmerman will have to prove as an affirmative matter that he shot Zimmerman in self defense. He can't rely on his NG verdict to do that.

Yeah, I agree...but that is where it does not make a whole lot of sense. I don't know why the prosecution should have to prove it wasn't self defense. They proved that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. The burden of proving self defense, which would seem to be an affirmative defense, should have then been on Zimmerman's lawyers, as I always understood it.

[Soxbadger]

SB I think you're wrong. The NG verdict is not a finding that Zimmerman shot in self-defense, it's a finding that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not shoot in self defense. That's where my comparison to OJ's trial comes in. If what you're saying is true, OJ should have been able to say "ok, they found me innocent, as a factual matter I did not kill those people" and he could never have been sued in a civil case. But he was, because the NG verdict is not a finding of fact.

 

I think Zimmerman will have to prove as an affirmative matter that he shot Zimmerman in self defense. He can't rely on his NG verdict to do that.

 

We really need to stop comparing it to OJ because they are very very different. In the OJ case the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ killed 2 people. The jury found that the prosecution did not reach its burden. In the civil trial, the plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that OJ killed them. The criminal trial and jury trial have nothing to do with each other.

 

The criminal case never found OJ innocent, no criminal case ever finds someone innocent, unless the person is relying on an affirmative defense, like Martin. This is why comparing to OJ is very misleading because there was an affirmative defense.

 

Now lets look at Martin. In Martin we have a law:

 

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 office

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

 

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

 

Now maybe there is an argument that some how in a civil case they should apply different burdens, but here is the problem, in a civil case the burden on an affirmative defense is on the party making the defense. Thus where in criminal court it was the prosecutions case to prove that it was not self defense, in a civil case it will be Zimmerman's burden to prove that it was.

 

Which is why I believe Florida made the law I quoted, to specifically prevent liability in this situation. Im not going to dig up Florida case law, but what is the point of:

 

(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 and civil action for the use of such force,

 

If not to prevent people who use self defense from being sued in civil court?

 

I dont really care either way, I just think that OJ and this case are pretty different.