It's not that simple. In the first place, there hasn't been a finding that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense. The jury had two bases on which to acquit: 1) reasonable doubt as to the state's case (whether on the evidence itself or its support for the state's conclusions) and 2) justification by way of self-defense. Without specific interrogatories to the jury, a mere finding of "not guilty" doesn't tell us whether the evidence was insufficient to convict, or whether it was sufficient but the killing was otherwise justified as self-defense.Jarlaxle wrote:Florida has an unusual law: anyone who has killed someone in self-defense CANNOT BE SUED FOR THAT PERSON'S DEATH in civil court! There will be no wrongful-death suit against Zimmerman. (Statute 776.032)
Negligence is not generally a principle of liability in the context of a murder. In this case, however, something called "culpable negligence" is an element of the offense of manslaughter under the Florida statute, which according to the jury instructions must be an act "that was not merely negligent, justified or excusable and which caused death." At some point in the deliberations, the jury asked for a clarification of the manslaughter charge. But in any event, this kind of criminal negligence is apparently something quite different than the ordinary negligence applied to a civil action.Joe Guy wrote:The act of negligence was also never established in court. I don't even recall the term being used but I could have missed it.
In a civil action the issue will be different. The first question will be whether, under the totality of the circumstances, Zimmerman acted reasonably in the manner he followed and confronted Martin. If he acted unreasonably or without due care, then the inquiry will shift to whether Martin's response was unreasonable, and if so, to what extent (as a percentage) did his acts contribute to his injury and death.Lord Jim wrote:Yes it, is undeniably true that if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car that night none of this would have happened...
It is also undeniably true that being followed when one is doing nothing wrong, is going to seem obnoxious, irritating and annoying....
However, someone behaving in a way that is obnoxious, irritating and annoying, (but who has not laid hands on you, or physically threatened you in any way, and broken no laws) does not give you the right to respond by physically assaulting that person by breaking their nose, and then sitting astride them pounding their head into the sidewalk....
And if you choose to respond that way to the obnoxious, irritating and annoying person, he has a presumptive right to act in self defense.
Not likely. For the same reasons such "evidence" was excluded from the criminal trial. The rules of evidence are the same regardless of whether the trial is civil or criminal.Lord Jim wrote:Yes, Zimmerman can be compelled to testify, but there's also a lot of evidence, (not favorable to the Martin family) that would likely come in that was excluded in the criminal trial...
Like a pattern of behavior and a number of text messages from Martin that would tend to show him to have a "short fuse" and a proclivity for violence...
Even if true, why is this "a pretty good case"? A case for what, exactly?Lord Jim wrote:Speaking of civil trials, Zimmerman's got a pretty good case pending....Against NBC...(specifically MSNBC)
Shortly after this story broke in the national news, somebody at MSNBC edited the tape of Zimmerman's initial call to make it appear that Zimmerman had answered the 911 operator's question, "what makes him look suspicious? " by saying "he looks black"....
Which is not at all what Zimmerman said...he said "he looks black" in answer to a later question from the operator asking him if the person looked "white, black or Hispanic"...
And then they aired the edited tape...
