I am the bearer of more bad news, then.
Was I kidding when I said the law overreached? Was I?
This bears repeating.
I think you with the face has a very clear and very strong desire to see Zimmerman punished, but is not blind to facts. If the chips could fall either way, ywtf isn’t going to see them helping Z, but with a factual argument, doesn’t insist on simply not believing it.
Just IMHO.
Can this be challenged? It seems to me that the lesser burden for a civil judgement might make for a different outcome should Zimmerman be acquitted or the case dismissed.
You’re absolutely right: I have kept repeating “beyond a reasonable doubt” because it’s such a high bar.
The much lower “preponderance of the evidence” would make it much easier for a civil jury to find liability, and (huge factor here) the carrying of the gun, which so many people have focused on as evidence of recklessness, but is NOT criminal recklessness, is absolutely in play for a jury to consider for its negligence. In other words, for a criminal conviction, the jury cannot find Zimmerman reckless because he stepped out of his car carrying a gun, as long as he did so legally.
But for a civil action, the jury can consider if the action was negligent, and certainly could find that that was.
So your instinct is, in my opinion, absolutely correct: I agree that a civil trial would be at least likely to produce a different outcome.
However… I don’t know how the law that confers civil immunity could be challenged. But this isn’t my area of law, so the fact that I don’t know shouldn’t foreclose the question.
Anyone on the civil side think of a way to void that civil immunity? Maybe some kind of Takings argument, where the legislature removed something of value, or a due process argument, or something? I got nuthin.
What if the defense tries to make it a civil rights issue? That is, assert that Trayvon was targeted by Zim because he was black. Can that trump the immunity to civil charges?
Um…
Maybe.
I’m actually completely out of my element here. My best guess is: what’s covered by the immunity statute is wrongful death or injury arising from the use of force as covered under 776 et seq. So a cause of action that didn’t rest on those shouldn’t be covered by the immunity.
What causes of action are available? I have no clue. Is my guess right? See previous statement. 
Having a bit of trouble, Terr, tracking down your “witness #6”, whom you offer as not changing his/her testimony. This source
apparently contradicts that point, though I have nothing by which to judge the accuracy of this report. (And, for some reason, cut and paste of the text is disabled, but you can read the link.)
Since you have the fact right at your fingertips, perhaps you’ll clear up this little misunderstanding. And while you’re about it, perhaps you’ll clarify how the statement “I have a gun” is useful evidence in any analysis. We already know Zimmerman had a gun, we’re pretty sure Martins armament was limited to iced tea and Skittles.
Thanking you in advance for your commitment to truth and clarity, I wait with bated breath.
If it was someone else asking, I’d help. Since you are not interested in anything but snark, piss off.
Well, yes, of course, I quite understand. Truth should not be wasted, but kept close to one’s vest, lest it be squandered.
So, then, if anybody else asks you for verification of your claims about “witness #6” unchanging and unchallenged testimony, you will be happy to supply such citation, yes? Someone who meets your exacting standards?
Of course, as it stands, the only citation available regarding said number six directly contradicts your stated position. If you are content with that, who am I to complain?
And just for the sake of glaring clarity, I am not asking for your help. I’m suggesting that your alleged citations may be full of shit.
I guess you don’t understand what “piss off” means. Funny, since you probably hear it a lot.
Well, it can mean a variety of things. In this instance, I think it means “I got nothin’, but damned if I’ll admit it, and I hope against hope to get away with it by pretending to a principled strand.”
I disagree.
Here’s an exchange from upthread:
And then later:
Note that she completely projected her own biases on to me. She was the one who was eagerly insisting that her view must be correct. She is the one who let her desires color her judgment.
No. I agree that she’s not neutral; she’s starting from a position that Zimmerman is guilty, and requiring those opposing the proposition to prove their case (kind of the reverse of the trial process) but she’s not rejecting strong evidence.
In other words, yes, she believes her view is correct. Shocking.
That’s just not so. She saw the video and reached a conclusion which happened to be incorrect. She also reached a conclusion about me being biased when the reality is that she was the one who was biased. She also mischaracterized my level of certainty about the evidence.
And she did not acknowledge or apologize to me for any of this.
I would think everyone believes their own views are correct. But not everyone ignores evidence, mischaracterizes other peoples’ positions, or accuses other people of bias when they are the one who is biased.
I’d rather keep this discussion focused on the Zimmerman Show, rather than content of my posts. That said, I don’t disagree with how you’ve characterized my position.
I don’t blame you, but this is The Pit.
All right then, Terr, I’ll ask for cites. Since you and I haven’t engaged, to my memory, in this thread, in fact I’ve contributed little or nothing to the discussion here, you can’t accuse me of snarking at you. So, will you kindly provide citations to back up your allegations regarding witness number six?
Here is my allegation regarding witness #6:
“The eyewitness still says Martin was on top of Zimmerman.”
Here is the cite that supports it (I can give you a couple dozen or so more if you like)
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5633259-Witnesses-in-Zimmerman-case-change-stories/
He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.
“The black guy was on top,” he said.
Except that eyewitness number 12 says that Zimmerman was on top. Its already cited, perhaps you read it, perhaps you didn’t, but didn’t mention it. Any particular reason you wouldn’t mention testimony that contradicts your favored eyewitness? Is witness six somehow more valid than witness 12? Or you would simply prefer to ignore witness 12? Now, this is not to say that witness 12 is more credible, I have no way to divine that. But witness 12 does contradict witness 6.
In all your determined hoopla about your “eyewitness testimony”, did you ever even mention testimony that does not fit your preferred narrative? If you did, good for you! If memory serves, you did not.
And your favorite eyewitness, number six? Previously said that Martin was whaling on Zimmerman, mixed martial arts style, and now says that maybe he wasn’t, maybe he was just pinning him down? Perhaps to keep him from reaching his gun, perhaps not.
But doesn’t it strike you as odd? Going from being sure that Martin was wailing on him, to maybe not, maybe he wasn’t even hitting him at all?
So, to review: you bring us your preferred witnesses, and don’t mention witnesses that contradict such testimony. When your witness changes his story, it apparently doesn’t alter your perception of that witnesses credibility, so far as you are concerned, its solid gold, you thrust it into the argument like it was an affidavit from God Almighty countersigned by the Archangel Gabriel.
And when confronted, you try to blame me, and refuse even to address the apparent contradictions.
Simply put, you are dishonest in argument. *Feh! *as they say in Lubbock. And that’s not snark, that’s fact.
If you don’t understand just how weak and ridiculous the testimony of a witness is that admits that she changed her mind because of watching TV news about the matter and how easy it would be for the prosecution to invalidate this “based on TV” testimony, then I cannot help you.