Zimmerman: NOT GUILTY

[GreyGeek]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2011/12/lose-criminal-case-but-win-civil-trial.html

Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. In his civil trial, he was found liable for their wrongful death.

So what exactly is the difference between a civil suit and a criminal suit?

    Criminal cases are tried by prosecutors and the state. By their nature, criminal cases are considered offenses against the state or society as a whole. Civil cases, on the other hand, are not.

    The burden of proof is usually different. Crimes typically need to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil charges usually require a lower burden of proof.

    Juries are typically required in criminal cases. Many civil cases will be adjudicated only by a judge, not a jury.

    There is no right to an attorney in a civil case. Defendants sued in civil cases typically need to provide an attorney themselves. In criminal cases, the state will provide an attorney if the defendant cannot afford one.

A civil suit, filed under a judge with the same mindset and bias as Zimmerman's judge, would most likely rule against him regardless of the evidence.

[Kendahl]

The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty. I suspect they thought he might be guilty but the evidence was too weak and inconsistent to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zimmerman's legal ordeal may not be over. The feds may try to make a civil rights case. Some commentators have predicted that would fail, too, for the same reasons the criminal prosecution failed.

In some states with castle doctrines and stand your ground laws, failure to secure a criminal conviction means immunity from civil action. I don't know if Florida is one of them.

People who go armed legally are advised not to look for trouble. Participation in a neighborhood watch program means prowling the streets late at night looking for suspicious activity to report. The bad guys will not appreciate this and may express their resentment physically. If Zimmerman's story is the truth, that's what happened to him. This is a lose-lose situation. Win the fight and you face a criminal trial. Lose and you go to the hospital or the morgue.

Several months ago, a guy on The High Road described following a prowler through his neighborhood. He stayed in his car with the doors locked and windows up and never got within a block of the prowler. That meant he was pretty safe and, to get to him, the prowler would have had to leave physical evidence. By getting out of his car, Zimmerman put himself in an ambiguous situation where there was no clear cut proof he was telling the truth.

[Greybeard]

I will buy coffee for the whole group if the DOJ "DOES NOT" go after Zimmerman for a Civil Rights Violation. I feel that confident that they will.

[Dan W]

The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty.

What is that supposed to mean?  No jury has ever found any defendant "innocent" because they do not have the power to do so.

[greg58]

To keep the same spin (which  promoted hatred for  Whites and self-loathing) they introduced a new ethnic group in this country, "White Hispanics". Quoted from GreyGeek.


Does this mean Obama is a "White Negro" since he is half caucasian?

Greg58

[Kendahl]

No jury has ever found any defendant "innocent" because they do not have the power to do so.

I should have included a sentence saying that there is no such verdict as "innocent". The point I wanted to make was that we can't know whether the jury believed Zimmerman or just found the evidence insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Given the weakness of both sides' cases, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter.

[unfy]

Looking across news headlines ... it looks like folks are still thinking this was a racial thing.

I wish people weren't so ****ing stupid .

Good news on that front to a degree:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/14/zimmerman-lawyer-to-move-asap-against-nbc-news/

Lawsuit against NBC is continuing.

[CitizenClark]

I should have included a sentence saying that there is no such verdict as "innocent". The point I wanted to make was that we can't know whether the jury believed Zimmerman or just found the evidence insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Given the weakness of both sides' cases, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter.

Well, if they followed the judge's instructions, they had to believe that Zimmerman's story justifying deadly force in self-defense was more likely than not to be true.

Since Zimmerman clearly killed Martin, the question was whether or not Zimmerman was privileged to do so. The defense theory was that he was privileged to do so because he was acting in self-defense.

Although the state generally bears the evidentiary burden to establish the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, self-defense is an "affirmative defense" that must be established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

[AAllen]

CitizenClark, normally I would agree with your post, but that is not the way they played this case.  George did not plead justification under self defense (the affirmative defense) he plead not guilty.  So now the State had to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that it may have been self defense could be a reason to doubt his guilt.

As many Lawyers have said this was a very weird case.  The verdict is simply "Not Guilty"  there was no option for "Not Guilty by reason of Self Defense" even though self defense issues were raised which required the court to include the jury instructions for them.  Does a "Not Guilty" verdict carry more meaning in the Civil Suits that are being filed than a "Self Defense" verdict would, I don't know and have trouble understanding the way either side fought this case.

[altheman2]

I wish people weren't so ****ing stupid

That right there would solve many of the worlds problems

[GreyGeek]

The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent.

They didn't have to.  Until things change for the worse, a person IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  In the politically correct court of "public" opinion just the opposite is true.

Their verdict was not guilty. I suspect they thought he might be guilty but the evidence was too weak and inconsistent to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

mmm... I suspect they thought the charge was absurd and politically motivated.  We both have equal  proof.

Zimmerman's legal ordeal may not be over. The feds may try to make a civil rights case. Some commentators have predicted that would fail, too, for the same reasons the criminal prosecution failed.

And for the fact that the FBI investigation already established that Zimmerman, an Hispanic, had no  history or evidence of racist actions or speech that would lead one to believe the shooting was racially motivated.   Racial fury was incited by NBC when they edited the 911 tape to put the words "fu**ing coon" in Zimmerman's mouth and refereed to him as "White".  When they were reminded that Zimmerman was Hispanic, the media created a new racial category, "White Hispanic".   The media role in this fiasco was as bad as I've ever seen it.

In some states with castle doctrines and stand your ground laws, failure to secure a criminal conviction means immunity from civil action. I don't know if Florida is one of them.

25 states have "Stand your ground" laws, 18 states have Castle Doctrine laws and 6 states (including Nebraska) have weak or no Castle laws.

Both the Stand Your Ground and Castle laws have provisions which prohibit civil lawsuits against those, IF charged,  who are found innocent by reason of these laws.  These laws do not prevent a person not part of the conflict who was wounded by the gun fire from filing a civil suit against the shooter.

People who go armed legally are advised not to look for trouble. Participation in a neighbourhood watch program means prowling the streets late at night looking for suspicious activity to report. The bad guys will not appreciate this and may express their resentment physically. If Zimmerman's story is the truth, that's what happened to him. This is a lose-lose situation. Win the fight and you face a criminal trial. Lose and you go to the hospital or the morgue.

For sure!
A concealed carry  license is not a permit to play cop, even if you see a crime being committed while carrying.   My wife and I were part of our neighbourhood watch program and we didn't "prowl around" at all.  We had a large sign on our front window, easily visible from  the street.  Our house was also designated as a safe house were children were to  come to if they were threatened and too far from home.   We harboured two children in 25 years.   If we saw suspicious activity from our windows we called the police.  I never considered using my only weapon, a .22 Ruger Mark I.

.... By getting out of his car, Zimmerman put himself in an ambiguous situation where there was no clear cut proof he was telling the truth.

He sure did.   Martin probably thought he was strong and aggressive enough to "pound and ground" Zimmerman.  He sure was.   Zimmerman thought his concealed carry weapon made him safe from physical threats.  It didn't, but it stopped Martin before Martin's rain of blows was able to do more than break Zimmerman's nose, smash his lips and put cuts  and contusions on the back of his head.   Everyone in Lincoln knows about the two men who were beat to death in the last month.   Zimmerman could have used his weapon like a club, but that could result in being disarmed and having the weapon used against you.

So, according to Florida law,  Martin's relatives cannot sue in  civil court.  The state prosecutors probably already told them that, which may be why they made no statement and said they had no plans for a civil suit.   The FBI's civil rights lawsuit is out,  unless they can convince a judge of some wired twist in that law which would circumvent their own report. 

Zimmerman has one big worry.  The crazies who want "justice" and/or fame and plan to try and kill him.  They already know he is armed, so it will be a sneak attack.   His choices?   Hide in some out of the way rural area, get plastic surgery and and name change, and hope  to keep the new identity secret.  Move to another country.

[AAllen]

25 states have "Stand your ground" laws, 18 states have Castle Doctrine laws and 6 states (including Nebraska) have weak or no Castle laws.

Both the Stand Your Ground and Castle laws have provisions which prohibit civil lawsuits against those, IF charged,  who are found innocent by reason of these laws.  These laws do not prevent a person not part of the conflict who was wounded by the gun fire from filing a civil suit against the shooter.

Grey Greek, while not disagreeing with your meaning I need to throw a correction out here.

"Stand Your Ground," "Castle Doctrine," and "Civil Liability Protections" are three separate and distinct items, and the confusion around this and the language people use keeps us from getting improvements made to Nebraska's self defense laws.

1. "Castle Doctrine"  This is simply that you have no duty to retreat in hour home, IE. your home is your castle.  In the late 1960's a craze went across the country rewriting self defense laws, many Southern Sates ended up with a provision that required you to retreat from and attacker in your home, Castle Doctrine simply removes that from the self defense statute.  Nebraska has never had a duty to retreat from your home, there by we have the "Castle Doctrine."

2. "Stand Your Ground"  Florida was the first state to pass SYG legislation, but not the first state to have it.  Until the craze of changing self defense laws in the late '60's everywhere in the country had SYG.  There are multiple Supreme Court decisions that uphold this right and several states never changed their self defense laws, there by doing away with the original SYG (the Constitution); among those are states like Washington and believe it or not California.  This is something we have been pushing for here in Nebraska, and because of the black marks the press has given the term SYG we have tried to relabel it the "Victim Protection Act" and include civil protections.  The fact that so many people write to their Senator and ask for "Castle Doctrine" is part of the reason we fail to get this passed, those opposed to this legislation simply need to point out that we already have the "Castle Doctrine" (no retreat in the home) and the bill ends up dying.

3. "Civil Liability Protections"  This is the third generation item to be added to changes in Self Defense Law in recent years.  If you look at the states that have enacted changes the first wave was "Castle Doctrine," then came the hybrid "Castle Doctrine With Stand Your Ground" and some of the states that enacted the Castle Doctrine came back and added SYG, now the same things are happening with Civil Liability Protections.  We got a small piece of this a couple of years ago, and those of us on the Board at that time are still not happy with what and how things went down.  Do we need to do more, yes, but we are a little ways off from being able to bring this issue back up in the Legislature.

Language matters, especially when dealing with the Legislature, if you use a term that a Senator can claim means something different than what you meant you have lost the battle.  That is why I keep telling people to quit asking for the Castle Doctrine.  Nebraska has it already and always has.  Until we can get everyone using terminology that the Legislature can't twist to a different meaning we will not win these battles.

[Greybeard]

Thank you Andy. Precise language is important, as is spelling and punctuation. I appreciate the education.

[AAllen]

Thank you Andy. Precise language is important, as is spelling and punctuation. I appreciate the education.

And this is why I try to get as many people to read important items from me as possible, because my spelling etc. sucks (I blame my poor typing skills).

[AAllen]

There is another part that some folks include in discussing the "Castle Doctrine" that I did not list here: if attacked, it’s reasonable for the defender to believe their life is at risk (Presumption of Reasonable Fear).  This gets into another discussion on whither the "reasonable man" or the "victim's" view is important in determining if self defense is justified.  This is another issue that has been run ragged but basically Nebraska statute says what the person performing self defense feels is the guiding fact, where as the Nebraska Supreme Court in its jury instructions uses the: What would a reasonable man think in the same situation?  Where as our law has the higher standard (better for us), how it is applied is not exactly the same.  We have had some wording changes for this brought up, and the NRA always messes this up for us by going in another direction.  One of these days we will have to go after this again as well.

[CitizenClark]

CitizenClark, normally I would agree with your post, but that is not the way they played this case.  George did not plead justification under self defense (the affirmative defense) he plead not guilty.

 

Zimmerman's defense attorneys asserted that he acted in self-defense throughout the trial.

So now the State had to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that it may have been self defense could be a reason to doubt his guilt.

I'm not a Florida lawyer, and my not being familiar with Florida law caused some confusion here. It seems that the way self-defense works in Florida criminal law has changed dramatically over recent years. What I described above is the way that self-defense works as an affirmative defense in most states. Apparently, Florida and Indiana (and maybe some others) actually provide in their criminal statutes that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not act in self-defense (cf. the usual rule, that the affirmative defense of self-defense requires that the defendant persuade a jury that the preponderance of the evidence support the claim of self-defense). In other words, as I understand it from my cursory research, self-defense no longer operates as an affirmative defense in criminal court in Florida.

Thus, I was incorrect when I said that Zimmerman must have in the eyes of the jurors proved by a preponderance that he acted in self-defense, and I was further incorrect in saying that this was therefore essentially the same sort of showing that he would need to make in a civil trial to beat a tort claim.

Mea culpa.

As many Lawyers have said this was a very weird case.  The verdict is simply "Not Guilty"  there was no option for "Not Guilty by reason of Self Defense" even though self defense issues were raised which required the court to include the jury instructions for them.  Does a "Not Guilty" verdict carry more meaning in the Civil Suits that are being filed than a "Self Defense" verdict would, I don't know and have trouble understanding the way either side fought this case.

Well, given these relatively new developments in criminal procedure as to who bears the burden in a case where self-defense is at issue, (what I know of) the defense strategy makes sense.

[Chris C]

The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty.

Are you from Florida by chance…maybe the Tampa area?  That phrase is very similar to a phrase the state attorney uttered during the trial earlier this year of a radio personality I have listened to every day since he started on Sirius years back. 

[unfy]

The not guilty and not innocent phrase has been popular last few days. It's a way of expressing annoyance with the outcome - or as a way to simply disagree with it in a way that sounds trendy (and retarded when done this way... If you think he's guilty then this phrase is assinine).

The best proper use of it is that although found not guilty by court - there's innocence lost in the taking of a life. Using it this way typically has a religious connotation.

[DangerousDrummer]

The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty

The Constitution says "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Since he was found "not guilty" which means "not proven guilty", he is innocent. I go by what the Constitutions says, even though it is not politically correct anymore.

[ProtoPatriot]

As excellent as this is...

All this trial was was exactly as it appears: an attempt to try and condemn weapon owners (specifically firearms) and try to say that such laws as stand your ground and castle doctrine are some how bad. They were trying to build a precedent to make self-defense illegal and increase dependence on government.

The media and the liberal freaks need to get a clue and remember: "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the state (even though the laws say the burden of proof changes when self-defense is claimed, that is false and a way to try and back door convict people, not to mention the violation of rights in doing so. If someone is forced to prove their innocents, they are being forced to testify against themselves as well as possibly provide evidence that could convict them...both being a violation of a person's rights and the Constitution).

And being that he was innocent and they found him not guilty, he is completely innocent and should be immune to any and all civil lawsuits by the family or others. The family should have no ability to sue, they have no involvement, their kid committed the crime, they need to deal with that and not punish the innocent.

We really need to get back to everything being based on individuals, scrap this social crap.

Good thing the stand your ground law states that if civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense. But it should not even be an option to be sued in civil court as he was proven innocent, criminal court trumps civil court.