Originally Posted by NoVaguy
True, but I suspect the wrinkle here in a civil action would be that Zimmerman can be forced to testify in state court, now that double jeopardy does not apply at the state level.
As Ata says -
Originally Posted by Ataturk
Not that I think he would have to, but why does Zimmerman care whether has to testify in a civil suit? What hard questions are there for him to answer that he hasn't already addressed in the five or six interviews he did with the police?
Zimmerman even took and passed two lie detector tests for the police. There's not a whole lot there he has to be afraid of. It's a big reason why he didn't have to testify at the criminal trial, the prosecution helpfully put in his testimony by way of his statements to the police.
Originally Posted by ant702
I bet'cha the lint at the bottom of my right pocket, Z will not see 2014!
I wouldn't want your lint even if you were giving it away with a free bowl of soup.
Originally Posted by joshuadowen
This, btw, is why I don't see his lawyers being prepared to sue anyone for defamation. I don't see how they could make any sort of defamation case without putting him on the stand. While testifying at all doesn't waive his right to refuse to self-incriminate, I don't see how he'd avoid it. Part of proving the defamation case would require him getting on the stand and testifying that the defamatory statement wasn't true, at which point he's really opened the door to a lot of questions he probably doesn't want to answer.
He already has sued for defamation.
The civil suit was put on hold pending the result fo the criminal trial. Although honestly the outcome of the criminal trial will have little impact on the civil suit.
Originally Posted by Hayward
The Nation's quasi-Stalinist rhetoric aside, I don't disagree.
Perhaps I am being obtuse, but it seems like a lot of people in this thread fail to understand the nuance of racism. There are an infinite number of shades of white, pink, red, brown, and black, and none of them necessarily like or respect each other in many places. Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean are chock-full of social structures where one group thinks they're better than the others because they see themselves as more civilized, more evolved, or simply "more white". Even if you regard George Zimmerman as not being white based strictly on his DNA, it's pretty clear that he and his family are white acculturated. And to argue that he is incapable of racism because he has had isolated positive interactions with black folks in certain circumstances, or even on a regular basis, is ridiculous.He picked on Martin because of how he looked. Every time he saw someone who looked like Trayvon Martin in his neighborhood he called the police, even when there was no reason to.
There's no evidence of that. Yes, the people who he called the police on were black, but that doesn't mean "every time" he saw a black person he called the police. His stated reason for calling the police on Trayvon was that he was 1. someone he didn't recognize, 2. Walking alone in the rain with a hoodie concealing his identity, 3. Acting as if he was on drugs. We know from the autopsy that Trayvon used drugs. It's pretty clear he was on his way to consume more illegal drugs. That is the profile of a suspicious person. Zimmerman had every reason to investigate further.
That doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't subsequently put in a position where he had to legally defend himself. But it certainly casts a lot of doubt on his side of the story.
It does no such thing. You read into it what you want, not what actually took place.
And in the final analysis here,the possibility that Zimmerman's take on events was accepted by the jury due to their own racist assumptions about Trayvon Martin is inescapable.
Of course it's escapable. The Prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's version of events is entirely irrelevant if the state doesn't cross that initial hurdle.
That may not necessarily be the case. But it Zimmerman Drew and shot his firearm after he was engaged by Martin, how come none of Martin's DNA is on the handgun? Shootings, especially at close range, are not squeaky clean like you see on TV.
You didn't watch more than 5 minutes of the trial, did you?
The best you can say here is that there was not enough evidence to convict. So the process worked, but the institution failed.
What institution are you referring to? What the hell does that crap even mean?
He's just trying to be misleading. The self-defense law of FLA was on the books long before SYG. And this case had nothing to do with SYG.