Blazer Bob wrote: Does anyone have a pulse on how the Hispanic community views this?
Why would the Hispanic community be interested in this? He's a White-Hispanic. That's all we need to be able to call him a cracker.
Because before he was a White-Hispanic he was a Hispanic and a crusader.
"In late 2010, a homeless African American man, Sherman Ware, was knocked unconscious for no reason whatsoever by the son of a Sanford City police officer, George was upset that the son was not arrested and that no one seemed to care about the homeless man. George produced and distributed a notice of what had happened and rallied support for the homeless gentleman. George put this notice on vehicles and passed it out at churches as services ended. Eventually, largely due to George’s efforts, the police officer’s son was charged with the assault."
Interesting. Thanks for posting. For Zimmerman, this trial must have been Kafkaesque. "But I am one of the good guys." I was just trying to protect my community.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Blazer Bob wrote: Does anyone have a pulse on how the Hispanic community views this?
Why would the Hispanic community be interested in this? He's a White-Hispanic. That's all we need to be able to call him a cracker.
Because before he was a White-Hispanic he was a Hispanic and a crusader.
"In late 2010, a homeless African American man, Sherman Ware, was knocked unconscious for no reason whatsoever by the son of a Sanford City police officer, George was upset that the son was not arrested and that no one seemed to care about the homeless man. George produced and distributed a notice of what had happened and rallied support for the homeless gentleman. George put this notice on vehicles and passed it out at churches as services ended. Eventually, largely due to George’s efforts, the police officer’s son was charged with the assault."
Are they thinking that the prosecution should have manufactured evidence in addition to withholding it? The ends, after all, justify any means used to accomplish them, right?
And I don't think Martin's parents are going to be able to bring up a civil suit...
In FL, acquittal in a self-defense case grants automatic immunity from civil suit.
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 …
Walter L Newton wrote: And I don't think Martin's parents are going to be able to bring up a civil suit...
In FL, acquittal in a self-defense case grants automatic immunity from civil suit.
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 …
Florida law.
Zimmerman's lawyer has brought that up and basically challenged someone to try it if they can while mentioning they have immunity.
I'm thinking there might be some interpretation here. What is the definition of a self-defense case? Self-defense was certainly a big part of Zimmerman's case, but do we really know why the jury acquitted him? Was it because of self-defense or did they simply believe the prosecution didn't prove the requirements for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt? And does it matter?
The perfect senario IMO would be for Zimmerman to sue NBC for editting the 911 tape which tainted his reputation as some kind of racist. Then he makes a deal with the Martin family and gives them half the settlement to avoid another drawn out trial and both families can move on. Then Zimmerman could get some plastic surgery and a job in Nome Alaska.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Even a couple of Florida lawyers don't agree if Zimmerman can get immunity from a civil suit. One says you need a hearing to get the immunity, the other says you only get immunity if you had a "Stand Your Ground" hearing which Zimmerman waived.
Individuals found to be justified in using deadly force may be immune from civil liability under Florida law. If the family sues and loses, it might be ordered to pay attorneys’ fees and compensation to defendants, according to state law.
Zimmerman would have to establish immunity in a separate proceeding, Tamara F. Lawson, a professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law, said in a phone interview.
“In any potential subsequent civil case, the court would have to rule if he’s entitled to civil immunity,” she said.
Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami, said Martin’s family can sue because Zimmerman didn’t seek a hearing under the state’s self-defense law before he was tried.
Walter L Newton wrote: And I don't think Martin's parents are going to be able to bring up a civil suit...
In FL, acquittal in a self-defense case grants automatic immunity from civil suit.
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 …
Florida law.
Zimmerman's lawyer has brought that up and basically challenged someone to try it if they can while mentioning they have immunity.
I'm thinking there might be some interpretation here. What is the definition of a self-defense case? Self-defense was certainly a big part of Zimmerman's case, but do we really know why the jury acquitted him? Was it because of self-defense or did they simply believe the prosecution didn't prove the requirements for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt? And does it matter?
According to Juror B37, in part the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW was the reason (self-defense)
it was a 3/2/1 split thru the deliberation process.....per Jury B37, in the end they could ONLY
acquit because of difficulty with interpreting the law (jury instructions) and the prosecutions
NOT being able to present their case ADEQUATELY.....SO, it was a combination of several
different factors,but race, according to Juror B37 was NOT one of them...
Walter L Newton wrote: And I don't think Martin's parents are going to be able to bring up a civil suit...
In FL, acquittal in a self-defense case grants automatic immunity from civil suit.
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 …
Florida law.
Zimmerman's lawyer has brought that up and basically challenged someone to try it if they can while mentioning they have immunity.
I'm thinking there might be some interpretation here. What is the definition of a self-defense case? Self-defense was certainly a big part of Zimmerman's case, but do we really know why the jury acquitted him? Was it because of self-defense or did they simply believe the prosecution didn't prove the requirements for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt? And does it matter?
According to Juror B37, in part the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW was the reason (self-defense)
it was a 3/2/1 split thru the deliberation process.....per Jury B37, in the end they could ONLY
acquit because of difficulty with interpreting the law (jury instructions) and the prosecutions
NOT being able to present their case ADEQUATELY.....SO, it was a combination of several
different factors,but race, according to Juror B37 was NOT one of them...
But the race-baiters like Sharpton, Jackson and the our white-black president certainly made it a race issue... before the trial even started. And the race issue has now picked up steam since the verdict.
Walter L Newton wrote: And I don't think Martin's parents are going to be able to bring up a civil suit...
In FL, acquittal in a self-defense case grants automatic immunity from civil suit.
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 …
Florida law.
Zimmerman's lawyer has brought that up and basically challenged someone to try it if they can while mentioning they have immunity.
I'm thinking there might be some interpretation here. What is the definition of a self-defense case? Self-defense was certainly a big part of Zimmerman's case, but do we really know why the jury acquitted him? Was it because of self-defense or did they simply believe the prosecution didn't prove the requirements for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt? And does it matter?
According to Juror B37, in part the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW was the reason (self-defense)
it was a 3/2/1 split thru the deliberation process.....per Jury B37, in the end they could ONLY
acquit because of difficulty with interpreting the law (jury instructions) and the prosecutions
NOT being able to present their case ADEQUATELY.....SO, it was a combination of several
different factors,but race, according to Juror B37 was NOT one of them...
But the race-baiters like Sharpton, Jackson and the our white-black president certainly made it a race issue... before the trial even started. And the race issue has now picked up steam since the verdict.
And nobody on this board, or in the FBI for that matter , can point to one thing in Zimmermans life or in the actions that night that show him to be a racist. Maybe he didn't vote for Obama... which for some on this board, is enough to call him a racist.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
