What gives you that idea? The criminal case has no presumptive effect on the civil action. Zimmerman could have requested an SYG immunity hearing prior to the criminal case but did not.
I’d have to research it, but I’m pretty sure that since the burden of proof is higher in a criminal prosecution (guilty beyond reasonable doubt) than in a civil suit (more likely liable than not by a preponderance of the evidence), any point adjudicated in a criminal prosecution ending in acquittal would not be res judicata in a related civil action. If the court in the former found Zimmerman acted in self-defense as defined in the statute referenced in the statute you linked (the other, about home defense, does not apply), the court in the latter could still find he didn’t.
See the O.J. Simpson cases: He was found not guilty of murder, but was still adjudged liable for it.
In case you don’t want to take my word for it.
Decisions of Florida appellate courts are binding on all trial courts in the state unless there is a contrary ruling by the local district, but in any event the Fifth DCA (which covers Orlando and Sanford) has adopted the Third DCA’s holding.
Even if he was immune under the Florida SYG statute there still may be colorable federal claims against Zimmerman which would be unaffected.
You will note that the law I cited in support is not the SYG law.
Because it was California. I showed you the applicable Florida law.
No, the law you cited applies when the user-of-force acted in self-defense. I do not recall whether that point ever was adjudicated in Zimmerman’s criminal trial; in any case, such adjudication would not be res judicata in a civil suit and the issue would have to be re-litigated.
That point was obviously adjudicated in Zimmerman’s criminal trial, his whole defense was based on it. I really don’t see how there could be civil action given the law that I cited. Unless that law is somehow ignored.
Now show that it applies. Where is the decision that Zimmerman’s actions were determined to be “justifiable use of force” under Florida law?
From your own cite,
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff **if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection **(1).
Since Zimmerman was actually prosecuted (and acquitted) for the case, he obviously wasn’t “immune from prosection” and the statute doesn’t attach.
It helps if you read the whole statute, counselor.
95.11(4)(d)
Terr is right, but for the wrong reason.
The Martin family cannot sue Zimmerman for wrongful death. They lost that option February 26th, 2014.
And (10) is not applicable because?
(10) FOR INTENTIONAL TORTS RESULTING IN DEATH FROM ACTS DESCRIBED IN S. 782.04 OR S. 782.07.—Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(d), an action for wrongful death seeking damages authorized under s. 768.21 brought against a natural person for an intentional tort resulting in death from acts described in s. 782.04 or s. 782.07 may be commenced at any time. This subsection shall not be construed to require an arrest, the filing of formal criminal charges, or a conviction for a violation of s. 782.04 or s. 782.07 as a condition for filing a civil action.
Relevant section from 782.07:
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
The immunity provision of 776.032 is called “SYG immunity” in Florida. It’s not the SYG provision but was part of the same bill. You should probably read the citations you were given.
This isn’t my area of expertise (civil law) and not my state. So I welcome some insight from a Florida practitioner who plays in the civil arena.
But as I read it, 782.07(3) refers to culpable negligence under 827.03(2)(b). And 827.03(2)(b) provides:
So it seems to me that this extension is available only for actions against those who, willfully or by culpable negligence, neglect a child and thereby cause the child’s death.
Yes, you’re right, it certainly does appear that 782.07(3) does require that.
But (10) allows for the exception in all cases under 782.04 and 782.07, right?
So, what about 782.07(1)?
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Now, GZ was found not guilty under this statute, but he was prosecuted under it and 95.11(10) specifically states that a conviction is not necessary.
Or 782.04?
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Look IANAL and honestly, I don’t think Trayvon’s family has any intention of pursuing a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman. I just don’t necessarily agree that they are precluded from doing so.
You’re right, except that a suit filed under those conditions would require a much higher bar: the plaintiffs would have to allege an intentional tort, as opposed to simply a negligent act. That’s the same problem the federal civil rights prosecution faced: a complete absence of any admissible evidence to show that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin.
So I’ll amend my statement to this extent: as of February 2014, the Martin family lost the ability to file a negligent wrongful death action against Zimmerman. The law still leaves open the option of a suit alleging an intentional tort.
Or so it seems to me, again with the caveat that I’m not a civil lawyer or a Florida lawyer.
A wrongful death action - even one based on an intentional tort - does not require intent to kill, at least in Florida. It requires only the intent to commit the intentional tort. It’s still subject to proximate cause analysis, but I think it’s safe to say that death is a foreseeable consequence of shooting someone.
Obviously there is still an intent problem, but not the one you described.
Okay, I think we agree then. I still think they have no intention of filing any action. What’s the point? He’s more or less broke and is doing a fine job of making himself look like an asshole without them having to do anything.
Right. There’s no money to be recovered here. Blood from a stone and all that. It wouldn’t matter if the court case cost 10k in attorney’s fees and within a week there was a judgement across zimmerman for a billion dollars. He’d never be able to pay a penny of it.
No plaintiff’s attorney will take a case like this on contingency, they will want their fees paid up front. Those fees are tens of thousands of dollars at a bare minimum.
George Zimmerman, to me, seems to be a WHOLE lot of trouble. No wonder those on the “right” were trying to make a “hero” out of him last year (they may still be, for all I know). Pathetic.
I stand by my original assertion that Zimmerman is a fictional character created by the news media to fill in time on slow days.
On most of the conservative web sites I frequent, Zimmerman was jokingly called “Paul Blart, Mall Cop.” A hero, he was not.
One of the most frequent complaints on such sites was that Zimmerman was being portrayed as a WHITE guy! After all, if a pale, freckled Irish-American cop had killed ZImmerman, it’s a safe bet the headlines would have read, “White Cop SHoots Hispanic Male!”