• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

zimmerman attorneys quickly set sights to make NBC pay

mak2 said:
Exactly how does a 17 year old do that?
Click to expand...

Let me put it to your this way. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night, martin would have been in the defendant's seat. And, he would have been tried as an adult for murder.
 
keymanjim said:
What damages? Judging by the life treyvon was leading, he was more likely to become a burden on his family and society in general.
Click to expand...

Well his organs have value. His family is injured. So how much is up to the jury.
 
I dont believe TM so physically dominated Z that he would have killed him with his bare hands. As long as we are just saying stuff, I dont beleive Z would have followed TM and confronted him if he wasnt armed.
keymanjim said:
Let me put it to your this way. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night, martin would have been in the defendant's seat. And, he would have been tried as an adult for murder.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
I dont believe TM so physically dominated Z that he would have killed him with his bare hands. As long as we are just saying stuff, I dont beleive Z would have followed TM and confronted him if he wasnt armed.
Click to expand...

Again, there is ZERO evidence that GZ confronted TM.
 
mak2 said:
I dont believe TM so physically dominated Z that he would have killed him with his bare hands. As long as we are just saying stuff, I dont beleive Z would have followed TM and confronted him if he wasnt armed.
Click to expand...

You don't beat someone's head into the sidewalk just to say "hello".
 
Lack of evidence is exactly why Z walked. I dont beleive they proved him guilty either. I also dont believe Z was beat up very badly, thus I dont believe his in fear of his life defense.
Josie said:
Again, there is ZERO evidence that GZ confronted TM.
Click to expand...
 
Fenton said:
Oh man if I were him I would bring the hammer down on those idiots at NBC.

NBC was waiting for the guilty verdict to clear their name, now, what they did is such a blatant subjective attack on a innocent man if I were Zimmerman I wouldn't settle.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard to take Florida Courts seriously any more?
 
mak2 said:
Lack of evidence is exactly why Z walked. I dont beleive they proved him guilty either. I also dont believe Z was beat up very badly, thus I dont believe his in fear of his life defense.
Click to expand...

You don't have to fear for your life. You have to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. If a guy is on top of you beating you up and reaching for your firearm, you have every right to shoot him in the heart.
 
mak2 said:
I beleive Z could have defended himself without killing the kid.
Click to expand...

Z didn't have to - the force that he used was acceptable.

Signed and sealed by jury trial/
 
mak2 said:
I beleive Z could have defended himself without killing the kid.
Click to expand...

That 'kid' was the same age and comparable height and weight I was when I graduated boot camp.
 
and Z wasnt an 80 year old women in a wheel chair either.
keymanjim said:
That 'kid' was the same age and comparable height and weight I was when I graduated boot camp.
Click to expand...
 
captainawesome said:
No I said they have value. His life had value too. If the family sues and wins they will get an award.
Click to expand...

Trayvon reaped what he sowed. Nothing more, nothing less. Had a black man pulled the trigger, there'd be no commotion over any of this.
 
This might help to explain it:

What if you get acquitted, and still get sued (which is what happened with O.J. Simpson)? You can't take advantage of the criminal verdict in the civil case, for two reasons.

First, the criminal verdict simply shows that there was at least reasonable doubt about whether you were guilty. That doesn't stop the plaintiff from proving your guilt by a preponderance of the evidence (the standard usually required for civil liability) or even by clear and convincing evidence (the standard generally required for punitive damages in civil cases).

To give an oversimplified mathematical model, say that there's evidence that shows an 85% chance that you were guilty, and say that proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires a 95% chance, proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a 75% chance, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence requires only 51%. In that situation, an acquittal simply means that there isn't a 95% chance that you were guilty; that's quite consistent with there being a 51% or 75% chance that you were guilty (and in the hypothetical, both those thresholds are satisfied).

There's also a second reason why the defendant's criminal acquittal can't be used against the civil plaintiff:

Generally speaking, every litigant is entitled to have a chance to prove his case in court once, and this plaintiff didn't have that chance at the criminal trial (since the parties at the criminal trial were the government and the defendant, not the victim and the defendant). If the defendant had lost at the criminal trial (see #2 above), he would have had his chance to prove that he wasn't guilty by a reasonable doubt (or, to be precise, his chance to have a jury reject the prosecution's attempts to prove its case), which is why that conviction could be used against the defendant in a future civil case. But a defendant's acquittal can't be used against a plaintiff in a future case, because the plaintiff wasn't involved in the earlier trial.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Criminal Liability and Civil Liability:
​
 
Erod said:
Trayvon reaped what he sowed. Nothing more, nothing less. Had a black man pulled the trigger, there'd be no commotion over any of this.
Click to expand...

He walked home in the rain. No sowing there.

He was born black so that is his crime that he was killed for. Your OK with that others are not.
 
captainawesome said:
He walked home in the rain. No sowing there.

He was born black so that is his crime that he was killed for. Your OK with that others are not.
Click to expand...

LOL, good gawd. You apparently missed every fact of this case in its entirety.
 
American said:
Actually it's quite irrelevant whether you take them seriously or not.
Click to expand...

Actually it is quite relevant to me. What you think however, is always irrelevant to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom