Has Zimmerman Waived His Right to a Pre-Trial "Stand-Your-Ground" Hearing?

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Most of my links are real rusty now. I'm relying on memory, and some of the facts I managed to research when this case first started. I'm kinda relying on Andrew to keep it real at this point. He's in it with both feet, and has lots of expertise to boot. 

 

There's witness testimony in the discovery file that Zimmerman was asked to take the lead on the Neighborhood Watch program.  There is also evidence in the file making it clear that this was a formally organized Neighborhood Watch program--the three-person "managing committee" of the program consisted of Zimmerman as the civilian leader and two police officer advisors from the Sanford Police Department.  

 

This wasn't a case where Zimmerman found a plastic badge in the bottom of a Cracker Jacks box and appointed himself Emperor-for-Life of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Defense Forces, as the anti-Zimmerman activists would have us falsely believe.

 

But there's no point in my taking the time to dig through the discovery file for those two isolated documents for people like DaveS, because folks like him will simply hop over to one of the 20 or so other false narrative talking points that allow them to comfortably maintain their anti-Zimmerman position in the face of all the facts in evidence.  They are completely impervious to facts and reason.  

 

Oh, but here's a freeby, I just happened to come across it in my files.  Apparently the Neighborhood Watch was such a fake initiative made up by George Zimmerman out of whole cloth that only two weeks prior to the Martin shooting the management of the Retreat @ Twin Lakes sent out this tweet:

 

 

[mikegideon]

I'm reading news reports also. Very confusing I know. I thought you had some good up to date things worth reading. Maybe Andrew will keep this thing in perspective.

 

DS

 

A lot of the news folks are just lying. Their agenda is much more important than facts.

[DaveS]

There's witness testimony in the discovery file that Zimmerman was asked to take the lead on the Neighborhood Watch program.  There is also evidence in the file making it clear that this was a formally organized Neighborhood Watch program--the three-person "managing committee" of the program consisted of Zimmerman as the civilian leader and two police officer advisors from the Sanford Police Department.  

 

This wasn't a case where Zimmerman found a plastic badge in the bottom of a Cracker Jacks box and appointed himself Emperor-for-Life of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Defense Forces, as the anti-Zimmerman activists would have us falsely believe.

 

But there's no point in my taking the time to dig through the discovery file for those two isolated documents for people like DaveS, because folks like him will simply hop over to one of the 20 or so other false narrative talking points that allow them to comfortably maintain their anti-Zimmerman position in the face of all the facts in evidence.  They are completely impervious to facts and reason.  

 

Oh, but here's a freeby, I just happened to come across it in my files.  Apparently the Neighborhood Watch was such a fake initiative made up by George Zimmerman out of whole cloth that only two weeks prior to the Martin shooting the management of the Retreat @ Twin Lakes sent out this tweet:

 

 

Isn't this all about our opinions and seeking info? Well, at least I thought it was...and I honestly thought of you as enough of a professional that you could comment a little better than that.

 

Dave S

Edited June 17, 2013 by DaveS

[Erik88]

Isn't this all about our opinions and seeking info? Well, at least I thought it was...and I honestly thought of you as enough of a professional that you could comment a little better than that.

Dave S

Perhaps you could help by responding to our questions instead of ignoring us. Several of us have asked you to back up your comments because they don't appear to be factual but you choose to ignore us. When you continue to ignore the facts that Andrew presents it makes me question whether or not you want to engage in a healthy debate or push your own agenda.

[RobertNashville]

Isn't this all about our opinions and seeking info? Well, at least I thought it was...and I honestly thought of you as enough of a professional that you could comment a little better than that.

 

Dave S

Really, DAVES?

 

I read your posts where you denigrated other forum posters, even insinuated that because you are such a "highly trained professional LEO" (or game warden/firefighter/EMT or whatever and even bragging about your government salary) and they aren't; that others should just bow to your greatness!  :screwy:

 

I've read posts where you argued Ohio law when you wouldn't believe the ORC said what it said even when it was quoted and placed in front of you.

 

You ignore questions posed to you or you lash out at the questioner then come back with your famous "I'm out of here/leaving the thread" (only to come back a few hours later; apparently thinking people will forget your "I'm leaving" statement). Your unwavering bias against Zimmerman, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, is so obvious that why would anyone bother to address your questions when all you are really looking for is an opportunity to take a swipe at Zimmerman (or the poster you are asking the question of)???

Edited June 17, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

Like I said... I think y'all just like to argue. Z is gonna get off, some folks will steal some TV's, and libs will continue to hate guns. Since Trayvon's parents already had their payday, that part is out of the way.

[DaveS]

Perhaps you could help by responding to our questions instead of ignoring us. Several of us have asked you to back up your comments because they don't appear to be factual but you choose to ignore us. When you continue to ignore the facts that Andrew presents it makes me question whether or not you want to engage in a healthy debate or push your own agenda.

Erik; I went back through this thread to find your question and I didn't see it. I'd be happy to answer it for you. What was it?

 

DS

[DaveTN]

 

Like I said... I think y'all just like to argue. Z is gonna get off, some folks will steal some TV's, and libs will continue to hate guns. Since Trayvon's parents already had their payday, that part is out of the way.

 I agree. And this verdict will have zero impact on any reasonable person’s legal ability to protect themselves.

[DaveS]

Really, DAVES?

 

I read your posts where you denigrated other forum posters, even insinuated that because you are such a "highly trained professional LEO" (or game warden/firefighter/EMT or whatever and even bragging about your government salary) and they aren't; that others should just bow to your greatness!  :screwy:

 

 

Sorry Sir, I am officially and fully retired as of now! Will be opening my own shop back up, and chill for awhile! That's how I can spend so much time on the internet. No worries here man!

 

DS

Edited June 17, 2013 by DaveS

[mikegideon]

Erik; I went back through this thread to find your question and I didn't see it. I'd be happy to answer it for you. What was it?

 

DS

 

Erik just wants to know if female orgasms are real  :rofl:

[RobertNashville]

Erik; I went back through this thread to find your question and I didn't see it. I'd be happy to answer it for you. What was it?

 

DS

Was there some part of "Several of us have asked you to back up your comments because they don't appear to be factual but you choose to ignore us" that wasn't clear?

 

This is hardly the first thread or the only subject where posters, myself and others, have asked you to back up your statements only to be ignored or attacked even for asking the question.

Edited June 17, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

 
 I agree. And this verdict will have zero impact on any reasonable person’s legal ability to protect themselves.

 

As it should be

[DaveS]

What he said^^^  I would hope it wouldn't!

 

DS

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

As it should be

 

I can't help but wonder if knowing that even a very clean self-defense shoot, such as this one, even where the good guy wins the fight, can nevertheless end up consuming that person's life for over a year, cost them somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000 to $1,000,000 in legal fees, and destroy any future normalcy in their life, how all that might not make the next "George Zimmerman" put up with just another second or two of a beat down before they pull their licensed CCW to defend themselves--assuming that extra second or two of head-concrete introductions doesn't eliminate the brain function necessary to make such a decision.

 

Zimmerman's already paid a high price for saving his own life that night, even if he's properly acquitted.

 

I don't see how this doesn't have a potentially powerful chilling effect on a lot of folks who CCW.  It's hardly the kind of "good guy with gun foils bad guy, all ends well" paragraphs one finds in the Armed Citizen section of the NRA mags.  

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[URL=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

[RobertNashville]

I suspect that there are more than a few people who carry a firearm who have never truly considered the potential "costs" associated with using it; even if they are completely justified in doing so.

 

Thankfully, in Tennessee we do have pretty good protection against civil suits if a shooting is determined to be justified but that doesn't mean you won't go through hell until that decision is made.

 

One thing that is clear to me is that this case is hardly typical - you have a press falling all over themselves to paint this as a white man killing a sweet little black boy even to the point of describing Zimmerman as a "white-Hispanic", the Sharpton/Jackson circus coming to town, the DA shopping (after the original DA didn't see a case against Zimmerman), deciding not to go the the GJ that they had already booked (apparently ih fear of getting a no bill)...Zimmerman has been railroaded almost from the very beginning.

 

I would hope that most of use would not have to face the kind of lynch mob Zimmerman has had to but we should probably be as prepared for it as we can.

Edited June 17, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Thankfully, in Tennessee we do have pretty good protection against civil suits if a shooting is determined to be justified but that doesn't mean you won't go through hell until that decision is made.

 

Florida has a similarly robust immunity statute:  776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

 

It hasn't helped Zimmerman much to this point.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[URL=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

[RobertNashville]

 

Florida has a similarly robust immunity statute:  776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

 

It hasn't helped Zimmerman much to this point.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook:  Law of Self Defense

I wouldn't expect it to help him yet...in TN as I would expect it it in FL, the protection against civil suites kicks in once the shoot had been ruled to be justified.

 

I'm not sure how Trayvon's parents got the home owner's association to fork over big bucks given that the trial hadn't even started yet...I'd consider it a bit of poetic justice if the HoA seeks restitution from Trayvon's parents if Zimmerman is found not guilty. ;)

[TripleDigitRide]

Florida has a similarly robust immunity statute: 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

It hasn't helped Zimmerman much to this point.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

I wouldn't expect it to help him yet...in TN as I would expect it it in FL, the protection against civil suites kicks in once the shoot had been ruled to be justified.

I'm not sure how Trayvon's parents got the home owner's association to fork over big bucks given that the trial hadn't even started yet...I'd consider it a bit of poetic justice if the HoA seeks restitution from Trayvon's parents if Zimmerman is found not guilty. ;)

I suspect the HOA decided to settle because of the potential cost of a trial. Is it safe to say that the HOA's insurance company paid the settlement?

[whitewolf001]

:popcorn:  :popcorn:  :popcorn:  :popcorn:

[DaveTN]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Zimmerman wave his hearing on his “stand your ground” (slang for whatever the proper name is) hearing? Would an acquittal be the same as a ruling that the shoot was justified?

[DaveS]

Yep, Zman waived his right to a "stand your ground" hearing. Which brings up another question, can the defense bring that into play at a later date, or is "stand your ground" out of the equation now?

 

DS

[mikegideon]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Zimmerman wave his hearing on his “stand your ground” (slang for whatever the proper name is) hearing? Would an acquittal be the same as a ruling that the shoot was justified?

 

I would think on the advice of his attorney. Best I can tell, O'Mara is calling the shots. Z probably had to sign off, but it ain't his strategy.

[RobertNashville]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Zimmerman wave his hearing on his “stand your ground” (slang for whatever the proper name is) hearing? Would an acquittal be the same as a ruling that the shoot was justified?

Yep, Zman waived his right to a "stand your ground" hearing. Which brings up another question, can the defense bring that into play at a later date, or is "stand your ground" out of the equation now?

DS

:dropjaw: Have either of you READ this thread or maybe noticed the title of the thread? :dropjaw:
 
The thread was started to answer that question and the question has been answered in the ORIGINAL post. 

Edited June 17, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

 

I would think on the advice of his attorney. Best I can tell, O'Mara is calling the shots. Z probably had to sign off, but it ain't his strategy.

 I’m just wondering about the civil liabilities no matter what the decision. I wouldn’t think an acquittal would be the same as the requirements to protect against civil action, but I have no idea what the Florida requirements are.

Zimmerman has nothing for the family to get and probably never will. But movie and books rights are on the table; that would be a significant amount of money.

[mikegideon]

 
 I’m just wondering about the civil liabilities no matter what the decision. I wouldn’t think an acquittal would be the same as the requirements to protect against civil action, but I have no idea what the Florida requirements are.

Zimmerman has nothing for the family to get and probably never will. But movie and books rights are on the table; that would be a significant amount of money.

 

The way I have always understood TN law, if you're not guilty, you're not liable. TN law was modeled after the Florida laws. I'm guessing the Martins don't really care who pays, as long as they get paid.