No jail time. Wow.

BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

civil jail time? Is that like painting each others toe nails?

And as the cynical bastard I am, I have to believe that this was what the whole long saga was all about in the first place.

BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

This was the civil claim. Not the criminal charges.

BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

How the fark do you jail an HOA?  Because that's who settled.

dj_bigbird: BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

This was the civil claim. Not the criminal charges.

thread title needs to be more specific.  As has been noted, this is only the results of the civil case, not the murder charges.

BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

Civil suits aren't criminal suits. Nice troll through. 6/10

Benevolent Misanthrope: BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

How the fark do you jail an HOA?  Because that's who settled.

I don't know, but someone should work on finding that out

Infernalist: thread title needs to be more specific

I think subby was going for the misdirection

sno man: BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

civil jail time? Is that like painting each others toe nails?

I was following subby's lead.

scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

How the fark do you jail an HOA?  Because that's who settled.

I don't know, but someone should work on finding that out

I was thinking that just as I hit "Add Comment".

*drinks*

In return for setting  aside their wrongful-death claim and claims for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and expenses, the Martins will now be permitted to park a second vehicle in their driveway.

Our baby was keeld and now we gots to get paid!

BarkingUnicorn: sno man: BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

civil jail time? Is that like painting each others toe nails?

I was following subby's lead.

bad BarkingUnicorn, articles are for reading... ;^)

sno man: BarkingUnicorn: sno man: BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

civil jail time? Is that like painting each others toe nails?

I was following subby's lead.

bad BarkingUnicorn, articles are for reading... ;^)

I read it and thought, "Subby's headline is missing something..." :-)

CaptSacto: And as the cynical bastard I am, I have to believe that this was what the whole long saga was all about in the first place.

Right there with you. Once the check gets cashed I bet this whole thing goes away.

Mugato: Our baby was keeld and now we gots to get paid!

I take it you've never had a family member get injured/killed unjustly.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, they still haven't filed civil suit against Zimmerman.  They'll want another paycheck first.

Infernalist: Mugato: Our baby was keeld and now we gots to get paid!

I take it you've never had a family member get injured/killed unjustly.

I wish. I could really use the cash, these student loans are a biatch.

Infernalist: Mugato: Our baby was keeld and now we gots to get paid!

I take it you've never had a family member get injured/killed unjustly.

Nope. Those assholes all had it coming.

sno man:  ;^)

BarkingUnicorn:  :-)

Please stop that.

Infernalist: Mugato: Our baby was keeld and now we gots to get paid!

I take it you've never had a family member get injured/killed unjustly.

It's yet to be determined if it was unjustly.

Initially, when all the evidence was fresh, the DA decided is WAS justified. It's only when a bunch of people who had no access to evidence were fed doctored photos and video from unscrupulous news organizations that outrage was born.

Well I'm glad that's settled.

Infernalist: dj_bigbird: BarkingUnicorn: No jail time. Wow.

This was the civil claim. Not the criminal charges.

thread title needs to be more specific.  As has been noted, this is only the results of the civil case, not the murder charges.

A misleading headline?  In my Fark?  It's more likely than you think.

The civil lawsuit not the criminal case.

[shrug.jpg]

I'm glad they got something, I'm not sure justice will be done in the criminal courts. And if Zimmerman (already drinking) gets off, this case should be a clear indicator that Florida's SYG law is way too loosely written and needs to be repealed.

Staffist: sno man:  ;^)

BarkingUnicorn:  :-)

Please stop that.

Stop What? ;)

doglover: Infernalist: Mugato: Our baby was keeld and now we gots to get paid!

I take it you've never had a family member get injured/killed unjustly.

It's yet to be determined if it was unjustly.

Initially, when all the evidence was fresh, the DA decided is WAS justified. It's only when a bunch of people who had no access to evidence were fed doctored photos and video from unscrupulous news organizations that outrage was born.

Well, everyone involved in the wrongful death suit seems to agree that it was..a wrongful death.  And the HOA is shouldering their share of the responsibility.

Infernalist: Well, everyone involved in the wrongful death suit seems to agree that it was..a wrongful death. And the HOA is shouldering their share of the responsibility.

It's almost like the legal system is ponderous and incredibly expensive to use to defend oneself that most people of any means wind up settling out of court for a sum of money because it's easier to take a large loss than risk a very large loss even when you're clearly in the right.

No, that can't be the case. If it was thus, some people would be abusing the system.

doglover: Infernalist: Well, everyone involved in the wrongful death suit seems to agree that it was..a wrongful death. And the HOA is shouldering their share of the responsibility.

It's almost like the legal system is ponderous and incredibly expensive to use to defend oneself that most people of any means wind up settling out of court for a sum of money because it's easier to take a large loss than risk a very large loss even when you're clearly in the right.

No, that can't be the case. If it was thus, some people would be abusing the system.

You're assuming a lot.  Of the two, I think the HOA would have, by far, more money that the victim's family and in a far better position to fight the charges.

So, they're plainly not wanting to fight the case.  Their reasons are their own and I'd never presume to try and guess at those reasons.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you like, however.

Misleading headline and initial contribution?

Infernalist: doglover: Infernalist: Well, everyone involved in the wrongful death suit seems to agree that it was..a wrongful death. And the HOA is shouldering their share of the responsibility.

It's almost like the legal system is ponderous and incredibly expensive to use to defend oneself that most people of any means wind up settling out of court for a sum of money because it's easier to take a large loss than risk a very large loss even when you're clearly in the right.

No, that can't be the case. If it was thus, some people would be abusing the system.

You're assuming a lot.  Of the two, I think the HOA would have, by far, more money that the victim's family and in a far better position to fight the charges.

So, they're plainly not wanting to fight the case.  Their reasons are their own and I'd never presume to try and guess at those reasons.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you like, however.

Juries are not trained, they are cherry picked.

Civil cases do not require all unanimous vote.

Any lawyer worth their horn-rimmed glasses can prove the sky ain't blue in court with a strong emotional appeal.

People don't like HOAs or dead kids as a rule.

Thus the HOA had a snowball's chance of winning anything in civil court. That doesn't mean the judgement of the court is actually a reflection on the morality of the tragedy or has any bearing on real wrongdoing on anyone's part. What it does do is get the Martin family some money because the way the system's set up they can win a legal battle for weirgild easily even if Trayvon's death was not wrongful.

So, as per usual in the American legal system, we get a settlement instead of a trial and backroom chess instead of informed judgement. Once you see the underlying pattern and understand why it happens, you'll see it everywhere. Whether you choose to believe that's a sign the system works or is horribly broken is up to you. But it's how things work.

violentsalvation: I'm glad they got something, I'm not sure justice will be done in the criminal courts. And if Zimmerman (already drinking) gets off, this case should be a clear indicator that Florida's SYG law is way too loosely written and needs to be repealed.

What if he gets off without a SYG defense?  If the jury concludes that Martin started a fight, Zimmerman can claim self-defense without having to use SYG at all.

doglover: Infernalist: doglover: Infernalist: Well, everyone involved in the wrongful death suit seems to agree that it was..a wrongful death. And the HOA is shouldering their share of the responsibility.

It's almost like the legal system is ponderous and incredibly expensive to use to defend oneself that most people of any means wind up settling out of court for a sum of money because it's easier to take a large loss than risk a very large loss even when you're clearly in the right.

No, that can't be the case. If it was thus, some people would be abusing the system.

You're assuming a lot.  Of the two, I think the HOA would have, by far, more money that the victim's family and in a far better position to fight the charges.

So, they're plainly not wanting to fight the case.  Their reasons are their own and I'd never presume to try and guess at those reasons.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you like, however.

Juries are not trained, they are cherry picked.

Civil cases do not require all unanimous vote.

Any lawyer worth their horn-rimmed glasses can prove the sky ain't blue in court with a strong emotional appeal.

People don't like HOAs or dead kids as a rule.

Thus the HOA had a snowball's chance of winning anything in civil court. That doesn't mean the judgement of the court is actually a reflection on the morality of the tragedy or has any bearing on real wrongdoing on anyone's part. What it does do is get the Martin family some money because the way the system's set up they can win a legal battle for weirgild easily even if Trayvon's death was not wrongful.

So, as per usual in the American legal system, we get a settlement instead of a trial and backroom chess instead of informed judgement. Once you see the underlying pattern and understand why it happens, you'll see it everywhere. Whether you choose to believe that's a sign the system works or is horribly broken is up to you. But it's how things work.

That's a lot of words in order to say that a civil case's decision means nothing in your eyes.

violentsalvation: I'm glad they got something, I'm not sure justice will be done in the criminal courts. And if Zimmerman (already drinking) gets off, this case should be a clear indicator that Florida's SYG law is way too loosely written and needs to be repealed.

How is being pinned on the ground a SYG issue?

Infernalist: So, as per usual in the American legal system, we get a settlement instead of a trial and backroom chess instead of informed judgement. Once you see the underlying pattern and understand why it happens, you'll see it everywhere. Whether you choose to believe that's a sign the system works or is horribly broken is up to you. But it's how things work.

That's a lot of words in order to say that a civil case's decision means nothing in your eyes.

His point is that there was no decision by a jury, and there usually isn't.  Nobody is blamed, nobody admits fault.  Nobody collects damages, nobody is punished (unless you consider paying to make a headache go away punishment).  It's not justice, it's just business.

Lsherm: violentsalvation: I'm glad they got something, I'm not sure justice will be done in the criminal courts. And if Zimmerman (already drinking) gets off, this case should be a clear indicator that Florida's SYG law is way too loosely written and needs to be repealed.

What if he gets off without a SYG defense?  If the jury concludes that Martin started a fight, Zimmerman can claim self-defense without having to use SYG at all.

Well that would be that, I guess. Of course if someone is stalking me I might start a fight too. I completely respect the right of self defense, but this chain of events was entirely initiated by Zimmerman (my last beer) and I wonder who was actually the one standing their ground.

So, we'll see what happens.

violentsalvation: Lsherm: violentsalvation: I'm glad they got something, I'm not sure justice will be done in the criminal courts. And if Zimmerman (already drinking) gets off, this case should be a clear indicator that Florida's SYG law is way too loosely written and needs to be repealed.

What if he gets off without a SYG defense?  If the jury concludes that Martin started a fight, Zimmerman can claim self-defense without having to use SYG at all.

Well that would be that, I guess. Of course if someone is stalking me I might start a fight too. I completely respect the right of self defense, but this chain of events was entirely initiated by Zimmerman (my last beer) and I wonder who was actually the one standing their ground.

So, we'll see what happens.

Beats the hell out of me how far back they're going to go.  Obviously, if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin, none of this would have happened.  But if a jury decides that Martin started a fight with Zimmerman, gained an advantage, and then Zimmerman shot him, it probably won't matter because technically, walking behind someone isn't against the law.  Hitting someone is against the law.

I think Zimmerman probably confronted Martin and that set the whole thing off, so it's going to come down to who the jury believes:  the prosecution or Zimmerman.  The best witness to have, Martin, is dead, and his girlfriend isn't going to be a very good witness.

What, he ple-

*reads article.*



OH, SUBMITTER. YOU ARE TROLLTASTIC! HOTY material.

You know what I don't understand? How OJ Simpson lost the civil case. Did he kill them? I think he did or at least had something to do with it, but LAPD and the prosecution screwed up and couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to a jury. Whether he did it or not, he was found NOT GUILTY of the charges. So in civil court why can't they just say "Well, he was acquitted of the charges so obviously you can't find him liable."

*shrugs*

violentsalvation: Lsherm: violentsalvation: I'm glad they got something, I'm not sure justice will be done in the criminal courts. And if Zimmerman (already drinking) gets off, this case should be a clear indicator that Florida's SYG law is way too loosely written and needs to be repealed.

What if he gets off without a SYG defense?  If the jury concludes that Martin started a fight, Zimmerman can claim self-defense without having to use SYG at all.

Well that would be that, I guess. Of course if someone is stalking me I might start a fight too. I completely respect the right of self defense, but this chain of events was entirely initiated by Zimmerman (my last beer) and I wonder who was actually the one standing their ground.

So, we'll see what happens.

The way the statute is written it wouldn't surprise me if both were standing their ground at one point or another. However given the injuries suffered by one party and not another before the gunshot, it would be unlikely in my inexpert opinion. Even if we didn't have that evidence, the law is written in such a bad way that I don't believe I could vote to convict him on public evidence. I think that's more an indictment of the lack of examination of the bill by its sponsor than anything else, since he clearly wasn't in favor of the broad interpretations by the courts. If a guy can chase a man stealing stereos and stab him to death and be set free on SYG claims, then I don't really see how Zimmerman stands a snowball's chance in hell of being convicted.

The Downfall: You know what I don't understand? How OJ Simpson lost the civil case. Did he kill them? I think he did or at least had something to do with it, but LAPD and the prosecution screwed up and couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to a jury. Whether he did it or not, he was found NOT GUILTY of the charges. So in civil court why can't they just say "Well, he was acquitted of the charges so obviously you can't find him liable."

*shrugs*

Burden of proof in a civil case is lower.  For the criminal trial, if there was "any reasonable doubt" then he had to be acquitted, which meant they had to be certain.  For the civil trial, they only had to prove by "preponderance of evidence" that he was responsible for the murders, which meant it just had to be likely.

Explanation here.

Lsherm: What if he gets off without a SYG defense? If the jury concludes that Martin started a fight, Zimmerman can claim self-defense without having to use SYG at all.

Depending on the state law, a "self-defense" claim is different than a SYG claim, which imposes blanket immunity to civil liability despite any of the circumstances in the case. Florida does not impose a duty to act on civilians when it comes to crime where the concealed carry holder does not feel his life to be in immediate danger. While he may be legally justified in shooting Martin, because he was not inside of his vehicle, his residence, or a business which he owned, (at least according to the laws of my state), he does not have ANY civil protection from liability.

The interesting thing is, had he tried for a SYG defense, he would have complete civil liability if found to be justified in shooting Martin, while if he goes for a standard self-defense claim, he will not.

The plantiff's lawyers will present that Zimmerman had no duty to act, and his actions directly escalated the situation's continuum into the necessity to utilize deadly force, regardless of what Martin did.

We actually went over this case in my Handgun Carry Permit class, and how even though he may be criminally kosher, unless he won a SYG verdict he would be signing checks over to the Martin family for the rest of his life.

The Downfall: You know what I don't understand? How OJ Simpson lost the civil case. Did he kill them? I think he did or at least had something to do with it, but LAPD and the prosecution screwed up and couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to a jury. Whether he did it or not, he was found NOT GUILTY of the charges. So in civil court why can't they just say "Well, he was acquitted of the charges so obviously you can't find him liable."

*shrugs*

Beyond an absolute doubt and an unanimous jury > preponderance of evidence

hardinparamedic: Lsherm: What if he gets off without a SYG defense? If the jury concludes that Martin started a fight, Zimmerman can claim self-defense without having to use SYG at all.

Depending on the state law, a "self-defense" claim is different than a SYG claim, which imposes blanket immunity to civil liability despite any of the circumstances in the case. Florida does not impose a duty to act on civilians when it comes to crime where the concealed carry holder does not feel his life to be in immediate danger. While he may be legally justified in shooting Martin, because he was not inside of his vehicle, his residence, or a business which he owned, (at least according to the laws of my state), he does not have ANY civil protection from liability.

The interesting thing is, had he tried for a SYG defense, he would have complete civil liability if found to be justified in shooting Martin, while if he goes for a standard self-defense claim, he will not.

The plantiff's lawyers will present that Zimmerman had no duty to act, and his actions directly escalated the situation's continuum into the necessity to utilize deadly force, regardless of what Martin did.

We actually went over this case in my Handgun Carry Permit class, and how even though he may be criminally kosher, unless he won a SYG verdict he would be signing checks over to the Martin family for the rest of his life.

That's not how Florida's law works.

redmid17: The Downfall: You know what I don't understand? How OJ Simpson lost the civil case. Did he kill them? I think he did or at least had something to do with it, but LAPD and the prosecution screwed up and couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to a jury. Whether he did it or not, he was found NOT GUILTY of the charges. So in civil court why can't they just say "Well, he was acquitted of the charges so obviously you can't find him liable."

*shrugs*

Beyond an absolute doubt and an unanimous jury > preponderance of evidence

Hmm, thanks for the info. This makes it sound ridiculously easy to gets lots of money from people unfairly.

Now to convince 9 of 12 people that there's a 50.1% chance someone owes me A LOT of money...

The Downfall: redmid17: The Downfall: You know what I don't understand? How OJ Simpson lost the civil case. Did he kill them? I think he did or at least had something to do with it, but LAPD and the prosecution screwed up and couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to a jury. Whether he did it or not, he was found NOT GUILTY of the charges. So in civil court why can't they just say "Well, he was acquitted of the charges so obviously you can't find him liable."

*shrugs*

Beyond an absolute doubt and an unanimous jury > preponderance of evidence

Hmm, thanks for the info. This makes it sound ridiculously easy to gets lots of money from people unfairly.

Now to convince 9 of 12 people that there's a 50.1% chance someone owes me A LOT of money...

You owe my sister for that legal advice. She just told me to quit farking and I could afford to go to law school like she did.