State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Massad Ayoob...

In a recent Combat Handguns, author & legal expert witness on use-of-force Massad Ayoob, brought up Florida among other states as having these legal provisions but he also said there could also be legal cases that contest it.
Ayoob says even in Florida, anyone can be sued.
I highly doubt that under the circumstances, George Zimmerman will face a formal wrongful death lawsuit but the family members may push for a DoJ investigation.

A big push in central Florida has been for GZ to get a "fair trial" & "to have this death investigation brought to justice". These standards have now been met.

Id add that the metro Orlando Florida media(Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, print) was squarely against GZ in early/mid 2012. Now as the criminal trial evolves Id say the media coverage is about 60-70% pro-George Zimmerman.
The lawyers & TV pundits the local news stations use rip the prosecutors apart daily.
As for Sanford & the Orando area, the court case isn't as big a draw as Casey Anthony. Credit should be given to Sheriff Don Eisiegner & the Seminole County Sheriffs Office for their prudent efforts.
FWIW; When you see the TV news crews & reporters, it's from a "undisclosed location". It's not a huge circus like "Camp Casey" in 2011 in Orange County.
The sheriff & Sanford PD asked that the media not reveal it to the public.
Clyde
 
I get it, Glen, and I see your point. But, until we have any reason to doubt his story, justice tells us to presume innocence. Since he has been truthful on every other salient point, even before he had any idea that there were witnesses and evidence, I think we owe him that. I certainly would hope to get at least that much of a benefit of the doubt, assuming I was in the right, and assuming I had been completely truthful as he apparently has. There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but I think we must be fair here.
 
I don't think we owe him anything beyond applying the standards of the law. I don't think you were saying we owe him in another sense.

Zim has some negatives - his financial shenanigans were not truthful. He has a history with some negatives as regards violence - but no convictions and cannot be introduced. As far as believing his story - no - we have to evaluate it. Every guilty defendant says he wasn't there, it wasn't his dope and the other guy did it. I sit on a conduct review board and listen to these excuses all the time.

As I said in my big post - if he goes down - it is because of the macro story.

1. No need to intervene and get out of the truck - that sound specious to me.

2. A kid is dead who was minding his own business. The analysis of Martin's actions don't impress me. I see that as trying to excuse Zim for his own stupidity.

- Now if you go to the micro story, there may be reasonable doubt.

Which will the jury pick? Neither verdict is a victory for society. Certainly, anyway it goes down, it wasn't a plus for the gun world.
 
Martin may have been minding his own business up to the point where he, according to Zimmerman, began what we now know was a relentless assault.

Totally agree that no one wins here.
 
After hearing the prosecution's case and knowing what I know about the responsibilities of a person with a CCL (I have one) I would find it interesting to be a juror on this case.
There are two things in the big picture that stand out for me:
1. Zimmerman made a big mistake by getting out of his vehicle and pursuing Martin on foot. The altercation would never have happened if he had followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions and stayed put. I bet he regrets doing that now, I know I would.
2. Once there was contact made and a fight started, Zimmerman did the only thing he could in the situation and that was to use his firearm. What would be the point of carrying a firearm if you aren't willing to use it to defend yourself?
Of course there is a lot more to this case but just considering these two factors I really don't know if I would find Zimmerman guilty or innocent. It would appear in my estimation that he is guilty of something, perhaps not 2nd degree murder but something lesser. Murder is committing the act with "depraved indifference" or something like that and I don't really believe Zimmerman is a bad man just someone who exhibited bad judgement.
 
Tom Servo said:
So, yeah, there's immunity from civil action if the shooting is ruled to be justified self-defense. However, the question of provocation still looms large.
Click to expand...
People keep bringing that up, but I just have a hard time seeing any way in which Zimmerman provoked Martin's assault.

(Yes, I did write "Martin's assault." That means I have come around to believing that Zimmerman had broken off tailing Martin and was returning to his vehicle, and that Martin -- who at that point was free and clear to beat feet for Daddy's condo -- doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. I did not believe that at the time the incident took place and the story broke, but I do now.)

To me, "provoking" means taunting, daring, inviting the other guy to take a swing at you. Even if Zimmerman had not broken off (lost) the tail and was still following Martin, I don't view that as grounds for a physical assault. It might be grounds for Martin to hang up his call to the 19-year old brain trust girlfriend and dial up 9-1-1, but we've been told that "black people don't trust the PO'-lice, so they don't call them." Nonetheless, that's what civilized people do when they think they are being followed by a suspicious character. What they DON'T do is jump the guy and try to beat him to death.
 
Last edited:
But, until we have any reason to doubt his story, justice tells us to presume innocence.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman's not innocent, per se. He's admitted to shooting Martin. What he's maintaining is immunity from prosecution.

That means I have come around to believing that Zimmerman had broken off tailing Martin and was retirning to his vehicle
Click to expand...
As Glenn mentioned, this story has two sides, and only one party is alive to tell his. Martin wasn't raving mad and threatening people. He was (possibly) trespassing. Zimmerman chose to approach him at night, and we don't know what he said or did. He could have acted in a manner that spooked Martin. We can't know.

What I do know is that kid didn't have to die that night. Zimmerman could have hung back and let law enforcement do their jobs.
 
Tom Servo said:
Zimmerman chose to approach him at night, and we don't know what he said or did.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think that Zimmerman "approached" Martin. He claims that he was just trying to keep Martin in sigh until the police arrived. Now, he certainly could have lied about that but it seems like something an average person might do given his previous experience (calling the police only to find the suspect gone when they arrive). His version is also supported by the location of the confrontation.
 
Posted by Tom Servo: The relevant section of immunity is 776.032:

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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer
Click to expand...
Very true indeed.

So, yeah, there's immunity from civil action if the shooting is ruled to be justified self-defense.
Click to expand...
But the outcome of the criminal trial simply answers the question whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not justified.

That is not the same as concluding that it was justified.

Thus, his risk of civil liability will remain, regardless.

Zimmerman's not innocent, per se. He's admitted to shooting Martin. What he's maintaining is immunity from prosecution.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman chose some time ago to not make that claim. Thus, the case went to trial without his having made such a claim.

What he is claiming is that his use of deadly force was justified.
 
Last edited:
But the outcome of the criminal trial simply answers the question whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not justified.

That is not the same as concluding that it was justified.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I got a bit garbled by the semantics. On second reading, you're right. In this case, Zimmerman doesn't have a rosy future to look forward to.

This brings me back to the notion that a shooting, no matter how justified, will change the shooter's life for the worse. Zimmerman could very well be bankrupted by this. He'll have to move. He'll have trouble finding employment because he'll always be that guy.

I'm not sure why you think that Zimmerman "approached" Martin
Click to expand...
It seems likely given the circumstances, more likely than the idea that Martin just turned into a violent ball of rage without provocation. Thing is, we've only got one side of the story, and that's potentially a huge problem for us.

When the various states started enacting SYG laws, opponents called it a license to kill, and they painted a picture like this:

"Holy cow, Tom! You shot a mime?"

"Um, yeah. He was creeping me out."

"Did you feel threatened?"

"Um...sure. Afraid for my life."

"If he was just doing that 'walking against the wind thing..."

"No, he said he had a knife, and that he was going to cut me like a Honeybaked ham."

"Really? Because mimes don't usually talk."

"He did it in ASL. Afraid for my life, I tell ya."

"Well, we don't have any witnesses to contradict your story, so have a nice day."

Proponents of gun control need a win, and rolling back SYG laws could turn into a possibility after this.
 
Tom Servo said:
"What I do know is that kid didn't have to die that night. Zimmerman could have hung back and let law enforcement do their jobs."
Click to expand...

This.

Regardless of who wins this trial, just based on the total evidence presented I am convinced that Zimmerman contributed to a death that did not need to occur.

I'm not saying his life wasn't threatened, nor that Martin (may or may not have) attacked him - I readily concur that we all have a right to self defense.

What I'm arguing is that Zimmerman is not blameless with respect to what happened. Because of his decisions to carry a pistol on his neighborhood watch patrol, to follow Martin, to NOT 'hang back' and let the police arrive and do their jobs, it became necessary for him to take a life.

He may be found legally to have acted in self defense, but IMHO his actions that night contributed to a death that did not need to happen.
 
post #88, GZ....

I disagree with post #88.
George Zimmerman by most accounts started the incident by making contact or speaking to Martin. My point(as a former MP & licensed security officer for nearly 20 years) is that GZ did not have probable cause to stop Martin or do a "field interview". Some cops like the LAPD use the slang term; to jam people up.
It can under some limited conditions, be of value, but a citizen in plain-clothes is not a sworn LE officer or federal agent.
If you listen to the sworn testimony, GZ was not "self-appointed", he was asked to be the Sanford PD citizen liason to collate HOA related security details & reports from the residents. This is partly, IMO, why the HOA lawyers settled with the estate of Trevon Martin rather than drag out a protected legal dispute.
The Sanford PD crime prevention rep/community services officer seemed more for Zimmerman than the state in her statements on the stand.
The first police investigator; Chris Soreno(who later asked to be re-assigned to the patrol division) said under oath he thought GZ was truthful.

ClydeFrog
 
My point(as a former MP & licensed security officer for nearly 20 years) is that GZ did not have probable cause to stop Martin or do a "field interview".
Click to expand...
Police are not required to have either probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to approach someone and simply ask questions. Probable cause is completely irrelevant if a private citizen asks someone questions. They are not acting on behalf of the government and the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
 
George Zimmerman by most accounts started the incident by making contact or speaking to Martin. My point(as a former MP & licensed security officer for nearly 20 years) is that GZ did not have probable cause to stop Martin or do a "field interview".
Click to expand...
By NO account, anywhere, did Zimmerman ever make direct contact with Martin until Martin approached HIM.

I respectfully suggest we familiarize ourselves with the evidence before making posts such as the above. It will make for a much more meaningful discussion.

Because of his decisions to carry a pistol on his neighborhood watch patrol, to follow Martin, to NOT 'hang back' and let the police arrive and do their jobs, it became necessary for him to take a life.
Click to expand...
His decision to carry a gun has no bearing whatsoever on whether it was necessary to take a life to survive. It merely enabled him to do what he had to when it became necessary for his survival. Such an argument is tantamount to saying that having a fire extinguisher caused the fire.

Zimmerman chose to approach him at night, and we don't know what he said or did. He could have acted in a manner that spooked Martin.
Click to expand...
I continue to be surprised by the number of people who assume or claim, as fact, that Zimmerman ever directly approached Martin. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever directly approached or contacted Martin, OR ANY OTHER SUSPICIOUS PERSON in his numerous calls to the police in his NHW role.

Even if he had, absent more, it wouldn't have begun to justified a brutal, unprovoked and relentless beating.
 
Last edited:
What I'm arguing is that Zimmerman is not blameless with respect to what happened. Because of his decisions to carry a pistol on his neighborhood watch patrol, to follow Martin, to NOT 'hang back' and let the police arrive and do their jobs, it became necessary for him to take a life.
Click to expand...

If Zimmerman is being truthful about that night then...

1) He wasn't on "patrol". He was on his way to the grocery store and was carrying a pistol, which he is legally allowed to do.

2) He thought he was hanging back and merely observing where Martin was heading. The history of that neighborhood leading up to the shooting was full of home invasions and vandalism; usually perpetrated by people who matched Martin's profile and disappeared long before the police arrived.

And to brush on another post: Martin didn't live in the housing complex. He was staying with his father temporarily after being suspended from school for possession of drug paraphernalia. So he most likely wasn't a familiar face in the neighborhood.
 
I disagree...

While it is true that GZ was not a sworn LE officer, he was acting as a agent or representative of the HOA.
GZ's atty; Mark O'Mera had a similar exchange in the court trial with the Sanford PD investigator; Chris Soreno.
Soreno agreed that while not illegal to ask questions or speak to someone, it could be considered inappropriate or unethical.
I don't think GZ had a valid reason to contact LE just based on Martin walking in the rain using a cell phone.
Martin was by ME records on marijuana which may have made him paranoid or act erratically but it didnt warrant any action by Zimmerman or anyone else.

A few years ago, I was working a EP(VIP security) detail for a holiday party in a upscale neighborhood. A few residents & neighbors came up to me asking who hired me. My only answer was; "My client." :cool:
 
Zimmerman doesn't have a rosy future to look forward to.
Click to expand...

This is 100% accurate no matter what happens in the trial. Killing another human is a horrible thing that screws up your life 24/7 till you die. I'm not saying he was right or wrong or that anyone should not defend themselves. But if you ever have to kill someone, be prepared to lose sleep and to lose a lot of other things as well.


Sgt Lumpy
 
Regarding Zim questioning the guy...Is there a line to cross? If a little old lady yells out the back door "Hey, what are you doing out there?" surely that's not "Initiating a conflict" or whatever the statuatory language is.

If someone yells angrily to me "Hey you, stop right there" and I don't recognize them as an LEO, my response would be to quickly leave. Not to stop, move toward the other guy and confront him. "Hey you, stop right there" doesn't seem like "Initiating a conflict" either, unless he's pointing a gun at me or coming at me with a baseball bat or similar.

All of that not perhaps not relevant to this case at all, as several have pointed out that there's no evidence that Zim did question the guy at all. If that is indeed true then of course it's a non issue.

"Initiating a conflict" likely carries the same kind of "...would cause a reasonable and prudent person to feel threatened for their safety or well being" and I would also think it implies the "...and is unable to safely egress". I'm pulling bits and pieces of various statutes that I remember from more than one state. So sorry if it's a little disjointed.


Sgt Lumpy
 
OldMarksman said:
Tom Servo said:
So, yeah, there's immunity from civil action if the shooting is ruled to be justified self-defense.
Click to expand...
But the outcome of the criminal trial simply answers the question whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not justified.

That is not the same as concluding that it was justified.

Thus, his risk of civil liability will remain, regardless.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman specifically waived his right to a pre-trail immunity hearing for the criminal trial.

A Not Guilty verdict in the criminal trial will not automatically confer immunity on Zimmerman. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that immunity can only be granted by a court after an evidentiary hearing.

If Zimmerman is found Not Guilty in the criminal trial, he would still be subject to a civil action. However, I believe that Zimmerman could file for an immunity hearing with respect to the civil case and having won the criminal trial might improve his prospects for being granted immunity.
 
I've read several posts about Federal civil rights lawsuits against Zimmerman. How would that work when Martin is the one who used the racial slur to describe Zimmerman, according to the prosecution's witness? Did I miss somebody testifying that Zimmerman also used a racial slur?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top