Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

Possible. But if GZ's story is true, TM's actions were extreme to the max, extreme to the point that I'd be exceptionally surprised if it was not preceded by a history of some type of similar behavior. Absent such a history (which could still come out over time), it's one of the things that make it really hard for me to reconcile how this happened as GZ says it did, and will continue to make me wonder if we're not missing major parts of the story.

There are many reasons why TM might have been angry with GZ that evening.

Some of which are taboo to mention.

Heck, I'd be mad if someone appeared to be following me to my house.

 

[curi0us]

I invented the knocking part as far as I know.

I heard it a while ago (sourced to Mr. Martin) and discounted it as Mr. Martin being confused but it's an interesting side theory to keep open as a possibility. If it's true it does match a Dee Dee's story better, and if it's not true then it still offers an interesting insight into why Dee Dee's version is the way it is.

 

[Cylinder]

I assume that if they do not ask for the immunity hearing, or if they have the immunity hearing and are denied, at that point a wrongful death lawsuit (Civil Trial) will be allowed sometime in the future.

Am I correct?

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...

Zimmerman will have statutory immunity if the judge grants his immunity motion or if the jury finds justificstion - as a matter of law. If Zimmerman walks on a hung jury, then it's unclear to me if a civil trial could go forward, since Zimmerman would still be able to assert his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

 

[Noztradamus]

Regarding my wacky idea that TM might have knocked on GZ's truck window:



I think it is the closest version of events we have to the truth.

It's also a decent match for Dee-Dee's info.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403

And the fact that it is impossible to match the sequence and events of that story to Zimmerman's not-911 call is but a minor inconvenience.

 

[This is The End]

I assume that if they do not ask for the immunity hearing, or if they have the immunity hearing and are denied, at that point a wrongful death lawsuit (Civil Trial) will be allowed sometime in the future.

Am I correct?

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...

Zimmerman will have statutory immunity if the judge grants his immunity motion or if the jury finds justificstion - as a matter of law. If Zimmerman walks on a hung jury, then it's unclear to me if a civil trial could go forward, since Zimmerman would still be able to assert his 5th Amendment protection against self-incriomination.

Just to clairify:

You are saying that even if there is an immunity hearing, and Z is denied immunity, that still doesn't open the door for a Civil Trial? We would have to wait for the results of the Criminal Trial to know if a Civil Trial is allowed?

 

[Cylinder]

Just to clairify:

You are saying that even if there is an immunity hearing, and Z is denied immunity, that still doesn't open the door for a Civil Trial? We would have to wait for the results of the Criminal Trial to know if a Civil Trial is allowed?

Yes. Immunity from civil actions is granted in any case that justification is found under the appropriate statutes. The pretrial immunity hearing is just one of the procedural steps required by Florida courts.

 

[This is The End]

Yes. Immunity from civil actions is granted in any case that justification is found under the appropriate statutes. The pretrial immunity hearing is just one of the procedural steps required by Florida courts.

It just seems weird that... from your quote:

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...

"is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action"

...that once the immunity hearing denies him immunity from criminal prosecution, it does not apply to civil as well.

I guess I can see that making sense though....

 

[Cylinder]

It just seems weird that... from your quote:



"is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action"

...that once the immunity hearing denies him immunity from criminal prosecution, it does not apply to civil as well.

I guess I can see that making sense though....

It is a bit confusing. The pre-trial hearing is required to satisfy the criminal prosecution bit, but a denial of that motion is not the same as ruling that the use of force was not justified - that would be a question left to the jury. It just means the defendant could not show that the immunity exists under that burden of proof. The jury could still find the use of force was "permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031" which would still grant immunity.

 

[Mumbles]

Regarding my wacky idea that TM might have knocked on GZ's truck window:



I think it is the closest version of events we have to the truth.

It's also a decent match for Dee-Dee's info.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403

Well, no, it doesn't match what we've heard of the girl's story at all, apart from a single phrase. It also doesn't match Zimmerman's 911 call, where he has apparently had no idea who Martin is, and again, fails to note any conversation that they had, and calls long before Martin runs off. In fact, if that was the story Zimmerman told investigators, then my conclusion would be that he lied to them.

 

[This is The End]

It is a bit confusing. The pre-trial hearing is required to satisfy the criminal prosecution bit, but a denial of that motion is not the same as ruling that the use of force was not justified - that would be a question left to the jury. It just means the defendant could not show that the immunity exists under that burden of proof. The jury could still find the use of force was "permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031" which would still grant immunity.

Is that what the jury does though? I thought they would just find that Z was not guilty of X charges.

Does that mean the jury specifically finds it was self defense? Or just that they find him not guilty....

OJ was found not guilty (before you say anything, yes I realize the OJ trial had nothing to do with self defense) and then was sued Civilly. If it was in Florida could OJ have claimed it was self defense, then when found not guilty of murder say that the jury agreed with him.... and then be free from a civil trial?

Are you saying that in the Z trial the judge will say that if the jury finds Z not guilty that means it was self defense? Does that happen because the defendant's defense is self defense?

 

[Cylinder]

She'll release the evidence, just as soon as she finds it...

Well, she was busy making extra-judicial statements on the eve of the filing date for her upcoming election.

 

[This is The End]

Well, no, it doesn't match what we've heard of the girl's story at all, apart from a single phrase. It also doesn't match Zimmerman's 911 call, where he has apparently had no idea who Martin is, and again, fails to note any conversation that they had, and calls long before Martin runs off. In fact, if that was the story Zimmerman told investigators, then my conclusion would be that he lied to them.

It is being claimed that Z goes back to the truck (and M returns to the truck as well) after the 911 call....

 

[Cylinder]

Is that what the jury does though? I thought they would just find that Z was not guilty of X charges.

Does that mean the jury specifically finds it was self defense? Or just that they find him not guilty....

That's a really good question. After doing some research, I think you're right. If the jury did aquit Zimmerman, he could still face civil trial, assert statutory immunity and start the process over again, for the reason you cite.

OJ was found not guilty (before you say anything, yes I realize the OJ trial had nothing to do with self defense) and then was sued Civilly. If it was in Florida could OJ have claimed it was self defense, then when found not guilty of murder say that the jury agreed with him.... and then be free from a civil trial?

Yea, that is a bit different. OJ claimed someone else did it - and raised reasonable doubt. The burden at civil trial is much lower - perponderance of the evidence. The difference in burdens brought out the different outcomes.

Are you saying that in the Z trial the judge will say that if the jury finds Z not guilty that means it was self defense? Does that happen because the defendant's defense is self defense?

I think I might be wrong in that assertion. It does seem reasonable since Zimmerman's only claim here seems to be justification that an aquittial would satisfy the statute, but what little reference I can find on the matter seems to reflect otherwise. There may be a procedural step I'm missing here, like if justified homicide was an option on the jury form.

Of course, anyone can sue anyone else at any time and for any reason.

 

[Dancing David]

Lawyer: Angela Corey missed deadline to release evidence

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/La...ence/-/1637132/12190668/-/g2ilu2/-/index.html

"Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, told Local 6 he wants access to the state's information to start preparing his defense, however, he doesn't want the records to become public before he has the chance to file a motion to keep certain information, like witness names and addresses, secret. Corey's office also wants that type of information shielded from public view.

After Friday's hearing, O'Mara told Local 6 he disagrees with what he called Ponce's "more strict interpretation" of the discovery deadline. O'Mara believes the deadline for Corey's office to make the documents public has not yet passed because his interpretation is that the 15 day deadline for Corey's office to make its evidence public doesn't start ticking until after a defendant's arraignment. Zimmerman's is scheduled for May 8."

 

[Dancing David]

Regarding my wacky idea that TM might have knocked on GZ's truck window:



I think it is the closest version of events we have to the truth.

It's also a decent match for Dee-Dee's info.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403

I am not sure that this story, if true, would help GZ's case. It would depend upon the time he made the calls to the non-emergency number.

Why would an investigator have told TM's father any evidentiary testimony?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This whole was it raining or not argument seems like a fallacy of the excluded middle ground.

I believe the evidence we have so far was that it barely rained for a few minutes. Typical for Florida.

Which evidence specifically is that ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And the fact that it is impossible to match the sequence and events of that story to Zimmerman's not-911 call is but a minor inconvenience.

Wow, you would think something like that would be enough for the detectives to question GZ story and cause to arrest him, instead of not arresting him and saying all the evidence aggress with GZ story

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I am not sure that this story, if true, would help GZ's case. It would depend upon the time he made the calls to the non-emergency number.

Why would an investigator have told TM's father any evidentiary testimony?

So he knew the circumstances of his sons death ? He obviously did tell tracy martin ... so ... you would have to ask the detective why he told him, I guess.

 

[WildCat]

If Zimmerman walks on a hung jury, then it's unclear to me if a civil trial could go forward, since Zimmerman would still be able to assert his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

I always thought the 5th Amendment didn't apply to civil trials? That a civil defendant can be compelled to testify?

eta: oh, I see what you mean, he could invoke the 5th in such a circumstance because there's still the possibility of a criminal trial?

 

[WildCat]

It is being claimed that Z goes back to the truck (and M returns to the truck as well) after the 911 call....

Huh? Zimmerman never made it back to the truck or claimed to as far as I know.