You Knew This Was Coming - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: You Knew This Was Coming

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ConcealCincinnati View Post
    They haven't determined whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified. If they determine it was, civil suit can't be brought against him.
    originally it was determined that is was a justifiable shooting.
    zimmerman was not arrested or charged for many weeks after the incident, only after the racial pimps got involved did the politicians force criminal charges upon zimmerman, in fact the police chief down there was forced out of his job over being overruled about the findings of justification by his departments investigation of the shooting.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Two words "Castle Doctrine"

    My state has one, that protects the good guy in their home, place of work, and vehicle.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Diealotz View Post
    Unless one shoots a 17yr old thug and all the looney liberals plus media get involved
    Just sayin
    you are confusing criminal and civil liabilities, one reason the libtards are trying to force criminal convictions is so that they can start the gravy train of civil lawsuits upon a criminal conviction. No conviction means no easy moola
    Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

    Regardless it's still in process with mr Zimmerman.

    Back on topic, this is one of many things wrong with these frivolous lawsuits and the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank. Shameful...
    If it doesn't fit, FORCE it! If it breaks then it needed to be replaced anyway.


  5. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    A good example of why we should all serve on a jury. WE are the justice system in America. When we walk into that jury room we can send a message.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Diealotz View Post
    Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

    ..
    yes, the HOA made a decision to pay out about a million dollars to the family, I cannot speak for the HOA but I would never have paid that "shake down" money.
    in addition the fact that the HOA did settle like that could be very prejudicial.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Diealotz View Post
    Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

    ..
    yes, the HOA made a decision to pay out about a million dollars to the family, I cannot speak for the HOA but I would never have paid that "shake down" money.
    in addition the fact that the HOA did settle like that could be very prejudicial.
    I concur....
    Wonder if they ask for a refund if/when Mr Zimmerman is found not guilty
    If it doesn't fit, FORCE it! If it breaks then it needed to be replaced anyway.


  8. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Diealotz View Post
    Did the parents not cash in on this deal? I recall the neighborhood association paying a hefty settlement.

    Regardless it's still in process with mr Zimmerman.

    Back on topic, this is one of many things wrong with these frivolous lawsuits and the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank. Shameful...
    The HOA was in a bad spot. Their insurance declined to cover them. Martin's parents sued the HOA because it allegedly endorsed Zimmerman's crime-watch activities. Zimmerman was not experienced by education or training nor was he licensed as a security guard. Soooo, back to the liability issue. Did the HOA act in a reasonably prudent manner? Should they have hired a security company? It prompted HOA's all over America to rethink their activities.
    .
    An HOA isn't liable for damages simply because a crime happens on its grounds. Where "The Retreat" went wrong is in allegedly holding Zimmerman out as a resource for residents to contact regarding crime. The HOA's apparent endorsement of Zimmerman's actions was it's downfall. Jed L. Frankel, a partner at Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet PA in Hollywood, FL specializes in HOA representation. He opined "If the association told people to report things to Zimmerman, that's a much different function than a crime watch program. The role of persons involved in a crime watch program is to call the police and report suspicious activity. But that's where their legal rights end." He advises HOA clients to never follow a suspect or get directly involved. Just make the call.
    .
    The HOA knew they incurred liability and settled the matter. They were advised by their attorneys to settle this matter. They were not the innocent targets of a frivolous lawsuit. Had that been true this matter would still be going on. What I don't understand is why they settled before the criminal matter was decided. Should Zimmerman be found not guilty they could have beat the suit.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ConcealCincinnati View Post
    Unfortunately, not every state grants civil immunity when using deadly force in self-defense. Ohio is one such state. No civil immunity here. The good part is civil suits can be tried by jury. I doubt a judge will throw out this case, so get some of this store clerk's peers in the jury box and let them decide whether he owes this criminal's wife any money.
    SB 184 states otherwise regarding Ohio Revised Code;

    What SB184 means to you: Part I ? Castle Doctrine

    What SB184 means to you: Part I – Castle Doctrine
    A person is barred from recovering money (suing) if their injury arises from their criminal behavior, including injuries sustained by acts of the intended victim. If you injure an innocent bystander (hit by a stray bullet) you may be ordered to pay damages to that person.
    Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if the any of the following apply:
    Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) (c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  10. #19
    Interesting. The manual provided by the Ohio AG looks to be contrary to the Ohio Revised Code.

    "Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or his survivors could sue the licensee for the harm from the licensee’s use of deadly force."

    This is from page 18 of the current manual.

  11. #20

    Ohio Revised Code the rule of law for Ohio.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogshawred View Post
    SB 184 states otherwise regarding Ohio Revised Code;

    What SB184 means to you: Part I ? Castle Doctrine

    What SB184 means to you: Part I – Castle Doctrine
    A person is barred from recovering money (suing) if their injury arises from their criminal behavior, including injuries sustained by acts of the intended victim. If you injure an innocent bystander (hit by a stray bullet) you may be ordered to pay damages to that person.
    Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if the any of the following apply:
    Sec 2307.60 (B) (2) (c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.
    Quote Originally Posted by ConcealCincinnati View Post
    Interesting. The manual provided by the Ohio AG looks to be contrary to the Ohio Revised Code.

    "Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or his survivors could sue the licensee for the harm from the licensee’s use of deadly force."

    This is from page 18 of the current manual.
    Additional source information regarding the subject of recovery by tort from a self defense act;
    ~
    Lawriter - ORC - 2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act.
    ~


    (2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply:
    ~
    (a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.
    ~
    (b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.
    ~
    (c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.
    ~
    (3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.
    ~

    Effective Date: 06-28-2002; 04-07-2005; 2006 SB117 10-31-2007; 2008 SB184 09-09-2008

    Effective dates show when what bills changed/affected ORC, this indicates that no bill has been added later that would subsequently nullify the effects of SB184 as originally passed.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast