You dont have to wonder. It would be allowed. Clearly.

crime rates are dropping even though there are more and more guns all the time. this invalidates your entire line or "reasoning" on multiple levels so pick your poison. At the end of the day more guns != more crime.

I doubt Zimmerman has anything to sue for. He strikes me as judgement proof.
I don't see that much of a lawsuit against the city or state. If Zimmerman had just waited to let the police shoot him more black people could get rich off lazy white methhead Florida taxpayers.

Talking about the OJ case is way off on a tangent, here.

Let me ask you a question....If the lawsuit that's coming against the city is successful, would you consider justice to be served?

Such testimony is just as likely to be perjury or simple delusion as it is to be correct. Evidence has to be at least a little bit reliable to be admissible.

It would be better than them not being sued. There are two wrongs here, the first being the murder of Martin, the second being the incompetent and racist investigation into that murder. A lawsuit against the police addresses only the latter.

And it would be very emotional testimony, Trayvon's mother identifying the screams of her son. I could easily see a judge not allowing that.

In the scenario where Zimmerman is convicted of a crime that's manslaughter or worse, then yes, it's gross negligence by the police to not arrest the guy for weeks, and hitting them with punitive damages as punishment for letting a killer walk around unmolested is justice.

My bad, I was confusing what might happen in court and what I my personal opinion is. I'll go into that below.


Agreed. It's gonna be really hard to deal with imo.

Okay, I think we are talking about two things at the same time. What's going to go down in the court of public opinion and the court of law are two different thing. In my own personal court of public opinion this guy is already guilty and needs some pretty good evidence to get him out of that hole. Without the murder this guy is a complete goon. He runs around a neighborhood that is probably extremely safe and has a really low crime rate with a gun looking to do the cop's job. In the end he killed a kid because he thought he was a cop. That is a really awful result of his attempt to be an amateur crime fighter, but so it goes. The real problem is the reaction on the part of the locals who protected of a guy who should have been arrested.

In the court of law I think he's in a rough spot too. The testimony of a guy on trial is always going to be a little suspect. Whether it is right or wrong you know that the defendant on the stand is going to say something that will end with him making an argument for his own freedom. He's going to have to sit in front of twelve people and have his ****ty story belittled and hammered by a prosecutor. He will have to admit to shooting the kid and he'll have to say what he said to the 911 operator. He's going to have tell a story, whether true or false, that he ran up to this kid confronted him only to have the table turned on him by a 17 year old to the point where he had to shoot him. It's gonna be pretty rough. If he get's a really good attorney maybe he can get through this.

Id be shocked if they couldnt find a majority on a jury who would think this investigation has been botched if the reports coming out like he wasnt drug tested, they didnt search his house for evidence is true and we know they didnt realise he was speaking to his girlfriend whilst being hunted by zimmerman which shows at the very least they didnt speak to his friends or family to work out the motives of the victim to explain the events or check his phone to see if there was any evidence in any direction as to why he "was acting suspicious".

The investigation just sounds sloppy and incomplete and this is stuff thats just leaking out. The fact that the police chief was given a vote of no confidence over this is a good indicator that the city believes the investigation wasnt thorough enough too.

Not much liability for the city here and pretty tough to make any legal cause of action. Zimmerman's home insurance will pay policy limits, usually the value of the home.

Reliability would be found on cross examination if went to trial with its soundness being tested by the prosecutor first. If she believes its her son then its clearly admissible, the defence couldnt just claim "oh she would say that".

Plus iirc i read the calls for help end at the exact time the gun was fired which is further backing up that the calls for help were from the victim and not the perp.

Prosecutorial discretion isn't enough to hide behind? Or six weeks for a thorough investigation? I think heads should roll, but I just don't see negligence enough, yet. Maybe if there are some racist emails and suppression of ignoring evidence.
Are the radio transmissions, intranet IMs, and emails of the cops publicly accessible in Florida?

Not true. The judge can decide that the prejudicial emotional scene of Trayvon's mom IDing her son's voice should not be heard by a jury if the defense persuades him that it is unlikely that she could make that determination. Or if another identification could be made (say by an impartial expert) without all the prejudicial baggage of Trayvon's mom making the identification.

Ok, in that scenario, I can see your point. I say that the city gets sued even if there is no prosecution or if a jury trial results in a not guilty verdict.

Say that the lawsuit is successful, and let's imagine for a minute that it's your scenario that plays out. Now the plantiffs have a big pile of justice. How is it best spent?

They never interviewed Trayvon's girlfriend, with whom he was talking to at the time of the altercation. They had his phone and call logs. They had her number. Literally the only two explanations for this unbelievable lapse are malice or incompetence.

Imagine if this had happened slightly differently, white high-school kid visiting a relative in a predominately black neighborhood, a black male "patrolling the neighborhood" sees the kid, gets out of his car, confronts the kid and the kid winds up dead. There is no way the shooter is not arrested yet.

(Also the NRA would probably be calling for the concealed weapon age to be lowered so white kids can defend themselves)

but clearly if it was her son, she would also claim that was his voice?

didn't you just use this exact reasoning the opposite way for zimmerman?

http://sandrarose.com/2012/03/911-ca...efore-gunshot/

Does anyone have a link to the audio tape mentioned in the bolded part?

Anyway, this sounds ridiculously not like self defence but an execution the more i learn about the final few seconds of Trayvon's life.

The mother's testimony that she believes the cry for help to be her son would almost certainly not be allowed. That would be a topic for expert testimony if there is a sufficient scientific standard. If not, it would be for the jury to interpret themselves.

jfc youre insufferable

Probably on gasoline to set white boys on fire.

Again, you never really explained the motivations behind the liberal media's constant attempts to overplay black victimhood and underplay white victims. But here we see, an entire machine.

So wait, like these random black people from suburban Orlando CONTROL THE ENTIRE LIBERAL MEDIA MACHINE?

And they are using it to get paid off a lawsuit that cost their son his life? That seems so dumb.

Dude, thats racist.

I believe they have to be called European-Americans now. Damn PC thought police.

They play some of the audio about half a minute in. Zimmerman is pretty obviously an idiot from this audio. Trayvon starts running away from him at one point in the call. They tell him not to follow and he keeps going.

You really need to listen to this audio. It's very bad for Zimmerman.